Blades for home defense?

[MTMilitiaman]

I know a guy who has a katana mounted above his bedroom doorway. I know another guy who has a Colt Steel Trenchhawk between his bedstand and his bed. And yet another guy who has a machete by his front door, and a baseball bat and a claw hammer stashed throughout his house. All of these people live in MT, where it is easier than most places for them to have a firearm available for the same purpose, but for whatever reason, they opt for the blade instead. While there is some truth to the foolishness of bringing a knife to a gunfight, it is also a fact that being confronted by a man is in his underwear with a katana or a tomahawk probably makes anything in his house not worth the effort or potential risk. Even without extensive training, these instruments can be devastatingly effective in close quarters. This got me thinking, if there are so many people in a gun-friendly state who still choose to incorporate an edged weapon into their home defense scheme, how many others do?

 

[edwardware]

Methinks someone watched too much Highlander.

Why would you want a weapon that required getting in someone's face if you could have firearm instead? That's silly.

 

[cheygriz]

If you must use a blade, forget the half-arswed measures and get a Scottisjh two handed Claymore.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

I modded a Cold Steel Spike hawk for my little bro who couldn't have firearms where he lived.

I wouldn't ever recommend a melee tool for self defense unless you had no other options.

 

[edwardware]

If you must use a blade, forget the half-arsed measures and get a Scottish two handed Claymore.

Since I'm a filthy Yankee, can I substitute a one handed Claymore?

 

[Jim Watson]

Don't use a longsword or polearm for home defense; you will be whacking it into doorframes and furniture.
A nice shortsword or tomahawk, maybe.

 

[mdThanatos]

There are several Axe Throwing businesses opening up around the country. My wife and I and some of her coworkers went and it was fun. Someone had a SOG Fasthawk that was light and easy to throw. The distances that we were throwing from were are definitely comparable to rooms in my own home.

With all that said I live in a gun friendly state and incorporate firearms in my defense but if I couldn't use them I wouldn't feel under defended with a few throwing hawks.

I do agree with Jim Watson about a shorter weapon being more manageable indoors when compared to a longer melee weapon.

 

[lemaymiami]

In a dire moment anything can be pressed into defensive service - but I'd have to question their utility in the real world... Still in that once in a lifetime moment there are lots and lots of blades or "blunt objects" that can be used to end a bad encounter. Remember it's not the bow and arrow that's the danger - it's the two legged animal using those tools that you'd better look out for....

I've been on the scene of a fair number of killings, back when I was a young cop (then as a not so young cop...), all those years ago -- done by every means under the sun, from sharp things to pointy things to hammers - even, on one occasion a paint bucket used as a blunt instrument... There is one town down here in south florida where the most typical killing instrument is just a bottle or a rock... (pretty primitive - but when folks are living close the bone having a firearm handy might just not be happening...).

All of the primitive means of defense have one glaring drawback - they all require you to get entirely too close to someone that means to do you harm (at least that's what my Dad told me, many many years ago...).

Me, I'll stick to more modern means and make no apology for that preference - even though I think a handgun is what you use because you couldn't get to a better weapon in the circumstances.... My fondest wish is that I spend the rest of my life without having to raise a hand to another man ever again....

 

[MTMilitiaman]

Methinks someone watched too much Highlander.

Why would you want a weapon that required getting in someone's face if you could have firearm instead? That's silly.

Most domiciles are going to require you to be pretty close, regardless. Every wall of my room is in range of a katana with me standing in the middle of it, next to my bed. There's only one spot in the house where I would have to take more than two steps for a short sword or machete to be in range.

A machete, hatchet, or tomahawk cost a small fraction of what a firearm costs. If you live in a pretty quiet neighborhood, and most of them in MT are pretty quiet, they may figure that their chances of needing to defend their home are so minuscule that it doesn't make sense to spend hundreds of dollars on it, Or conversely, if they do have to defend their home, why would they want the police to confiscate hundreds of dollars of their property when they could just hand over a $15 machete?

I am not doubting that a firearm is going to be a safer and more effective option most of the time, but to assume that an edged weapon is silly is maybe a little myopic.

 

[hso]

We've had several discussions about what you do if firearms are denied to you at home.

The point to keep in mind is that you have to size the defensive tool to the space. If you can't swing it without hanging up it isn't going to work as well something sized for the space. Long weapons inside tend to need to focus on thrusts more than swinging.

 

[JShirley]

Don't use a longsword or polearm for home defense; you will be whacking it into doorframes and furniture.
A nice shortsword or tomahawk, maybe.

Short spears are actually quite easy to control if you know how to use them.

My SO doesn't like guns much, so blades are much closer at hand. However, even though I'm well trained with a variety of blades, I will always go for the AR if I have the extra minute or so. Given the option, all of you should make the same choice.

