Principles of Weapons Defense

[USCMAAI]

The development of realistic/combat effective self-defense techniques is one of the most important features of any combat martial art. This is especially true for unarmed weapons defense. If the instructor(s) of a system are not honest with themselves about the realistic effectiveness of these techniques, it is possible that they could get someone hurt, maimed or killed! Over the years, I have disarmed /incapacitated several armed opponents (I have worked as a bouncer, police officer and currently work in a maximum security prison). I have also been stabbed, cut, shot and clubbed. Although I survived all these encounters, each one (successful defense as well as failed defense) has either reinforced or discredited some of the things I had been taught about unarmed weapons defense! It always amazes me when I hear instructors say how easy it is beat someone who has a weapon. I don’t think these so called “experts” realize that most people who pick up a weapon, do it to give themselves an advantage, and are motivated to do serious bodily harm to their targets. If defeating an armed assailant was so easy, most criminals would not go around armed, and you would not have to train so hard to accomplish this! I usually ask instructors who say that defeating an armed attacker is easy, if they have ever really had to protect themselves from a seriously committed armed attack? Or more importantly, has anyone they ever trained in their system ever had to protect him or herself from an armed attack? Most will answer “no, but we train realistically in class”. Now I am all for doing reality training in class, and we train as realistically as possible in my school too, but that still does not completely prepare you for actual combat! Factors like intent to do damage, adrenaline dump, emotional state (fear, desperation, or rage) and physical damage (continuing to fight after serious injury) all make a difference and are very hard to duplicate in the training hall. No! The only way to know if something works, is to have used it when it counts. Now earlier I told you that I have had several encounters against armed opponents, and that I have been stabbed, shot, clubbed, etc. I did not tell you this to impress you on how tough I am (because I am not), but to impress upon you that unarmed weapons defense is never easy. No matter how skilled, you are at risk of being injured. Any one who tells you that weapons defense is easy is either crazy, stupid, or a fraud.

I am going to go over what I consider the principles of unarmed weapons defense. Before getting to those principles I would like to cover a few things:

There are basically 5 types of weapons you are likely to encounter on the streets. These are:

Short slashing/stabbing weapons (knives, broken bottles, Ice picks)

Long slashing/stabbing weapons (Long bladed weapons, broken broom stick, spear like weapons)

Short impact weapons (hammer, tire iron, beer bottle, clubs)

Long impact weapons (cane, pool stick, long chains)

Range weapons (fire arms, thrown objects, knives)

Most all weapons (traditional and nontraditional) fit into one or more of these categories.

When dealing with an armed opponent, you are at a disadvantage no matter what weapon he has or even to some extent his skill level. The best way to deal with these attacks is to not be where these attacks occur (in other words if you can get away safely do!) If you can’t get away then having a weapon of your own could possibly equalize things or give you the advantage (depending on the weapon and your skill with it). I know that many people think that this sounds like I condone carrying weapons, well in a way I do. I feel that there are many things that we use, carry, or have around us everyday that can be used as weapons (most of us guys wear belts, which can be used as a weapon). Training to use these items (i.e. environmental weapons) is a great idea.I also feel that if you have been properly trained and can get a permit to carry a firearm, this may be an option. There are less lethal means of protection (pepper spray, stun guns, blackjacks, etc). When considering arming yourself, remember rule #1 of self-defense (always assume that your opponent knows as much or more about fighting than you do). Lastly if you are attacked with a weapon, and have no way of leaving or getting a weapon of your own, unarmed defense is your last resort.

There are basically two philosophies in unarmed weapon defense.

Disarming

 

Neutralizing

Disarming places emphasis on taking the weapon away from the attacker, as the attacker is trying to use that weapon on you. Disarms are very difficult because they take precise distance and timing to successfully execute. The primary objective of disarming is:

Block the attack and secure the weapon.

Stun the attacker

Disarm the attacker

Neutralizing places emphasis on securing the weapon (putting it in a position which it can’t injure you) and then incapacitating the attacker. This philosophy states that a weapon is useless if the person using it is out of commission. Neutralization does not disregard disarming an attacker, but does not make disarming an attacker it’s primary goal. In this philosophy disarming an attacker can be done, if the opportunity is presented, but the primary objectives are:

Avoid being struck and secure the weapon if possible.

Disable/ Disarm the attacker. (My sensei use to say: “ If the bad guy is dead, then his knife or gun can’t hurt you”).

Secure the weapon (if possible) and deal with any other threats

The primary difference is in disarming you must make contact with the attacker and his weapon. In neutralization you can “neutralize” the attacker without ever making contact with the weapon. As you can tell I prescribe to the “neutralization” school of thought and will be giving you the principles of weapon neutralization below.

Principles of Weapon Neutralization

Environmental Factors: As with all defense techniques your environment and how you use it will play a major role in deciding if you survive an encounter with a weapon. Environmental Awareness, Knowledge and Control are all vital aspects of spontaneous weapons defense. Being aware of your surroundings (type and number of exits, lighting and weather conditions. Possible areas of cover or items that could be used for a weapon) could be the difference between surviving an armed assault and being the victim of an armed assault.

