Using a Sword For Home Defense.
- Thread starter L6steel
- Start date
- Joined
- May 26, 1999
- Messages
- 1,964
Aren't these "Firearms vs. Edged Weapons" debates kind of weird? I mean, you don't have to be a hardcore hoplologist to understand that every weapon throughout history has its advantages and disadvantages and may or may not be desirable or acquirable under certain circumstances. There's always a "better" weapon that can be used in any scenario; you can debate the best weapon ad infinitum.
For some reason, there don't seem to be many people in gun forums helpfully pointing out that nuclear weapons are superior to firearms. I haven't seen anyone chide firearms enthusiasts for believing that such an antiquated weapon can actually be used in the nuclear age. There doesn't appear to be a mantra that reads: "Never bring a gun to a hydrogen bomb fight". And I've never seen someone say, "So you have a shotgun, but what if the bad guy has a neutron bomb?!"
Similarly, I haven't seen anyone in the stick forums point out that we now have metal swords which are vastly more powerful weapons. Or in the same vein, there don't seem to be many people in the wrestling or martial arts forums touting the superiority of armed combat to empty hand techniques.
Yet, it seems like whenever there's a discussion of using bladed weapons for modern day combat, someone always has to chip in that "guns are better weapons"... even if you're in the "Sword Forum", which is one of the "Blade Forums", and you start a thread by pleading that people not talk about guns. For instance: in this thread, no one has made the assertion that swords are better weapons for home defense than guns, yet people still feel compelled to prove that that assertion is wrong.
I guess that somebody could easily argue that guns and swords are both silly weapons for home defense. Chemical and biological weapons are our future, so you could argue that the best home defense is to keep your house constantly filled with Amiton nerve gas (which is 10 times more toxic than sarin). You'd have to wear a gas mask at all times, but it's a fool-proof weapon; if someone walks into your house, they instantly die. Plus, no skill or training is even needed!
------------------
Cerulean
"The hairy-armed person who figured out how to put an edge on a suitable rock made it possible for us to be recognizably human in the first place." - J.K.M.
For some reason, there don't seem to be many people in gun forums helpfully pointing out that nuclear weapons are superior to firearms. I haven't seen anyone chide firearms enthusiasts for believing that such an antiquated weapon can actually be used in the nuclear age. There doesn't appear to be a mantra that reads: "Never bring a gun to a hydrogen bomb fight". And I've never seen someone say, "So you have a shotgun, but what if the bad guy has a neutron bomb?!"
Similarly, I haven't seen anyone in the stick forums point out that we now have metal swords which are vastly more powerful weapons. Or in the same vein, there don't seem to be many people in the wrestling or martial arts forums touting the superiority of armed combat to empty hand techniques.
Yet, it seems like whenever there's a discussion of using bladed weapons for modern day combat, someone always has to chip in that "guns are better weapons"... even if you're in the "Sword Forum", which is one of the "Blade Forums", and you start a thread by pleading that people not talk about guns. For instance: in this thread, no one has made the assertion that swords are better weapons for home defense than guns, yet people still feel compelled to prove that that assertion is wrong.
I guess that somebody could easily argue that guns and swords are both silly weapons for home defense. Chemical and biological weapons are our future, so you could argue that the best home defense is to keep your house constantly filled with Amiton nerve gas (which is 10 times more toxic than sarin). You'd have to wear a gas mask at all times, but it's a fool-proof weapon; if someone walks into your house, they instantly die. Plus, no skill or training is even needed!
------------------
Cerulean
"The hairy-armed person who figured out how to put an edge on a suitable rock made it possible for us to be recognizably human in the first place." - J.K.M.
- Joined
- May 1, 2000
- Messages
- 2,258
I think it's pretty clear that a gun is in general a better weapon than a sword.
What I don't understand is why many recommendations for those without guns lean more towards a stick, cane, or baseball bat sooner than a sword. Most people who keep a baseball bat in the house for home defense have no training with it, and I don't even know if baseball bat training exists, but no one seems to have a problem with this. Can't a sword be used just like a baseball bat with an edge and a point?
Let me relate this to my situation. I don't own a gun, mostly because they're expensive and I don't have much money. Also because I couldn't get a carry permit where I live, and I don't expect a high probability that my apartment will be invaded, so my in-home risk is low. The best home-defense item I have is a sword. I have no training with it, and am not likely to get any. If I have to use it I'll probably end up in either batter's stance, or a tennis racket stance. I think a sword would be more effective than a baseball bat even if used in the exact same way.
I agree that a gun is by far the most effective weapon one can own. I agree that it is advisable to get training with whatever weapon one chooses to use. I still think I'm better off untrained with a sword than I am untrained with a baseball bat, can anyone disagree?
------------------
Jason aka medusaoblongata
-----------------------
"Is not giving a need? Is not receiving mercy?" - Thus Spoke Zarathustra
"Cutting his throat is only a momentary pleasure and is bound to get you talked about." - Lazarus Long
"Knowledge is not made for understanding; it is made for cutting." - Michel Foucault
What I don't understand is why many recommendations for those without guns lean more towards a stick, cane, or baseball bat sooner than a sword. Most people who keep a baseball bat in the house for home defense have no training with it, and I don't even know if baseball bat training exists, but no one seems to have a problem with this. Can't a sword be used just like a baseball bat with an edge and a point?
Let me relate this to my situation. I don't own a gun, mostly because they're expensive and I don't have much money. Also because I couldn't get a carry permit where I live, and I don't expect a high probability that my apartment will be invaded, so my in-home risk is low. The best home-defense item I have is a sword. I have no training with it, and am not likely to get any. If I have to use it I'll probably end up in either batter's stance, or a tennis racket stance. I think a sword would be more effective than a baseball bat even if used in the exact same way.
I agree that a gun is by far the most effective weapon one can own. I agree that it is advisable to get training with whatever weapon one chooses to use. I still think I'm better off untrained with a sword than I am untrained with a baseball bat, can anyone disagree?
------------------
Jason aka medusaoblongata
-----------------------
"Is not giving a need? Is not receiving mercy?" - Thus Spoke Zarathustra
"Cutting his throat is only a momentary pleasure and is bound to get you talked about." - Lazarus Long
"Knowledge is not made for understanding; it is made for cutting." - Michel Foucault
- Joined
- Feb 22, 1999
- Messages
- 3,357
As many times as this debate comes up, we seem to keep losing the idea that, for whatever reason, many people do not have access to guns. In those intances, the sword -- particularly the short sword -- becomes a viable weapon for home defense.
-Razor
------------------
AKTI #A000845
-Razor
------------------
AKTI #A000845
- Joined
- Feb 19, 1999
- Messages
- 2,959
Razor,
I whole heartedly agree! Hopefully, I've managed to convey that if one CANNOT, for whatever reason have a firearm, then a sword becomes by default, the best weapon available.
Jason,
"I still think I'm better off untrained with a sword than I am untrained with a baseball bat, can anyone disagree?"
I hate to be the one picking all the nits, but yes! I disagree!
When Man first picked up a rock and bashed his buddy over the head, he was making use of a very simple weapon. Due to it's simplicity, it required little training in it's proper use. As weapons became progressively more specialized, the level of training required to operate them also increased. There are few if any, "general purpose" swords out there. Each is designed for a specific need at a specific time. The Small Sword fills a far different niche' than does the Katana, and the manner of use for each is so vastly different that a "Master" of the Small Sword can use almost none of his knowledge and skill if he picks up a Katana. (and Vice Versa.)
So to put it simply,
Simple weapons require simple training, specialized weapons require specialized training.
If you can't get the training for a particular weapon, don't USE it. Stick with what you know, and you'll be far better off.
As for Baseball Bat training, were you ever in Little League?
cerulean,
Irony aside, Nuclear weapons are not a fact of every day life, you are unlikely to encounter one. Do you think the same applies to firearms?
This thread is about use of the sword for Home Defense. It's not about the use of sword against sword, sword against knife, or sword against baseball bat or neutron bomb. If one is going to treat the subject of Home Defense seriously, (as I have tried to do.) then one is going to have to consider the very real possibility that they are eventually going to face a Firearm. Since the stated weapon of choice in this thread is a sword, matters pertaining to sword versus firearm are germaine to that discussion and ignoring "firearms" because this is a "blade" forum is unrealistic and irresponsible in the extreme.
Since I seem to be the main proponent of NOT facing a firearm with a sword, I assume you're addressing me when you say;
"Yet, it seems like whenever there's a discussion of using bladed weapons for modern day combat, someone always has to chip in that "guns are better weapons"... even if you're in the "Sword Forum", which is one of the "Blade Forums", and you start a thread by pleading that people not talk about guns."
