Sword for HD?

Status
Not open for further replies.
"England will prosecute you for defending your home with deadly force!"

You will be prosecuted for 'unreasonable force', like shooting someone who is running away (so that's not self-defence) or for torturing someone or for shooting your girlfriend who was going to slap you for calling her fat. You will most likely be prosecuted for killing anyone under any circumstances, but if it's self-defence, it will be thrown out.

A friend of a friend shot a pair of thieves, killing one, and was aquitted of any wrong doing because it was self defence.
 
Fosbery,

For our further edification and only if you don't mind. What were the circumstances? Were the robbers armed and with what? Did they do or actively attempt to do violence on the homeowner before he was justified to shoot? Did he (and did he have to) order them to leave and they refuse before justification?

I know I had some severe misapprehensions of English law on the subject early on, this might help make the details more clear for me and others who are trying to get beyond the whole "disarmed subjects/self defense illegal" trope. (tripe ;) )

Thanks,

matthew
 
Sword for home defense disadvantages:

1. Most of them are too lengthy for close quarter indoor fights
2. Many are poor quality sword-like objects (as opposed to real swords)
3. Few folks have any skill or training nor will they ever practice
4. Firearms provide stand-off and don't require athletic ability

Sword for home defense advantages:

1. Terrific lethality and wounding potential
2. Never jam or run dry
3. Possible psychological advantage (some otherwise bad folks may retreat)
4. MAY be viable alternative where law precludes ready firearms

That said, I'd recommend a short weapon, useful for both stabbing and cutting with 22" blade length or less. You don't want something that is going to wind up hacking down the dry wall, the ceiling fans, or your couch.

P1010006.jpg

Things that come to mind:

1. Gladius; the one in the photo (with the wood grip) is by Generation2 and will slice thru a sapling tree; it is amazingly sharp, strong, and pointy. 21" blade; weighs about 3 lbs; $180

2. Some other short sword (the other in the photo is a forged, wire-wrapped grip, 16" bladed, medieval version from former Czechoslovakia)

3. For well under $100, the Cold Steel Assegi, a short stabbing spear loosely inspired by the weapon carried by Zulu warriors. This thing duplicates sword stabbing, gives you some standoff, and can be used to slash. In many ways, a spear trumps a sword in the hands of someone without vast training (like myself)

4. Lastly, an often overlooked but never disappointing option is to go with the traditional biggest knife you can carry...the Bowie. Cold Steel's Trailmaster is built like a dream, razor sharp, enough weight to slash, chop, and stab...all for around $130. This is a close quarter battle weapon par excellance.
 
The thieves tried to run him over in their car but he got out the way. They turned around and came at him again and he shot them through the door.
 
In a place called Middle Earth you can carry swords axesand other medeival weapons!!!:evil:
 
Got a Shortsword.............

Museum Replicas repro of a Viking Scramsax backsword = the original is on display in the British Museum.:) Handy for storming castles, boarding ships, fighting in hallways, etc. from behind a small shield this thing is a respectable weapon! = No safety to mess with & you don't need to load/reload:evil:
BG has a scattergun???= a thick shield ought to take care of that so you can close in to 'Ginsu' range:eek:
 
Hi Carebear

I live in England and the current situation is that the law says one thing and the 'establishment' says another to the point where 'policy' is thought of by the Police and the Courts as being the law. The Home Office and the Crown Prosecution Service are very good at giving incomplete summaries of the Law.

With regards to self defence, you have at Common Law the right to use force to resist unlawful violence and a right to use reasonable force to prevent crime or to assist the Police to affect a lawful arrest. This statutory right to use reasonable force to is the exact same law that the Police rely on to shoot armed suspects in most circumstances.

As for firearms the various Firearms Acts to date have never outlawed the ownership or use of firearms for SD, however it has been 'policy' since 1947 to never grant Certifcates for self defence. The purposes of the Firarms Legislation has always been to stop children, criminals and mad people from owning firearms. Only those people who the police believe 'to be a danger to the Peace' are excluded from owning guns. Unfortunately the Police 'believe' that shooting a night-time intruder is a potential breach of the peace. !?!

