SD with Yojimbo and co: Real life data who could / has actually done it in a planned, controlled manner(Mr. Janich..?) ?

[Bemo]

I'm hoping Mr. Janich weighs in on this as well, but also I understand this isn't a martial arts or self-defense forum. That being said (which means I'm disregarding what I just wrote) JohnApa has a really good point. There's a huge difference between social violence and asocial violence. With asocial violence the talk and posturing is over (if it even started to begin with) and the person is trying to seriously injure you. And I don't mean just "beat you up" like you typically see in bar fights and the such. I like what Mr. Janich is trying to accomplish with what I've seen on the Youtube videos. From what I can tell he is trying to incapacitate the attacker as quickly as possible with structural damage (not just pain) so the aggressor stops. And to do so without lethal force.

[Wartstein]

Hey Warnstein,

Just hypothetically, you are being assailed, the conversational aspects or your relationship with assailant have ended, what's your plan? Just curious because "what if" questions intrigue me, mostly as being obliverant.

John,

I don´t have a real plan, tbh
Maybe I should, but Austria where I live is generally a really peaceful place, I don´t think that many people here really think about how to defend if assailed (perhaps - sadly - women a bit more then men).
It could also be somewhat a "cultural" difference: In Austria (or most of Europe?) differently to the US no one carries a gun, gun violence / shootings practically never happen, and this may transfer to the general approach towards sd?

It may sound naive, but I guess I somehow just assume no one will ever attack me, cause though I am by no means a "massive" guy, I am rather tall and I guess I look not too weak from all the climbing and a bit strength training I do, as well as self confident and not like someone people would like to mess with ?!

Now, this may sound weird as I (as mentioned) WAS attacked indeed already, two times with knives, one time with an axe.
But those were really special situations which I somehow had to provoke and calculate, the assailants were mentally ill and/or under alcohol/drug influence, and I somehow just knew or assumed I´d be easily able to handle that bare handed.
One knifeattacker (actually a woman) and the axe attacker were so slow that I could just catch their weapon arms and since I luckily was stronger, with that the attacks were basically over
The second knife attacker would have been quick and was charging at me with the knife, but I just took an intimidating posture and shouted at him to stop or otherwise I´d have to hurt him, and he did.

BUT: These incidents are still a large part WHY I started that thread.
IF the situations would have gotten out of hand, IF unexpectedly I could not have handled those bar handed - I am sure at the very last point I probably theoretically WOULD have been capable to really cut my opponents with my knife (I always carry a Spyderco) in order to safe my life (and trying "just" to incapacitate them), but I am also sure that at this point would have been to late.
Psychologically seen I guess for me (for most?!) it is already not the nicest thing having to punch someone, but still a lot easier than to actually cut or "slash open" another human (and I assume that shooting at an attacker is also "easier" than to cut him).
And so I assume I´d stick too long to that "not as hard to do" defense actions and to a "fair fight" (naively seen), and when I´d be desperate enough to really use a knife it would be too late.

[Xformer]

Hey Warnstein,

Just hypothetically, you are being assailed, the conversational aspects or your relationship with assailant have ended, what's your plan? Just curious because "what if" questions intrigue me, mostly as being obliverant.

John,

I don´t have a real plan, tbh
Maybe I should, but Austria where I live is generally a really peaceful place, I don´t think that many people here really think about how to defend if assailed (perhaps - sadly - women a bit more then men).
It could also be somewhat a "cultural" difference: In Austria (or most of Europe?) differently to the US no one carries a gun, gun violence / shootings practically never happen, and this may transfer to the general approach towards sd?

It may sound naive, but I guess I somehow just assume no one will ever attack me, cause though I am by no means a "massive" guy, I am rather tall and I guess I look not too weak from all the climbing and a bit strength training I do, as well as self confident and not like someone people would like to mess with ?!

Now, this may sound weird as I (as mentioned) WAS attacked indeed already, two times with knives, one time with an axe.
But those were really special situations which I somehow had to provoke and calculate, the assailants were mentally ill and/or under alcohol/drug influence, and I somehow just knew or assumed I´d be easily able to handle that bare handed.
One knifeattacker (actually a woman) and the axe attacker were so slow that I could just catch their weapon arms and since I luckily was stronger, with that the attacks were basically over
The second knife attacker would have been quick and was charging at me with the knife, but I just took an intimidating posture and shouted at him to stop, otherwise I´d have to hurt him, and he did.