If you wish to discuss home defense without discussing what the intruder is likely to be carrying, you're not interested in worthwhile discussion with real world application, but only bluesky BSing that has no significant bearing on the real world.
To qoute you one more time,
"For instance: in this thread, no one has made the assertion that swords are better weapons for home defense than guns, yet people still feel compelled to prove that that assertion is wrong."
No, no one has said that "swords are better" but there is a very strong attitude that swords can be "just as good." They are not!
Yes, it may happen that one day, you or I (or anyone) will be required to face a gun with a sword, and on that day, we would be at a SERIOUS disadvantage. This is the WHOLE point I'm trying to make. Swords are never going to be "as good as" a firearm. If you have to have one for Home Defense, REALIZE that, and adapt your training, tactics, and outlook to accomodate the FACT that you are in TROUBLE! Facing a gun with a sword is an act of desperation regardless of your level of skill. PLANNING to face a gun with a sword is either an act of necessity forced on you by your situation, or it is an act of foolishly over inflated self confidence.
If it is necessity, I hope I've said something in all these posts that will help you. If it is foolishness, I hope I've convinced someone to forsake the sword in favor of a good quality firearm and good training with that firearm.
nuff said?
------------------
Tráceme no sin la razón, envoltura mi no sin honor
Usual Suspect
MOLON LABE!
[This message has been edited by Ken Cook (edited 06-11-2001).]
I whole heartedly agree! Hopefully, I've managed to convey that if one CANNOT, for whatever reason have a firearm, then a sword becomes by default, the best weapon available.
Jason,
"I still think I'm better off untrained with a sword than I am untrained with a baseball bat, can anyone disagree?"
I hate to be the one picking all the nits, but yes! I disagree!
When Man first picked up a rock and bashed his buddy over the head, he was making use of a very simple weapon. Due to it's simplicity, it required little training in it's proper use. As weapons became progressively more specialized, the level of training required to operate them also increased. There are few if any, "general purpose" swords out there. Each is designed for a specific need at a specific time. The Small Sword fills a far different niche' than does the Katana, and the manner of use for each is so vastly different that a "Master" of the Small Sword can use almost none of his knowledge and skill if he picks up a Katana. (and Vice Versa.)
So to put it simply,
Simple weapons require simple training, specialized weapons require specialized training.
If you can't get the training for a particular weapon, don't USE it. Stick with what you know, and you'll be far better off.
As for Baseball Bat training, were you ever in Little League?
cerulean,
Irony aside, Nuclear weapons are not a fact of every day life, you are unlikely to encounter one. Do you think the same applies to firearms?
This thread is about use of the sword for Home Defense. It's not about the use of sword against sword, sword against knife, or sword against baseball bat or neutron bomb. If one is going to treat the subject of Home Defense seriously, (as I have tried to do.) then one is going to have to consider the very real possibility that they are eventually going to face a Firearm. Since the stated weapon of choice in this thread is a sword, matters pertaining to sword versus firearm are germaine to that discussion and ignoring "firearms" because this is a "blade" forum is unrealistic and irresponsible in the extreme.
Since I seem to be the main proponent of NOT facing a firearm with a sword, I assume you're addressing me when you say;
"Yet, it seems like whenever there's a discussion of using bladed weapons for modern day combat, someone always has to chip in that "guns are better weapons"... even if you're in the "Sword Forum", which is one of the "Blade Forums", and you start a thread by pleading that people not talk about guns."
If you wish to discuss home defense without discussing what the intruder is likely to be carrying, you're not interested in worthwhile discussion with real world application, but only bluesky BSing that has no significant bearing on the real world.
To qoute you one more time,
"For instance: in this thread, no one has made the assertion that swords are better weapons for home defense than guns, yet people still feel compelled to prove that that assertion is wrong."
No, no one has said that "swords are better" but there is a very strong attitude that swords can be "just as good." They are not!
Yes, it may happen that one day, you or I (or anyone) will be required to face a gun with a sword, and on that day, we would be at a SERIOUS disadvantage. This is the WHOLE point I'm trying to make. Swords are never going to be "as good as" a firearm. If you have to have one for Home Defense, REALIZE that, and adapt your training, tactics, and outlook to accomodate the FACT that you are in TROUBLE! Facing a gun with a sword is an act of desperation regardless of your level of skill. PLANNING to face a gun with a sword is either an act of necessity forced on you by your situation, or it is an act of foolishly over inflated self confidence.
If it is necessity, I hope I've said something in all these posts that will help you. If it is foolishness, I hope I've convinced someone to forsake the sword in favor of a good quality firearm and good training with that firearm.
nuff said?
------------------
Tráceme no sin la razón, envoltura mi no sin honor
Usual Suspect
MOLON LABE!
[This message has been edited by Ken Cook (edited 06-11-2001).]
- Joined
- May 1, 2000
- Messages
- 2,258
Ken,
I still don't understand. I know that there are different styles or schools of sword fighting and technique, and that each has its own sword design, etc. But, using the same untrained moves, wouldn't a sword be more effective than a bat? I know that I don't know how to properly weild a sword, but I can swing it at someone, and if I hit them it'll probably hurt real bad, might even do some real damage, same as with a bat. I could also thrust a sword at someone. I couldn't defeat a master swordsman, but if the tip of my sword hits someone's COM, it should slow them down, no? Again, I'm not talking about fulfilling some textbook or sensei's expectations about how this weapon should be handled, maybe I should rephrase my question- I hear a noise in my living room and decide to check it out, should I pick up a sword or baseball bat? I'll probably use the same moves with either one, wouldn't the sword be more effective, given its point and edge? If not, why?
------------------
Jason aka medusaoblongata
-----------------------
"Is not giving a need? Is not receiving mercy?" - Thus Spoke Zarathustra
"Cutting his throat is only a momentary pleasure and is bound to get you talked about." - Lazarus Long
"Knowledge is not made for understanding; it is made for cutting." - Michel Foucault
I still don't understand. I know that there are different styles or schools of sword fighting and technique, and that each has its own sword design, etc. But, using the same untrained moves, wouldn't a sword be more effective than a bat? I know that I don't know how to properly weild a sword, but I can swing it at someone, and if I hit them it'll probably hurt real bad, might even do some real damage, same as with a bat. I could also thrust a sword at someone. I couldn't defeat a master swordsman, but if the tip of my sword hits someone's COM, it should slow them down, no? Again, I'm not talking about fulfilling some textbook or sensei's expectations about how this weapon should be handled, maybe I should rephrase my question- I hear a noise in my living room and decide to check it out, should I pick up a sword or baseball bat? I'll probably use the same moves with either one, wouldn't the sword be more effective, given its point and edge? If not, why?
------------------
Jason aka medusaoblongata
-----------------------
"Is not giving a need? Is not receiving mercy?" - Thus Spoke Zarathustra
"Cutting his throat is only a momentary pleasure and is bound to get you talked about." - Lazarus Long
"Knowledge is not made for understanding; it is made for cutting." - Michel Foucault
- Joined
- May 26, 1999
- Messages
- 1,964
Ken,
Actually, I honestly wasn't addressing you in any way with my post. It's possible that you misunderstood me (or I've been ineloquent), but I think your previous posts in this thread have been genuinely interesting and enlightening. I was talking about other people in this thread, the last "Home Defense" thread, and variety of threads like this that pop up frequently in many different forums. If I can briefly address you for one paragraph though... you wrote
What annoys me (and was the subject of my sarcasm) is just the opposite - when someone says "Guns are better than swords", as if that's some kind of big revelation that silly blade enthusiasts have failed to grasp for the last several centuries. If you want to talk about firearms versus swords in specific tactical situations, as Ken Cook has done, I think that's interesting. However, if you want to negate any discussion of edged weapon self or home defense by simply saying that guns are better, then that's when things start to suck.
All I'm trying to say is that there are different levels of preparedness that correlate with different weapons. Every weapon has its strengths and weaknesses, and what level of preparedness you want to meet is a personal decision that can be based on many factors. There's no way to debate what the "best" weapon for any situation is, so you might as well talk about whatever weapon it is that people want to talk about.
For example: A friend of mine got in a scary situation last year and decided to start carrying a weapon. He asked me for some advice on what to carry and I gave him a few ideas. I saw him a couple of months ago and asked him if he had decided on a weapon yet. He said he had thought long and hard about it and showed me the weapon he had finally decided to carry. It was a Zippo lighter! He curled it into his hand and said that he could use it as a fist load.