Certain non firearm weapons are not banned but instead have their sale and manufacture etc restricted to cut of thier supply 'at source'.

Everything else can be owned and used for self defence and only their use is governed by the 'reasonable test'.

The reasonableness of a persons actions is judged as an individual case by a jury so the Police etc tend to think that every instance has to be tried in a Court by a jury to know whether or not the defendant should be prosecuted or not.

The English Bill of Rights 1689 gives us the statutory right to own weapons for self defence, the Firearms law in the UK originally sought to keep guns out of the hands of undesirable people but soon became a tool to effectively outlaw guns for anything but sporting purposes. They cannot legally repeal the Bill of Rights but they can do so with a policy in a Country that has forgotten it has a Bill of Rights. Even staff at the Home Office have never heard of the BoR.

The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 was enacted to stop 'the thug on the edges of society' from terrorising their neighbourhoods with non firearm weapons, by giving the Police the new power to require anyone found in public with a weapon to give an account of why they had the weapon with them at the material time. It was never intended to stop the law abiding form carrying weapons for defence but like thefirearms laws has been hijacked by the establishment who feel that it is often in the public's interest to prosecute even vulnerable members of society who carry a weapon in public for defence.

Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act states that it is unlawful to have with you in a public place a weapon designed to cause injury without lawful authority or a reasonable excuse. Even though the Bill of Rights gives us the Lawful Authority the Police focus on the reasonable excuse clause and the defendant has to trust the jury to agree that at the material time it was 'reasonable' to have a weapon. Lawyers that dont want to rock the boat then advise their clients that its best to just to plead guilty or to claim reasonable excuse. In fact if you elect to have a trial by jury they increase the maximum sentance on conviction from 6 months to 2 years.They will let you fight for your innocence but only if you accept the risk of a much longer prison term if the jury dont agree. So much for justice!

The result is a nation where the law abiding still recognise thier natural rights of self defence but are made to feel like criminals if they dare carry something (anything) expressly for self defence. In fact even the Home Office recognise that right but suggest that you should only use something that you 'happen' to have with you at the time. So a martial artist that is attacked on his way home from training is allowed to resist using the weapons 'he happened' to have with him, but the same man returning from the sweet shop would only be 'allowed' to hit his attacker with his door keys.

But more importantly IMHO it also makes criminals much bolder and prolific because they know that even if they invade some ones home they is little risk of ever facing a properly designed weapon per se, let a lone a firearm.
 
Based on my limited experience as an Olympic-style sabre fencer, I'd say cutting/slashing style swords are right out in hallways and other close-in areas. I'd go for something short that you can poke holes in people with.

Based on that same experience, I'd also say swords for personal defense are a bad idea unless you intend to train a whole lot. Just last thursday I hit my own off hand with my sabre while practicing. Mildly embarassing since a fencing sabre is dull and flexible. Expensive and life changing if you're using a real blade. And your home invader probably won't stop to drive you to the hospital to have your fingers put back on.
 
Ditto the Gladius. It's small enough to be easy to manipulate and has both stabbing and slashing abilities. A longer sword or Katana requires too much wind up. Also, stabbing is a faster way to stop a foe than slashing.
 
If you're serious about a sword, ie: LEARNING HOW TO USE IT, you can't beat a Wakazashi.

It's a short Katana. You could conceal it, but if you want it for home defense I guess that's OK too.

If you can't have a firearm, I guess a sword is OK, just know that it requires FAR more training and physical fitness than a firearm to use effectively.

BTW, if you underhand it, you won't need to "wind up". Katanas are slashing weapons, not hacking weapons, so you don't need any "wind up". You just need vertical space.
 