BUT: These incidents are still a large part WHY I started that thread.
IF the situations would have gotten out of hand, IF unexpectedly I could not have handled those bar handed - I am sure at the very last point I probably WOULD have been able to really cut my opponents with my knife (I always carry a Spyderco) in order to safe my life (and trying "just" to incapacitate them), but I am also sure that at this point would have been to late.
Psychologically seen I guess for me (for most?!) it is already not the nicest thing having to punch someone, but still a lot easier than to actually cut or "slash open" another human (and I assume that shooting at an attacker is also "easier than to cut him).
And so I assume I´d stick too long to that "not as hard to do" defense actions and to a "fair fight" (naively seen), and when I´d be desperate enough to really use a knife it would be to late.

I don't know about the Yojimbo, but if you want to incapacitate someone with the least consequences on the attacker health, a slash just above the eye (superciliary arch) works perfectly. It bleeds a lot and instantly, which makes the attacker partially blind (and potentially shocked).

It isn't easy to pull off because you have to aim right on a moving target, but if you can, it's the best spot to target for your intended purpose. It's also one of the reason I'd always favor a 25-35cm blade over a smallish EDC for SD. It's easier to slash from a distance. Also safer than going-in like in all those flashy SD dvds and praying the guy won't bite you or worse.

As a note, if you're worried about your safety, don't skip on bjj and strenght exercices.

[James Y]

Wartstein:

A person’s physical size definitely does make a difference, but by itself it’s not always the determining factor.

There was an incident (back in the 1980s) in my same city where a very large bouncer, 6’ 8” tall, heavily tattooed, and very muscular, was telling a patron sitting at a bar it was time to leave because it’s closing time. The bouncer was used to people complying with his orders, because of his size and intimidating appearance.

The man sitting at the bar was skinny, hunched over, and had been quietly drinking. The bouncer kept telling him to leave. After three warnings, the bouncer lost patience, grabbed the skinny guy and pushed him onto the floor. The guy pulled out a knife that was concealed in his boot and cut the bouncer’s Achilles’ tendon. Then as he stood up, he cut the bouncer’s femoral artery. Then the man slipped out the back door, leaving the bouncer in a pool of blood.

It turned out the ‘skinny guy’ was a convicted felon and a career criminal. In his world, the type of loud, threatening display the bouncer had been giving always meant violence that had to be dealt with immediately.

My point being, yes, size matters, but to some people (and in some instances) it doesn’t. With strangers, you (not you personally, but “you” referring to anyone) never know who you’re dealing with. Things can happen just like that (*a snap of the fingers*). If they’re street-wise, they’re not necessarily going to try to match you size and strength-wise.

Jim

[Michael Janich]

Hey, Wartstein and All:

Thank you for an interesting question and a great discussion. I'm sorry I was so slow to respond, but I had a medical emergency one week ago that had me out of commission for a few days. Thank you for your patience.

When I teach MBC and its related systems, I try to get students to understand what I call the "Four Pillars." These are: physical attributes, skill, weapons, and mindset. If you think of an old-school equalizer for a stereo, these are like adjusting the individual frequency sliders. You can mess with each one individually, but ultimately, whatever comes out of the speakers needs to sound good. In a self-defense context, whatever the net result is, it needs to stop the attacker quickly, reliably, and decisively.

When we're young and naturally athletic, our physical attributes are high. We don't have much trained skill, don't need weapons, and, because we're young, we've got lots of confidence (well-placed or not). The net result is that we're reasonably dangerous.

As we train, our skill gets better. Unfortunately, life, age, injuries, etc. can cause our physical attributes to decline. We may also gain experience and wisdom that bolster mindset. Net result = still dangerous enough.

If our health takes a bad turn or, as we get significantly older, our physical attributes can really decline. One way to compensate is to "turn up" the weapons slider. To do that, we need to make the conscious decision that we are willing to use a weapon on another person to force him/her to stop trying to kill us. That means "turning up" the mindset slider as well. More importantly, it means that, while you had the physical ability to develop weapons skill, you took advantage of it and can now bring that skill set into play.

By following this principle, we can automatically "recalibrate" and adapt as our situation changes--either temporarily (i.e., an injury) or long term (i.e., getting old or suffering a degenerative disease). Again, the key is training. The commitment to do that also starts with mindset.

