Forums > Social Discussion > Knives.
Login/Join to ParticipateBRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
I'd like to hear your opinion on rules/laws about carrying knives.
Now, you may think my opinion is a bit extreme, but this is how I grew up:
The first knives I encountered were owned by some of my friends in kindergarten. I wanted one then as well - my mum let me have one until I cut my finger cause this was the only way I'd accept I was too young
In primary school, nearly everyone had knives. We used them on school trips to sharpen sticks for roasting food over the fire, and had regular comparing sessions about whose knife had the most extra tools like saws, scissors etc.
In secondary school, it was pretty much the same. I also went to scouts, and of course knives were pretty handy there. When kids from other countries came on an exchange, one of the first things they'd do would be to run into a shop and buy knives and play with them, nearly killing themselves.
Now, my opinion is, if you get used to them early enough and know how to handle them, I can't see why you should be forbidden to carry them. We had them in school, and noone ever got hurt. In my opinion, the problem isn't the knives, it's the people that handle them.
I'm not saying laws over here should be more lax in general, cause obviously even with the laws that exist people get stabbed a lot. But then, if someone wants to kill somebody, they'll do it. With a knife, a gun, a screwdriver, by beating them up, whatever. I think calls for even tighter control are useless - whenever I hear about someone getting stabbed they didn't do it in school where knives are forbidden, but outside at the bus stop etc.
The most extreme case I heard was when I was in Canada, and a 7-y-old boy got expelled for 3 days because his mum had forgotten to defrost his bagel the night before, so she gave him a (normal, not big or extra-sharp) knife to cut it and put the jam on at lunch.
So, while my opinion is pretty much the "guns don't kill people, rappers do" for knives, what do you think?
I'd like to hear your opinion on rules/laws about carrying knives.
Now, you may think my opinion is a bit extreme, but this is how I grew up:
The first knives I encountered were owned by some of my friends in kindergarten. I wanted one then as well - my mum let me have one until I cut my finger cause this was the only way I'd accept I was too young
In primary school, nearly everyone had knives. We used them on school trips to sharpen sticks for roasting food over the fire, and had regular comparing sessions about whose knife had the most extra tools like saws, scissors etc.
In secondary school, it was pretty much the same. I also went to scouts, and of course knives were pretty handy there. When kids from other countries came on an exchange, one of the first things they'd do would be to run into a shop and buy knives and play with them, nearly killing themselves.
Now, my opinion is, if you get used to them early enough and know how to handle them, I can't see why you should be forbidden to carry them. We had them in school, and noone ever got hurt. In my opinion, the problem isn't the knives, it's the people that handle them.
I'm not saying laws over here should be more lax in general, cause obviously even with the laws that exist people get stabbed a lot. But then, if someone wants to kill somebody, they'll do it. With a knife, a gun, a screwdriver, by beating them up, whatever. I think calls for even tighter control are useless - whenever I hear about someone getting stabbed they didn't do it in school where knives are forbidden, but outside at the bus stop etc.
The most extreme case I heard was when I was in Canada, and a 7-y-old boy got expelled for 3 days because his mum had forgotten to defrost his bagel the night before, so she gave him a (normal, not big or extra-sharp) knife to cut it and put the jam on at lunch.
So, while my opinion is pretty much the "guns don't kill people, rappers do" for knives, what do you think?
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
Most people don't actually know how to defend themselves. So if it's "Nice sober guy" (whose last experience of fighting was in school) VS "Drunk Brawler" (Who probably gets into about 2 fights a week) then of course the drunk will win. But if you change it to "Person with effective self defence training" VS "Drunk Brawler" then I'd have to say that the Drunk will lose.
No, it is the most important one. The strongest, toughest person in the world will still lose to someone with superior skill, simply because they'll never be able to effectively attack him/her. Plus a great deal of martial arts focus a lot more on timing, leverage and aiming rather than on brute strength, this *works* against anyone who hasn't had similar training.
Sure, but the odds are, they didn't know how to defend themselves.
I have yet to ever see or hear of a drunk kicking anyone who wasn't on the floor already. That means they'll be punching, grappling or headbutting you. Headbutting has to be one of the most useless inventions ever. Drop your chin, and he breaks his own nose. Simple as that. I repeat, knowledge of self defence will see you though the vast majority of assaults, even if weapons are involved (although obviously the risk level shoots through the roof) especially if you remember the first method of self defence is always to run.
Be safe, take care, and know how to defend yourselves.
Written by: onewheeldave
It's worth pointing out that, if fighting means to inflict damage, then in fact many people can fight effectively whilst drunk- most of the people who end up in casualty on Fri/Sat nights were put there by drinkers.
Most people don't actually know how to defend themselves. So if it's "Nice sober guy" (whose last experience of fighting was in school) VS "Drunk Brawler" (Who probably gets into about 2 fights a week) then of course the drunk will win. But if you change it to "Person with effective self defence training" VS "Drunk Brawler" then I'd have to say that the Drunk will lose.
