Best Defense in attempted mugging/assault?

[ThePeacent]

1 Would an Opinel with at least a 3 and a half inch long blade, or along those dimensions, be able to be used as a self-defense knife in a survival situation, or would the thinness of the blade be more breakable?

I believe that a locked opinel of the big sizes (8 or 9) would be a good slashing weapon, especially with the element of surprise.

It has been used in several films and on TV as a weapon, and I believe it could be an ugly single use surprise attack if placed properly. :o Stabbing, well, I wouldn't trust the Viroblock but I can see it opening skin and tissue like a box cutter, but again I guess it would not be ideal for prolonged defense and slashing due to its thinness.

It also lacks grip and protection for stabbing, but I am sure it has successfully been used to hurt and kill people and animals in rural France for decades :eek:

[SpyderEdgeForever]

What would happen if a Kiwi or Aussie were to be accosted by someone on a street or rural area, and they whipped out a Nemesis Equalizer with razor-sharp VG10 blade and Spyder edged serrations and said "Get thee hence ruffian!", and if the person attempted further attack, the Kiwi or Aussie carved em up like a roasted rack of lamb?

[James Y]

There are some people who seem to confuse 'social violence' (such as fights to establish a pecking order/dominance) and asocial violence (such as sociopathic predatory crimes). Then there is a ton of stuff that falls in-between.

Having a fighting and/or athletic background (such as wrestling, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, MMA, football, etc.) does not make it a good idea to engage, say, a mugger, if it is not necessary for safety and well-being. If you choose to fight out of pride or outrage, you're playing Russian roulette.

Where I live, there was a champion collegiate wrestler who was known to drink and get into lots of fights and beat people up. Well, one night he pulled a scholarly-looking guy out of a car because he thought the guy was making a pass at his girlfriend. He threw the guy to the street and was on top beating on him (with help from a marine who jumped in to kick the guy on the ground), but the skinny non-athletic guy managed to pull out a knife and stab the tough guy once, severing his aorta, killing him.

In another news story some guy who was an avid practitioner of MMA got picked a fight with another guy at a bar for some stupid minor reason. Security kicked them both out, so they continued the confrontation outside in the parking lot. Mr. MMA took the other guy down, and while mounting him, the other guy had managed to pull out his "pocketknife" and stabbed him over a dozen times. Apparently the MMA guy hadn't been aware he was being stabbed, but he ended up dying anyway.

The problems mount when people confuse social with asocial violence (and vice versa). Simply put, the other guy may not be playing by your 'rules'. In the case of a mugger, he may not be impressed when you flash your knife at him. If he's a hardened criminal, he may just call your bluff.

There really isn't any answer as to what is the best defense. As already stated by others, the 'best' method is to simply not be there, but we have to live our lives, so sometimes you may find yourself in a dicey area or situation. I would say situational awareness is mandatory.

Jim

[SpyderEdgeForever]

James those are very good points you make.

Based on your stated experience, would you say this person was then very mistaken? I once talked with a man who claimed he was studying some type of martial arts with the desire to earn a black belt in it. He told me that he was convinced, once he got the black belt, he would be "martially impervious"to any and all attackers with less fighting ability. Basically, he seemed to think that once he had the black belt, he would be able to beat any non-black belt owning person on the planet, as long as they did not have anything like a firearm, ie, hand to hand or hand weapons such as knives and sticks. When I asked him "Do you have any evidence or proofs to back up your idea?" He said "Easy. Chuck Norris, Bruce Lee, and Jean Claude Van Damme."

But as you pointed out, even then, there are often dangerous surprises, such as with the MMA fighter.

[James Y]

James those are very good points you make.

Based on your stated experience, would you say this person was then very mistaken? I once talked with a man who claimed he was studying some type of martial arts with the desire to earn a black belt in it. He told me that he was convinced, once he got the black belt, he would be "martially impervious"to any and all attackers with less fighting ability. Basically, he seemed to think that once he had the black belt, he would be able to beat any non-black belt owning person on the planet, as long as they did not have anything like a firearm, ie, hand to hand or hand weapons such as knives and sticks. When I asked him "Do you have any evidence or proofs to back up your idea?" He said "Easy. Chuck Norris, Bruce Lee, and Jean Claude Van Damme."

