Dog Brothers Public Forum

I hope some people don't think that if I had remembered it was there I would have pulled it.

That certainly wasn't what I was implying, or trying to imply!

Now I would like to ask..If you don't feel it when you get stabbed why is it that we or someone of us carry a knife?

This is actually the reason I started this thread in June of last year.  My reason #4 for not considering a knife a good SELF-DEFENSE weapon was "lack of impact/feeling".  I personally think a knife will do extreme damage, but with nearly no fight stopping affect...unless you stab your opponent in the eye, kill them, or sever some tendon/ligament that stops their ability to move a certain body part.  I'd much prefer a hard impact weapon that will break bone, but not necessarily kill or disfigure a person unintentionally.  I'd even prefer a very bright flashlight at night. 

Granted a light or impact weapon wouldn't be as useful on the ground...  But again in that situation, as with vs. a gun threat, I'd rather have both hands free.

Maxx, you were beating this guy from the mount, and he was still able to get out a pen and stab you in the leg.  Consider the reverse:  What if you (or any person) had been mounted by an attacker and were getting beaten (or much worse, stabbed!).  Would it be better to use BJJ skills to control your opponent's body/hands, or to pull a knife and start stabbing?  I submit that using empty hand skills would be far better from a self-defense perspective.

Peregrine,

Yes.  I taught private classes and a few small groups full time for nearly 10 years, until Katrina, and part time for years before that.  I never had less than 20 hours of training a week.  Unfortunately, now I only practice alone a couple of hours a week, occasionally practicing with my wife and a "student" here in Vienna.  I'm hoping to increase practice again, but now that I'm not doing it for a living it's more difficult.  It's also difficult not being in any one place for more than 6 months...and here and there at that.  My additional problem is that the schools here either focus on MMA or traditional styles.  I don't have anything against either, but I always trained/taught with a self-defense emphasis...similar to JKDU from what I understand.  I'm on the verge of having a couple of regular guys here though, so that will be good.  Why do you ask?

Karsk: Interesting observations/connections you're considering. 

GM: I think you're likely to be right regarding the prison, but possibly people who are split up will be a bit less brazen. 

I've become more and more pessimistic over my years.  I think people have equal potential for violence and kindness, especially males.  Just take a look at history.  There are places in time where things are nice, but they never stay that way it seems.  Many people from cultures such as in the US think that "morals" or "right and wrong" are innate.  I disagree.  I think they're learned.  Look at the relatively recent practice of head hunting by tribes in Borneo.  These people would chop the heads off neighboring tribes for nearly every event.  A male had to present a head when he was married, for celebrations, etc.  I was told one method they used was to light fire to a neighboring longhouses and chop the heads off of the people running out...men, women, and children.  Obviously, these people used to not have the same sense of "right and wrong" that we do in the West.  Think about the Holocaust.  Most people can be lead to do anything, through ideology or even misinformation...Iraq.

In general, I find people to be a pretty rotten bunch.  Most don't think about what they've been brought up to believe; they don't REALLY question their beliefs and the validity of them.  Think of the concept of "faith" that pervades many cultures, including ours...a "belief" that must be held even if contrary evidence is introduced.  Anything that goes against the "faith" must be ignored or ridiculed, but never truly considered.  No doubt "tribes" will continue to kill each other over beliefs, struggle for resources, etc.  AND, I guess as Karsk points out, even neighbors can be considered mini-tribes. 

I agree that the mingling of tribes can help the different members to see their similarity, but also their differences.  And inevitably, even in a group of similar people, differences will emerge and new groups will be formed.  In the end, I come back to the fact that people are not only friendly, but also violent...ignorant, and violent...a bad combination. 

So, do you get involved or not?  Is getting involved really going to change the big picture if people are going to kill each other anyway?  Or is it worth it for certain particular situations?  I still feel that helping others without risking your life is "right".  Maybe that's just the way I was raised.

GM: Very good points.  I agree.