 

[hso]

Why would you want a weapon that required getting in someone's face if you could have firearm instead? That's silly.

As an international organization and having members that can't legally have firearms in the home for whatever reason it is blind to dismiss this issue.

 

[edwardware]

As an international organization and having members that can't legally have firearms in the home for whatever reason it is blind to dismiss this issue.

Why would you want a weapon that required getting in someone's face if you could have firearm instead? That's silly.

Seems pretty straightforward. If you can't have firearms, then you. . . can't have firearms. I explicitly exempted this circumstance in my first comment characterizing the decision as silly.

Given that the premise of the OP is the decision to use a blade by persons who could easily have a firearm if they chose to, it seemed on-topic to respond to the premise.

 

[entropy]

I have several swords and axes in my bedroom, including a katana (and a bokken), but as far as using one of my swords (or axes) for HD when I have a perfectly good Ithaca 37 even closer, it brings to mind the scene in "INDIANA JONES" where he is confronted with a scimitar-wielding bad guy....I'd rather have the gun.
Maybe Tinker will pop in and give us his opinion.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

I know a guy who has a katana mounted above his bedroom doorway. I know another guy who has a Colt Steel Trenchhawk between his bedstand and his bed. And yet another guy who has a machete by his front door, and a baseball bat and a claw hammer stashed throughout his house. All of these people live in MT, where it is easier than most places for them to have a firearm available for the same purpose, but for whatever reason, they opt for the blade instead. While there is some truth to the foolishness of bringing a knife to a gunfight, it is also a fact that being confronted by a man is in his underwear with a katana or a tomahawk probably makes anything in his house not worth the effort or potential risk. Even without extensive training, these instruments can be devastatingly effective in close quarters. This got me thinking, if there are so many people in a gun-friendly state who still choose to incorporate an edged weapon into their home defense scheme, how many others do?

Our state is gun and knife friendly, but as our CCW instructor pointed out, people on a jury have a primal, instinctive, fear of blades.

"I was in fear for my life and had to cut the guy."

......is a much harder sell than:

"I was in fear for my life and was forced to discharge my weapon."

Still, better to be judged than carried, as they say- use whatever you have to to survive.

 

[Jim Watson]

Like Bill Jordan said of pistolwhipping, it is easier to convince the coroners jury that you didn't shoot somebody too much than to show you didn't hit him too hard.

 

[DannyLandrum]

A subject I have pondered on a lot.

First the justification: some wives / GFs refuse to learn a gun and/or are just not mechanically inclined enough to use a gun. However, push comes to shove (home invasion, say), their survival instincts will kick in and a bladed weapon is very intuitive - just a natural extension of swinging the arm, which is hardwired into all of us, when fight or flight takes over. Very little training is needed - worse case scenario, just let her know where it is. "Honey, I know you're not the fighting type, but if anyone ever comes in here, I want you to grab this here _______ to defend yourself, ok?"

Next, the best answer: In close quarters, it's a short spear, I believe, such as my Cold Steel assegai blade mounted to a shovel handle (about a 3 to 3.5 foot handle is right for fighting in close confines of a house). I'm a big katana lover, but when you look at a weapon like the assegai, it's evident that the long sharpened sides on the spear allow you to swing it just like a sword (katana), so it ends up being able to do, in essence, everything a sword can do, *but* it's a much more effective stabber to keep attackers at bay and run them through.

Honorable mentions: Various machetes & kuhkris are cheap and effective, as are long bayos. Chisa or Ko (short) katanas are excellent options as well, I think a close 2nd to the short spear. Hawk-billed tomahawks are good too.



And of course, a reminder / dose of reality:

 

[sean m]

I've got a cheap Schrade Bowie knife on the nightstand....

 

[JohnKSa]

• Let's assume a person chooses a cutting weapon as a primary home defense weapon.
• Let's assume that same person picks something that makes at least some modicum of sense for the situation. e.g. Not a Claymore for a dwelling with small rooms, low ceilings and narrow halls.
• Let's assume this person does own firearms and there is nothing legally or obviously preventing the person from making the far more conventional choice of a firearm as a self-defense weapon.
• Let's assume that this person actually ends up in a home defense situation and uses the chosen primary home defense weapon to seriously injure or kill an attacker.

If I were that person, I would want to have given some serious thought, in advance, to what credible and socially acceptable answer I would give to the question of why I chose to chop someone up instead of using a gun for self-defense. Not because it's illegal to use a sword or axe or spear for self-defense but because I don't want anyone to get the idea that I chose such a weapon because I liked the idea of hacking on another human being with a large cutting weapon. I would want to give an explanation that would have some chance of explaining to a normal human being (who might have some input into determining if what I did was reasonable given the situation) why I picked that particular weapon. And I would want that explanation to leave no doubt that my motives didn't include getting a thrill out of cutting a human to pieces.