With all that said, the key to being able to use any weapon or skill set in self-defense is training. Ideally, that training is appropriate to the nature of the threat and has challenged you enough to enable you to access and apply your tools under stress. Just carrying a weapon is a placebo. You must have the skill to fight with it. Shooting in a marksmanship sense is vastly different from fighting with a gun, but most people who carry or recommend guns as weapons don't grasp or acknowledge the difference. Contact-distance weapons don't have the luxury of distance, so they require even more training.

Ultimately, if you are targeted by a violent attacker, you have two choices: you either stop him, or you let him. Stopping is never a guarantee, but letting--especially in the form of denial or unwillingness to protect your own life through force--is pretty absolute.

I hope this helps. Please keep the discussion going...

Stay safe,

Mike

[Wartstein]

Hey, Wartstein and All:

Thank you for an interesting question and a great discussion. I'm sorry I was so slow to respond, but I had a medical emergency one week ago that had me out of commission for a few days. .....

Hey Mike,

first and foremost: Hope you are well again or at least getting better!

/ Thanks a lot for your detailed and as always interesting and meaningful reply!

One thing that would be of further interest for me:

- My initial question was something along the lines if when actually having to cut other human beings in an sd situation, the "psychological treshold" to do so is maybe significantly higher than when "just" having to punch or even shoot an opponent.

- So it could be, that particularly in knife defense the person who is attacked maybe has a lot inhibition to really use the trained skills for the first time on a real human being, and so maybe will act to late. This would be the case with me I guess: I am pretty sure in a fight, I would try to use my knife just to late, only in a last desperate effort. (BUT: I am NOT trained at all in knife sd)

- So: IS there a practical way to train your students to really use their skills when it becomes necessary? Can this be done by "only" using trainers (blunt knives), but never really actually cut? Or do you let them sometimes cut something like shop-window-dummies or even heavily padded other students? (Like in unarmed sd where one really punches (padded, protected) opponents in a training situation, and so learns to overcome the "psychological treshold" to punch someone).

[Michael Janich]

Hey, Wartstein:

Thank you for the well wishes and for the great follow-up questions.

With regard to the "commitment" necessary to use a knife in self-defense, it is significant, for sure. That's exactly as it should be. It's also one of the most profound differences between "gun guys" and "knife guys" (and gals, too... no offense). Most shooters who talk about self-defense are used to the clinical process of standing safely back from a paper or cardboard target and punching holes in it. When you move them up close and do contact-distance shooting, the muzzle blast creates overpressure that sends a big puff of air up into your face. Many of them find that unsettling. They also find the idea of controlling an attacker with one arm while shooting him with the other unsettling and tend to freak out a bit when they first try force-on-force training. All those experiences help "bridge" from shooting to gunfighting.

When I teach MBC, I start the process of relating the destructive capacity of the knife to human tissue very early. Pork Man is a big part of that, as it shows the cutting power of small knives and provides a handy, properly scaled reference to the human forearm, upper arm, and lower thigh. This allows students to immediately begin relating the movements of their partner training to the desired effect they'd be creating with a sharp blade. In my seminars, I take this a step further with a PowerPoint presentation that includes photos of the effects of same cuts on human cadavers.

Throughout this process, I focus heavily on the details of human anatomy, the three levels of stopping power in MBC (muscles and tendons, peripheral nerves, and arteries), and the exact type of physiological damage each of our simulated cuts in training is designed to create.

For some students, this is too much. They thought they would "give knife training a try" and had never considered the mindset and commitment elements of it. That's fine. I encourage them to continue with the training with the goal of understanding how knives are used and developing skills to defend against them. In some cases, continuing the training and seeing what MBC is all about (especially our approach to targeting) allows them to overcome their concerns and embrace the knife as a personal weapon. In many cases, not. Again, that's OK. I explain clearly that it is a waste of time for them to practice something in training that they'll never have the commitment to do in self-defense. I also explain that I've had members of the clergy study MBC specifically because it applies the knife in a more ethical, responsible manner than traditional knife systems. Either way, I emphasize that "The time for a moral dilemma is now, not out on the street."

For advanced MBC students, I get them to do their own Pork Man tests, so they can personally quantify the destructive power of their skills. Ballistic cuts do this reasonably well, but pressure cuts, in which the blade is placed first, and then body weight and pressure are applied, do it even better. Pressure cuts--especially repetitive ones to cut through thick clothing--are much more deliberate and require serious commitment.