Written by: onewheeldave
The thing about violence, and this is often missed by those impressed by martial arts, is that skill is only one factor in violence, and not the most important one.
No, it is the most important one. The strongest, toughest person in the world will still lose to someone with superior skill, simply because they'll never be able to effectively attack him/her. Plus a great deal of martial arts focus a lot more on timing, leverage and aiming rather than on brute strength, this *works* against anyone who hasn't had similar training.
Written by: onewheeldave
Most victims of violence where not damaged by skill, but by individuals who were just plain 'hard'; thugishness and the simple willingness to 'go further' than your victim are the real enemies.
Sure, but the odds are, they didn't know how to defend themselves.
Written by: onewheeldave
Drunks do lose fine motor abilities, and it will mean they'll not be pulling off fancy armlocks etc; but people who are into getting drunk and performing random violence wouldn't be attempting that anyway- they punch, kick, glass etc- any lack of motor ability is more than made up for the fact that, being drunk, they feel less pain, and are basically 'up for it', with a much lower sense of restraint.
I have yet to ever see or hear of a drunk kicking anyone who wasn't on the floor already. That means they'll be punching, grappling or headbutting you. Headbutting has to be one of the most useless inventions ever. Drop your chin, and he breaks his own nose. Simple as that. I repeat, knowledge of self defence will see you though the vast majority of assaults, even if weapons are involved (although obviously the risk level shoots through the roof) especially if you remember the first method of self defence is always to run.
Be safe, take care, and know how to defend yourselves.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
'Effective' martial arts training being the operative thing there- the general public are totally unaware of the huge chasm between 'effective self-defence' and the stuff taught in 98% of martial arts classes in the UK.
A fair number of highly graded black belts in traditional martial arts have been beaten, and occasionally, killed, by drunken thugs with no training whatsoever.
Effective self defence that takes you to the level of being able to deal with drunken thugs who love violence, must necessarily involve large amounts of pain and punishment- there's no way round it because, in a real fight, there's a very, very good chance you will be required to absorb a great deal of hard physical punishment.
This is one of the reasons why, in full on street attacks, boxers, and judo people tend to do better than those trained in karate- they are more used to hard contact. Rugby players do even better, because they're big, used to extremely hard contact, and they tend to have the kind of attitude which a lot of peace loving martial artists lack.
In a real fight, by which I mean one in which there is a real possibility of dying, (and that goes for any street encounter because, however fair it starts, there's always the possibility that your opponent is a psycho who may pull a knife, or have friends in the background who will happily join in and kick you to pieces while you're down) there are well-documented physiological changes that always kick in.
One of these is a massive adrenaline rush whic has the following effects-
increased strengh
less sensitivity to pain
tunnel vision
lowered co-ordination
the last of these negates any complex moves and sequences and leaves you with simple and extremely well rehearsed techniques (another reason why boxing is good- repeated simple techniques practised over and over again)
the first and second explain why drunken thugs tend to beat trained martial artists- they're super strong and don't feel pain.
Effective self defence, at that level, will involve you getting bruised on a regular basis, a fair amount of minor injuries, a lot of harshness and pain, and at least occasionally, will involve sparring that is only slightly removed from real fighting (therefore necessitating genuine fear and adrenaline dump).
This is not to disparage the more usual forms of martial arts training- they increase fitness and confidence, have a social aspect, maybe spiritual benefits, and, in many conflict situations will be of use.
But, in the world of real, full-on violence, perpetuated by thugs who live for it, it will take a lot more than a few hours a week in the dojo of most of the martial arts schools in the UK to get you into a position where you can realistically deal with it.
Historically, asian martial arts in particular have been riddled with myth and wishful thinking- most of us wish more than anything that the most extreme of bullies can be negated by pure skill.
Unfortunately, it's not the case. Recall how, during it's early years, Japanese Judo had no weight categories- the reasoning being that strength and mass are futile when faced with skill.
Of course, every year, the big, heavy men would win- so eventually they yielded to the obvious and introduced weight categories.
In such a sport, a highly skilled small person will tend to beat a unskilled big one, but, the more equal the skill, the more extra mass is of benefit.
In real fighting, it's even more skewed, because a big, skilled fighter can be beaten by a small, unskilled person who happens to have the psycopathic tendencies that enable him to do whatever is necessary to win- he'll just go further than his victim is prepared to go- this is why we get street attack victims who have had a broken glass ground repeatedly into their face, had their eyes gouged out, or who have been kicked by a group to the extent that their head is physically removed from their body.
Normal martial arts or self-defence training does not prepare you for that kind of mentality.
Now that's the extreme side of things, but it's the nature of real fighting that you don't know what it's going to turn into.
It's important to stay out of fluffy-cloud-land and take heed of the lessons learned through the growth of 'ultimate fighting' and the experiences of martial artists like Geoff Thompson who've spent a lot of time dealing with genuine violence.