But as you pointed out, even then, there are often dangerous surprises, such as with the MMA fighter.

SpyderEdgeForever:

A black belt in a martial art does not make anyone invincible. It's not the be-all end-all of training, and anyone, including any teachers, who say it is, are mistaken, or are only after money. A black belt should be a representation of knowledge, ability and a degree of maturity in an art, NOT that one has reached the pinnacle or is unbeatable. It also should mean that you have proven you are a serious student. That is why I do not agree with child black belts. Many black belts have gotten their tails handed to them on the street. IMO, In a martial art, the most important thing is realistic training and self-awareness. One can become as good as or better than many black belts without any belt system at all, if one consistently works hard and trains in a way that is practical. There are some martial systems that use no belt ranking systems at all. Also, there are black belts and then there are BLACK BELTS.

I enjoy a *good* martial arts movie, but movie fight scenes are not proof of fighting ability, or how something would work in a real situation. Just like a Sergio Leone/Clint Eastwood spaghetti western or a John Woo shoot-'em-up is not a tutorial on combat shooting.

What happens if someone gets the jump on you?

Good martial arts training is a good thing. But even when trained with some realism, all it can do is give you a better chance of surviving than without it. One should also have an awareness of what really happens outside of the dojo/dojang/kwoon/gym.

There are a LOT of people today who train MMA or BJJ in particular, who believe they are the ultimate self-defense. What is their concept of self-defense? Fighting in an octagon, or challenge matches between martial systems? Those are nothing like a real attack, which usually involve weapons and/or more than one attacker. Sometimes things translate from one environment to the other, but for the most part, such a belief can get you killed.

In another incident, an up and coming MMA practitioner and a friend went into Tijuana and were apparently involved in a drug deal gone bad. Somebody had shot them both to death as they sat in their car. I'm sure the young MMA guy thought he could handle anything that could happen in life. In this case, his MMA training never even came into play and availed him nothing at his death.

Jim

[SpyderScout]

I only now logged on and perused the notifications.

Running away is rarely the way to decrease crime in an area.

The post you quote wasnt about 'decreasing crime.' (no idea what prompted you to think so).
Iits about 'tactical avoidism,' as another forum member coined it :) ' What an excellent term BTW.
If running away from a situation saves ones life, a person should of course run. Run, hop, skip or jump - what ever saves your bacon. Any sane person would and should of course avoid a brawl or lethal fight. Thats just plain common sense.
Few ordinary people (like most of us here) have the training to fight one or more attackers let alone an attacker or attackers armed with knives.

In general terms; The John Wayne school and other cliches in regards to dealing with people is a thing of the past. As Ive mentioned earlier, an honest law abiding citizen can not only get hurt or worse, he/she can also land in legal hot water, if caught up in a brawl. All it takes is one eye witness, who might have a different perception of the situation than you or is someone who maybe sides with the other guy(s). The outcome can also ride on whom ever calls the cops first. The bad scenario examples are legion.

Im not saying, that one shouldnt defend one self where legal but it should be the last option. At one end of the scale, there is avoiding a confrontation if at all possible. Thats just plain common sense. At the other end of the scale, there is the theoretical basement ninja keyboard commando approach, which might end up getting the average citizen killed, maimed or going to prison. The average citizen should be wary of believing a confrontation against one or more potentially armed and ruthless criminals can end well.

People seeking to refrain from confronting inmorality allows immorality to flourish. In other words, all it takes for evil men to win is for good men to do nothing. Our society is collapsing because good men do not confront the obviously corrupt running rampant in our communities. They're afraid of being labeled intolerant. Our propaganda machine and legal system has become so effective at stopping good people that good people are afraid to be good.