Distance: There are two factors involved with this principle.

Reactionary Distance (Reactionary Gap): This is the minimum amount of space needed between you and your opponent in order to give you time to react to his attack. The closer an attack is to you when it begins, the more difficult it is to respond. This is one of the reasons that unarmed weapons defense is never easy. I would almost bet that most weapons defense you have seen (especially disarming) start at least at a 6ft gap, with the defender facing the attacker. That is because most systems prescribe to the belief that you need 6ft plus the length of the weapon, in order to have enough time to deal with the attack. In my system we start most weapon attacks at the 3 to 4 foot range (and honestly this is shortened at advanced levels to 1 to 2 foot range), this gives the student an opportunity to train to react quickly to an attack. Your students learn to react to weapons as soon as they come into their field of vision.

Relative Distance: This is the distance created between you and your target when moving while executing a block, parry, evasion, or strike. This distance will affect your ability to engage or disengage from the attack. There are several ways to engage and disengage from an attack:

Direct engagement involves using blocks, parries, and strikes while moving into close quarters with your target via a straight line. This method can work if you are committed to your defense, and your timing is accurate.

Indirect engagement advocates using blocks, parries, evasions, strikes, and environmental objects while moving to a Zone of Sanctuary. This sanctuary can either be away from the attacker (or his weapon), or to the sides of the attacker (or his weapon), thereby facilitating your follow up response. This gives you a window of opportunity for counter attacking. An example of this would be swinging a chair at a knife attacker, as you evade his attack, and move in to counter attack.

Active Disengagement is using blocks, parries, evasions and environmental objects to help facilitate your escape. An example of this would be moving a chair between you and someone trying to cut you, allowing you to run out the door.

Passive Disengagement is simply turning and running away. This is passive because there is no covering action taken by the defender.

Distractionary Opportunities. These are Distractionary Windows and Distractionary Techniques.

Distractionary Window is the use of environmental distractions to create an opening for defensive responses to threats. An example of this is responding to an attempted hold up when the attacker turns his head to look in the direction of a noise.

Distractionary Techniques cause the initial mental/physical breakdown of an attacker. This causes the attacker to loose mental and physical control of the encounter. Distraction is not generally taught in self-defense courses, but should be. Most criminals are nervous when committing crimes like robbery, and rape (crimes which you likely to be held at gun or knife point). Therefore the use of distraction to facilitate your being able to engage or disengage is an excellent idea!

Absolute Commitment in Neutralization is the fourth principle that should be considered. It doesn’t matter what you are doing (fighting or running away) you must do it with total commitment. Hesitation in the defense against a weapon attack will get you hurt or killed! This doesn’t mean that you blindly go into the attack or retreat. You must use your tactical knowledge (knowledge of when, where, why and how to apply specific responses to various situations.). Once you decide upon a course of action, you must put 100% effort into it. Many martial artists talk about having an “indomitable spirit”; well this is what I mean, if you decide to fight, you fight until you can’t fight anymore. No matter if you are shot, stabbed, clubbed or cut, you continue to fight!

Weapon Neutralization Procedures is the fifth and final principle that should be considered in unarmed defense against weapons. These are the meat and potatoes of defense as it simply is:

Evade, Block, and Parry the weapon. The first priority is not to be struck, cut, shot or stabbed. Of course sometimes this will happen no matter how well we execute your techniques (This is when principle #4 comes into play!). The use of your blocks and parries along with your evasions will help you enter and engage hand-to-hand weapons. Against ranged weapons it depends on the type of ranged weapon being used and how far you are away from the attacker. No matter what you have to keep in mind relative distance (what are you going to do after the initial attack misses? and how much room you need to do it?)

Stun the attacker and Neutralize the weapon: this should occur generally at the same time. Neutralizing the weapon could be disarming, pinning, trapping the weapon, or just moving to a zone of sanctuary where the weapon can’t be used on you. The stun should be done with enough force as to mentally and physically interrupt the attacker’s thought and action process. The problem I have seen with some “self-defense” systems is that they stop after this phase. Always remember that just because your opponent has lost his weapon, does not mean that he is done attacking. What if he is high on meth, or coke and is attacking you cause he thinks you are a demon? Taking his weapon will not always deter his assault.

Finnish the attacker: Techniques that are designed to put the attacker down and keep them down. At this point if you don’t have absolute control of the weapon, then take control of the weapon. Now not every finishing technique must be lethal, but when dealing with deadly force, or multiple attackers that your techniques must be devastating enough to keep anyone you hit from being part of the encounter again. It does you absolutely no good to take a weapon away from someone, and then have to fight him and 2 or 3 of his buddies (remember the THREE RULES OF SELF-DEFENSE?)

These procedures are what is called in my system an Aggressive Defense: one in which you either cause damage to the attacker, or place the attacker in a position in which they can no longer effectively attack, and are vulnerable to your attack. This means that as a defender you must be aware of the weapon, but don’t gets so focused on taking it away that you forget that the attacker is there!

Hopefully this has given you some insight into weapons defense. As I always say, I don’t claim to know everything or have all the right answers. The above principles and procedures have worked for several of my students and I in real life encounters with weapons. Train with these principles in mind, and if you find yourself up against a weapon your chances for survival will be increased.