Similarly, in contact training, it helps to incorporate simulations of the effects of the technique. This is not only sobering, but tests advanced students' ability to stop their technique once the lethal threat is eliminated. For example, a "full" technique would involve a series of three cuts. The first one--done well--could easily disarm an attacker. So, in training, we occasionally drop our weapons when we receive the first cut, prompting our partners to recognize and register the change in dynamics and curtail the rest of the technique. Dropping your weapon is even more effective when combined with a wince, an expletive, and feigned pain and mechanical dysfunction. It helps simulate the experience of purposely hurting another person and the emotions that come with it.

That's some insight into the approach MBC takes to the topic. Will it work for everyone? No. Some people just do not have the mindset to use knives as weapons because they are too personal and their results are too visceral. Again, that's OK. "The time for a moral dilemma is now."

Stay safe,

Mike

[Cambertree]

Fascinating insights and information, Mike. Thanks.

I hope this isn’t too off topic, considering Wartstein’s original question, and the general focus of your expertise and the forum, but I’m curious what you think of the comparative effectiveness of blunt instruments as SD ‘stoppers’, like saps and blackjacks?

(Where they are legally permitted, of course.)

[vivi]

Wartstein, you may like this book - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Killing

I've been pretty lucky in that 95% of the times I've been attacked with a weapon, I've been able to run away.

[James Y]

Wartstein, you may like this book - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Killing

I've been pretty lucky in that 95% of the times I've been attacked with a weapon, I've been able to run away.

That’s an excellent book, and highly recommended reading.

Jim

[Michael Janich]

Fascinating insights and information, Mike. Thanks.

I hope this isn’t too off topic, considering Wartstein’s original question, and the general focus of your expertise and the forum, but I’m curious what you think of the comparative effectiveness of blunt instruments as SD ‘stoppers’, like saps and blackjacks?

(Where they are legally permitted, of course.)

Hey, Cambertree:

Thank you for the kind words.

Your question is extremely logical and one that I invariably get from my MBC students who delve into my approach to stick fighting, Sobadiwan Eskrima. Because MBC does such a good job of quantifying stopping power with a knife, they expect to have an equally definitive explanation of impact-weapon mechanics. Unfortunately, it's not that easy...

First and foremost, I am a huge fan of impact weapons, I train with them regularly, and I have a serious collection of them. In particular, I love saps, collapsible batons, and canes.

With that said, it's much easier to quantify stopping power with a knife than an impact weapon. The perfect example is the first cut of most MBC tactics--a cut to the inside of the wrist or forearm. The goal of this cut is to "defang the snake" and disarm your attacker by either cutting the flexor tendons that connect the flexor muscles of the forearm to the fingers or cutting the flexor muscles themselves. Either way, when cut to the bone, the mechanical function of these parts is instantly and decisively destroyed. If you compare the wrist/forearm of a small-framed person to a much larger person, there is a significant difference of scale, but achieving the cut is very feasible in both instances. Once it's done and the targets are severed, it doesn't matter if the attacker is high or doesn't feel pain for whatever reason, the mechanical "job" is done and his hand will not work.

An impact weapon can be used to achieve a similar result by breaking the bones of the forearm; however, what you're hitting with, how hard you hit, how meaty the target is, what angle you strike at, the health of the attacker's bones, and many, many other dynamics all come into play. Because there are so many more variables, other than an "outcome-based" result--i.e., he dropped his weapon--you don't know when you're "done."

It's for this reason there are so many examples of what seems like excessive force in the law enforcement use of batons. When you add the fact that, by training, they must purposely focus on striking well-padded areas of the subject's anatomy--like the thighs--stopping power with stick strikes is indeed elusive.

I hope this helps.

Stay safe,

Mike

[Cambertree]

Fascinating insights and information, Mike. Thanks.

I hope this isn’t too off topic, considering Wartstein’s original question, and the general focus of your expertise and the forum, but I’m curious what you think of the comparative effectiveness of blunt instruments as SD ‘stoppers’, like saps and blackjacks?

(Where they are legally permitted, of course.)

Hey, Cambertree:

Thank you for the kind words.

Your question is extremely logical and one that I invariably get from my MBC students who delve into my approach to stick fighting, Sobadiwan Eskrima. Because MBC does such a good job of quantifying stopping power with a knife, they expect to have an equally definitive explanation of impact-weapon mechanics. Unfortunately, it's not that easy...