(incidently, if you watch some of the cage/ultimate fighting vids, you'll see just how effective head butts can be, as well as other crude stuff such as simply punching into the face as hard and fast as you can manage)
One thing they will tell you is- don't be so complacent that you think skill will necessarily prevail over the unknown quantity that a drunken thug represents.
'Effective' martial arts training being the operative thing there- the general public are totally unaware of the huge chasm between 'effective self-defence' and the stuff taught in 98% of martial arts classes in the UK.
A fair number of highly graded black belts in traditional martial arts have been beaten, and occasionally, killed, by drunken thugs with no training whatsoever.
Effective self defence that takes you to the level of being able to deal with drunken thugs who love violence, must necessarily involve large amounts of pain and punishment- there's no way round it because, in a real fight, there's a very, very good chance you will be required to absorb a great deal of hard physical punishment.
This is one of the reasons why, in full on street attacks, boxers, and judo people tend to do better than those trained in karate- they are more used to hard contact. Rugby players do even better, because they're big, used to extremely hard contact, and they tend to have the kind of attitude which a lot of peace loving martial artists lack.
In a real fight, by which I mean one in which there is a real possibility of dying, (and that goes for any street encounter because, however fair it starts, there's always the possibility that your opponent is a psycho who may pull a knife, or have friends in the background who will happily join in and kick you to pieces while you're down) there are well-documented physiological changes that always kick in.
One of these is a massive adrenaline rush whic has the following effects-
increased strengh
less sensitivity to pain
tunnel vision
lowered co-ordination
the last of these negates any complex moves and sequences and leaves you with simple and extremely well rehearsed techniques (another reason why boxing is good- repeated simple techniques practised over and over again)
the first and second explain why drunken thugs tend to beat trained martial artists- they're super strong and don't feel pain.
Effective self defence, at that level, will involve you getting bruised on a regular basis, a fair amount of minor injuries, a lot of harshness and pain, and at least occasionally, will involve sparring that is only slightly removed from real fighting (therefore necessitating genuine fear and adrenaline dump).
This is not to disparage the more usual forms of martial arts training- they increase fitness and confidence, have a social aspect, maybe spiritual benefits, and, in many conflict situations will be of use.
But, in the world of real, full-on violence, perpetuated by thugs who live for it, it will take a lot more than a few hours a week in the dojo of most of the martial arts schools in the UK to get you into a position where you can realistically deal with it.
Historically, asian martial arts in particular have been riddled with myth and wishful thinking- most of us wish more than anything that the most extreme of bullies can be negated by pure skill.
Unfortunately, it's not the case. Recall how, during it's early years, Japanese Judo had no weight categories- the reasoning being that strength and mass are futile when faced with skill.
Of course, every year, the big, heavy men would win- so eventually they yielded to the obvious and introduced weight categories.
In such a sport, a highly skilled small person will tend to beat a unskilled big one, but, the more equal the skill, the more extra mass is of benefit.
In real fighting, it's even more skewed, because a big, skilled fighter can be beaten by a small, unskilled person who happens to have the psycopathic tendencies that enable him to do whatever is necessary to win- he'll just go further than his victim is prepared to go- this is why we get street attack victims who have had a broken glass ground repeatedly into their face, had their eyes gouged out, or who have been kicked by a group to the extent that their head is physically removed from their body.
Normal martial arts or self-defence training does not prepare you for that kind of mentality.
Now that's the extreme side of things, but it's the nature of real fighting that you don't know what it's going to turn into.
It's important to stay out of fluffy-cloud-land and take heed of the lessons learned through the growth of 'ultimate fighting' and the experiences of martial artists like Geoff Thompson who've spent a lot of time dealing with genuine violence.
(incidently, if you watch some of the cage/ultimate fighting vids, you'll see just how effective head butts can be, as well as other crude stuff such as simply punching into the face as hard and fast as you can manage)
One thing they will tell you is- don't be so complacent that you think skill will necessarily prevail over the unknown quantity that a drunken thug represents.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
small member
116 posts
Location: Hastings
116 posts
Location: Hastings
Posted:
The pen is mighter than the sword.
Seriously though in the certain contexts I rather have the 9" kitchen knife coming at me then the biro, it would all depend on whos hand it was in.
The pen is mighter than the sword.
Seriously though in the certain contexts I rather have the 9" kitchen knife coming at me then the biro, it would all depend on whos hand it was in.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Perhaps it might have been worth mentioning that at the time
Personally, I'd also rather be attacked by a one-legged nine-year-old armed with a 9" kitchen knife, than by an adult psycho with a pen.
But, all other things being equal (which I think most people here will assume to be the meaning), then a attack by a 'pen-wielding' maniac, is infinitly preferable to an attack by a '9" kitchen-knife wielding maniac'.
Perhaps it might have been worth mentioning that at the time
Personally, I'd also rather be attacked by a one-legged nine-year-old armed with a 9" kitchen knife, than by an adult psycho with a pen.