JDN: The Austrian police are very efficient.  However, the woman was screaming.  In a situation in which I feel there is a VERY small chance of me being injured, I would not allow a man to beat a woman if I can help it.  I'm not saying I would have gone in and beat the man.  But, his back door was open and he was in the back room.  At least going into his yard and making him aware that I was there might stop him.  If not, then I'd have to go from there.

Yes, generally I would only get involved if I felt my risks were minimal.  My family is more important than a neighbor or stranger, so I'm not going to risk my life for someone less important to me.  I was once in a hill tribe market in North Vietnam where a man was brutally beating a woman in front of a crowd.  Although I hated to see it, I wasn't going to risk my life or risk going to jail there.

Regarding my in-laws...they SAID that they would not allow the man to beat his wife, yet they not only didn't look to see what was going on when they heard her yelling, but also didn't call the police.  I think this happens many times...people THINK something shouldn't happen, yet they do nothing about it.  My point in bringing them up was not that they're bad people, but that no one else is going to act if you don't.

Regarding the "sex slave" issue: I have met the couple.  I'm not sure why you assumed I hadn't.  I'm married to a foreigner, so obviously I have no problem with that, or language barriers.  It's the particular couple; not language or economics specifically.  I don't think the woman is actually a slave against her will, but I think the man picked up the woman in Thailand without knowing her, to marry her for her "services", home services and sexual.  I base that on my and my in-laws knowledge and observation of this couple.  There's also something wrong with you if you go to Thailand not knowing anyone there, and then come back with a wife two weeks later who you share no common language with...at least to me there is.  You can't know someone who you cannot speak to, in two weeks time, at least not NEARLY enough to know you want to be with them for the rest of your life.  Either you're very immature, or you have other intentions.  (Not you JDN; I mean in general.)  With this understanding I thought the man COULD be abusing the woman, and that the situation COULD be serious.  Without confronting them I wouldn't have known.

Peregrine,

That's another horrible story you referenced, and in such a case I don't think I'd risk getting involved.  I've got my own family, and I'm not going to attack someone who has a gun and risk being killed or put in prison myself.  I do think it's important to consider what you might be getting involved in before getting involved.  In the case I brought up here in Vienna, my risk would have been minimal. 

I agree with your point that if we do not do something when faced with such a situation, how can our community improve. 

Looking back, I know there were times I intervened in situations where it probably was a bad idea.  Fortunately things turned out for the best.  The problem I have with calling the police though, is that they often don't arrive in time.  Additionally, in New Orleans I've called on a situation down the block and had police come straight to my door first...without me giving them my address.  From that point on I always called from a cell, hoping that would stop them from seeing my address.  Anyway, this thread is great food for thought.

Jonobos, did you read Grizzly's post?

As I mentioned, I think NOT getting involved may very well be the best thing to do for your own safety.  Maybe avoiding trouble is a good practice for "self preservation".  On the other hand, I'm not advocating not getting involved.  I think that in most situations, morally, it's best to help when you can.

I agree...it's a much better title Crafty came up with...

Peregrine,

I do not equate being prepared with being unhappy or unfulfilled at all.  I consider myself prepared, yet also happy and fulfilled.  I also don't necessarily equate carrying a weapon with being "unhappy" or "unfulfilled".  At this point in my life I generally do not carry a weapon...nearly never when I'm outside of the US.  But when I did carry in the past I was certainly still happy, etc.  There will certainly be times when I carry again, and I'm sure I'll be happy then too.

However, I do feel "better" not carrying a weapon.  Having a weapon does suggest the possibility of having to use it, and you do need to be aware of your weapon.  My decision to stop carrying coincided with the aftermath of Katrina when New Orleans became a very safe place for a short period.  Although this period was terrible due to the physical situation in the city, it was also nice as we spent evening after evening out on the street talking to the few people who were back in the first few months.  I started carrying again as the crime worsened.  You may be right to some degree...it is possible that my association with carrying a weapon and "discomfort" is related to those circumstances...the fact that whenever I carried I did so because there was a significant chance of being involved in some crime.  When alone, this was not nearly as uncomfortable as when I was with my wife.