Now, I could have made fun of my friend's choice of weapon and recommended a more powerful weapon like a knife instead. I could also have condescendingly said something like, "Never take a Zippo to a knife fight!"
I trust that my friend has thought out his choice of weapon though and if that's what he wants to carry, that's fine. He would have to be a complete idiot to think that his Zippo is a better weapon than a knife, or that he could never face a bad guy who carried a knife, so I assume that he doesn't think that. Plus, I have to admit that a Zippo does have some advantages over a knife; it's smaller and easier to carry and conceal, it's not as expensive as a knife, it's more likely to be legal, it less likely to get disarmed, etc.
Of course, someone who carries a handgun could look at me and say I'm underprepared because I just carry a knife. They might have a point, but then somebody could look at them and say they're underprepared because they just carry a handgun. For instance: I was reading an article about a guy in a Militia movement and it talked about the weaponry the guy carries on a daily basis. A handgun is a pretty pathetic weapon compared to what that guy had (grenades, a canister containing a nerve agent, several huge guns and almost unlimited rounds)!
So anyways, we're in the Sword Discussion Forum "where all aspects of swords and sword fighting" can be discussed... so why not discuss them? I don't want to see every discussion of sword fighting (or knife fighting, or empty hand fighting, or Zippo fighting, or whatever) beaten down with the simple phrase: "It's crazy to talk about that stuff. Guns are better."
------------------
Cerulean
"The hairy-armed person who figured out how to put an edge on a suitable rock made it possible for us to be recognizably human in the first place." - J.K.M.
Actually, I honestly wasn't addressing you in any way with my post. It's possible that you misunderstood me (or I've been ineloquent), but I think your previous posts in this thread have been genuinely interesting and enlightening. I was talking about other people in this thread, the last "Home Defense" thread, and variety of threads like this that pop up frequently in many different forums. If I can briefly address you for one paragraph though... you wrote
But, one of my points is that I just don't see that attitude displayed here... either in this particular thread or more generally. I mean, you put "just as good" in quotes as if someone actually said that, but going back over this thread I can't find where anyone wrote that. It seems that you're debating a theory here that no one has proposed.
What annoys me (and was the subject of my sarcasm) is just the opposite - when someone says "Guns are better than swords", as if that's some kind of big revelation that silly blade enthusiasts have failed to grasp for the last several centuries. If you want to talk about firearms versus swords in specific tactical situations, as Ken Cook has done, I think that's interesting. However, if you want to negate any discussion of edged weapon self or home defense by simply saying that guns are better, then that's when things start to suck.
All I'm trying to say is that there are different levels of preparedness that correlate with different weapons. Every weapon has its strengths and weaknesses, and what level of preparedness you want to meet is a personal decision that can be based on many factors. There's no way to debate what the "best" weapon for any situation is, so you might as well talk about whatever weapon it is that people want to talk about.
For example: A friend of mine got in a scary situation last year and decided to start carrying a weapon. He asked me for some advice on what to carry and I gave him a few ideas. I saw him a couple of months ago and asked him if he had decided on a weapon yet. He said he had thought long and hard about it and showed me the weapon he had finally decided to carry. It was a Zippo lighter! He curled it into his hand and said that he could use it as a fist load.
Now, I could have made fun of my friend's choice of weapon and recommended a more powerful weapon like a knife instead. I could also have condescendingly said something like, "Never take a Zippo to a knife fight!"
I trust that my friend has thought out his choice of weapon though and if that's what he wants to carry, that's fine. He would have to be a complete idiot to think that his Zippo is a better weapon than a knife, or that he could never face a bad guy who carried a knife, so I assume that he doesn't think that. Plus, I have to admit that a Zippo does have some advantages over a knife; it's smaller and easier to carry and conceal, it's not as expensive as a knife, it's more likely to be legal, it less likely to get disarmed, etc.
Of course, someone who carries a handgun could look at me and say I'm underprepared because I just carry a knife. They might have a point, but then somebody could look at them and say they're underprepared because they just carry a handgun. For instance: I was reading an article about a guy in a Militia movement and it talked about the weaponry the guy carries on a daily basis. A handgun is a pretty pathetic weapon compared to what that guy had (grenades, a canister containing a nerve agent, several huge guns and almost unlimited rounds)!
So anyways, we're in the Sword Discussion Forum "where all aspects of swords and sword fighting" can be discussed... so why not discuss them? I don't want to see every discussion of sword fighting (or knife fighting, or empty hand fighting, or Zippo fighting, or whatever) beaten down with the simple phrase: "It's crazy to talk about that stuff. Guns are better."
------------------
Cerulean
"The hairy-armed person who figured out how to put an edge on a suitable rock made it possible for us to be recognizably human in the first place." - J.K.M.
If a gun were always the better answer for home self defence, then I wouldn't object to always hearing it. But it ain't necesarily so.
Guns are not alway available legally. With kids around it may not be safest to have a loaded gun on the bedtable or anywhere easily deployable. A knife there is always loaded and ready to go and is safer. Firing off a gun in a drywall house can be dangerous. Bullets penetrate and have great range: that can be very hard to control. Blades don't have the ssame problem.
Blades can be more effective at close range, if you know what you're doing, but not necessarily in stopping power. You either have to be well trained, lucky or have a fairly big blade to be sure of stopping an excited or drugged up asailant immediately before he can deploy his weapon, if he has one. But unless it scares the assailant off, the blade works only at close range. You don't want to be at close range unlesss you have to.
A blade might be better than nothing or a bat even without training. But it could be worse if the blade is taken from you and used against you. Some form of training is, IMHO, absolutely essential, sso is bare hand self defence techniques.
I do think a gun is a more effective weapon, all things considered. I keep mine locked away in reserve because of my kids and our [Canadian] laws. I rely on my blades, and my alarm system, and my training and experience.
Guns are not alway available legally. With kids around it may not be safest to have a loaded gun on the bedtable or anywhere easily deployable. A knife there is always loaded and ready to go and is safer. Firing off a gun in a drywall house can be dangerous. Bullets penetrate and have great range: that can be very hard to control. Blades don't have the ssame problem.
Blades can be more effective at close range, if you know what you're doing, but not necessarily in stopping power. You either have to be well trained, lucky or have a fairly big blade to be sure of stopping an excited or drugged up asailant immediately before he can deploy his weapon, if he has one. But unless it scares the assailant off, the blade works only at close range. You don't want to be at close range unlesss you have to.
A blade might be better than nothing or a bat even without training. But it could be worse if the blade is taken from you and used against you. Some form of training is, IMHO, absolutely essential, sso is bare hand self defence techniques.
I do think a gun is a more effective weapon, all things considered. I keep mine locked away in reserve because of my kids and our [Canadian] laws. I rely on my blades, and my alarm system, and my training and experience.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 1999
- Messages
- 2,959
Okay, let me address the "easiest" points first.
Cerulean,
This is why communicating in print can be so difficult sometimes. The quotation marks were meant to signify that the phrases, "swords are better" and "just as good" were not used anywhere else, but only as examples placed by myself.
The attitude I am trying to change is a far more subtle one than what you're seeing. You may wonder why I spend so much time pounding the keys if it's such a subtle difference, but it is (I believe) an IMPORTANT difference.
(Please forgive me; I'm not trying to single anyone out when I use these quotes.)
Michael started this thread with the following comment;
"A sword could be an excellent home defense weapon if the user took the time to learn how best to use it."
This is exactly my point, the sword is not an excellent home defense weapon. It may be the best available to you, it may, with sufficient skill, be good enough, but excellent is not a word that can be applied.
To borrow from Crayola for a moment,
"At close ranges, (cops say within 21 feet I believe) blades are to be taken seriously. Ant it doesn't take much to get a bad dude with a blade; certainly it doesnt take years. Bury the blade into a bad guy to the hilt. Period. Not as hard as some want to make it sound."
It is absolutely correct that if you allow an opponent armed with a blade within the 21-foot (7 yard) circle around you, he can very possibly damage you before you can shoot him.
The problem is...
How BADLY can he damage you? He may inflict a mortal wound that will ensure your family collects the big check, but will you die of that wound before you can shoot and kill the BG?
Probably not!
Looking at this from the Blade Wielder's perspective, it doesn't matter if you "get" the other guy if he can still function long enough to shoot and kill you. Remember, the objective here is not to kill the other guy, the objective is to stay alive, and that is far more difficult to do! Damn, if we didn't care whether we lived or not, a kamikaze attack is almost guaranteed to work. You'll almost certainly kill the other guy if you're willing to sacrifice yourself. If you're not willing to die in the process though, things suddenly get much harder.