But, all other things being equal (which I think most people here will assume to be the meaning), then a attack by a 'pen-wielding' maniac, is infinitly preferable to an attack by a '9" kitchen-knife wielding maniac'.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
small member
116 posts
Location: Hastings
116 posts
Location: Hastings
Posted:
If all things being equal, then lets assume(yeah I know)in either case this maniac IS going to kill you, you are not in a position to effectively defend yourself, are weak/scared or are just plainly out matched and have no defence against his strength and ferocity. (whether he's armed or not).
It would then be just a case of take your pick of which "weapon" you want to die by. End result= same. Granted knife would be quicker/easier.
If all things being equal, then lets assume(yeah I know)in either case this maniac IS going to kill you, you are not in a position to effectively defend yourself, are weak/scared or are just plainly out matched and have no defence against his strength and ferocity. (whether he's armed or not).
It would then be just a case of take your pick of which "weapon" you want to die by. End result= same. Granted knife would be quicker/easier.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I'm thinking more along the lines of the maniac intending to kill you, and you being of the mind set of not wanting to be in that situation, but fully willing to do what is necessary to get out of it alive.
In that situation, you'll generally fare better against an attacker with a pen, than one with a 9" pointed kitchen knife.
I'm surprised it even needs saying- what the hell kind of pens do thery have where you live?!?
I'm thinking more along the lines of the maniac intending to kill you, and you being of the mind set of not wanting to be in that situation, but fully willing to do what is necessary to get out of it alive.
In that situation, you'll generally fare better against an attacker with a pen, than one with a 9" pointed kitchen knife.
I'm surprised it even needs saying- what the hell kind of pens do thery have where you live?!?
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
small member
116 posts
Location: Hastings
116 posts
Location: Hastings
Posted:
Either situation isn't one I'd want to be in.
I actually think both our stand points are silly now. Essentially I'm saying the biro is no less deadlier than the A-bomb and your defending "this weapon is deadlier than that weapon, because it kills you better" view.
Before I got side tracked what I said was "Knives are no more dangerous than a biro pen or a sharp edge of a mangled coke can. "
you can test it out if you want. Just get a knife and a biro put them next to each other and wait to see which one hurts you first.
Either situation isn't one I'd want to be in.
I actually think both our stand points are silly now. Essentially I'm saying the biro is no less deadlier than the A-bomb and your defending "this weapon is deadlier than that weapon, because it kills you better" view.
Before I got side tracked what I said was "Knives are no more dangerous than a biro pen or a sharp edge of a mangled coke can. "
you can test it out if you want. Just get a knife and a biro put them next to each other and wait to see which one hurts you first.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
In the context of this thread, the issue under discussion is whether an attacker armed with a large pointed kitchen knife is more dangerous than one armed with a pen (or a sharp-edged coke can).
Can I assume that we're in agreement that, all other things being equal, it's preferable to be attacked by an assailant armed with a pen (or indeed, the equally deadly sharp-edged coke can), than with a big, sharp knife.
ie, in a 'cage-fighting' scenario, where equally sized, equally skilled and equally violent men are armed, one with a pen, the other with a big, sharp, pointed kitchen knife, on the outcome of which you have to bet your life savings; is it fair to say that you'll be betting on the latter?
I think I can say with a high degree of certainty that tens of thousands of Japanese at the end of the second world war, given the alternative choice of having had a pen dropped on Hiroshima, would have welcomed it with open arms over the option of the A-bomb they received instead.
That, to me, along with several other facts I happen to know about A-bombs and pens, leads me to believe that, in some sense, A-bombs are inherently more dangerous than pens.
In the context of this thread, the issue under discussion is whether an attacker armed with a large pointed kitchen knife is more dangerous than one armed with a pen (or a sharp-edged coke can).
Can I assume that we're in agreement that, all other things being equal, it's preferable to be attacked by an assailant armed with a pen (or indeed, the equally deadly sharp-edged coke can), than with a big, sharp knife.
ie, in a 'cage-fighting' scenario, where equally sized, equally skilled and equally violent men are armed, one with a pen, the other with a big, sharp, pointed kitchen knife, on the outcome of which you have to bet your life savings; is it fair to say that you'll be betting on the latter?
Written by: Colin J
Essentially I'm saying the biro is no less deadlier than the A-bomb and your defending "this weapon is deadlier than that weapon, because it kills you better" view.
I think I can say with a high degree of certainty that tens of thousands of Japanese at the end of the second world war, given the alternative choice of having had a pen dropped on Hiroshima, would have welcomed it with open arms over the option of the A-bomb they received instead.
That, to me, along with several other facts I happen to know about A-bombs and pens, leads me to believe that, in some sense, A-bombs are inherently more dangerous than pens.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
small member
116 posts
Location: Hastings
116 posts
Location: Hastings
Posted:
Yep. I Agree.