You ask, regarding my feeling about weapons/preparedness: "Is it because you chose to carry a firearm based on your fear of your previous experience?"  (I deleted the comments in the first post because I thought they related too much to the knife thread, and were a bit long for someone coming to this thread straight away.)  I had many, many "experiences" with crime in New Orleans.  I wouldn't say that I personally "feared" it, but the more I traveled to very safe places, the more I liked not having to be prepared in the way I was in N.O., 24/7.  In the time I lived there, there were 2 shootings directly in front of my last house, 1 in front of another I lived in.  My wife and I would hear gunshots probably every other night, whenever we didn't have the AC on.  We'd hear automatic weapon fire probably once a month.  Often you could guess who won and who lost.  We had bullet holes in our roof on two occasions, we found shotgun shells in our backyard, there were several fights in front of our house, shootings down the street, a brothel two blocks away for a while, etc., etc...not to mention the bank robbery I wrote about and other family members being attacked...my sister was forced naked and robbed at gunpoint in her apartment, my mom was beaten and carjacked, etc.  I could go on and on.  My wife and I were prepared.  I carried weapons; I had several stashed around the house; we had motion sensor lights, a motion activated camera, burglar bars, an alarm, and a dog.  I wouldn't say I was in "fear", exactly because I was prepared.  I was also happy.  But, I must say that the crime and being prepared to prevent/deal with it put a filter in front of all else. 

I hadn't thought about it that much to be honest with you.  Like I said, I definitely don't associate being prepared with being unhappy, but there is a connection for me between carrying a weapon and being in an unsafe environment.  Possibly that is why I feel "nicer" not carrying a weapon.  I know this is hypothetical since everyone can't get up and move...but doesn't carrying a weapon suggest the possibility of attack?  Would you not feel better living in a place where the odds are extraordinarily high that you will never be attacked?  I certainly do...not even so much for myself but for my family.

Other points:  I'm not sure what you mean by "meat eaters" carrying.  I only know two vegetarians...most meat eaters I know do not carry.

I don't know how many people I've trained who were "on the ground", but there were several.  I carried more than anyone I taught, and the military guys with the exception of two who were cops, didn't carry. 

Finally, I didn't mean to suggest that you are not happy or fulfilled...but that you might feel a bit better if you didn't carry, or better put, if you didn't NEED to carry.

David

The chances of facing a serious assault are extremely low if you avoid doing stupid things with stupid people in stupid places, as Crafty has stated previously.  I very much agree with Tony about the rarity of "truly spontaneous crime".  Basic awareness and maintaining a safe distance will also take care of a great deal.  Additionally, I feel that de-escalating situations, or not allowing them to escalate in the first place, with kindness, goes a long way.  At least for a man, I largely disagree with yelling "get away", "back off", etc.  Many aggressive people will see this as an opportunity to escalate the situation...seeing that you are also somewhat aggressive.  I think this ties in to Tony saying:

Funny thing is that these people because of their paranoia tend to attract the very things they claim to be trying to avoid.

In my experience, trusting your senses (being naturally aware and open to your instincts) while at the same time having a relaxed and friendly attitude, will deflect many potentially aggressive situations.  I've also met my share of "out of balance people", and I do agree that their attitude helps to attract trouble.

I lead a relaxed and happy life by not obsessing about being attacked, imagining that I might walk into a mall shooting, a terrorist attack, etc.  If I do find myself in such a situation, the best bet is to escape anyway.  If I can't escape, the secondary benefit of my training will kick in.  The primary benefit is health and enjoyment.

