MARTIAL ARTIST CARRYING WEAPONS!??

[elbows_and_knees]

I always have either my extendable baton, my knife, my freeze spray or all three.

[JusticeZero]

The only time the gun weilder is going to be severly disadvantaged is if he does not have his weapon drawn. The statistics you have are against a knifer with weapon in hand, and the gunner not drawn yet, I believe.

As I recall, that test allowed the gun wielder to have their gun in hand, and assumed that the knife was not in hand. The test circumstance was that the LEO was to approach a person for an arrest who was empty-handed, forewarned that at some point the person was going to draw a knife and attack. The LEO's got pwned. A friend of mine at the time didn't believe it, so we did a quick run of tests using a rubber knife and a squirt gun. Unless the gun was not only already drawn but already aimed, the advantage was clearly in favor of the knife user.

In any case, I currently don't advocate carrying a weapon, for the pure reason that being unarmed gives plausible deniability, since the assumption is that you will be blamed as the aggressor in any encounter by the authorities.

[bushido_man96]

The only time the gun weilder is going to be severly disadvantaged is if he does not have his weapon drawn. The statistics you have are against a knifer with weapon in hand, and the gunner not drawn yet, I believe.

As I recall, that test allowed the gun wielder to have their gun in hand, and assumed that the knife was not in hand. The test circumstance was that the LEO was to approach a person for an arrest who was empty-handed, forewarned that at some point the person was going to draw a knife and attack. The LEO's got pwned. A friend of mine at the time didn't believe it, so we did a quick run of tests using a rubber knife and a squirt gun. Unless the gun was not only already drawn but already aimed, the advantage was clearly in favor of the knife user.

In any case, I currently don't advocate carrying a weapon, for the pure reason that being unarmed gives plausible deniability, since the assumption is that you will be blamed as the aggressor in any encounter by the authorities.

That's a cool test. The LEO's should have the gun aimed, perhaps. Anyhow, there is no discounting the amount of danger a knife can produce....imagine in the hands of a skilled knife fighter.

[alsey]

on my keyring i have a yawara which i have done a bit of training with. its not much compared to a knife, but it can be used pretty effectively for jabbing and small joint locks. its also legal. i have carried a knife on occasion if i've been passing through a dangerous area, though the last time i did that was about four years ago. i think the legal risk of carrying a knife is too high. these days i sometimes carry a heavy bike lock in my bag as i often cycle around town. i've never hit anyone with it but i'd imagine it would be brutally effective.

anyway, i think anyone should carry a weapon if they feel there is a significant threat. saying that you're a martial artist and hence you don't need weapons is being proud and naive IMO. martial arts teach you how to secure the advantage in a confrontation. coming to the confrontation ill prepared is poor martial arts IMO. of course we have to consider laws and things because defending yourself is a dangerous business these days in legal terms.

[Jiffy]

I won't offer too much because plenty of other threads have gone nuts on this topic, but I just wanted to state:

"I was surprised and disapointed to see that 65% of people believe you should still carry a weapon"

I guess I'm part of the minority.

[Belasko]

I won't offer too much because plenty of other threads have gone nuts on this topic, but I just wanted to state:

"I was surprised and disapointed to see that 65% of people believe you should still carry a weapon"

I guess I'm part of the minority.

For clarification on my part anyway. I voted for carrying a weapon. Not necesarilly "should" carry but more along the lines of why not?

[UseoForce]

This discussions always amuse me. It just seems so simple to me (and like minded people):

Weapons were invented to give people an advantage in combat. That's why soliders, cops, and regular guys carry them.

[Jiffy]

I agree, they certainly give you an advantage in combat, no question there. The difference is, some people like yourself believe that survival in combat is all that matters and thefefore it's okay to carry them. People like myself believe it's more complicated and there are other social and moral issues that come into it.

Neither of us are more right or wrong. Just a difference in opinion.

[parkerlineage]

"You wouldn't take a knife to a gun fight...why would you take karate?"

- Master Richard Planas (who happens to also be a master in knife-fighting systems, so yes, he does know what he's talking about)

[Belasko]

I agree, they certainly give you an advantage in combat, no question there. The difference is, some people like yourself believe that survival in combat is all that matters and thefefore it's okay to carry them. People like myself believe it's more complicated and there are other social and moral issues that come into it.

Neither of us are more right or wrong. Just a difference in opinion.

I think the other side of the opinion could be that you should be prepared to deal w/ a situation where anothers social and moral thoughts conflict with your own. On the other hand though, if your social and moral beliefs don't allow for you to use a weapon in self defense, don't carry one for that purpose. All it's likely to do is escalate the issue and get you hurt.