First and foremost, I am a huge fan of impact weapons, I train with them regularly, and I have a serious collection of them. In particular, I love saps, collapsible batons, and canes.

With that said, it's much easier to quantify stopping power with a knife than an impact weapon. The perfect example is the first cut of most MBC tactics--a cut to the inside of the wrist or forearm. The goal of this cut is to "defang the snake" and disarm your attacker by either cutting the flexor tendons that connect the flexor muscles of the forearm to the fingers or cutting the flexor muscles themselves. Either way, when cut to the bone, the mechanical function of these parts is instantly and decisively destroyed. If you compare the wrist/forearm of a small-framed person to a much larger person, there is a significant difference of scale, but achieving the cut is very feasible in both instances. Once it's done and the targets are severed, it doesn't matter if the attacker is high or doesn't feel pain for whatever reason, the mechanical "job" is done and his hand will not work.

An impact weapon can be used to achieve a similar result by breaking the bones of the forearm; however, what you're hitting with, how hard you hit, how meaty the target is, what angle you strike at, the health of the attacker's bones, and many, many other dynamics all come into play. Because there are so many more variables, other than an "outcome-based" result--i.e., he dropped his weapon--you don't know when you're "done."

It's for this reason there are so many examples of what seems like excessive force in the law enforcement use of batons. When you add the fact that, by training, they must purposely focus on striking well-padded areas of the subject's anatomy--like the thighs--stopping power with stick strikes is indeed elusive.

I hope this helps.

Stay safe,

Mike

Thanks very much Mike for your well considered answer. It certainly does help, and I appreciate it.

Your interactions here are one of the goldmines of information and shared experience of this forum.

If anyone’s interested in the history of these instruments, I highly recommend Robert Escobar’s Saps, Blackjacks and Slungshots: A History of Forgotten Weapons.

https://www.scribd.com/book/381886350/S ... en-Weapons

https://youtu.be/1Y3p-O2ywrE?list=PLsqa ... _82R3zFfCU

[Michael Janich]

If anyone’s interested in the history of these instruments, I highly recommend Robert Escobar’s Saps, Blackjacks and Slungshots: A History of Forgotten Weapons.

https://www.scribd.com/book/381886350/S ... en-Weapons

https://youtu.be/1Y3p-O2ywrE?list=PLsqa ... _82R3zFfCU

That's an awesome book... My copy is autographed by the author and was a gift from my "brother from another mother," Fred Perrin.

Stay safe,

Mike

[Xformer]

Fascinating insights and information, Mike. Thanks.

I hope this isn’t too off topic, considering Wartstein’s original question, and the general focus of your expertise and the forum, but I’m curious what you think of the comparative effectiveness of blunt instruments as SD ‘stoppers’, like saps and blackjacks?

(Where they are legally permitted, of course.)

Hey, Cambertree:

Thank you for the kind words.

Your question is extremely logical and one that I invariably get from my MBC students who delve into my approach to stick fighting, Sobadiwan Eskrima. Because MBC does such a good job of quantifying stopping power with a knife, they expect to have an equally definitive explanation of impact-weapon mechanics. Unfortunately, it's not that easy...

First and foremost, I am a huge fan of impact weapons, I train with them regularly, and I have a serious collection of them. In particular, I love saps, collapsible batons, and canes.

With that said, it's much easier to quantify stopping power with a knife than an impact weapon. The perfect example is the first cut of most MBC tactics--a cut to the inside of the wrist or forearm. The goal of this cut is to "defang the snake" and disarm your attacker by either cutting the flexor tendons that connect the flexor muscles of the forearm to the fingers or cutting the flexor muscles themselves. Either way, when cut to the bone, the mechanical function of these parts is instantly and decisively destroyed. If you compare the wrist/forearm of a small-framed person to a much larger person, there is a significant difference of scale, but achieving the cut is very feasible in both instances. Once it's done and the targets are severed, it doesn't matter if the attacker is high or doesn't feel pain for whatever reason, the mechanical "job" is done and his hand will not work.

An impact weapon can be used to achieve a similar result by breaking the bones of the forearm; however, what you're hitting with, how hard you hit, how meaty the target is, what angle you strike at, the health of the attacker's bones, and many, many other dynamics all come into play. Because there are so many more variables, other than an "outcome-based" result--i.e., he dropped his weapon--you don't know when you're "done."