Maija, from what I've read about Maestro Sonny Umpad, he sounds like a relaxed and nice guy.  I think that's very important in training and I agree with you that the way you train can/will have a large effect on your life.  I came in contact with hundreds of people when I was teaching full time, from all different walks of life and previous training experience.  I had the "kung fu types" (no disrespect to "kung fu") with the long hair and Chinese outfits, to the camo wearing terrorist fighter types, and everything in between.  The funny thing to me about the later is that they were always so much more gung ho than the real military people I taught.  I've taught a number of guys from various branches of the military, and not a single one of them carried a weapon or obsessed about being attacked, etc.  It was always the civilians or private contractors who were completely over the top.  Especially when you train with weapons, I think it's very important to have a training environment that's not too serious. 

Peregrine:  No disrespect here...but it is also my right to carry a fire extinguisher, first aid kit, etc., yet I don't do so.  Probably, you're more likely to need a first aid kit or fire extinguisher than 3 knives.  I can't see how it's your "duty" to your family to carry weapons, but not a first aid kit, fire extinguisher, rope, etc.  I also know the impact of criminal elements being around as a child, and I don't feel they're good...good meaning that they're more likely to lead a person toward happiness.  I wonder how much NICER it would be for you and your family if you didn't have a "fixed knife deployable in it's target in less than a second".  (I used to carry a gun, knife, baton, and pepper spray, so I know where you may be coming from.  I feel far better now carrying no weapons.  Maybe you would too.  Maybe not.)

David

Maija: Our favorite place to travel is S.E. Asia, and it was there that I was speaking of.  My wife has a photography website that currently has pictures from trips to Vietnam and Laos.  We're going to add pictures from Malaysia in the next couple of days.  You might enjoy them.

One of my favorite photos is of Ama Kong.  Hopefully he's still around...a famous tribal leader known for catching elephants to be domesticated near the border with Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.

Crafty: I'll take a stab at the "relaxed vs. prepared" thread.

David

Maija,

Text is often a bad medium for discussion...  I agree with everything you wrote.  Most certainly "the person with the better ability and will to close gains a much bigger advantage, regardless of weapon", and of course I agree with you that controlling the weapon hand is not easy to pull off. 

I'm not actually thinking of any scenario.  I'm asking in general what you and anyone else might think of other weapons being better suited for self defense, based on what I see as 4 primary downsides of the knife relative to other possibilities:

1.  Justifiable use
2.  RELATIVE lack of ability to injure to degree
3.  Range requirements
4.  Lack of impact/feeling

Just a couple of clarifications...  I do not think the blade is ONLY good for lethal use.  However, a blunt object is easier to use to injure to degree.  There is less chance of accidental death with a blunt object than with a blade. 

A blade CAN have psychological effects, but so too can alternative weapons.  Again, I'm not thinking of any particular scenario.  What I am thinking about and looking to discuss if anyone would like to, is if other weapons MAY be better suited for self defense.

Regarding someone who is crazy/drunk/high coming at you: I don't know you  , what you look like, your size, etc.  Having lived in New Orleans most of my life, in the French Quarter for years, I've seen my share of crazy/drunk/high people.  Many of them are only a threat when "drugged", and not people I would want to kill on purpose or by accident if attacked by them.  I feel comfortable just going on defense, clinching and choking, striking, even beating with a baton.  I would NOT feel comfortable cutting one of these people up with a knife.  (Not saying you would either!) 

I know there's a lot of talk around here and/or on related forums about terrorists, bad guys, etc.  But honestly, how many of us are EVER going to run into a terrorist attack in progress?  How many of us are ever going to have to pull any weapon to defend ourselves if we're not, as Crafty said "in stupid places with stupid people doing stupid things"?  I've seen my share of crime.  I've had multiple shootings directly in front of my previous houses, been in a small bank with four guys who came in and shot at a teller, stopped a number of violent encounters I've happened upon, etc., etc.  However, I've never been in a situation where the use of a knife was justified or practical.  In all the situations I've been in I've never pulled a weapon, and doing so would have likely only made the situation worse.  Maybe some of you have other experiences.  Based on my experiences though, I see other weapons as being better suited for self-defense.  In situations where I'd need a truly deadly weapon, I'd prefer a gun.  In situations where I don't need deadly force I'd prefer a blunt object.  I see the knife as a great offensive weapon, but not the best defensive weapon, given the alternatives.

