Training for current threats

[DWx]

I think it's important to point out that if training for knife defense the instructor should tell their students that there is not just a possibility of getting cut but an absolute.

If against a non-trained opponent your chances are better of being able to disarm them but the understanding that even with the most inexperienced opponent the chances of getting cut or stabbed are high. Against an experienced knife fighter... forget it, your getting cut, slashed, stabbed and if your really lucky you'll live to talk about it but don't count on it.

I've been through a variety of unarmed knife defense classes and 98% of what is taught is useless against a trained knife fighter. If you're going to learn how to defend against knife attacks I would highly suggest you take a knife fighting art.

I hate to say it but the techniques taught in most unarmed arts are ridiculous against an experienced knife fighter.

Just my 2 cents.

Agree. That is why it helps to bring a gun. And friends with guns.

Unless you're within 20ft of the knife wielder...

[LLLEARNER]

I think it's important to point out that if training for knife defense the instructor should tell their students that there is not just a possibility of getting cut but an absolute.

If against a non-trained opponent your chances are better of being able to disarm them but the understanding that even with the most inexperienced opponent the chances of getting cut or stabbed are high. Against an experienced knife fighter... forget it, your getting cut, slashed, stabbed and if your really lucky you'll live to talk about it but don't count on it.

I've been through a variety of unarmed knife defense classes and 98% of what is taught is useless against a trained knife fighter. If you're going to learn how to defend against knife attacks I would highly suggest you take a knife fighting art.

I hate to say it but the techniques taught in most unarmed arts are ridiculous against an experienced knife fighter.

Just my 2 cents.

Agree. That is why it helps to bring a gun. And friends with guns.

Unless you're within 20ft of the knife wielder...

There are even a few advocating increasing that from 21 to 31 feet. The conditions for the original test was a standing, open carry, holstered duty weapon, in a retention holster. Not from a concealed carry situation. It was always trained to move off the x laterally, first.

[singularity6]

Something isn't setting right with me on this topic. Ultimately, it feels like we're using a band-aid to treat a much bigger problem.

A lot of the violent crime - "crimes of passion" - involve people who get overheated about something, and use whatever's around as a weapon. Guns, knives, lamps, golf clubs... anything handy, really. This will never change and isn't part of the "bigger problem" that I'm sensing.

The bigger problem is calculated mass murder. Passing new laws, having armed guards (or teachers?!) or convincing folks they need to train for such situations isn't, in my opinion, all that helpful.

One should be able to defend oneself, I'm on board with that. But shouldn't we be looking at more preventative things, as well? This is where some of the other non-physical teachings of martial arts come in.

*Being respectful to those around you

*Being mindful of what you say and how you say it

Other things can be added. I think this is enough for now.

[OneKickWonder]

Something isn't setting right with me on this topic. Ultimately, it feels like we're using a band-aid to treat a much bigger problem.

A lot of the violent crime - "crimes of passion" - involve people who get overheated about something, and use whatever's around as a weapon. Guns, knives, lamps, golf clubs... anything handy, really. This will never change and isn't part of the "bigger problem" that I'm sensing.

The bigger problem is calculated mass murder. Passing new laws, having armed guards (or teachers?!) or convincing folks they need to train for such situations isn't, in my opinion, all that helpful.

One should be able to defend oneself, I'm on board with that. But shouldn't we be looking at more preventative things, as well? This is where some of the other non-physical teachings of martial arts come in.

*Being respectful to those around you

*Being mindful of what you say and how you say it

Other things can be added. I think this is enough for now.

All true in general terms. But in Britain and Europe we have seen a rise in terrorist attacks involving some nutter running around stabbing random people. The original question was, can we train to be prepared for that?

Giving people guns is not the answer. That just puts more guns in circulation, and the person planning the attack always has the advantage, because after all, they know what they're going to do. And do we really want lots of panicked civilians opening fire in a crowded street? That would be like doing the terrorist's job for them.

What I really don't want to get into is a gun debate. That's happened plenty of times and innocent people still get shot dead. What I'm really interested in is, do we think it's possible for someone who has not gone out armed expecting conflict, to suddenly successfully neutralise an attacker armed with a bladed weapon?

[tallgeese]

Good points all around.

I'm certainly in the bring a gun and friends with guns category. That said, this mandates difficult training too. I have yet to see a CCW course that actually prepared students to fight. As with any other martial art, this demands a stair-stepped progression to build workable skills and confidence. This takes time. It's not a short cut, just a more useful answer to this particular threat.