It's for this reason there are so many examples of what seems like excessive force in the law enforcement use of batons. When you add the fact that, by training, they must purposely focus on striking well-padded areas of the subject's anatomy--like the thighs--stopping power with stick strikes is indeed elusive.

I hope this helps.

Stay safe,

Mike

There's also the whole nerves side of impact.

An impact weapon like a tonfa is meant to crush, while an "ASP" baton is meant to hit nerves.

If a nerve is hit, even lightly, the limb will be numb and your opponent won't be able to use the limb for an amount of time. I could link you to some real-life videos where it happen. Like a big guy running that went on the ground immediately after a light strike on his thigh.

ASP batons and the whole nerves side of things completely change the game of SD. It takes a lot of effort and technique to crush a bone with a Tonfa without exposing yourself too much. It takes way less effort to numb a limb with an ASP baton. A firm hit on a nerve is the way to go imo.

[Xformer]

With regard to the "commitment" necessary to use a knife in self-defense, it is significant, for sure. That's exactly as it should be. It's also one of the most profound differences between "gun guys" and "knife guys" (and gals, too... no offense). Most shooters who talk about self-defense are used to the clinical process of standing safely back from a paper or cardboard target and punching holes in it. When you move them up close and do contact-distance shooting, the muzzle blast creates overpressure that sends a big puff of air up into your face. Many of them find that unsettling. They also find the idea of controlling an attacker with one arm while shooting him with the other unsettling and tend to freak out a bit when they first try force-on-force training. All those experiences help "bridge" from shooting to gunfighting

That's the point I don't get. Why do you want to them to move up close to the attacker ? A gun isn't a close-up weapon, it's meant to be shot at a certain distance.

You don't go in with a firearm. That's the whole reason you train people to quickly take one or two step back before drawing their firearm. It takes one second maximum and create the space you need to operate properly. If you're in a situation where shooting is uncomfortable, it means you made a bad call prior. Managing distance and space awareness are highly important when it comes to defend yourself with a firearm.

Going in and try to Gun-fu your opponent is plainly suicidal and goes against the main advantage of a firearm : defend yourself from a safe distance. Going in in any cases just open yourself to your firearm being grabbed or put away from your target.

Since Sal mentioned your work in one of our previous discussions, I've watched some of your training video. Great work, but even with knives, I vastly prefer when you teach people to defend themselves by taking step-back rather than going-in. It feels way safer to me and allows more control of the whole situation. I'd rather control the situation from afar rather than control the attacker from close quarter.

[JRinFL]

If your opponent is already in your face, you need to control him before escalating with the firearm. It is not taught as a primary method, AFAIK. You don't always have the option of "making space" in an encounter.

[Wartstein]

That's the point I don't get. Why do you want to them to move up close to the attacker ? A gun isn't a close-up weapon, it's meant to be shot at a certain distance.

You don't go in with a firearm. That's the whole reason you train people to quickly take one or two step back before drawing their firearm. It takes one second maximum and create the space you need to operate properly. If you're in a situation where shooting is uncomfortable, it means you made a bad call prior.

....

No gun experience here (European... :rolleyes: ), but could it be you restrict your assesment to more "ideal" situatuons?

Let's say gun is what you carry for sd.
Then an opponent attacks you in a confined space where you just can't "step back"
Or he clinches you surprisingly...(perhaps even from behind)
If you have to use the gun then and manage to grab it: No choice but "close range", right?!

[Xformer]

That's the point I don't get. Why do you want to them to move up close to the attacker ? A gun isn't a close-up weapon, it's meant to be shot at a certain distance.

You don't go in with a firearm. That's the whole reason you train people to quickly take one or two step back before drawing their firearm. It takes one second maximum and create the space you need to operate properly. If you're in a situation where shooting is uncomfortable, it means you made a bad call prior.

....

No gun experience here (European... :rolleyes: ), but could it be you restrict your assesment to more "ideal" situatuons?

Let's say gun is what you carry for sd.
Then an opponent attacks you in a confined space where you just can't "step back"
Or he clinches you surprisingly...(perhaps even from behind)
If you have to use the gun then and manage to grab it: No choice but "close range", right?!

That's two particular situations. If you're grabbed by behind or put against a wall by surprise, I strongly advise against drawing a gun. Keep it concealed until you can fire safely. Wait for a good opportunity. It's better to take two or three rough punches than getting your gun grabbed and being used against you. Your first instinct shouldn't to draw your gun, but to create space first and if you really can't, don't draw you firearm at all.