[bushido_man96]

Great post, and good information! I just finished reading a book on Medieval dagger combat, and you would be surprised at how some of the information you put here relates to it. Well, maybe you wouldn't be surprised, because not much as changed in all the years.

The following two parts of your post really jump out at me, and I could probably dig a lot more out of it, if I took the time, that relate to a man named George Silver:

Reactionary Distance (Reactionary Gap): This is the minimum amount of space needed between you and your opponent in order to give you time to react to his attack. The closer an attack is to you when it begins, the more difficult it is to respond. This is one of the reasons that unarmed weapons defense is never easy. I would almost bet that most weapons defense you have seen (especially disarming) start at least at a 6ft gap, with the defender facing the attacker. That is because most systems prescribe to the belief that you need 6ft plus the length of the weapon, in order to have enough time to deal with the attack. In my system we start most weapon attacks at the 3 to 4 foot range (and honestly this is shortened at advanced levels to 1 to 2 foot range), this gives the student an opportunity to train to react quickly to an attack. Your students learn to react to weapons as soon as they come into their field of vision.

and:

These procedures are what is called in my system an Aggressive Defense: one in which you either cause damage to the attacker, or place the attacker in a position in which they can no longer effectively attack, and are vulnerable to your attack. This means that as a defender you must be aware of the weapon, but don’t gets so focused on taking it away that you forget that the attacker is there!

If you research George Silver, I think you will be in agreement with me. His teaching on time, distance, and place (specifically "true place") ring so true then as they did now.

Excellent, and well written. If you get impatient, and have trouble finding info on Silver, or you just want to take the short route , feel free to ask me or PM.

[USCMAAI]

Thanks Bushidoman! I will definately look into Mr. Silver's work! I wish I could take credit for all these principles, but my sensei is the real genius behind all this stuff. He has been pounding (literally and figuratively) these concepts into me since I was a wee little karateka!

[bushido_man96]

Thanks Bushidoman! I will definately look into Mr. Silver's work! I wish I could take credit for all these principles, but my sensei is the real genius behind all this stuff. He has been pounding (literally and figuratively) these concepts into me since I was a wee little karateka!

Very cool. Incidentally, I will have some upcoming article on some of Silver's work, and its relations to the Martial Arts. I hope that you enjoy reading them!

[USCMAAI]

I attended a demonstration of "knife defense" several years ago. The instructor who was doing the defense was very impressive with the responses to attacks which were trained for. After the demonstration (did't want to make a fool of him in public) I asked him how he would deal with a "prison type" of attack. He asked me to attack him that way, and so I did. I took the knife in my rear hand and charged him throwing palm heels jabs with my left until I had him backed up against the wall, then I began "jabbing" the knife (plastic) into several of his body parts. He was very surprised! He asked me to attack him again, and this time I plcaed the knife in my lead hand and used quick cuts to his hands and arms, dancing away from him as he tried to move in. After about 5 mins he stopped and said it would be a draw. I pointed out that I had yet to be damaged, and that had we been using a real blade, blood loss would slow him down to the point where he would become eaiser to damage/kill. He stopped smiling. I talked to this fellow a few days ago, and he has changed his opinion and training methods as regards to knife defense.

[bushido_man96]

You bring up a good point, which is similar to one brought up in the book that I finished reading recently. When you get attacked in a surprise manner, it is likely to be a committed attack. When dueling, for lack of a better word, the attacks that you mentioned would be more common. However, it doesn't mean that you can't train for both. There can always be "what ifs" thrown into training. It is good to explore them.

[mantis.style]

I'm pretty much certain that anyone who's done the red ink knife edge testing will know that when a knife is involved one of the certainties is that you will get cut.

The teaching of idea that you can 100% avoid getting cut is a very dangerous thing.

[bushido_man96]

I'm pretty much certain that anyone who's done the red ink knife edge testing will know that when a knife is involved one of the certainties is that you will get cut.

The teaching of idea that you can 100% avoid getting cut is a very dangerous thing.

I agree, and I would never try to convince anyone otherwise.

[USCMAAI]

I'm pretty much certain that anyone who's done the red ink knife edge testing will know that when a knife is involved one of the certainties is that you will get cut.

The teaching of idea that you can 100% avoid getting cut is a very dangerous thing.

You are correct Mantis, unfortunately there are people out there who do think (and teach) that disarming a knife or gun weilding attacker is just a matter of practice. They inform their students that this becomes easier with time and their particular way of training. I am not a particularly talented knife fighter (unlike the dog brothers), but have some experience with fighting with the blade for real, and I have only been disarmed twice when going up against "master" martial artists (one was my sensei, and the other was a master sgt. at Ft. Bragg). Like I said I know the basics of knife fighting, but know the tactics of combat and so far this is the difference between "killing" my target and getting disarmed. This is one of the reasons I prescribe to the "neutralization" Theory of weapon defense.

By the way I apologize again for my rather long winded posts. Once I start a thought, I tend to want to over explain things. It is truly one of my greatest failings (being long winded). Thank you all for being so paitent with me.