Now, as to the knife as a while we really, as martial artists overall, need to rethink what we classify as "success" when it comes to knife defense. All too often we consider this as not being stabbed or cut. Numbers would suggest that this is unrealistic. A better definition would be not being dead or incapacitated to the point your going to lay there and bleed out slowly. Can I arrest the attack to gain an exit? To draw my firearm? To make strategic use of space? All far better goals. Escalation is the key when we deal with weapons, but we need to make time and space for this to occur AND be proficient with whatever our go to is or at least have an understanding of escape and making use of what's at hand.

We will not suddenly become experts at this under stress. As with all things, the key is practice and stress inoculation. This means more realistic training methods AND a redefinition of success.

[Tempest]

Something isn't setting right with me on this topic. Ultimately, it feels like we're using a band-aid to treat a much bigger problem.

A lot of the violent crime - "crimes of passion" - involve people who get overheated about something, and use whatever's around as a weapon. Guns, knives, lamps, golf clubs... anything handy, really. This will never change and isn't part of the "bigger problem" that I'm sensing.

The bigger problem is calculated mass murder. Passing new laws, having armed guards (or teachers?!) or convincing folks they need to train for such situations isn't, in my opinion, all that helpful.

One should be able to defend oneself, I'm on board with that. But shouldn't we be looking at more preventative things, as well? This is where some of the other non-physical teachings of martial arts come in.

*Being respectful to those around you

*Being mindful of what you say and how you say it

Other things can be added. I think this is enough for now.

All true in general terms. But in Britain and Europe we have seen a rise in terrorist attacks involving some nutter running around stabbing random people. The original question was, can we train to be prepared for that?

Giving people guns is not the answer. That just puts more guns in circulation, and the person planning the attack always has the advantage, because after all, they know what they're going to do. And do we really want lots of panicked civilians opening fire in a crowded street? That would be like doing the terrorist's job for them.

What I really don't want to get into is a gun debate. That's happened plenty of times and innocent people still get shot dead. What I'm really interested in is, do we think it's possible for someone who has not gone out armed expecting conflict, to suddenly successfully neutralise an attacker armed with a bladed weapon?

Unarmed? Not bloody likely.

With some training, sparring and an improvised weapon or bit of cover? Yeah, that could happen.

In my experience the key to responding to emergencies is awareness and properly taking advantage of anything you can in the moment.

Going against a knife unarmed with little to no warning is a fools errand, but improvising a weapon or bit of cover, if you have the experience of going full contact with people, COULD work. Except for the part where you may get stabbed to death.

[Spartacus Maximus]

It's all about developing a sense of awareness and the right habits. These are the same whatever the kind of possible threat may be. A great proportion of possible violence can be avoided just by knowing how to behave and what to do before a situation calls for using any physical force.

If any training is done to prepare, it ought to be spent learning how to prevent a situation from happening and how to recognize a potential danger before it becomes unavoidable.

Fire and evacuation drills follow exactly this principle. Spree attackers might seem to commit their crime at random, but there is always a method to their madness. There is always a reason for why it happened in one place at a certain time but not others. Knowledge of this is more useful than training any defensive techniques.

[LLLEARNER]

Something isn't setting right with me on this topic. Ultimately, it feels like we're using a band-aid to treat a much bigger problem.

A lot of the violent crime - "crimes of passion" - involve people who get overheated about something, and use whatever's around as a weapon. Guns, knives, lamps, golf clubs... anything handy, really. This will never change and isn't part of the "bigger problem" that I'm sensing.

The bigger problem is calculated mass murder. Passing new laws, having armed guards (or teachers?!) or convincing folks they need to train for such situations isn't, in my opinion, all that helpful.

One should be able to defend oneself, I'm on board with that. But shouldn't we be looking at more preventative things, as well? This is where some of the other non-physical teachings of martial arts come in.

*Being respectful to those around you

*Being mindful of what you say and how you say it

Other things can be added. I think this is enough for now.

My opinion, is that the weapons are not the problem. It is the culture change that has been happening since the 60's ish, and really picked up speed since the late 90's/early 2000's. Gun use and ownership was more wide spread and accepted. High school students often took hunting rifles to school and kept them in the principles office or in their vehicles because they went hunting (unsupervised) before and after school.

The increase of single parent homes only worsens the use of electronics as babysitters and schools as substitute parents and not for education. Children need a father and mother, and if none is available a strong, positive, male and female role model. As much as single parents work hard for their children and as well intended they may be, there is always something missing.

The best thing we can do is teach our children to not be jerks (or worse) to each other, and to deal with the ones that are. There will always be bullying (because, human nature), but if we can teach our children to have proper self-esteem (through accomplishment), and self-respect the impact of bullying will be minimized.