Unless you have a knife under your throat, you can always work to gain space and if you really can't, you must think of another solution because it could back fire easily. In-fighting is very messy and throwing a firearm into the mix isn't advisable to me.

I still remember that video of a guy who grabbed an officer gun in the span of a second. The cop wasn't a rookie, he was just a human who hesitated to pull the trigger on someone who clearly wasn't in its normal state of mind (which is understandable). The mentally ill person broke the distance and the situation quickly took a very nerve-wracking turn... I don't know if I'm allowed to link the video since it involves a person being shot, but it stayed on my mind since.

[Wartstein]

That's two particular situations. If you're grabbed by behind or put against a wall by surprise, I strongly advise against drawing a gun. Keep it concealed until you can fire safely. Wait for a good opportunity. It's better to take two or three rough punches than getting your gun grabbed and being used against you. Your first instinct shouldn't to draw your gun, but to create space first and if you really can't, don't draw you firearm at all.

Unless you have a knife under your throat, you can always work to gain space and if you really can't, you must think of another solution because it could back fire easily. In-fighting is very messy and throwing a firearm into the mix isn't advisable to me.

I still remember that video of a guy who grabbed an officer gun in the span of a second. The cop wasn't a rookie, he was just a human who hesitated to pull the trigger on someone who clearly wasn't in its normal state of mind (which is understandable). The mentally ill person broke the distance and the situation quickly took a very nerve-wracking turn... I don't know if I'm allowed to link the video since it involves a person being shot, but it stayed on my mind since.

You may very well be right, my friend! :)

At least I am in no position to argue with you, for I really have no idea about gun sd and was just guessing.

The example of the mentally ill attacker is a bit chilling for me: Cause the two knife- and one axe attack on me were all done by mentally ill, and I knew they did not really calculate what they were doing but were a bit "out of reality".
And yes, that fact would have further hindered me to use a weapon on them, despite they clearly attacked me with one and would perhaps even have killed me.
Luckily I could defend these attacks bar handed, but it perhaps still could have gone wrong (at least in one case, the other two were just really slow).

[Wartstein]

Hey, Wartstein:

Thank you for the well wishes and for the great follow-up questions.

........

Mike,

thank you for that great and detailed reply. And I mean it, this answered exactly what I was thinking about and was really interesting.

I guess I am one of that persons who´d be principally capable of fighting other human beings with a knife, given no other choice. But I´d totally hate the thought of ever having to do so, since I even don´t like to seriously fight bare handed at all (when not in a "sports / competitive / controlled" context) - but I know I can and have done already (bare handed!!)
And i think this "mindset" is pretty "normal" if one is not either overly aggressive and violent, or on the contrary comes from a very (overly??) sheltered, peaceful background.

Now actually, should I ever have to defend myself or others and bare handed would not be sufficient any more, in my case a knife would be the very (or even ONLY) logical weapon. For one no one carries guns in Europe , but I literally always carry a Spyderco, in many cases an Endura, which is not the worst choice for sd I figure.

What remains for me as a problems are:

- The right and timely moment to decide using a knife
- The choice (that has to be done in a wink) when it is appropriate to use a knife - both personally and legally

Some points:

- To really use a knife in a controlled, planned and rehearsed manner for sd I figure one has to decide rather early to do so:
You can´t go deep into a fight and just think "I´ll see if it will get necessary and appropriate to use my knife" - it can be to late faster than one might think, right? The attacker could break one of your hands, get hold of the other and then draw HIS knife - bad luck.

- But then: It is also a tough decision to cut someone with a knife, without knowing how serious things are really meant or will potentially get? I mean, if you are not trained really good, you might cut one of his arteries that he will bleed to death, right?

- In the end, it is all about personal weighing up risks I guess:
Two extrem examples from opposite sides:
+ If an old lady who feels offended attacks you with a rolling pin, there is still a certain, VERY small risk that she´ll seriously crush your skull if everything goes wrong. But that tiny risk is certainly not worth to use your knife for defending
+ If a bigger, faster guy who has a history of violence and knife fighting attacks you while being on speed or the like: Of course you should immediately take your best chances and grab your knife as fast as possible (given you can´t run away anymore of course!)
+ BUT: So many scenarios in between...