My primary goal in all these posts is to drive home just exactly how seriously disadvantaged you are if you choose to rely on a sword for self defense. You are not helpless, but you are at a severe disadvantage and if you realize this, you may find that you are able to modify your tactics and thought processes to the point where you can, as much as possible, minimize that disadvantage and have a realistic hope of walking away from a blade/firearm confrontation alive.
My secondary goal, is to convince you that if it is AT ALL POSSIBLE to own a firearm for Home Defense rather than a blade, then please do so!
IMHO, Some of the reasons for relying on a blade rather than a firearm are the result of some rather faulty logic.
Jason says,
Let me relate this to my situation. I don't own a gun, mostly because they're expensive and I don't have much money. Also because I couldn't get a carry permit where I live, and I don't expect a high probability that my apartment will be invaded, so my in-home risk is low. The best home-defense item I have is a sword. I have no training with it, and am not likely to get any. If I have to use it I'll probably end up in either batter's stance, or a tennis racket stance.
Jason, if expense is the main factor causing you to rely on a sword rather than a firearm, I have to worry a little bit about the quality of your choice of swords.
Consider these (approx) prices for a moment;
Firearms,
Taurus .38 special revolver 250.00
Russian Makarov 9mm Mak 125.00
Mossberg 500 12 guage 200.00
(used) S&W .44 magnum 375.00
Swords,
Oakeshott Xa from Angus Trim 400.00
Cut and Thrust Longsword from AT 420.00
Cold Steel Katana 749.99
Bugei Samurai model 995.00
For the price of the LEAST expensive sword in this list, you can have a .44 magnum and a box of ammo thrown in, but there are no swords that I know of in the 200 to 250 dollar price range that I would be willing to trust in a life or death situation.
HJK,
You live in Toronto. Being fairly familiar with Canadian Firearms Laws (particularly the laws of BC) I know that when you say your guns are locked up, that they are REALLY locked up and not readily accessible for self defense. I also know that some provinces do not recognize any legal use of a firearm for self defense. Sadly though, those same provinces will prosecute you just as energetically for using a sword, knife or any makeshift weapon just as readily as for using a gun. The laws are not directed only against the weapon, but the actual act of self defense itself. You have my very sincere sympathy in this situation and all I can say is that it is not up to me to say what is the right or wrong thing for you to do. Each man (or woman) must make their own choices about this very personal issue.
To wind up this massive ramble, let me quickly re-state, that swords CAN be used defensively, but they should never be the first choice. If necessity dictates that a sword must be your first choice, then get ALL the training you can possibly get, work very hard, and if that day should ever come when your skills will be tested in the gravest extreme, realize that you are in a nightmare situation.
Facing a gun with a sword means that you must perform on the level of a Master. Your performance must be swift and flawless, without hesitation or conscious thought.
Your opponent on the other hand, only needs a bit of luck to kill you.
Jason,
Im not blowing off your excellent question, but this is running much longer than I intended, Ill post again later to answer in detail.
------------------
Tráceme no sin la razón, envoltura mi no sin honor
Usual Suspect
MOLON LABE!
Cerulean,
This is why communicating in print can be so difficult sometimes. The quotation marks were meant to signify that the phrases, "swords are better" and "just as good" were not used anywhere else, but only as examples placed by myself.
The attitude I am trying to change is a far more subtle one than what you're seeing. You may wonder why I spend so much time pounding the keys if it's such a subtle difference, but it is (I believe) an IMPORTANT difference.
(Please forgive me; I'm not trying to single anyone out when I use these quotes.)
Michael started this thread with the following comment;
"A sword could be an excellent home defense weapon if the user took the time to learn how best to use it."
This is exactly my point, the sword is not an excellent home defense weapon. It may be the best available to you, it may, with sufficient skill, be good enough, but excellent is not a word that can be applied.
To borrow from Crayola for a moment,
"At close ranges, (cops say within 21 feet I believe) blades are to be taken seriously. Ant it doesn't take much to get a bad dude with a blade; certainly it doesnt take years. Bury the blade into a bad guy to the hilt. Period. Not as hard as some want to make it sound."
It is absolutely correct that if you allow an opponent armed with a blade within the 21-foot (7 yard) circle around you, he can very possibly damage you before you can shoot him.
The problem is...
How BADLY can he damage you? He may inflict a mortal wound that will ensure your family collects the big check, but will you die of that wound before you can shoot and kill the BG?
Probably not!
Looking at this from the Blade Wielder's perspective, it doesn't matter if you "get" the other guy if he can still function long enough to shoot and kill you. Remember, the objective here is not to kill the other guy, the objective is to stay alive, and that is far more difficult to do! Damn, if we didn't care whether we lived or not, a kamikaze attack is almost guaranteed to work. You'll almost certainly kill the other guy if you're willing to sacrifice yourself. If you're not willing to die in the process though, things suddenly get much harder.
My primary goal in all these posts is to drive home just exactly how seriously disadvantaged you are if you choose to rely on a sword for self defense. You are not helpless, but you are at a severe disadvantage and if you realize this, you may find that you are able to modify your tactics and thought processes to the point where you can, as much as possible, minimize that disadvantage and have a realistic hope of walking away from a blade/firearm confrontation alive.
My secondary goal, is to convince you that if it is AT ALL POSSIBLE to own a firearm for Home Defense rather than a blade, then please do so!
IMHO, Some of the reasons for relying on a blade rather than a firearm are the result of some rather faulty logic.
Jason says,
Let me relate this to my situation. I don't own a gun, mostly because they're expensive and I don't have much money. Also because I couldn't get a carry permit where I live, and I don't expect a high probability that my apartment will be invaded, so my in-home risk is low. The best home-defense item I have is a sword. I have no training with it, and am not likely to get any. If I have to use it I'll probably end up in either batter's stance, or a tennis racket stance.
Jason, if expense is the main factor causing you to rely on a sword rather than a firearm, I have to worry a little bit about the quality of your choice of swords.
Consider these (approx) prices for a moment;
Firearms,
Taurus .38 special revolver 250.00
Russian Makarov 9mm Mak 125.00
Mossberg 500 12 guage 200.00
(used) S&W .44 magnum 375.00
Swords,
Oakeshott Xa from Angus Trim 400.00
Cut and Thrust Longsword from AT 420.00
Cold Steel Katana 749.99
Bugei Samurai model 995.00
For the price of the LEAST expensive sword in this list, you can have a .44 magnum and a box of ammo thrown in, but there are no swords that I know of in the 200 to 250 dollar price range that I would be willing to trust in a life or death situation.
HJK,
You live in Toronto. Being fairly familiar with Canadian Firearms Laws (particularly the laws of BC) I know that when you say your guns are locked up, that they are REALLY locked up and not readily accessible for self defense. I also know that some provinces do not recognize any legal use of a firearm for self defense. Sadly though, those same provinces will prosecute you just as energetically for using a sword, knife or any makeshift weapon just as readily as for using a gun. The laws are not directed only against the weapon, but the actual act of self defense itself. You have my very sincere sympathy in this situation and all I can say is that it is not up to me to say what is the right or wrong thing for you to do. Each man (or woman) must make their own choices about this very personal issue.
To wind up this massive ramble, let me quickly re-state, that swords CAN be used defensively, but they should never be the first choice. If necessity dictates that a sword must be your first choice, then get ALL the training you can possibly get, work very hard, and if that day should ever come when your skills will be tested in the gravest extreme, realize that you are in a nightmare situation.
Facing a gun with a sword means that you must perform on the level of a Master. Your performance must be swift and flawless, without hesitation or conscious thought.
Your opponent on the other hand, only needs a bit of luck to kill you.
Jason,
Im not blowing off your excellent question, but this is running much longer than I intended, Ill post again later to answer in detail.
------------------
Tráceme no sin la razón, envoltura mi no sin honor
Usual Suspect
MOLON LABE!
- Joined
- Feb 19, 1999
- Messages
- 2,959
Okay Jason, let's see if I can give you a good answer in something less that a book sized post.
First, I honestly think that, given zero training with a sword, you're better off picking up the bat.
No sword technique is so complicated or mysterious that you can't swing one or cut anything without years of training, and I'm not trying to make it sound like it is either.
However, as I said in my previous post,Facing a gun with a sword means that you must perform on the level of a Master. Your performance must be swift and flawless, without hesitation or conscious thought.