When the dam breaks, good people might go overboard. Look at the crusaders and what they did to muslims when they liberated Jerusalem from the tyrants. It wasn't pretty. We are on that precipice now

Only rarely does one read a post made of almost entirely of cliches :D
Cliches illustrate my point well how ever; its important to disregard the histrionics and relate to the real world.
As for the crusades, it was horrible on both sides and Im not defending either side. I do how ever suggest reading about what prompted the crusades in order to get the full picture.
Neither side can claim the moral high ground in those wars.
Further more, war does not so nice things to most people. The 'good guys' dont always come out on top just like they dont always win in brawls. I realize you are fortunate to not having been deployed to a war - and you should count yourself lucky - but maybe if you had, you wouldnt be so eager to be spoiling for a fight. Its not a nice spectacle. This is speaking as a veteran.

Fairbairn said that if the bad guy has a knife, no matter how proficient you are with a knife or in hand to hand combat, run if you can.

I wasnt aware of that quote but that is sound advice from a man who had 'seen the elephant'/been in some real life brawls* and who most certainly knew what he was talking about. Most certainly not just shooting off his mouth.

*Hundreds of brawls from his time with the Shanghai Police, many involving knives. He was supposedly covered in scars from knife fights.

[MichaelScott]

I'm going to follow Mr. Miyagi's advice: "don't be there."

Buddy of mine, years ago, use to call it "tactical avoidism" and it's been my first line of defense for years. These days especially, anyone wanting to accost me would have to do it in the kind of places where such attacks are the least likely - well trafficked areas in "good neighborhoods" in broad daylight. May not eliminate risk, which is why I still carry a gun, but it certainly minimizes it.

This is exactly the way I behave. Don’t be in places that invite assault. Be aware of those around you. Carry a gun whenever you can and learn how to use it. Know when you are legally allowed to use deadly force. Do not shoot in a situation that may endanger innocent people. It’s far better that you get injured or killed than be responsible for an innocent death or injury.

[SpyderEdgeForever]

Michael, a question for you and others on this topic: Why is it that a civilian person cannot carry a sharpened pry bar-knife or a Spyderco Chaparral and if they are attacked, use those tools to the fullest extent, and have the confidence that they will not face any charges or legal problems or retaliation, since they are the law abiding citizen and were just trying to protect themselves?

Someone told me that law abiding citizens who are not out to harm others should have no limits on what they can arm themselves with.

Do you agree with that assessment?

[JD Spydo]

Back in 2010 when two Mexican illegal aliens tried to hold me up at gun point late one evening while I was sleeping in my truck. Since that incident I now realize that the "Element of Surprise" is probably a big trump card you can use.

On a daily basis I see so many women who just leave themselves vulnerable and take their safety for granted. Most people think that "It Won't Happen To Me" >> or that's just something you see on the evening news. I truly feel that being prepared is huge and don't leave yourself vulnerable.

The violent crime in the bigger cities is really getting bad. I do not go to Kansas City at night at all unless I'm with at least 4 people or more.

Communities need to implement "SELF DEFENSE Courses". Because with our society literally crumbling before our eyes and it's just going to get much worse I'm afraid. In the past year there were even two Kansas City Metro bus drivers killed over stupid arguments from drunks and drug addicts. And truly I hope I'm wrong with my prediction but I can literally feel it in the air in the past 2 years especially.

[Doc Dan]

Perhaps San Francisco in 1851 and 1856 had a good idea to solve the problem of crime out of control.

[SpyderScout]

This is exactly the way I behave. Don’t be in places that invite assault. Be aware of those around you.

I agree.
How I try to behave as well. Situational awereness can help in extracting yourself from a potentially sticky situation.

Because with our society literally crumbling before our eyes and it's just going to get much worse I'm afraid. In the past year there were even two Kansas City Metro bus drivers killed over stupid arguments from drunks and drug addicts. And truly I hope I'm wrong with my prediction but I can literally feel it in the air in the past 2 years especially.

Hardly just the last two years. The Western world has been trying to dismantle itself for quite some time now.
Gee, I wonder why someone would pinpoint the starting date of soceity 'literally' crumbling as being two years ago :rolleyes:
Its almost as if an event happened approxinmately two years ago to trigger this comment ....

How do you know your assailants were 'illegals' - were they caught?

Perhaps San Francisco in 1851 and 1856 had a good idea to solve the problem of crime out of control.