I've not been trying to argue with your statements at all. No doubt knives are more effective as weapons or even pairing a biro and a knife for fighting purposes is a bit of a mismatch. Haven't argued that. I'd rather a biro was stuck in my back. Or if I was killing someone I know what my weapon of choice would be.
I'm just stating a pen attack could potentially be no less fatale than a knife attack. I mean how much more dangerous can you get than potentially fatale or just plain fatale? Besides busting out the A-bomb deadly which is on a whole different level of deadliness, ie: on the mass level.
Maybe if I amend my self alittle "Knives are potentially no more dangerous than a biro pen or a sharp edge of a mangled coke can."
Sounds alittle better now don't it. And its true intent was to illustrate the "guns don't kill people, people do" statement of fact, and to maybe hint to improvised weapons ie: whatever you can get you hands on when the sh!t hits the fan are the most effective. And a kitchen knife is an improvised weapon, so is a biro.
Yep. I Agree.
I've not been trying to argue with your statements at all. No doubt knives are more effective as weapons or even pairing a biro and a knife for fighting purposes is a bit of a mismatch. Haven't argued that. I'd rather a biro was stuck in my back. Or if I was killing someone I know what my weapon of choice would be.
I'm just stating a pen attack could potentially be no less fatale than a knife attack. I mean how much more dangerous can you get than potentially fatale or just plain fatale? Besides busting out the A-bomb deadly which is on a whole different level of deadliness, ie: on the mass level.
Maybe if I amend my self alittle "Knives are potentially no more dangerous than a biro pen or a sharp edge of a mangled coke can."
Sounds alittle better now don't it. And its true intent was to illustrate the "guns don't kill people, people do" statement of fact, and to maybe hint to improvised weapons ie: whatever you can get you hands on when the sh!t hits the fan are the most effective. And a kitchen knife is an improvised weapon, so is a biro.
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
Couple of things here...
A bigger person is going to win a fight. They have reach, power, and resilliance that a smaller person will not. True, a smaller person with skill may win out over a larger unskilled opponent, but the closer in skill two people get, there is just no competition. Almost all martial arts are not real world related.
Not to say they don't teach you useful things that might be APPLIED in text book situations. How to hit right, vulnerable areas of the body, basic balance and speed as well as accuracy... these are all things that can help. In fact, I'd say a good majority of good spinners, because we play with things all day, have an advantage over a fully unskilled person as well... hand eye coordination, balance, etc. But these basic things that can be learned in a lot of ways outside of being "skilled" at fighting. For instance, I wouldn't want to go up against a base ball player with a stick no matter how good I thought I was... and you jsut never know how good they might be.
A knife is OBVIOUSLY a better weapon than a coke can, a pen, a credit card, etc... But these other things can be used in situations where SOMETHING is better than the NOTHING that is currently in your hands.
Also, everyone seems to think people are going to come in slashing. That just isn't realistic. If they are trying to hurt you, they will be stabbing. A slice will hurt, possibly kill. A stab is MUCH more likely to do serious debilitating damage.
Blocking a knife is silly. You block the arm... more specifically you try to control the arm / cause massive damage to it so the knife is no longer there. But as Dave pointed out, thats actually very hard to do. Not impossible, but difficult to do in real world situations. In addition, and something that most people don't even think of at this point, as soon as you are cut, or him for that matter, a new variable is entered into the situation that I am almost guarenteeing you are NOT trained for. Blood. Ever try holding onto someone when they are sweaty? Or wrestling someone in a pool and trying to hold them? Things are much quicker, slicker and nothing works the way you have been trained for once blood is introduced.
Boxing is good for fighting. Judo or Akido is useful only if you can grab someone (See blood, above). I'm sure everyone realizes that fighting should be the last option. But this idealistic bull about trying not to hurt your opponent and not being ready to kill them just isn't realistic. If someone attacks you, all rules go out the window. Kick them in the balls, a good kick to the knee will take most people down, a square hit to the nose will make them tear-up. If a weapon is involved, walk away, or better yet run, but if you can't you must assume they are ready to kill you and act appropriatly.
That's my problem with so much of martial arts. Too much art, not enough martial. Idealism and squeemishness will get you killed. Of course there is a place for each though... everything is situational.
=============
Anyway, on the other topic... I carry a butterfly knife with me a lot of the time. It's illegal here unfortunatly because of the blade length, as well as the fact that it's in the class of fast openers (like switchblades). I just like playing with it, but if anyone pulls a blade or weapon on me, it will get used.
I think the blade length laws are rediculous. The idea is that if you stab someone with a shorter blade, less penetration, and less injury. The thing is, you don't need to go deep to cause serious injury if you hit the right spots. You really don't need to be trained to recognize those spots. Heck, I wish it was legal to carry whatever weapon you wanted to carry. Im not one for gun control either, but thats a whole nother, though related, issue.
Couple of things here...
A bigger person is going to win a fight. They have reach, power, and resilliance that a smaller person will not. True, a smaller person with skill may win out over a larger unskilled opponent, but the closer in skill two people get, there is just no competition. Almost all martial arts are not real world related.