Now, in many cases we have feminized the education process so much that it excludes and labels really active boys. It increases their frustration, and decreases the learning potential. Instead we drug them into stupors and label them as dysfunctional. Instead, the classrooms should be designed around the children's learning styles. Camden, Maine experimented (with great success) by creating a classroom designed with more interactive learning and physical movement for hyper boys. It made the other classrooms more peaceful learning environment for the other kids, and the hyper kids actually learned.

My mother (a retired special ed teacher) volunteers in my daughter's classroom when she visits. One day her class had a substitute who classified one of the hyper boys as the "problem child." He would rather play with Legos and blocks than sit quietly for story time. He just needed more interactive learning. Now all the teachers, substitute teachers, and kids know him as the "problem child." It will follow him all the way through school unless he gets an understanding teacher who is willing to work with him.

Make the classrooms fit the kids, not the kids fit the classrooms.

[LLLEARNER]

Something isn't setting right with me on this topic. Ultimately, it feels like we're using a band-aid to treat a much bigger problem.

A lot of the violent crime - "crimes of passion" - involve people who get overheated about something, and use whatever's around as a weapon. Guns, knives, lamps, golf clubs... anything handy, really. This will never change and isn't part of the "bigger problem" that I'm sensing.

The bigger problem is calculated mass murder. Passing new laws, having armed guards (or teachers?!) or convincing folks they need to train for such situations isn't, in my opinion, all that helpful.

One should be able to defend oneself, I'm on board with that. But shouldn't we be looking at more preventative things, as well? This is where some of the other non-physical teachings of martial arts come in.

*Being respectful to those around you

*Being mindful of what you say and how you say it

Other things can be added. I think this is enough for now.

All true in general terms. But in Britain and Europe we have seen a rise in terrorist attacks involving some nutter running around stabbing random people. The original question was, can we train to be prepared for that?

Giving people guns is not the answer. That just puts more guns in circulation, and the person planning the attack always has the advantage, because after all, they know what they're going to do. And do we really want lots of panicked civilians opening fire in a crowded street? That would be like doing the terrorist's job for them.

What I really don't want to get into is a gun debate. That's happened plenty of times and innocent people still get shot dead. What I'm really interested in is, do we think it's possible for someone who has not gone out armed expecting conflict, to suddenly successfully neutralise an attacker armed with a bladed weapon?

Unarmed? Not bloody likely.

With some training, sparring and an improvised weapon or bit of cover? Yeah, that could happen.

In my experience the key to responding to emergencies is awareness and properly taking advantage of anything you can in the moment.

Going against a knife unarmed with little to no warning is a fools errand, but improvising a weapon or bit of cover, if you have the experience of going full contact with people, COULD work. Except for the part where you may get stabbed to death.

Unarmed or not. I intend to make it as difficult for the offender as I can.

[Tempest]

Something isn't setting right with me on this topic. Ultimately, it feels like we're using a band-aid to treat a much bigger problem.

A lot of the violent crime - "crimes of passion" - involve people who get overheated about something, and use whatever's around as a weapon. Guns, knives, lamps, golf clubs... anything handy, really. This will never change and isn't part of the "bigger problem" that I'm sensing.

The bigger problem is calculated mass murder. Passing new laws, having armed guards (or teachers?!) or convincing folks they need to train for such situations isn't, in my opinion, all that helpful.

One should be able to defend oneself, I'm on board with that. But shouldn't we be looking at more preventative things, as well? This is where some of the other non-physical teachings of martial arts come in.

*Being respectful to those around you

*Being mindful of what you say and how you say it

Other things can be added. I think this is enough for now.

All true in general terms. But in Britain and Europe we have seen a rise in terrorist attacks involving some nutter running around stabbing random people. The original question was, can we train to be prepared for that?

Giving people guns is not the answer. That just puts more guns in circulation, and the person planning the attack always has the advantage, because after all, they know what they're going to do. And do we really want lots of panicked civilians opening fire in a crowded street? That would be like doing the terrorist's job for them.

What I really don't want to get into is a gun debate. That's happened plenty of times and innocent people still get shot dead. What I'm really interested in is, do we think it's possible for someone who has not gone out armed expecting conflict, to suddenly successfully neutralise an attacker armed with a bladed weapon?

Unarmed? Not bloody likely.

With some training, sparring and an improvised weapon or bit of cover? Yeah, that could happen.

In my experience the key to responding to emergencies is awareness and properly taking advantage of anything you can in the moment.

Going against a knife unarmed with little to no warning is a fools errand, but improvising a weapon or bit of cover, if you have the experience of going full contact with people, COULD work. Except for the part where you may get stabbed to death.

Unarmed or not. I intend to make it as difficult for the offender as I can.

Sure. Everyone INTENDS that. But when things happen, very few actually pull it off. And the ones that do usually have a few things in common. Among them are weaponry and/or the ability to improvise weaponry and defenses out of what was available at the time.