Your opponent on the other hand, only needs a bit of luck to kill you. (I hate quoting myself!)
Without any training at all, the chances of performing to the required level are so slim that, IMHO, you're better off with the baseball bat. Every red blooded American Boy knows how to slam a line drive back to the wall and if you can execute this technique against your BG, substituting his nose for the ball, you've won! Fight's over, call the cops and have them take the garbage out.
Trying to do the same thing with a sword isn't as easy. Without trying to teach sword technique in a forum post (pretty much impossible) let me say that swinging a sword like a baseball bat is just about the best way to guarantee that you will NOT get a good cut. A perfect Home Run swing will give you an almost perfect "dead blow" cut. That is to say, a cut with no draw to it.
Why is this important?
Take one of your good knives you've got laying around, something with a pretty good edge on it, and press it against your skin. DO NOT draw the blade, just press it gently straight down against your skin. What happens? No cut!
Now you know as well as I do, that if your blade is extremely sharp, all it takes is a tiny fraction of an inch of draw to open you up but GOOD!
Well, so it is with blades, very few blades will cut well with a dead blow. Oh yeah, you can inflict fairly superficial cuts, and with some of the heavier blades, you can actually break bones, but remember, we're talking about a scenario where you must disable your attacker with ONE blow.
Do you still feel confident that you could do that?
Please remember Jason, I am NOT telling you you CAN'T learn to do ANY of this, I'm just telling you that it is NOT instinctive, and it is NOT intuitive, it must be learned from someone. I hope you can look around the SF area and find a good instructor to teach you the style that appeals to you most, and I encourage you to go looking for a teacher. I think you'll quickly learn to love it and I have a feeling you'll probably be GOOD at it too!
Let me know what styles you're interested in and I'll try to help you find something in the bay area.
------------------
Tráceme no sin la razón, envoltura mi no sin honor
Usual Suspect
MOLON LABE!
First, I honestly think that, given zero training with a sword, you're better off picking up the bat.
No sword technique is so complicated or mysterious that you can't swing one or cut anything without years of training, and I'm not trying to make it sound like it is either.
However, as I said in my previous post,Facing a gun with a sword means that you must perform on the level of a Master. Your performance must be swift and flawless, without hesitation or conscious thought.
Your opponent on the other hand, only needs a bit of luck to kill you. (I hate quoting myself!)
Without any training at all, the chances of performing to the required level are so slim that, IMHO, you're better off with the baseball bat. Every red blooded American Boy knows how to slam a line drive back to the wall and if you can execute this technique against your BG, substituting his nose for the ball, you've won! Fight's over, call the cops and have them take the garbage out.
Trying to do the same thing with a sword isn't as easy. Without trying to teach sword technique in a forum post (pretty much impossible) let me say that swinging a sword like a baseball bat is just about the best way to guarantee that you will NOT get a good cut. A perfect Home Run swing will give you an almost perfect "dead blow" cut. That is to say, a cut with no draw to it.
Why is this important?
Take one of your good knives you've got laying around, something with a pretty good edge on it, and press it against your skin. DO NOT draw the blade, just press it gently straight down against your skin. What happens? No cut!
Now you know as well as I do, that if your blade is extremely sharp, all it takes is a tiny fraction of an inch of draw to open you up but GOOD!
Well, so it is with blades, very few blades will cut well with a dead blow. Oh yeah, you can inflict fairly superficial cuts, and with some of the heavier blades, you can actually break bones, but remember, we're talking about a scenario where you must disable your attacker with ONE blow.
Do you still feel confident that you could do that?
Please remember Jason, I am NOT telling you you CAN'T learn to do ANY of this, I'm just telling you that it is NOT instinctive, and it is NOT intuitive, it must be learned from someone. I hope you can look around the SF area and find a good instructor to teach you the style that appeals to you most, and I encourage you to go looking for a teacher. I think you'll quickly learn to love it and I have a feeling you'll probably be GOOD at it too!
Let me know what styles you're interested in and I'll try to help you find something in the bay area.
------------------
Tráceme no sin la razón, envoltura mi no sin honor
Usual Suspect
MOLON LABE!
- Joined
- Apr 27, 1999
- Messages
- 6,117
Let's get back to simpler cases. Assume I want something near me if I hear "things that go bump in the night" and firearms are not a practical option. Do I use a sword?
My answer is probably not (and I'm awfully fond of swords). The primary reason is that they are pretty clumsy indoors and in the dark. In those Errol Flynn movies he is swinging his sword around in huge castle halls and accross the rooftops. In most houses I know you'd be hitting the walls and the ceiling if you started to swing. You'd be forced to explore with your sword drawn back underhand so that you could maneuver around corners and yet still get in a sudden thrust and/or lunge.
The implication is that you need a shorter sword or primarily a thrusting sword with a real sharp point. The real pointy thing that procedes you around the house is very dangerous when the noise happens to be the dog or a child. When you step around a corner and put the point in little junior's eye you'll wish you'd kissed a pig!
Now I have frequently taken knives with me to investigate noises. I like to take something more like a heavy chef's knife with a 10 inch razor sharp blade. I carry it in a reverse grip with the blade hidden behind my forearm. If I bump into my wife on her way back from the bathroom I don't even have to explain the big knife. I don't bump into junior. If Mr. Big Bad is around the corner I can close the distance before he knows that I'm armed. I can either throw it with a 1/2-turn underhand from 5 feet away or if I get up to him I could do a full cross-body disemboweling stroke. When the police arrive I've defended the family home with a kitchen knife and my explanations to the DA are much simpler.
If Mr. Big Bad is not so big and is unarmed I can reverse my knife grip and show him 10" of nasty looking knife. This will have very discouraging effects on him within the confines of a house. A 10" blade is much more the size I want in the house.
By the way--since none of our scenarios involves fighting sword-to-sword most fencing and sword fighting training is pretty irrelevant. My experience playing around with combination weapons makes me think that sparring with fighting knives would probably be better training for self-defense use of a sword than regular sword training.
You also have to consider the only moderate stopping power of a sword point. Anyone armed with a pistol would frequently get off a shot if thrust with a sword. You need a very drastic wound or a very effective arm cut to eliminate a pistol threat. Even blade-to-blade it is not trivial to stop a man. An author named Donald McBane wrote a book a few hundred years back called "A Fighting Gentleman's Companion" in which he recommended what he called the "Boar's Thrust" when an opponent needed to be dispatched. In this approach you grab your sword blade two-handed, your right on the handle and your left gripping 1/2-way up the blade. The blade is thrust up under the ribcage into the heart for a quick stop. This might work in the house, but watch out for Junior and Mom.
[This message has been edited by Jeff Clark (edited 06-12-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Jeff Clark (edited 06-12-2001).]
My answer is probably not (and I'm awfully fond of swords). The primary reason is that they are pretty clumsy indoors and in the dark. In those Errol Flynn movies he is swinging his sword around in huge castle halls and accross the rooftops. In most houses I know you'd be hitting the walls and the ceiling if you started to swing. You'd be forced to explore with your sword drawn back underhand so that you could maneuver around corners and yet still get in a sudden thrust and/or lunge.
The implication is that you need a shorter sword or primarily a thrusting sword with a real sharp point. The real pointy thing that procedes you around the house is very dangerous when the noise happens to be the dog or a child. When you step around a corner and put the point in little junior's eye you'll wish you'd kissed a pig!
Now I have frequently taken knives with me to investigate noises. I like to take something more like a heavy chef's knife with a 10 inch razor sharp blade. I carry it in a reverse grip with the blade hidden behind my forearm. If I bump into my wife on her way back from the bathroom I don't even have to explain the big knife. I don't bump into junior. If Mr. Big Bad is around the corner I can close the distance before he knows that I'm armed. I can either throw it with a 1/2-turn underhand from 5 feet away or if I get up to him I could do a full cross-body disemboweling stroke. When the police arrive I've defended the family home with a kitchen knife and my explanations to the DA are much simpler.
If Mr. Big Bad is not so big and is unarmed I can reverse my knife grip and show him 10" of nasty looking knife. This will have very discouraging effects on him within the confines of a house. A 10" blade is much more the size I want in the house.
By the way--since none of our scenarios involves fighting sword-to-sword most fencing and sword fighting training is pretty irrelevant. My experience playing around with combination weapons makes me think that sparring with fighting knives would probably be better training for self-defense use of a sword than regular sword training.
