we've all heard the quote "Weapons are for the weak" and I wonder what you guys' take is on this. Ever see those heavy weight kickboxers? Those guys are just scary to imagine going hand to hand with even though i've had years and years of martial arts training. Perhaps the quote "Weapons are for the weak" should be "Weapons are for the weakER" We generally accept the latter quote, especially when it's a woman or child versus a male attacker. Other reasons for weapons: 1) Your right if they're on your property 2) multiple attackers 3) *They* have a weapon. I guess it comes down to choosing the right weapon for the situation. Stabbing someone just because they're bigger than you might be going a little too far if in a normal street fight, perhaps a kubaton, stick, stun gun or pepper spray would be more reasonable. Does anyone know if there's a book out there that describes when it's ok to use a weapon and which weapon to choose based on the situation, and perhaps individual state laws regarding them?
In my opinion weaponsa re for messing about with, and learnign to use for amusement value. At least in a Martial Arts context. When it comes to self defense, weapons are there to be used. Everything I carry is a weapon, I spend incredible amounts of time analysinghow I can use any given object that I am carrying as a weapon, From my Keys (with a kuboitanof course), to the magazine I am reading, the restaurant menu, My jacket etc... Weapons are a first resort to me in times of threat not a last resort. But then again my self defense philosophy is roughly: Avoid fiughting if at all possible. When it is no logner possible to avoid the fight then do as much damage to them as possible, using whatever means necessary, and all tools at hand, in the shortest possible time with the minimum amount of effort. Then get on with whatever you were doing before. For this reason I will NOT carry a knife, because I dont belive in using knives as self defense weapons; and I know that if confornted whilst carrying one I would reflexively use it. I dont want to use an item if I cant limit the type of damage I am doing with it.
For Muay Thai and BJJ, certainly. But how can you separate weapons from Inosanto Blend Kali? It's absolutely based on the use of weapons. Take what I do for example, Silat. The knife is there in pretty much all of the empty hand curriculum either defending against one or using one. If my Krabi Krabong teacher ever starts teaching again that will go double. Sword, staff, spear, shield, knife, mai sok and a bunch of others are integral. I don't want to be offensive here, but there seems to be a disconnect in your thinking. Your self defense philosophy is "use anything that comes to hand" and if all else fails do them just as hard as you can as quickly as you can. This doesn't seem to square with your objection to carrying the knife. If you've tried to de-escalate and are in a situation where you are in danger of being seriously jacked wouldn't it make sense to use the most effective tool at your disposal? Everything is a weapon. Some weapons work better than others. Oregon has very reasonable concealed carry laws. In those rare situations where a gun is appropriate a menu or keychain just won't do the trick. A knife is second best. Regards, Todd
Eh? Where did you hear that one? It doesn't make a lot of sense. If you're in danger you do whatever is most efficient to get you out of danger. A tool is often the right thing to do that. If you aren't in danger, why are you in a fight? I think the term you're looking for is "disparity of force". If they are putting you at really serious risk you don't have to be as restrained as you would if you were evenly matched. Size, weight, strength, experience, numbers, weapons, a no duty to retreat situation and others can all cause a disparity of force. The example I like to use is Bubb and Grandma. Grandma weighs 80 pounds, one for every trip she's taken around the mean ol' Sun. Bubba is 300 pounds of steroid crazed muscle. He played football in high school where he WAS the front four. He pumps iron. He gets in fights. He bucks hay bales for a living. If Grandma takes it in her head to hit Bubba with her walker he might be justified in holding her at arm's length until she gets tired. If Bubba attacks Grandma and she shoots him so full of holes that small birds can nest in his chest cavity all that the police will say is "Death by misadventure. Person or persons unknown. Nice groups, ma'am. Do you need a ride home?" <DISCLAIMER TYPE="standard"> I am not a lawyer. You'd be a fool to take anything I say as legal advice. </DISCLAIMER> The laws vary from state to state, but there are some general principles that apply pretty much everywhere the legal system is based on British Common or Dutch-Roman Law. You have the right to use physical force to prevent unlawful physical force from being used against you. You have the right to use deadly force to prevent the imminent and otherwise unavoidable use of deadly physical force from being used against you or an innocent third person. In general, you should leave a violent situation if it is safe to do so and if doing so wouldn't leave other innocents in danger. There are some exceptions such as your home, but I'm being conservative here. A very good book on the subject is In the Gravest Extreme by Massad Ayoob. It's a little handgun-centric, but the principles are excellent. I strongly urge you or anyone who is intersted in the legal aspects of self defense to take Mr. Ayoob's LFI-1 course. It will give you forty hours of concentrated, masterfully presented, world-renowned instruction in the legal and ethical parameters of self defense and the use of lethal force. If you are so inclined, the second part is twenty hours of very practical handgun instruction. It is the best investment you will ever make in this field.