David

The point I was originally trying to discuss was whether other weapons were "better" than a knife for self defense...not that a knife is not effective in any case.

Maija: I completely agree that when confronted with a knife, running, a much longer knife (machete), a longer impact weapon, or even a handful of rocks would be better than empty hands.  All of these options give you distance.  That's what I want against the knife.

And, as I said previously, in all honesty I probably would rather go knife vs. knife than empty hand vs. knife.  The problem I have with knife vs. knife is that I'll likely need to get in close to avoid a cutting contest.  In close range against a knife, if I'm using a knife myself, I won't have quite as much ability to control the opponent's weapon bearing limb as I would had I no knife.  Without complete control of the opponent's weapon/limb at close range, I figure it's a bit more likely you'll get cut up.  (I'm not saying complete control would be easy with no weapon...just that it's even harder with one.)  Do you see what I'm saying?  I will concede that against a very skillful opponent with a knife, it would be better to also have a knife.

Michael: In some ways I agree that a knife is more dangerous than a gun at close range.  The problem I have with a knife though is that it often doesn't kill/knock out instantly.  Against a gun I'd rather have both hands free for a quick strip if the situation permits, or a strong control combined with techniques that I feel have a greater chance of making the attacker unconscious, quicker.  I feel that accessing a knife takes time and focus that would be better spent dealing immediately with the threat. 

I've just written a post on my blog regarding the use of a knife for self defense in response to a thread on FMATalk, and my preference for blunt weapons instead.  Since you guys are very realistic minded I'd like to get your perspective.  Rather than re-write the reasons, the post is here: Knife for Self Defense

My preference, as mentioned, is an expandable baton.  Do any of you carry unconventional self defense weapons that can function as a stick where expandable batons are illegal?  I've noticed the self defense umbrella on the DB site.  Have any of you practiced with that?  I'm pretty sure carrying a knife or an expandable baton is illegal in CA.

David

Great thread!  I'm grateful to have been born in a free and prosperous country with many paths to happiness, for my wife, dog, family, and to live in a safe environment.

Expanding on the quote Hawke provided, I wish everyone would do a little bit for those that are less fortunate than we are.  There are such a great number of people born without the freedoms most of us had/have, with no or bad education, no rights, limited food sources, etc.  The people in Myanmar are having a horrible time now, and I hope more people will come to their aid.  Helping others makes the world a better place, and makes you feel good, even if they never know who you are.

David

Living in New Orleans I not only know a number of people who have been "sucker punched", but also one who was stabbed by a stranger walking by...not even robbed, just a stab and run by a total stranger.  It's very difficult in populated places such as the French Quarter to keep your distance from people, but I don't know of anyone who was attacked in such an environment without an extended verbal exchange first. 

My strategy has always been to avoid verbal exchanges, to keep going, and to keep my distance when approached by someone.  Even in a crowd, when someone asks you for a dollar, the time, etc., just keep on walking, or start walking.  If you're followed, maintain the distance.  If you can't maintain the distance, then it's time to act.  I used to tell my students, when you're threatened and cannot escape, it's time to attack.  No well meaning person is going to keep pressing you if you've tried to moved away and voiced your intention.  If someone does press you further, something is wrong.  Of course I'm not advocating nailing someone for asking you what time it is.  But you can move away, tell the person you don't have the time/money/whatever, and use your hands/arms as a barrier with great preparedness if he continues to approach, all the while being non-threatening...not provoking a fight.  With training, you better be able to pick up the signs/body mechanics that someone is about to launch into an attack from a few feet away.  You could clearly see them in the first video.  The attacker even cocked back. 