You also have to consider the only moderate stopping power of a sword point. Anyone armed with a pistol would frequently get off a shot if thrust with a sword. You need a very drastic wound or a very effective arm cut to eliminate a pistol threat. Even blade-to-blade it is not trivial to stop a man. An author named Donald McBane wrote a book a few hundred years back called "A Fighting Gentleman's Companion" in which he recommended what he called the "Boar's Thrust" when an opponent needed to be dispatched. In this approach you grab your sword blade two-handed, your right on the handle and your left gripping 1/2-way up the blade. The blade is thrust up under the ribcage into the heart for a quick stop. This might work in the house, but watch out for Junior and Mom.
[This message has been edited by Jeff Clark (edited 06-12-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Jeff Clark (edited 06-12-2001).]
- Joined
- Feb 11, 1999
- Messages
- 568
Ken,
I mostly agree with your comment on the skill level necessary. I don't think you necessarily need to be at "master" level (at least based upon my own criteria for a "master"), but you'd certainly have to be damned good! However, I think we're pretty much in agreement and that's not really what I wanted to debate anyway.
What I do not agree with is your assertion about using a baseball bat. They have certain qualities in common with a sword that I think make your assertion false. I know that you don't believe that the BG is going to let you walk right up to him just because you have a baseball bat instead of a sword or knife. Whether you're using a knife, sword or bat you still have to be skilled in footwork that will allow you to evade and close to your desired range intact. Also, you still have to be concerned about space whether you're swinging a bat or a sword. In fact, if we're talking short swords then you probably need more room for the bat and the sword has the advantage of being more effective for thrusting.
Respectfully,
Dave Fulton
- Joined
- Aug 1, 1999
- Messages
- 3,036
I probably shouldn't wade in here, but I've never been accused of being too smart I guess. I make swords and I keep an S&W 9mm full of Hydroshocks for home defence. I have had extensive firearm training, and can bring that gun into action in a second or two - in the dark. Once fired, night vision is gone and if there is a second perp on the premises I am at a significant disadvantage. My best hope is that he doesn't want to find out if I'm really night blind and will beat it out of there. That's my home defence and I can have pretty much any sword I want.
What is extremely important here is the caveat that I have had extensive firearm training and can bring the gun to battery in seconds. Most people can't. In fact the vast majority of people could not bring a child-safe gun into action, in the dark, in under a minute, if ever, especially if they don't practice in the dark.
The same caveat applies with a sword. Training makes a huge difference, but I think it is less of a difference. You don't have to remember the safety or if there is one in the chamber with a sword. Almost anyone can do significant, disabling if not terminal damage with a sword, easily. Swords are extraordinarily lethal weapons, and a short sword for home defence is a very viable alternative to a handgun in the hands of someone who lacks many hours at the range or in some area of armed conflict. The inexperienced handgunner (or shotgunner) is most likely to kill a family member. A sword in anyone's hands can easily amputate a body part unless the perp is similarly equipped and prepared to parry. Once an arm or head drops off, the perp is simply not going to remain a problem.
The fact is I think there are a number contributing here who are expressing opinions based on suppositions and maybe even some good books and tapes, rather than first hand experience with either class of weapons.
Both weapons are useful, as is proper training in their use.
My $0.02
------------------
Jerry Hossom
www.hossom.com
The Tom & Jerry Show
What is extremely important here is the caveat that I have had extensive firearm training and can bring the gun to battery in seconds. Most people can't. In fact the vast majority of people could not bring a child-safe gun into action, in the dark, in under a minute, if ever, especially if they don't practice in the dark.
The same caveat applies with a sword. Training makes a huge difference, but I think it is less of a difference. You don't have to remember the safety or if there is one in the chamber with a sword. Almost anyone can do significant, disabling if not terminal damage with a sword, easily. Swords are extraordinarily lethal weapons, and a short sword for home defence is a very viable alternative to a handgun in the hands of someone who lacks many hours at the range or in some area of armed conflict. The inexperienced handgunner (or shotgunner) is most likely to kill a family member. A sword in anyone's hands can easily amputate a body part unless the perp is similarly equipped and prepared to parry. Once an arm or head drops off, the perp is simply not going to remain a problem.
The fact is I think there are a number contributing here who are expressing opinions based on suppositions and maybe even some good books and tapes, rather than first hand experience with either class of weapons.
Both weapons are useful, as is proper training in their use.
My $0.02
------------------
Jerry Hossom
www.hossom.com
The Tom & Jerry Show
- Joined
- Feb 22, 1999
- Messages
- 3,357
That's why your "home defense sword" should be a short sword. I believe Miyamoto Musashi even mentions this in The Book of Five Spheres -- something to the effect of the short sword being the preferred weapon for fighting indoors.
-Razor
------------------
AKTI #A000845
-Razor
------------------
AKTI #A000845
- Joined
- Feb 19, 1999
- Messages
- 2,959
Dave,
We agree more than you think. When I wrote that "you must perfomr on the level of a Master" I was pretty much saying the same thing you are. Basically that you must be damned good. But in this situation, you need to make every effort to be better than you have been before. To be your best. Because if you're not...
Well, like the old saying goes, there's no 2nd place in a Gunfight.
I'm still going to take issue with you about the ball bat vs. sword thing.
I don't think we ever decided what KIND of sword was going to be used for self defense. There are a lot of options, and of course, MY position is to use whatever you're TRAINED with.
However, you mentioned short sword and so we'll go with that. Unfortunately, I've never had any serious training in the use of the Short Sword, but on the other hand, my Main Gauche that I use each week is for all intents and purposes, a short sword. At almost 3 inches wide and an 18" blade, it's a bit large for normal dagger status. I'm also very good with a machete, having learned a great deal from gentlemen in Central America who pick up their machetes right after they put their pants on, and don't set it down again until they take their pants off again that night.
So, even though a short sword wouldn't be my first choice, let's go with it for a little bit.
For slashing/hacking cuts, machetes are fairly interchangable with pretty much any other short sword. I can take a machete, and with a studied blow, slice cleanly through a 4, maybe 5 inche wide green hardwood sapling almost every time. If you know how to use a machete, you'll agree that this is not all that amazing. However, give that machete to a person who's never swung one in their life, and without any instruction, hand them the machete and tell them to cut through a 3" wide sapling. See how they do. My bet is, most people are not going to much more than thunk it an inch into the tree and stop.
Why? Well, probably a lot of reasons. They don't know and can't "feel" the sweet spot in the blade, they don't understand about what my current Swordsmaster calls the "Point of Initial Momentum" (basically, being able to use shoulder, elbow, and wrist in conjunction for maximum blade speed.) and lastly and most simply, they just don't have a "feel" for the blade. FWIW, and I'm not trying to bragg on myself here, but I've never met anyone who can get even half the cutting power out of a machete that I can. Oh I'm sure they're OUT there, but I've never met them.
I feel pretty confident that, in the home defense scenario we've been loosely describing throughout this thread, that with a machete, I could sever the gun hand of my attacker in one blow. Not TOTALLY confident, but pretty confident. Put the BG in a heavy leather jacket, let him flinch away as he sees the blow coming, and suddenly the effectiveness of my blow is a lot less than it should be. If the effectiveness of MY blow is lessened, how much less effective will the be the blow struck by a novice with no training or experience at all? How do we know the blow will even LAND, let alone do damage?
On the matter of thrusting with a short blade, let's review the scenario for a second.
1. It's dark.
2. fairly confined space.
3. BG MAY or MAY NOT have a gun. Because I like to deal with worst case scenarios, (plan for the worst, hope for the best.) I'm going to say the BG has a gun in his hand.
4. We're using a short sword. In honor of Jerry Hossom, (and because I lust after one of his Wakizashi swords!
) let's say we're using his wakizashi. If you don't like that particular style, substitute a Gladius or similar.
The first disadvantage of the thrust is that you must get still closer to the BG than with the slash. Rather than "de-fanging the snake" and striking at his extended arm, we are now stepping in close enough to deliver a thrust to the body. This translates to more time, and greater vulnerability during the time it takes to close. (Strike One)
The second disadvantage, is that I am not aware of ANY thrust to ANY part of the body that will instantly disable your opponent. Even the very interesting but risky sounding "Boar thrust" to the heart that Jeff Clark mentions, (Reference Donald McBane) would not give you an INSTANT stop.
Remember, the goal here is not to kill the BG, but to keep yourself and your loved ones alive. Given a hard and well placed thrust, it is still entirely possible that the BG may have plenty of time to register shock, pain, surprise, and fear of further injury that would drive him to place the muzzle of his gun against your body and fire. No skill or luck required, you're now badly shot at contact distance.