Fires and earthquakes are not to be sneezed at but maybe if the San Andreas Fault could get with the program, that would help solve some of the problems :D (morbid joke, sry).
CA is in a sad state of affairs.

[SpyderScout]

DP

[JD Spydo]

This is exactly the way I behave. Don’t be in places that invite assault. Be aware of those around you.

I agree.
How I try to behave as well. Situational awereness can help in extracting yourself from a potentially sticky situation.

Because with our society literally crumbling before our eyes and it's just going to get much worse I'm afraid. In the past year there were even two Kansas City Metro bus drivers killed over stupid arguments from drunks and drug addicts. And truly I hope I'm wrong with my prediction but I can literally feel it in the air in the past 2 years especially.

Hardly just the last two years. The Western world has been trying to dismantle itself for quite some time now.
Gee, I wonder why someone would pinpoint the starting date of soceity 'literally' crumbling as being two years ago :rolleyes:
Its almost as if an event happened approxinmately two years ago to trigger this comment ....

How do you know your assailants were 'illegals' - were they caught?

Perhaps San Francisco in 1851 and 1856 had a good idea to solve the problem of crime out of control.

Fires and earthquakes are not to be sneezed at but maybe if the San Andreas Fault could get with the program, that would help solve some of the problems :D (morbid joke, sry).
CA is in a sad state of affairs.

The main reason for my statement of "I Can Literally Feel It In The Air In The Past 2 Years Especially" is not necessarily a definitive statement of a point in time that depicts exactly 2 years ago for the entire country but yet it's based on many things that have transpired in my own personal life and the lives of people I'm very close to in the past 2 years especially here in the area of the USA that I live in>> it's actually much worse in other areas of the USA as confirmed by reputable people I know in many other cities throughout the USA. It's based on events that have happened locally for the most part to me personally and good friends of mine I'm in constant communication with. I fully realize that Western Civilization as a whole has been crumbling long before that point in time in bigger cities like Chicago, LA, Dallas ect>> not to mention the literal cesspool that San Francisco has become . But Kansas City MO/KS metro area has experienced an escalation in different types of crimes we didn't experience so much in the past. KC has become one of the biggest hubs of human trafficing and child porn and child prostitution in the entire nation. We didn't have that distinction even as recent as five years ago. Also violence in our immediate suburbs has escalated a lot in the past 2 to 3 years>> and I'm talking about violence on the streets as well as domestic violence on the rise.

I'm really scratching my head as to why you think that I'm making up a falsehood or fabricating something that is not accurate :confused: I also base what I said on information through some very good people I used to work with in a Lutheran homeless, shelter for street people who have let me know that violence in their shelter has escalated as well>> as well as other ministries throughout our area. In no way did I make any statement that isn't completely true for the immediate area of the USA that I live in. But as far as it being nationwide here in the USA I really don't see how anyone can argue against that either with the rising several hate groups ( all races, religions and political activists) growing in numbers as well as being on the brink of some type of civil war in this nation that appears to be brewing ( extreme liberals vs conservatives). A very good friend of mine who lives in Portland Oregon told me just recently that city has seen a rise of hatred between groups of people like he has never seen it in the past and even the corporate controlled mainstream news media confirms that >> It's actually very dangerous to wear a MAGA hat even here in my community of Blue Springs, MO USA ( KC suburb) much less how dangerous it would be to wear one in Kansas City, MO proper. I'm sorry I just don't get what you're saying and why you don't think I'm being truthful because I am being truthful and accurate. If you lived here you would experience it first hand as I have

[The Deacon]

Michael, a question for you and others on this topic: Why is it that a civilian person cannot carry a sharpened pry bar-knife or a Spyderco Chaparral and if they are attacked, use those tools to the fullest extent, and have the confidence that they will not face any charges or legal problems or retaliation, since they are the law abiding citizen and were just trying to protect themselves?

There are very few places in the USA where a law abiding civilian can't legally carry those items. The problem for the police and the courts will be determining who, if anyone, was the aggressor. If both parties survive, both may claim to be the victim. If only one survives, there's still the need to determine if they were the victim of an attack, or the attacker. That's fairly obvious in some scenarios, but less so in others.