You

could use a Scottish dirk (double edged, not a naval ''dirk'') for home defense. It would be one of the few edged swordlike weapons short enough for the job. In any case, it would be hard to effectively thrust with a gladius in close quarters and impossible to effectively stab someone with a wakizashi as they are not made for it. In an HD situation thrusting would be best because there is little room inside a house to slash. You could also try using a small club, or make it easy for yourself and move to the USA.:D We are always looking for competant people who wish to be free from oppression. Freedom from oppression was the reason we came to be.
 
From a JSA point of view, I too would have to say wakizashi, however, I only choose wakizashi because I am very much at ease using it for self defense. I think the real issue in this thread should be expanded a bit. The real focus should be not on the weapon but on everything that leads up to using a weapon. Home defense doesn’t start with a piece of steel, it starts with a plan. After all, with a well executed plan a butter knife can be a deadly enough weapon. It amazes me how easily people think inflicting serious bodily harm is. Fact of the matter is the average person, when faced with a home invasion will do anything but confront the assailant.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand. When someone asks me the best weapon for HD, I first ask them if they have any type of formal self defense instruction. This commonly includes marital arts, military and law enforcement. Training is key because people with training don’t think; they are trained to act as a reflex thereby making an edged weapon more feasible. However, a person who is not trained and has no fighting experience I feel should stay clear of edged weapons. This is for two essential reasons; number one being that it is easy to disarm a person who doesn’t know what they are doing. Second reason being a person with no training will find it difficult to cut someone’s arm off because they will have to rationalize it first instead of acting out of reflex. Nerves will play a critical role here and often times not for the best.
So, getting to the point(no pun intended), I would first and foremost recommend people to create a plan. What will you do in the event of a home intrusion? This should be a family task as everyone will need to understand their role. A safe space needs to be established for children, closet, under the bed or table. Husband will do .....wife will do......
Then once that has all been sorted out a weapon can be chosen.
No children in the house, shotgun with a tactical pressure switch light and home defense rounds to mow 'em down.
Obviously with children in the house I feel firearms to be a bad choice. So then it's between edged and non-edged weapons. People with training who don’t mind making an intruder pay with a limb, EDGED weapon such as a wakizashi or any sharp piece of steel that doesn’t exceed 22 inches in blade length.
A person with no training looking to make it out alive and not making someone bleed profusely I would have to say a bat(wooden or aluminum) or a bokken(wooden sword), preferably both painted black. These weapons can both be kept bedside and found easily in the dark. They are relatively non-lethal weapons that can inflict more than enough damage to incapacitate someone.

Just my .02
 
A japanese Wakizashi sword is about the right length for household use - blade about 20", overall about 30". Masahiro (a very good japanese cutler) markets these for a reasonable price with a forged carbon steel blade. Online they can be had for between $50.00 and $100.00.

A sword such as this is better balanced than a kukri or machete, and with the japanese style of fighting has enough handle for a real two-handed grip. Swing a kukri or medium weight machete real hard at a specific point on an imaginary foe - and try to stop it mid-stroke to change direction etc. As well as some belly curve for slashing, the Wakizashi (like other jap swords) features a blade and strong tip well suited to the stab.

------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
 
I ask again, has anyone here seen anyone slashed with such a weapon. Do you really want to be that close to someone who bleeds that much?
someone who is likely to be an IV drug user, a hep C carrier, an HIV+ carrier? relying on a sword is foolish.
 
pete f:

I have taken the point of this discussion to be whether or not a sword would make an effective lethal weapon for defense inside the home. With the right blade design, the answer is absolutely yes.

A sword is purpose designed to be lethal. Is it the optimum weapon? Of course not. That's why this is a firearms forum as opposed to a sword forum. Nevertheless, under certain circumstances, a sword might be useful, primarily when the defender does not posess or is forbidden to posess a firearm. Any tool you can put to defensive use is a viable option. Swords are just a proven item on the tool-using ape's menu of response.

If someone is in my house posing such a threat that deadly force is justified, I would be happy to have a purpose designed weapon (like a sword) to answer the threat. At that point, I'd willingly feed someone into a wood chipper if it would end the situation in my favor.