As Jeff Clark said so well, "You also have to consider the only moderate stopping power of a sword point. Anyone armed with a pistol would frequently get off a shot if thrust with a sword. You need a very drastic wound or a very effective arm cut to eliminate a pistol threat." I agree completely.
Jerry,
I'm glad you chose to "wade in here."
I'm also primarily a "shooter." Having been an Instructor in the Army and the Marine Corps,and additionally, an Armorer in the Corps, (and I won't go into the rest of my "gun quals")
The night vision problem is easily solved with a Surefire Light. I personally favor the Surefire 6Zulu backed up with tritium night sights on my carry pistol. (Kimber Ultra Elite .45acp) This combination allows me to fire almost as quickly and just as accurately as daytime fire. I'm with you all the way on your choice of home defense tools, and I'll "ditto" your caveat about training.
However...
(geez, I'll bet you guys get tired of hearing that.)
If I may quote you;
"Almost anyone can do significant, disabling if not terminal damage with a sword, easily."
Again, I absolutely agree with you, but the problem lies with exactly that! "Significant, disabling, and terminal damage" when facing a firearm is simply not enough! You must get an instantly disabling blow with your first strike. Doesn't matter if it's a killing blow, and it doesn't matter if the BG can dance a jig. The "disable" I speak of is that the BG Can not pull the trigger of his firearm!
Any blow that does not accomplish this task instantly is a mis-struck and ineffective blow, even if it kills the BG 20 seconds later, you'll have been shot at contact range 19 seconds before he dies.
The biggest difference between handgun and sword training, is that handgun training is MUCH easier to find. In any sizable town, you may find half a dozen suitable firearms instructors, NRA Certified and otherwise, who can teach you almost everything you need to know to be able to competently defend yourself with a handgun.
Swordmasters are much more difficult to come by, and I've been very fortunate to have found a couple in the past, and EXTREMELY fortunate to have one right here in Deepus Darkus Arkansas.
Jerry, if I can quote you one more time...
The fact is I think there are a number contributing here who are expressing opinions based on suppositions and maybe even some good books and tapes, rather than first hand experience with either class of weapons.
While I can't and wouldn't speak for anyone else, my opinions are based on real life, face time training. I've read a few books, mostly for entertainment, I don't really get much useful technical knowledge out of them, and I watched a couple videos one afternoon, but really didn't care for them much at all. I learn more in watching 5 minutes worth of dueling than I'll ever pick up from all the books and videos combined.
As to supposition, well of course there's a great deal of supposition involved. I've never had to face an armed attacker with a sword, hope I never do. But, I do feel that my "suppositions" are well founded and educated enough to be realistic, even if somewhat pessimistic. Why the pessimistic attitude?
Like I said, expect the worst, hope for the best. Murphy is alive and well, and no battle plan survives the first shot fired.
(and with that string of cliche's I'll end yet ANOTHER long ramble.
Whoops, almost forgot!
BTW, I agree Tom. There are some very specialized techniques for close quarters, but they're not for the beginner.
------------------
Tráceme no sin la razón, envoltura mi no sin honor
Usual Suspect
MOLON LABE!
We agree more than you think. When I wrote that "you must perfomr on the level of a Master" I was pretty much saying the same thing you are. Basically that you must be damned good. But in this situation, you need to make every effort to be better than you have been before. To be your best. Because if you're not...
Well, like the old saying goes, there's no 2nd place in a Gunfight.
I'm still going to take issue with you about the ball bat vs. sword thing.
I don't think we ever decided what KIND of sword was going to be used for self defense. There are a lot of options, and of course, MY position is to use whatever you're TRAINED with.
However, you mentioned short sword and so we'll go with that. Unfortunately, I've never had any serious training in the use of the Short Sword, but on the other hand, my Main Gauche that I use each week is for all intents and purposes, a short sword. At almost 3 inches wide and an 18" blade, it's a bit large for normal dagger status. I'm also very good with a machete, having learned a great deal from gentlemen in Central America who pick up their machetes right after they put their pants on, and don't set it down again until they take their pants off again that night.
So, even though a short sword wouldn't be my first choice, let's go with it for a little bit.
For slashing/hacking cuts, machetes are fairly interchangable with pretty much any other short sword. I can take a machete, and with a studied blow, slice cleanly through a 4, maybe 5 inche wide green hardwood sapling almost every time. If you know how to use a machete, you'll agree that this is not all that amazing. However, give that machete to a person who's never swung one in their life, and without any instruction, hand them the machete and tell them to cut through a 3" wide sapling. See how they do. My bet is, most people are not going to much more than thunk it an inch into the tree and stop.
Why? Well, probably a lot of reasons. They don't know and can't "feel" the sweet spot in the blade, they don't understand about what my current Swordsmaster calls the "Point of Initial Momentum" (basically, being able to use shoulder, elbow, and wrist in conjunction for maximum blade speed.) and lastly and most simply, they just don't have a "feel" for the blade. FWIW, and I'm not trying to bragg on myself here, but I've never met anyone who can get even half the cutting power out of a machete that I can. Oh I'm sure they're OUT there, but I've never met them.
I feel pretty confident that, in the home defense scenario we've been loosely describing throughout this thread, that with a machete, I could sever the gun hand of my attacker in one blow. Not TOTALLY confident, but pretty confident. Put the BG in a heavy leather jacket, let him flinch away as he sees the blow coming, and suddenly the effectiveness of my blow is a lot less than it should be. If the effectiveness of MY blow is lessened, how much less effective will the be the blow struck by a novice with no training or experience at all? How do we know the blow will even LAND, let alone do damage?
On the matter of thrusting with a short blade, let's review the scenario for a second.
1. It's dark.
2. fairly confined space.
3. BG MAY or MAY NOT have a gun. Because I like to deal with worst case scenarios, (plan for the worst, hope for the best.) I'm going to say the BG has a gun in his hand.
4. We're using a short sword. In honor of Jerry Hossom, (and because I lust after one of his Wakizashi swords!
The first disadvantage of the thrust is that you must get still closer to the BG than with the slash. Rather than "de-fanging the snake" and striking at his extended arm, we are now stepping in close enough to deliver a thrust to the body. This translates to more time, and greater vulnerability during the time it takes to close. (Strike One)
The second disadvantage, is that I am not aware of ANY thrust to ANY part of the body that will instantly disable your opponent. Even the very interesting but risky sounding "Boar thrust" to the heart that Jeff Clark mentions, (Reference Donald McBane) would not give you an INSTANT stop.
Remember, the goal here is not to kill the BG, but to keep yourself and your loved ones alive. Given a hard and well placed thrust, it is still entirely possible that the BG may have plenty of time to register shock, pain, surprise, and fear of further injury that would drive him to place the muzzle of his gun against your body and fire. No skill or luck required, you're now badly shot at contact distance.
As Jeff Clark said so well, "You also have to consider the only moderate stopping power of a sword point. Anyone armed with a pistol would frequently get off a shot if thrust with a sword. You need a very drastic wound or a very effective arm cut to eliminate a pistol threat." I agree completely.
Jerry,
I'm glad you chose to "wade in here."
The night vision problem is easily solved with a Surefire Light. I personally favor the Surefire 6Zulu backed up with tritium night sights on my carry pistol. (Kimber Ultra Elite .45acp) This combination allows me to fire almost as quickly and just as accurately as daytime fire. I'm with you all the way on your choice of home defense tools, and I'll "ditto" your caveat about training.
However...
If I may quote you;
"Almost anyone can do significant, disabling if not terminal damage with a sword, easily."
Again, I absolutely agree with you, but the problem lies with exactly that! "Significant, disabling, and terminal damage" when facing a firearm is simply not enough! You must get an instantly disabling blow with your first strike. Doesn't matter if it's a killing blow, and it doesn't matter if the BG can dance a jig. The "disable" I speak of is that the BG Can not pull the trigger of his firearm!
Any blow that does not accomplish this task instantly is a mis-struck and ineffective blow, even if it kills the BG 20 seconds later, you'll have been shot at contact range 19 seconds before he dies.
The biggest difference between handgun and sword training, is that handgun training is MUCH easier to find. In any sizable town, you may find half a dozen suitable firearms instructors, NRA Certified and otherwise, who can teach you almost everything you need to know to be able to competently defend yourself with a handgun.
Swordmasters are much more difficult to come by, and I've been very fortunate to have found a couple in the past, and EXTREMELY fortunate to have one right here in Deepus Darkus Arkansas.