I've seen this quote a few times and also a few varitaions of it such as: "Weapons are instruments of fear; All creatures hate them. Therefore, followers of the Way never use them. The wise man prefers the left. The man of war prefers the right. Weapons are instruments of fear; They are not a wise man's tools. He uses them only when he has no choice. Peace and quiet are dear to his heart, and victory no cause for rejoicing. If you rejoice in victory, then you delight in killing; If you delight in killing, you cannot fulfill yourself" Though that quote has deeper/other meaning. HAHA, so true Yeah, as one of my instructors used to say: "Don't stick around to sign autographs" Thanks i'll look into those
I prefer a couple of the following: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to the Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn." -- Mohandas Gandhi "Think about it. All God's critters have knives." -- Sol Glasser "Armed people fly their colors" (Israeli flag) "Disarmed people wear them" (Yellow star with "Jude") "I don't eat with my fingers. Why would I fight with them?" -- Chas Clements Weapons are certainly "instruments of fear". And wise people prefer peace and harmony. But they aren't free. They are always contingent on your ability to defend them against people with no conscience. So it behooves a person who wants peace and quiet to be able to enforce his right to them.
interesting thing about martial artists is that our whole bodies are trained to be weapons! some of the first moves i learned were thumb and finger strikes to the eyes and throat. Reminds me of when i was in highshool and they banned steel toed boots and chain-wallets and i remember thinking to myself that i could kill any student or teacher here a thousand different ways with just my body, let alone pencils, rocks, books, etc. and we can get past airport security without question, meanwhile my grandma couldnt get on a plane with fingernail clippers! it's a joke People love that false sense of security. Same reason people say they feel safe if they own a gun, even if they don't have hand-to-hand training (and often don't even have real gun training)
Weapons are fun to play with. However saynig that people who used weapons are weak ? No they are just too clever. Getting a weapon to make an opponents demise easier/faster is just intelligence not weakness.
Gt3 Do you really need to jump from forum to forum making posts like these? You obviously know nothing about the subject, and claiming that you do is getting tiresome. People use weapons, because like Count says, its much more effective at delivering a great deal of damage in a short space of time.
In karate weapons are used as an extension of the... .. regular karate moves actually. The sai, tonfa and nunchaku actually gets incooperated into the regular stuff you learn in karate. So if you do an upper block (Jodan Uke)the tonfa or sai extends your range in blocking more effectively- especially if your opponent happens to use a long bo or nunchaku against you. In the history of karate weapons were actually not allowed in okinawa so ppl used farming tools like the sai, which was actually a raking tool before and the nunchaku, which had its original use in beating corn (if I got some of this wrong anyone please correct me, I used Fumia Demuras books for info as I use them for training). Claiming that a weapon is for the weak though is a bad statement to make. You are already as a MA's a "weapon" and believe me any good MA with a weapon will be stronger than a MA's without one. Christian
What are you talking about? "Posts like these"? I've been a serious martial arts student since i was 8 and i'm 27 now so i know a little, but i'm not claiming that i know a lot about the subject. Where did i ever claim that? All i've been doing is asking questions to learn more
I guess it depends where you live, here in Greece pulling a knife is definitely considered very low. But then again, here fights are not "life or death", like many people here describe them to be. Usually fights are over some car crash, or some misunderstanding in a bar, or parking place, etc. They exchange some slaps, maybe a couple of kicks when one is dropped, then its over. Bystanders are usually laughing when a fight ensues. But if a knife is pulled out, everything will be very different. Maybe even bystanders attack the guy with the knife and give him a very serious beating, without even knowing him at all. Just for pulling the knife. Not to mention pulling a knife inside some night club or something. The bouncers will definitely send you to hospital with many things broken. So I guess its where you live, because being attacked by drug addicts with knives, who dont have a problem killing you for $100, doesnt happen here.
Whoever said "weapons are for the weak" has not been in many fights. Weapons are for the smart. As to the second part of your question, I second your taking LFI-1. Best bang for my buck of all the shooting schools I have been to.
Tao Te Ching, 31 Correct. Note that people distort the message on a regular basis --- and frequently do so inentionally. There are a lot of peacenik thugs out there who try to use this part of Tao Te Ching to bully others into giving up their weapons. Instead of guns they use lies and verbal harassment. It's a farce. They are in Lao Tsu's words, the "men of war" even though they claim to be "working for peace." It's not the hardware, but the mental state that Lao Tsu refers to. Tao Te Ching 31 is actually very practical advice to anybody that studies martial arts, or actively carries self-defense weapons. It advocates the use of weapons when necessary. The central message is that (1) those who rely on brute force to get their way are to be pitied, (2) the superior man needs not bully to gain success in life, (3) weapons are to be used in the gravest extreme, and (4) the use of deadly force is a sombre affair. The full quote: I'm not a huge fan of Lao Tsu, but I find this chapter bears a powerful message. A beautiful article was written by a die-hard pacifist Buddhist that is an accomplished martial artist and gun owner. To me his article elucidates my feelings on why pacifism by definition encompasses weapon training --- and by implication those who claim to be pacifists but lothe self-defense are impostors co-opting the word "pacifist."
Apo Ellada eiste? Kali spera! You are saying the same thing that we are. We are talking about the rare but extremely serious threats with deadly force. Exactly. This is what we are saying. ... often. It is true that Greece has one of the lowest violent crime rates in Europe in stark contrast to, for example, Great Britain.
I've never heard of anyone being considered weak for using a weapon. In fact it's what I'm expecting. When I needed to make some extra cash and bounced at a club this past weekend (shooting at location a few months ago)there were some "patrons" who came in with a certain demeanor. I feel confident in my ability to physical exert myself if I have to but why fight an unneccessary fight if you can calm a situation with words. And the hand to hand thing goes out the window with people who are not interested in fighting because they shoot people. Which is why other martial artists who I sometimes work with carry guns with them on a job. I'm kinda of rambling, the point is weapons are out there, use what you can.
But try not to kill anyone though I'd hate to have any of my fellow martial arts planet mates go to prison.