Your point about fluid contamination is well taken, but misses the point of surviving a life & death struggle...right now. If you have to go bare-handed you are just as likely to be contaminated (scratches, cuts, defensive wounds). If you shoot someone at close or contact range, there is likely to be blood spatter. If you club someone, the same possibility exists, especially if the strike does not end the fight and you commence to thrashing about the room in a protracted struggle. If you start out unarmed (and don't lose or win immediately), chances are that either you or the other fella are going to arm yourselves with the first object at hand. Once again, blood is likely to spill.

If you are worrying about Hep or HIV contamination in your hallway at 2:00 AM, you need to rethink your priorities. Yes, I've seen folks cut with gaping wounds and shot and mangled. People leak blood, no way around it except to use a standoff weapon. But that wasn't the original question.
 
I own a 400 year old katana. A kukri made in Nepal. A Paul Chen reproduction katana. I've training in them.

I'm with Dr. Rob. Inside the home, and unable to use my firearms, I'll take the shovel. I use a US Army Korean War era entrenchment tool. Edges sharpened.

One thing that needs to be thought about is obtaining the tactical advantage. Obtaining this can avoid being in a gunfight with a knife which is a good thing.
 
And yes, pete f, I've seen such a person slashed with such a weapon and have worked a ER trauma bay drenched in their blood and knew they were HIV+. Not maybe...definitely.

Now, granted, I'm not going to get up close and personal if I can use a distance weapon.

I'll give you a thought to think upon, though. I know a guy who refused a blood transfusion for he was worried about contracting HIV. Now even if he had contracted HIV through the transfusion, he would have gone through an incubation period that can be ten years long before getting sick. With the drug cocktails available today, the length of time to serious illness is unknown.

But he refused, so instead of maybe contracting HIV and getting sick in ten years and dying who knows when...he died just after surgery.

So don't take the options for self defense.
 
Good posts, Byron.

Just being an average Joe, I don't have a lot to contribute here.
I'll just say that, If I had to rely on a handheld weapon in Close Quarter Battle™, I'd likely steer away from swift bludgeons like the Boken and baseball bat/cricket bat for the simple reason that if you have to employ it you're doing so to save your own life. And, that's no time for half measures or staying on the safe side of the letter of the ambiguous law.
Use an effective tool for the job. If you want to be anachronistic, fine. But, you should realistically face the limitations of that tool well before you have to use it.
The ranged weapon puts you at a great advantage tactically, and keeps the other guy at a disadvantage no matter how much Tae-Bo he did in the joint.

I'm an avid archery practitioner, so I understand what it is to be enamored with anachronistic tools of the warfare trade. But, you gotta be real if you're talking home defense. I don't keep my recurve and 2 broadheads by my bed as a defense tool. I keep a .357 mag and a CZ85 by the bed and a 30/30 handy. For all I know, Chuck Norris' stock plummeted and his total gym empire was ruined by lawsuits from the unfit and he's decided to turn to a life of crime, disgracing the "Walker: Texas Ranger" name, and picked my house to start his life of crime. I'm not going hand to hand with that guy, and I'm not launching arrows at him either.
 
For all I know, Chuck Norris' stock plummeted and his total gym empire was ruined by lawsuits from the unfit and he's decided to turn to a life of crime, disgracing the "Walker: Texas Ranger" name, and picked my house to start his life of crime. I'm not going hand to hand with that guy, and I'm not launching arrows at him either.
Click to expand...

Well of course you wouldn't. :rolleyes:

With one roundhouse kick Chuck could deflect your arrows 180 deg. AND add enough velocity that they create a hole in the time-space continuum and go back to the 19th Century and kill your great-great-great-great-great-grandfather thus totally negating your existence.

Just give him the TV like he asked you too. :evil:
 
in the house a sword could be very effective, but if they bg has a gun you have just brought a knife to a gunfight....all be it a rather large one.