Not to say they don't teach you useful things that might be APPLIED in text book situations. How to hit right, vulnerable areas of the body, basic balance and speed as well as accuracy... these are all things that can help. In fact, I'd say a good majority of good spinners, because we play with things all day, have an advantage over a fully unskilled person as well... hand eye coordination, balance, etc. But these basic things that can be learned in a lot of ways outside of being "skilled" at fighting. For instance, I wouldn't want to go up against a base ball player with a stick no matter how good I thought I was... and you jsut never know how good they might be.
A knife is OBVIOUSLY a better weapon than a coke can, a pen, a credit card, etc... But these other things can be used in situations where SOMETHING is better than the NOTHING that is currently in your hands.
Also, everyone seems to think people are going to come in slashing. That just isn't realistic. If they are trying to hurt you, they will be stabbing. A slice will hurt, possibly kill. A stab is MUCH more likely to do serious debilitating damage.
Blocking a knife is silly. You block the arm... more specifically you try to control the arm / cause massive damage to it so the knife is no longer there. But as Dave pointed out, thats actually very hard to do. Not impossible, but difficult to do in real world situations. In addition, and something that most people don't even think of at this point, as soon as you are cut, or him for that matter, a new variable is entered into the situation that I am almost guarenteeing you are NOT trained for. Blood. Ever try holding onto someone when they are sweaty? Or wrestling someone in a pool and trying to hold them? Things are much quicker, slicker and nothing works the way you have been trained for once blood is introduced.
Boxing is good for fighting. Judo or Akido is useful only if you can grab someone (See blood, above). I'm sure everyone realizes that fighting should be the last option. But this idealistic bull about trying not to hurt your opponent and not being ready to kill them just isn't realistic. If someone attacks you, all rules go out the window. Kick them in the balls, a good kick to the knee will take most people down, a square hit to the nose will make them tear-up. If a weapon is involved, walk away, or better yet run, but if you can't you must assume they are ready to kill you and act appropriatly.
That's my problem with so much of martial arts. Too much art, not enough martial. Idealism and squeemishness will get you killed. Of course there is a place for each though... everything is situational.
=============
Anyway, on the other topic... I carry a butterfly knife with me a lot of the time. It's illegal here unfortunatly because of the blade length, as well as the fact that it's in the class of fast openers (like switchblades). I just like playing with it, but if anyone pulls a blade or weapon on me, it will get used.
I think the blade length laws are rediculous. The idea is that if you stab someone with a shorter blade, less penetration, and less injury. The thing is, you don't need to go deep to cause serious injury if you hit the right spots. You really don't need to be trained to recognize those spots. Heck, I wish it was legal to carry whatever weapon you wanted to carry. Im not one for gun control either, but thats a whole nother, though related, issue.
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
Yes, please note that I never said that martial arts were ideal. All I said was that you should know some "Self-Defence". Martial arts can help with this, but the most effective things I learnt were from an ex-SAS officer teaching "Self-Defence" classes, rather than a Sensei on a mat.
Judo, kick boxing and some forms of Tae-Kwon Do are particularly useful, especially compared to other martial arts that are heavy on the spirituality and low on the realism. I go to a Tae-Kwon Do class, and we get taught both stylised moves (i.e. mostly theory, and for points sparring) and realistic moves. This includes grappling, and fighting on the ground which many martial arts neglect. In my experience people generally don't fight for long at range. Most people will try and get into a cliche with you.
I have been attacked by drunks 3 times. Once, I jumped in the way of a thrown glass aimed at my girlfriend. Consequently I didn't really participate that much. Fortunately I had some friends on hand.
The second time, a guy shoved me in the back, and followed up by trying to punch me in the head. I ducked, span, and kicked him in the stomach. This knocked him back a space, so I followed up by kicking him in the crotch. Dib Dib, Job done.
Last time (8 months ago) a guy actually pulled a bottle on me. Luckily for me, he was isolated from his friends (they were on the other side of the club) and the bottle was unbroken. The daft bugger proceeded to execute the most predictable move in his repetoire, he swung it vertically down and across from his right hand. I stepped inside it, punched his stomach, elbowed his chin, and got him in an arm lock that forced him to drop the bottle and gave enough time for the bouncers to grab him. If I wanted to, I could have kneed him a few times in the stomach or head.
Now, out of all these encounters, I used different teachings from different people. The punches and kicks I learnt from Tae-Kwon Do. The arm-lock I learnt from the aforementioned SAS self defence class. If I had been outside, or somewhere where I could have got away, I would certainly have run from the guy with the bottle. Failing that, I tried to take them down the fastest way I know, blows to the crotch, or locks.
Now, I'll say that I have been lucky that they either were by themselves at the time, or that their friends didn't help. I'll state this clearly: I would not have survived against any more people. I am also dubious as to the outcome of the second fight if the guy had had a knife. But, like I said previously, neither of the two people knew how to fight.
