weapons against unarmed oponents?

[Enviroman]

There is no cheaters in a street fight, only winners and losers.

There are losers and lesser losers...who wins in a street fight?

[MasterH]

Survival is first, worry about the law after you can walk away.

[Ninjitsu]

There is no cheaters in a street fight, only winners and losers.

There are losers and lesser losers...who wins in a street fight?

The person who fends of there attacker and lives.

[Jay]

you all make very good points but picture this for a moment

Say you are meant to have a fight with someone you would walk away but supposide you couldnt and they pull a knife on you i belive that is cheating and that they are a coward for needing a knife to fight you or if you had a knife an started fighting them it is like shooting an unarmed man, its not right.

i belive that any proper fighter wouldnt need weopons to help them defeat an opponent that is unarmed if however it was a life or death situation then i belive that it is ok to use one to protect yourself and other people

[MasterH]

you all make very good points but picture this for a moment

Say you are meant to have a fight with someone you would walk away but supposide you couldnt and they pull a knife on you i belive that is cheating and that they are a coward for needing a knife to fight you or if you had a knife an started fighting them it is like shooting an unarmed man, its not right.

i belive that any proper fighter wouldnt need weopons to help them defeat an opponent that is unarmed if however it was a life or death situation then i belive that it is ok to use one to protect yourself and other people

You know, I can't dissagree with that. But who said a fight is fair? You need to train for such variables. Basic knife defence would probably take care of the attacker, most Joes out there don't know a plastic knife from their elbow.

[Sauzin]

I can disagree.

First of all (in my opinion) no one is meant to fight anyone. Fighting is a choice.

Secondly what I believe is wrong in the situation Jay provided is not that the attacker used a knife but that he attacked and prevented the other person from getting away at all. This should never have happened in the first place. Yes the knife makes it even worse but the real crime is forcing a fight on someone because even without the knife, fights can kill.

So to break it down. I would never force someone to fight. Secondly if someone forced me to fight I would only do what was necessary to get away. Thirdly if, in forcing me to fight, I sensed he intended to seriously hurt or kill me (with a knife or without) I would respond with whatever force was necessary to end the threat. That includes using any weapon at my disposal. Because if he isn’t intent on killing or seriously hurting me I guarantee I could get away, and there would be no fight. But if he is intent on killing or seriously hurting me what relevance does a weapon have? If the attacker has his way the end result will be the same regardless.

This is why I don’t really understand why people are getting hung up on armed vs unarmed attacking. If it’s a real fight you can’t just say “Well I want to defend my life but I don’t want to defend it badly enough to use a weapon.” Now if you’re absolutely sure a weapon is unnecessary then, of course, why use it? But if you’re not sure, if there’s a chance that by not using the weapon you may forfeit your life to your opponent, why even take a chance? In my mind if the situation is extreme enough to get me to fight in the first place then it’s all most certainly extreme enough to use whatever means are available.

[yamesu]

What I'm saying is that in almost any non-leathal circumstance I can think of I wouldn't be fighting I'd be leaving.

and

If indeed the only time that I will fight is when extreme circumstances force me to what is "overreacting"? If someone was trying to seriously hurt me or kill me and I knew I could stop them without using lethal force then I would. But I'm not going to take any risk in doing so. If there is even a chance that I might get killed trying to spare the life of my attacker then I won't do it. And in a serious confrontation I'm not going to waste time weighing the chances. That in and of itself is too much of a chance when my ability to live is on the line

My sentiments exactly.

[Sengra]

Weapons do provide advantages...and as long as it gives you a chance to escape with your life, it can never be considered cheating. Nut if you were the attacker...now, that's a different thing..^_^

[unknownstyle]

no point i hurting someone that bad if they are unarmed

[Why_Worry]

Well if someone is really unarmed, and its only one person and arent trained very well in martial arts, i think most people who read karate forums shouldnt have too much of a problem in taking them out quickly, i mean really quickly. A fight usually doesnt last very long in the first place and in a martial artist against a non marital artist it should last even less time. But if they did have a weapon, i see no problem in using one just so long as you use it to a reasonable amount and you dont keep on beating them once they are down or stab them too many time. Also though if you are just hitting them with a blunt item quickly or something like that to get an advantage real quick i dont see anything wrong.

This situation is extremely unlikely, but its pretty much one of the few times i would fight, but if there was someone in my house and i was siting in this chair i'm in now and they were just walking through one of the entrances to this room i would take the cup on my desk or something and throw it at them and run towards them and pick up something else and throw it and then run and hit them or maybe jump just to catch them off guard but i would start beating them with a brrom or chair.

Although if their are multiple assailants and you are trapped kinda then id ont see anything wrong iwth using a weapon just because its a very dangerous situation but i recomend just fighting ot the exit and urnning.