For example, let's say I am an avid saber fencing competitor. I think that it would make sense to someone that given my experience from competition I was very comfortable using a similar implement for self-defense.

Or perhaps, if I were to live in an apartment with people living all around, very close with only thin walls between, I could explain that I was concerned about the possibility of errant shots endangering my neighbors.

As a counterexample, let's say I had Kill Bill and SAW movie posters all over the house and no good reason for picking a sword over a shotgun. I think that could give someone the impression that I really enjoyed the idea of cutting a fellow human up and I think that impression would make most normal human beings pretty uncomfortable. Which isn't something I would want to do in a situation where someone's opinion could be very important.

Hypotheticals aside, I actually do have an edged weapon positioned for self-defense use--so I'm not saying it's automatically a bad idea. But I also have a good explanation--one that will make sense to a "normal person"--for why an edged weapon makes good sense for that situation.

 

[readyeddy]

I think we all would prefer to fight at a distance with a gun, but circumstances will invariably present us with alternative scenarios. That’s why some people prepare to fight with guns , blades , and empty hands. They all have their place in a struggle and once we are in contact range, the blade or blunt instrument may be the optimal tool for the situation.

 

[Browning]

Giving a knife to the average housewife will just give the home invader something to stab her with. Especially if he's been locked up before. The convict subculture is primarily knife oriented.

I work as an EMT next to a prison. Those guys are stabbing other in-shape and just as violent guys and inflicting gaping wounds on them. And they're doing this with junk metal, pens and melted plastic. Sometimes the other guy snatches the knife away or has his own knife and stabs him back. If anyone believes that Susie homemaker is going to compete with some prisoner who does (literally) a thousand burpees a day and has a few stabbings and some riots under his belt you're delusional.

Imagine if this woman had a knife and tried to use it, she'd be dead.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

• Let's assume a person chooses a cutting weapon as a primary home defense weapon.
• Let's assume that same person picks something that makes at least some modicum of sense for the situation. e.g. Not a Claymore for a dwelling with small rooms, low ceilings and narrow halls.
• Let's assume this person does own firearms and there is nothing legally or obviously preventing the person from making the far more conventional choice of a firearm as a self-defense weapon.
• Let's assume that this person actually ends up in a home defense situation and uses the chosen primary home defense weapon to seriously injure or kill an attacker.

If I were that person, I would want to have given some serious thought, in advance, to what credible and socially acceptable answer I would give to the question of why I chose to chop someone up instead of using a gun for self-defense. Not because it's illegal to use a sword or axe or spear for self-defense but because I don't want anyone to get the idea that I chose such a weapon because I liked the idea of hacking on another human being with a large cutting weapon. I would want to give an explanation that would have some chance of explaining to a normal human being (who might have some input into determining if what I did was reasonable given the situation) why I picked that particular weapon. And I would want that explanation to leave no doubt that my motives didn't include getting a thrill out of cutting a human to pieces.

For example, let's say I am an avid saber fencing competitor. I think that it would make sense to someone that given my experience from competition I was very comfortable using a similar implement for self-defense.

Or perhaps, if I were to live in an apartment with people living all around, very close with only thin walls between, I could explain that I was concerned about the possibility of errant shots endangering my neighbors.

As a counterexample, let's say I had Kill Bill and SAW movie posters all over the house and no good reason for picking a sword over a shotgun. I think that could give someone the impression that I really enjoyed the idea of cutting a fellow human up and I think that impression would make most normal human beings pretty uncomfortable. Which isn't something I would want to do in a situation where someone's opinion could be very important.

Hypotheticals aside, I actually do have an edged weapon positioned for self-defense use--so I'm not saying it's automatically a bad idea. But I also have a good explanation--one that will make sense to a "normal person"--for why an edged weapon makes good sense for that situation.

Just OWNING a dedicated fighting blade such as a sword or short spear could be used by a zealous DA as evidence of intent. The odds of even one person on the jury also being a blade aficionado are slim to none, so right there they are going to have a hard time empathising with you and your SD situation.

That's why, IMO, you are actually better off using a common household melee weapon, many of which are still quite effective hand-to-hand. Everyone has a kitchen knife, shovel, hammer or screwdriver laying about. Even axes and machetes would probably be viewed as yard implements reasonable persons might grab in an emergency to defend themselves.

But the moment they hear " ninja sword?" Uh oh, half the jury box is already thinking you're a psycho.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Giving a knife to the average housewife will just give the home invader something to stab her with. Especially if he's been locked up before. The convict subculture is primarily knife oriented.