What I did to take them down required practice, timing and precision. If you're going to try any form of fighting, it needs to be practised until it comes close to reflex. Just like spinning.
That's why I say that training will beat size and weapons 95% of the time. That's what my experience is.
I'm avoiding the pen discussion, and agree with most of what Dave has said.
Yes, please note that I never said that martial arts were ideal. All I said was that you should know some "Self-Defence". Martial arts can help with this, but the most effective things I learnt were from an ex-SAS officer teaching "Self-Defence" classes, rather than a Sensei on a mat.
Judo, kick boxing and some forms of Tae-Kwon Do are particularly useful, especially compared to other martial arts that are heavy on the spirituality and low on the realism. I go to a Tae-Kwon Do class, and we get taught both stylised moves (i.e. mostly theory, and for points sparring) and realistic moves. This includes grappling, and fighting on the ground which many martial arts neglect. In my experience people generally don't fight for long at range. Most people will try and get into a cliche with you.
I have been attacked by drunks 3 times. Once, I jumped in the way of a thrown glass aimed at my girlfriend. Consequently I didn't really participate that much. Fortunately I had some friends on hand.
The second time, a guy shoved me in the back, and followed up by trying to punch me in the head. I ducked, span, and kicked him in the stomach. This knocked him back a space, so I followed up by kicking him in the crotch. Dib Dib, Job done.
Last time (8 months ago) a guy actually pulled a bottle on me. Luckily for me, he was isolated from his friends (they were on the other side of the club) and the bottle was unbroken. The daft bugger proceeded to execute the most predictable move in his repetoire, he swung it vertically down and across from his right hand. I stepped inside it, punched his stomach, elbowed his chin, and got him in an arm lock that forced him to drop the bottle and gave enough time for the bouncers to grab him. If I wanted to, I could have kneed him a few times in the stomach or head.
Now, out of all these encounters, I used different teachings from different people. The punches and kicks I learnt from Tae-Kwon Do. The arm-lock I learnt from the aforementioned SAS self defence class. If I had been outside, or somewhere where I could have got away, I would certainly have run from the guy with the bottle. Failing that, I tried to take them down the fastest way I know, blows to the crotch, or locks.
Now, I'll say that I have been lucky that they either were by themselves at the time, or that their friends didn't help. I'll state this clearly: I would not have survived against any more people. I am also dubious as to the outcome of the second fight if the guy had had a knife. But, like I said previously, neither of the two people knew how to fight.
What I did to take them down required practice, timing and precision. If you're going to try any form of fighting, it needs to be practised until it comes close to reflex. Just like spinning.
That's why I say that training will beat size and weapons 95% of the time. That's what my experience is.
I'm avoiding the pen discussion, and agree with most of what Dave has said.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
small member
116 posts
Location: Hastings
116 posts
Location: Hastings
Posted:
I've had three fights with much much larger people, ie me weighing in at a little over 9stone to them weighing in at over 14.
One I lost not only because it was 2 on one, but I was cut and didn't really fancy any more injury, basicly no will to fight, I'm seeking help. 1 ended in a one hit knock out. Bang! and over. this guy was by far the largest and tallest, and had hands like clubs, go figure. The other was easy too, but it was a fluke I reckon. knocked him over with a open hand! then stamped him once or few.
I must be super hard. I clearly beat a much larger opponent without breaking a sweat more than once. Every fight I've had was with someone bigger than me. except that little scouser chav and he was armed too. Being able to lose weight to 60kg, just about everyone is bigger.
And I can tell almost at a glace if someone would be a good fighter. Not neccesarily how good they are, but I can spot someone who I wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of.
I gave up boxing for taichi because its not as an effective self defence. I'd bet money that I wouldn't be able to hit as hard without of training so hard on them bags though.
I've had three fights with much much larger people, ie me weighing in at a little over 9stone to them weighing in at over 14.
One I lost not only because it was 2 on one, but I was cut and didn't really fancy any more injury, basicly no will to fight, I'm seeking help. 1 ended in a one hit knock out. Bang! and over. this guy was by far the largest and tallest, and had hands like clubs, go figure. The other was easy too, but it was a fluke I reckon. knocked him over with a open hand! then stamped him once or few.
I must be super hard. I clearly beat a much larger opponent without breaking a sweat more than once. Every fight I've had was with someone bigger than me. except that little scouser chav and he was armed too. Being able to lose weight to 60kg, just about everyone is bigger.
And I can tell almost at a glace if someone would be a good fighter. Not neccesarily how good they are, but I can spot someone who I wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of.
I gave up boxing for taichi because its not as an effective self defence. I'd bet money that I wouldn't be able to hit as hard without of training so hard on them bags though.
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the bigger guy always wins. I'm saying when skill is equal, the bigger guy is going to win. That is a big advantage, but one that can be overcome with superior skill. But if they have had any idea what they are doing, those fights may have gone much differently.