Someone told me that law abiding citizens who are not out to harm others should have no limits on what they can arm themselves with.

Do you agree with that assessment?

I agree totally.

[SpyderScout]

I'm really scratching my head as to why you think that I'm making up a falsehood or fabricating something that is not accurate :confused: ....... I'm sorry I just don't get what you're saying and why you don't think I'm being truthful because I am being truthful and accurate.

You are understandably scratching your head since you read something into my post, which isnt there; I havent implied, that you are making up falsehoods and/or fabricating something.
Nor havent I called you out for not being truthful.
I have no idea, where this comes from or why it pops into your head.

As for the illegals, who attacked you, I repeat my question; how do you know, they were illegals - were they caught?

[ChrisinHove]

Michael, a question for you and others on this topic: Why is it that a civilian person cannot carry a sharpened pry bar-knife or a Spyderco Chaparral and if they are attacked, use those tools to the fullest extent, and have the confidence that they will not face any charges or legal problems or retaliation, since they are the law abiding citizen and were just trying to protect themselves?

There are very few places in the USA where a law abiding civilian can't legally carry those items. The problem for the police and the courts will be determining who, if anyone, was the aggressor. If both parties survive, both may claim to be the victim. If only one survives, there's still the need to determine if they were the victim of an attack, or the attacker. That's fairly obvious in some scenarios, but less so in others.

Someone told me that law abiding citizens who are not out to harm others should have no limits on what they can arm themselves with.

Do you agree with that assessment?

I agree totally.

I do believe in the old adage “power corrupts... etc”.

When you carry a weapon, you are carrying power of life and death. The overwhelming majority clearly past the test of avoiding corruption, but as in any test, some will fail.

[The Deacon]

I do believe in the old adage “power corrupts... etc”.

When you carry a weapon, you are carrying power of life and death. The overwhelming majority clearly past the test of avoiding corruption, but as in any test, some will fail.

And there are laws in place to deal with those who fail. Murder, attempted murder, and physically assaulting someone are all crimes, regardless of whether done with a weapon or with bare hands.

When you drive a car, you carry the power of life and death. Driving requires a license, but some folks drink to excess, drive, and kill despite the fact that they had to break the law to do so. Would you ban cars?

[SpyderScout]

I do believe in the old adage “power corrupts... etc”.

When you carry a weapon, you are carrying power of life and death. The overwhelming majority clearly past the test of avoiding corruption, but as in any test, some will fail.

And there are laws in place to deal with those who fail. Murder, attempted murder, and physically assaulting someone are all crimes, regardless of whether done with a weapon or with bare hands.

When you drive a car, you carry the power of life and death. Driving requires a license, but some folks drink to excess, drive, and kill despite the fact that they had to break the law to do so. Would you ban cars?

Well summed up.

[ChrisinHove]

I do believe in the old adage “power corrupts... etc”.

When you carry a weapon, you are carrying power of life and death. The overwhelming majority clearly past the test of avoiding corruption, but as in any test, some will fail.

And there are laws in place to deal with those who fail. Murder, attempted murder, and physically assaulting someone are all crimes, regardless of whether done with a weapon or with bare hands.

When you drive a car, you carry the power of life and death. Driving requires a license, but some folks drink to excess, drive, and kill despite the fact that they had to break the law to do so. Would you ban cars?

And some people certainly *do* fail the test of responsible car ownership. I think we need to recognise the likelihood of human shortcomings, and limits on car use are imposed in many areas until experience and sound judgement are proven.

[The Deacon]

And some people certainly *do* fail the test of responsible car ownership. I think we need to recognise the likelihood of human shortcomings, and limits on car use are imposed in many areas until experience and sound judgement are proven.

And yet, despite those limits, there are still folks still drive without a license and folks who have a drivers license but drive irresponsibly and harm other people in the process. Same is true of guns. Hunters in many, if not all, US states have to take a "Hunter Safety Training Course" before being issued a license. Hunting "accidents", many of which are the result of irresponsible and negligent behavior, still happen.