Jerry, if I can quote you one more time...
The fact is I think there are a number contributing here who are expressing opinions based on suppositions and maybe even some good books and tapes, rather than first hand experience with either class of weapons.
While I can't and wouldn't speak for anyone else, my opinions are based on real life, face time training. I've read a few books, mostly for entertainment, I don't really get much useful technical knowledge out of them, and I watched a couple videos one afternoon, but really didn't care for them much at all. I learn more in watching 5 minutes worth of dueling than I'll ever pick up from all the books and videos combined.
As to supposition, well of course there's a great deal of supposition involved. I've never had to face an armed attacker with a sword, hope I never do. But, I do feel that my "suppositions" are well founded and educated enough to be realistic, even if somewhat pessimistic. Why the pessimistic attitude?
Like I said, expect the worst, hope for the best. Murphy is alive and well, and no battle plan survives the first shot fired.
(and with that string of cliche's I'll end yet ANOTHER long ramble.
Whoops, almost forgot!
BTW, I agree Tom. There are some very specialized techniques for close quarters, but they're not for the beginner.
------------------
Tráceme no sin la razón, envoltura mi no sin honor
Usual Suspect
MOLON LABE!
- Joined
- Aug 1, 1999
- Messages
- 3,036
You might want to think about what happens if the BG is not in your sights when you turn on that Surefire. I have a Surefire M6, and it is not going on until I know what's in my sights and that I'm NOT in his. Once on, those tritium sights are just 3 more spots of the dozen or more dancing in front of your eyes.
The supposition may have to do with the effectiveness of a sword stroke against flesh and bone. Devastating wounds are the only kind available, for the most part. Further, in the dark there is no signature in a sword attack. Except for sound it is virtually invisible, and the sound may well be that of your gun hitting the floor, hand attached.
The fact is, the most fundamental assumption or supposition here is that everyone is equally comfortable and proficient with your weapon of choice. That just isn't so. Better someone attack confidently with a sword, than die helplessly with the safety still on and their trigger finger frozen on the trigger of their gun. There is the other assumption that a gunshot wound is immediately disabling, and that the BG is not going to fire back at the muzzle flash. The instances of return fire killing first are legion.
Remember, I'd use a handgun, but it is not a sure bet no matter what you choose, and I have considered often if my first choice is really my best. The only thing that is certain is that this is all a matter of opinion anyway.
------------------
Jerry Hossom
www.hossom.com
The Tom & Jerry Show
The supposition may have to do with the effectiveness of a sword stroke against flesh and bone. Devastating wounds are the only kind available, for the most part. Further, in the dark there is no signature in a sword attack. Except for sound it is virtually invisible, and the sound may well be that of your gun hitting the floor, hand attached.
The fact is, the most fundamental assumption or supposition here is that everyone is equally comfortable and proficient with your weapon of choice. That just isn't so. Better someone attack confidently with a sword, than die helplessly with the safety still on and their trigger finger frozen on the trigger of their gun. There is the other assumption that a gunshot wound is immediately disabling, and that the BG is not going to fire back at the muzzle flash. The instances of return fire killing first are legion.
Remember, I'd use a handgun, but it is not a sure bet no matter what you choose, and I have considered often if my first choice is really my best. The only thing that is certain is that this is all a matter of opinion anyway.
------------------
Jerry Hossom
www.hossom.com
The Tom & Jerry Show
- Joined
- Feb 19, 1999
- Messages
- 2,959
Jerry,
Without veering completely off topic, I count on ambient light and night vision. (Having just been awakened in the middle of the night, my eyes should be at optimal night vision.) Ambient light FINDS the target, and then I have the option, depending on how MUCH ambient light there is, of shooting without the surefire light, or, if dark enough that I cannot ID the target well enough, the light can be raised and flashed on the suspected intruder with the sights of the pistol already lined up. With the momentary disorientation of the extremely bright light, I feel that I can bring accurate fire on the target sufficient to STOP the intruder on the spot. No, one shot isn't always incapacitating, but that's why I don't use a T/C Contender!
The other great advantage of the 6Z and the "Zulu" technique is the momentary ON switch, allowing you to "paint" your target, fire, douse the light and move QUICKLY to another location.
Back on topic...
I agree with you when you say " Better someone attack confidently with a sword, than die helplessly with the safety still on and their trigger finger frozen on the trigger of their gun." but what concerns me so greatly, is the idea that for most people, (those who have not had the opportunity to receive any sort of training.) that confidence is most probably a FALSE confidence.
As I said earlier, it's much easier to get Firearms training than it is to get Sword training. Most often, if you can get anything at all, it will be Classical Fencing Instruction, and I personally consider that completely useless for a Home Defense scenario.
It astounds me that so many people (speaking in general, not to you or anyone else in specifics.) think that all one needs to do is buy a sword and you've got a good defensive weapon. It just doesn't work that way. Not with a sword, gun, knife, nunchaku, or anything else. Specialized tools require specialized training.
IF someone can't get the training, I can't in good conscience tell them to use that particular tool. No way.
If they CAN get the training, then all the better, but I'll still recommend that they make every effort to obtain the most effective weapon they can. In the case of Home Defense, I believe the most effective weapon is a firearm. If that is impossible, (as opposed to difficult) and swords and sword training are available, then I say GO for it!
The greatest advantage of a firearm over a sword is that you need not get anywhere near as close.
In defense, distance is life! All the "tactical SWAT guy" stuff aside, it is impossible to safely "clear" a house single handedly, and the BEST tactic is to fall back to a safe position and wait for the BG to expose himself to you, rather than to go looking for him. This way, you pick a point where you have the advantage. You can fire from cover, and you (hopefully) can prevent the BG from getting close enough to you to be too effective against you. This is not possible with a sword. You have to let him get close whether you go looking for him, or stay in one place and wait for him, which may not be a good plan at all. That largely depends on your home's floorplan.
------------------
Tráceme no sin la razón, envoltura mi no sin honor
Usual Suspect
MOLON LABE!
Without veering completely off topic, I count on ambient light and night vision. (Having just been awakened in the middle of the night, my eyes should be at optimal night vision.) Ambient light FINDS the target, and then I have the option, depending on how MUCH ambient light there is, of shooting without the surefire light, or, if dark enough that I cannot ID the target well enough, the light can be raised and flashed on the suspected intruder with the sights of the pistol already lined up. With the momentary disorientation of the extremely bright light, I feel that I can bring accurate fire on the target sufficient to STOP the intruder on the spot. No, one shot isn't always incapacitating, but that's why I don't use a T/C Contender!
The other great advantage of the 6Z and the "Zulu" technique is the momentary ON switch, allowing you to "paint" your target, fire, douse the light and move QUICKLY to another location.
Back on topic...
I agree with you when you say " Better someone attack confidently with a sword, than die helplessly with the safety still on and their trigger finger frozen on the trigger of their gun." but what concerns me so greatly, is the idea that for most people, (those who have not had the opportunity to receive any sort of training.) that confidence is most probably a FALSE confidence.
As I said earlier, it's much easier to get Firearms training than it is to get Sword training. Most often, if you can get anything at all, it will be Classical Fencing Instruction, and I personally consider that completely useless for a Home Defense scenario.
It astounds me that so many people (speaking in general, not to you or anyone else in specifics.) think that all one needs to do is buy a sword and you've got a good defensive weapon. It just doesn't work that way. Not with a sword, gun, knife, nunchaku, or anything else. Specialized tools require specialized training.
IF someone can't get the training, I can't in good conscience tell them to use that particular tool. No way.
If they CAN get the training, then all the better, but I'll still recommend that they make every effort to obtain the most effective weapon they can. In the case of Home Defense, I believe the most effective weapon is a firearm. If that is impossible, (as opposed to difficult) and swords and sword training are available, then I say GO for it!
The greatest advantage of a firearm over a sword is that you need not get anywhere near as close.
In defense, distance is life! All the "tactical SWAT guy" stuff aside, it is impossible to safely "clear" a house single handedly, and the BEST tactic is to fall back to a safe position and wait for the BG to expose himself to you, rather than to go looking for him. This way, you pick a point where you have the advantage. You can fire from cover, and you (hopefully) can prevent the BG from getting close enough to you to be too effective against you. This is not possible with a sword. You have to let him get close whether you go looking for him, or stay in one place and wait for him, which may not be a good plan at all. That largely depends on your home's floorplan.
------------------
Tráceme no sin la razón, envoltura mi no sin honor
Usual Suspect
MOLON LABE!