I can't imagine many, if any, scenarios that just keeping your distance and avoiding people you don't know won't solve.  Do you guys really think it's more complicated than that?  Maybe I'm taking too much for granted, but I'm not going to let someone get close enough to hit me without having time to react unless I'm in a crowd.  Common courtesy dictates that you don't walk past someone with no space when no one else is around.  YOU can maintain the distance.  And if you're in a crowd and someone hits you...well there's no amount of training that's going to prevent that...aside from ninja like super consciousness!

I guess I do have a video with one potential solution, but it might not bode so well in court: http://www.hertao.com/abouthertao.html (video at the bottom of the page).

David

Hello,

I've posted a new video explaining sombrada and its application, primarily with material I had originally made to send Crafty in 2002.  I thought you guys might be interested.  The video is here:

http://www.hertao.com/filipinomartialarts/sombrada.html

...and the blog post here:

http://www.hertao.com/blog/2008/05/sombrada-explained/

I hope to add much more to the site in the coming weeks and would appreciate any comments and/or suggestions,

David

Groundhog,

I practiced Kendo for a couple of years in college with a Japanese exchange student who had his first or second dan.  He wasn't an instructor otherwise, but as far as he related them to me, the rules and allowable techniques were fairly simple to learn.  I was teaching an empty hand system at the time, and did get something out of the Kendo training other than having a good time.  

For me, training with a "long" weapon made the outter ranges that the Dog Brothers talk about, "before contact" and "weapon contact" much more apparent.  It is a lot of fun, but I wouldn't look to it for self-defense training unless you've already got a solid base in empty hands.  

David

Dog Russ,

I'm sure the bravery or confidence issue plays a significant part.  

My question regarding empty hands in relation to single vs. double stick, was, can the same concepts be applied in single and double stick fighting?  How much more difficult, if at all, is it to apply these concepts to double stick?  And, does an empty hand fight resemble a double stick match more than a single stick match?  If empty hands is closer to double than single stick ()  what implications does that have?  

I only have a few minutes left now, and this is a bit hard for me to put into words, but I'll try.  Take a drill like hubud...when the number one angle comes in, you stop, pass, press, and return.  I'm aware that this is just a training method, and that you could easily strike as you stop, pass, or press, enter, or do any other number of things.

If the "attacker" is trying to hit you with the butt of his stick, and if he is concentrated on his stick, maybe you could actually stop, then pass to put him in a worse position, then attack.  But, in an empty hand situation, or possibly in a double stick situation, if you stoped the angle one as you could possibly in single stick, you would most likely get cracked with the other hand, or punyo.  

So, how does this effect the way you fight double in relation to single stick, or single stick in relation to empty hands (where there are more than two weapons...since the opponent will most likely not be concentrating on one primary weapon).  

The fact that most people reveal a particular "style" or structure in double stick, and that that structure can be exploited is a good point.  And, the fact that most people will concentrate on a dominant hand even in double stick, is also a good point.  But, my question is, how do the principles learned in drills such as hubud, sombrada, attacking blocks, etc. apply when more than one weapon is allowed?  Do you guys feel the apply to a lesser extent?  

David

Brian,

Thanks.  That makes a lot of sense.  If a practitioner is very good in snake range, do you find it more difficult if he is using single or double stick?  I've done a decent amount of single stick sparring, and do practice with double sticks, but haven't sparred with them.  I will however soon.  But, I would imagine that if an opponent doesn't have an identifieable structure, or if his structure is no particular structure, that it might be a bit more difficult to deal with two weapons rather than one.  Maybe this is not the case...  

In empty hands, if you limit each participant to only jabs for instance, it's much harder to hit each other than when either hand is allowed, and much more so when anything goes.  For that reason, I figured double sticks would be harder than single...to read, avoid, etc.  Do you find differences in that sense between empty hand and stick fighting?  

Guests,

Thanks.  I'm not particularly interested in specific ways to fight single vs. double, or double vs. double.  I'm more interested in the strategy in FMA's and the applications and implications regarding empty hand fighting...and weapons.  

David