Also consider this about swords, the majority of swords for sale today are meant for display and to look pretty, not actually be used. They don't have the right kind of steel and will break, and you do not want to be on the receiving end of that any more then you do any other piece of razor sharp metal flying at you. If you plan to use a sword for defense don't simple assume it will work, make sure you get one that is known as battle ready and designed for reenactment type use.
 
Well, it wouldn't be ideal, but you can still use a katana in relatively tight quarters, using push-cuts and the like. I still think a hanger/hunting sword/cuttoe/whatever type blade would be better suited.. rather like a waki but with (I think) slightly better ergonomics in some cases, with often a nice knuckle bow and pommel. Heck, they were *designed* for fighting in cramped spaces.

Much more info at forums.swordforum.com, as a place to look up particular manufacturers.

So far as the wisdom of it.. well I wouldn't care to rely totally on it, but if for whatever reason it was all I could get my hands on well.. you do what you can. That said, I believe a decent black powder revolver or shotgun would be a better choice if modern firearms weren't available.
 
I think a battering type tool would be better. safer for myself, and just as useful as a sword...a youth sized baseball bat, a good hammer. When I was in Central America, I saw too much, If I can not defend myself with a gun, then i will be elsewhere. And yes I did that, leaving Cook County Ill for a lesser paying job in Mn where I could at least defend myself.

Byron, you hve seen them in the ER after they have been contained and restrained, I have seen the blow and the fights with blood spurting every where. If you think that just because they have a cocktail that contains some of the infections of HIV< then it is ok to be exposed to it, you are foolish. HIV exposure would mean no more free contact with my wife, not worth it. Hep C mean likely liver transplant.


I have seen people subdued with baseball bats and pipes. Quite frankly the hits from those items seemed to drop people faster that machete hits. The only person I have ever literally seen who "dropped like a sack of flour" was a intoxicated native indian woman I hit with a black jack while bouncing at a bar. That was after she had stuck a fork in my leg. i would not be thinking about contamination at 2-00 am but at 10 pm when getting ready to go to bed, I would have placed my Commander under my pillow and done a hand check on the 870 and M4gery that are in the closer. This is a evening ritual.

I am lucky to live in a gun permissive environment. But in any state in the Union, you can own a shotgun. Anybody can by an easton baseball bat at walmart or target. A sword might work, but there are better tool available.
 
pete f,

There are serious limitations to what some people can do with a baseball bat or other blunt instrument often based on their physical stature and physical strength - and especially in the confines of a hallway or bathroom for instance. And some people are able to take what might seem like a severe blow or two from things like ball bats and keep right on going.

The advantages of a sword (single or double-edged) are many. A bat, club etc can be grabbed by an attacker and the defender possibly disarmed. Try grabbing a sharp sword blade when the user has even a onehanded grip, let along two. Even with heavy leather gloves, and depending how far up the blade is gripped, a very forceful withdraw is probably going to cut to the bone.

If the attacker does not have a firearm, a sword at arms length can be used to force a retreat. Even if the attacker has a baseball bat or similar length club they are going to have great difficulty using it effectively in a confined space where they can not make wide swings. They can choke up on a bat and take shorter swings, but are still going to have a hard time outreaching a sword. And they risk serious injury to their hands and arms by their own actions.

Another proposition is the short spear with a broad double-edged tip. In addition to throwing and thrusting, some of the african tribes have used these in the manner of short double-edged swords on a stick as it were; slashing can be done alternately right or left edge.

--------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
All you wanted to Know about Swords
Replies
17
Views
959
Marko Kloos
M
M
  • Locked
Hiking Staff Sword
Replies
12
Views
6K
lanternlad1
L
J
  • Locked
Short sword suggestions
Replies
17
Views
2K
innerpiece
I
R
  • Locked
Polishing Japanese swords
Replies
19
Views
1K
hso
hso
hso
  • Locked
Bronze Swords
Replies
13
Views
956
Ranald
R
Back
Top