I work as an EMT next to a prison. Those guys are stabbing other in-shape and just as violent guys and inflicting gaping wounds on them. And they're doing this with junk metal, pens and melted plastic. Sometimes the other guy snatches the knife away or has his own knife and stabs him back. If anyone believes that Susie homemaker is going to compete with some prisoner who does (literally) a thousand burpees a day and has a few stabbings and some riots under his belt you're delusional.

While you do have some valid points, it's also worth remembering that perpetrators of violent crimes aren't interested in a "fair fight" in the first place. Which means the victim they've chosen to attack is ALREADY at a disadvantage and ALREADY positioned to fail in surviving.

A victim inexperienced in various methods of self-defense (with or without weapons) may or may not be in any more danger for having a weapon in hand than having nothing at all...but the vital difference is that they actually HAVE a weapon in the first place. And that, at least, gives them SOMETHING of credible value in terms of ability to harm an attacker.

I'm not a big man, myself, at 5'9" and around 185 pounds. My 20 years in the Navy was aboard submarines, not as a SEAL operative. There are plenty of people out there, like the ones you described above, who could very easily overpower me in an attack, even under the circumstances you described.

BUT...even though the guy may make a meal out of me, if I have a chance to be armed (even with a pocket knife), I'm going to do my best to get my sandwich out of him. And I'll take whatever weapon I can to improve my odds.

We should not begrudge anybody this opportunity.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Just OWNING a dedicated fighting blade such as a sword or short spear could be used by a zealous DA as evidence of intent. The odds of even one person on the jury also being a blade aficionado are slim to none, so right there they are going to have a hard time empathising with you and your SD situation.

That's why, IMO, you are actually better off using a common household melee weapon, many of which are still quite effective hand-to-hand. Everyone has a kitchen knife, shovel, hammer or screwdriver laying about. Even axes and machetes would probably be viewed as yard implements reasonable persons might grab in an emergency to defend themselves.

But the moment they hear " ninja sword?" Uh oh, half the jury box is already thinking you're a psycho.

Well, of COURSE this is so! And it's the attorney's job on the side of the attacker to push this point of view.

The same could be said for nearly ANYTHING a person may own which could present a credible defense against an attacker.

However, it's also the job of the attorney on the sider of the defender to present the attacker in the worst light, as well, making his client look like the helpless victim who would have died an horrible death if he had not otherwise acted to preserve his own life.

"If the law is on your side, pound the law. If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If neither is on your side, pound the table." (Some variation of this can be found from various sources.)

People need to quit painting themselves into a corner on all the "woulda-coulda-shoulda" scenarios which play on such legal fears. They would be far better off knowing and understanding their jurisdictional laws on deadly force and when deadly force may be legitimately used in their defense. In the legal world, this carries FAR more weight in a court of law.

Now, I'm not an attorney, and even if I WERE an attorney, I'm not YOUR attorney.

HOWEVER, I have spent some time reading and observing various court cases and it seems to me that the vast preponderance (is this repetitive?) of the outcomes have to do with actual applications of the LAW to the case at hand, not with willy-nilly "feelings" holding sway over all legal evidence.

 

[Browning]

While you do have some valid points, it's also worth remembering that perpetrators of violent crimes aren't interested in a "fair fight" in the first place. Which means the victim they've chosen to attack is ALREADY at a disadvantage and ALREADY positioned to fail in surviving.

A victim inexperienced in various methods of self-defense (with or without weapons) may or may not be in any more danger for having a weapon in hand than having nothing at all...but the vital difference is that they actually HAVE a weapon in the first place. And that, at least, gives them SOMETHING of credible value in terms of ability to harm an attacker.

I'm not a big man, myself, at 5'9" and around 185 pounds. My 20 years in the Navy was aboard submarines, not as a SEAL operative. There are plenty of people out there, like the ones you described above, who could very easily overpower me in an attack, even under the circumstances you described.

BUT...even though the guy may make a meal out of me, if I have a chance to be armed (even with a pocket knife), I'm going to do my best to get my sandwich out of him. And I'll take whatever weapon I can to improve my odds.

We should not begrudge anybody this opportunity.

It's not that I begrudge anyone their right to self defense, but I try to deal in reality. What will actually work.

Regardless of gender or weapon people should get some training. However most women are at a disadvantage already in size, upper body strength, experience in physical confrontations and in mindset. Giving the average woman a knife who has no training in a reality based martial arts program and expecting them to be able to punch holes in a home invaders chest, neck, eyes, abdomen and back in an instant is asking a little too much. Going from breast feeding to stabbing predators who enter their homes is a bit too far of a leap.

Are there some women who can make that leap and who are trained in the use of a knife? Sure, but it's certainly not the norm.

A giant can of bear spray and a taser would be way better if they can't or won't use a gun.