For instance, on that bottle shot, he obviously left himself wide open for you to step in on him. Had he known better, that probably wouldn't have been so easy to do.
None-the-less, as you say, and as I pointed out, training gives you the unique advantage of better instincts, better idea of vulnerable spots and techniques to use. Balance, coordination, etc. These are basic skills that will give you an edge in a fight. If both of you have them though, size does matter.
For instance in boxing, I've seen mixed-arts fights where a punk street fighter takes down a trained boxer with one punch, because he swung from the floor and nailed him. This is something most boxers aren't necessarily trained for. However, and why I say boxing is better for fighting than most martial arts, almost all martial arts assume your standing and at a bit of a range from each other... as has already been pointed out, guess where 90% of fights end up? Not on your feet. Practically, the two best arts to know are wrestling and boxing. You can keep them distanced with boxing, and you can hit very hard (kickboxing adds two other appendages and knees / elbows which are most helpfull in fights), and once they duck in on you it turns into a wrestling / grappling match.
===
However, as I said, knives change everything. You throw a punch at me when I have a knife, I'm going to carve you up. You may be fast, but I don't need to get in a good swing to hurt you at that point. Priorities first: take the weapon away.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the bigger guy always wins. I'm saying when skill is equal, the bigger guy is going to win. That is a big advantage, but one that can be overcome with superior skill. But if they have had any idea what they are doing, those fights may have gone much differently.
For instance, on that bottle shot, he obviously left himself wide open for you to step in on him. Had he known better, that probably wouldn't have been so easy to do.
None-the-less, as you say, and as I pointed out, training gives you the unique advantage of better instincts, better idea of vulnerable spots and techniques to use. Balance, coordination, etc. These are basic skills that will give you an edge in a fight. If both of you have them though, size does matter.
For instance in boxing, I've seen mixed-arts fights where a punk street fighter takes down a trained boxer with one punch, because he swung from the floor and nailed him. This is something most boxers aren't necessarily trained for. However, and why I say boxing is better for fighting than most martial arts, almost all martial arts assume your standing and at a bit of a range from each other... as has already been pointed out, guess where 90% of fights end up? Not on your feet. Practically, the two best arts to know are wrestling and boxing. You can keep them distanced with boxing, and you can hit very hard (kickboxing adds two other appendages and knees / elbows which are most helpfull in fights), and once they duck in on you it turns into a wrestling / grappling match.
===
However, as I said, knives change everything. You throw a punch at me when I have a knife, I'm going to carve you up. You may be fast, but I don't need to get in a good swing to hurt you at that point. Priorities first: take the weapon away.
Diamond In The Rough
459 posts
Location: Richmond, Virginia
459 posts
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Posted:
I used to teach knife/axe safety to Boy Scouts, ages ranging from 18 down to as young as 7. Like guns, or fire, or any other tool with positive and negative uses, knives are fine in anyone's hand, as long as they're taught the proper use and respect for it.
If someone goes nutz in an Arbys and stabs 14 people, it's not the knife's fault.
I used to teach knife/axe safety to Boy Scouts, ages ranging from 18 down to as young as 7. Like guns, or fire, or any other tool with positive and negative uses, knives are fine in anyone's hand, as long as they're taught the proper use and respect for it.
If someone goes nutz in an Arbys and stabs 14 people, it's not the knife's fault.
Dance like it hurts; Love like you need money; Work like someone is watching.
Never criticize someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes. That way, when you DO criticize them, you are a mile away, and you have their shoes.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
It can't be the knives fault. Knives are inanimate objects that are incapable of thought and choice, and therefore can't be at fault.
Despite this, if someone's going to go nuts in an Arbys, it'll generally be better if they're unarmed, rather than equiped with a knife.
Knives don't kill- people do. Guns don't kill- people do. But, when people want to kill, possession of knives or guns makes it a lot easier.
It can't be the knives fault. Knives are inanimate objects that are incapable of thought and choice, and therefore can't be at fault.
Despite this, if someone's going to go nuts in an Arbys, it'll generally be better if they're unarmed, rather than equiped with a knife.
Knives don't kill- people do. Guns don't kill- people do. But, when people want to kill, possession of knives or guns makes it a lot easier.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Internet Hate Machine
10,530 posts
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there...
10,530 posts
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there...
Posted:
Nope, fortunatly.
But I'd much rather be dead/in serious pain than have suffered a massive head trauma that either leaves me in a vegetive state, or change me into a person I don't want to be.
Anyone read Yellow Dog?
Written by: Sethis
FRD, you've never been stabbed in a kidney before, have you?
Nope, fortunatly.
But I'd much rather be dead/in serious pain than have suffered a massive head trauma that either leaves me in a vegetive state, or change me into a person I don't want to be.
Anyone read Yellow Dog?
The existance of flamethrowers says that someone, somewhere, at sometime said "I need to set that thing on fire, but it's too far away."
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com