Whips and weapons (Page 4 of 6)

It seems like most combat theorycrafters always go after the "Theory of Rational Deterrence", which is to say that the attacker must necessarily have a self-preservation instinct, or -at the very least- want to avoid getting hurt. Some attackers are so enraged that pain does not matter to them at all.

The most potent example of this that I can remember is a Laser Tag match I had with an old friend of mine. It had to be ten years ago. I worked with him at the local Taco Bell, and we decided to hang out at the laser tag place.

This person had absolutely no goal in mind other than to tag me as many times as possible. He walked behind me, taking as many hits as necessary to insure victory. There was no attempt at all to avoid being hit. He just kept pulling the trigger over and over, until the match was over. Win, lose, or draw. It was surreal.

It hit me that this mentality was not just applicable to a game. There are people who might actually feel this way in real combat. How do you stop a person who doesn't care that they might be hurt or killed? How can you rely on that instinct when it doesn't exist?

The situation described earlier is a perfect example. Rules are outlined, and none of those rules say that the attacker has to be afraid of getting hurt. Sure, you'll take a few hits, but you'll take down your target. The victim is still just as dead.

How much "stopping power" does a whip really have? At worst, you get cut. Oh, no. If you're hopped up on PCP, that doesn't even register as something that even happened. You get cut and you power through, pummeling your victim as hard and as often as you can.

Does it matter, then, that he had a whip? Does it matter if the attacker even dies? Let's say you get lucky and cut the throat with your whip. You still get taken to the ground and you still get beaten into a bloody pulp.

The point here is that nothing is a "perfect" weapon. You can't rely on any one strategy being successful. You have to be willing to adapt to a situation. If you think just holding a whip or a gun will save you, then you're already dead.

.

There is a thing, no one was thinking about. I was waiting if someone would touch that. It's about the distance. Let me ask you a question. When is an attacker near enough to be a real threat to you? And? Does that open a door in your minds...

I am standing somewhere. Let's ay I'm waiting for a bus. To my right there is a guy. Black leather jacket, tattoos on his hands, bald head. He looks at me with a dark look. Then he draws a knife. Lucky enough I have a whip with me! I unroll the whip and hit him straight to the face! I cut his face open and his left eye is bleeding. I am a hero. I defended myself successfully with a whip.

That guy was far away from me so that I could use the whip. It was the perfect distance. But was it the perfect distance for him to attack me...? No. He was way too far away. The police comes and I'll face court.

Why?

He had a knife and he looked like a real bad guy. So I HAD to strike first to survive. Later on I hear that his mother died in the hospital an hour ago  - therefore the sinister look on his face - and he draw the knife to cut a string from a button on his jacket. And the last thing, the judge will ask me is this:

"Mr. Amper. You felt threatened by that man, is that correct?"

"Yes, Sir. He looked at me and pulled a knife from his jacket."

"How close was he?"

"Pardon me?"

"Was he close enough to stab you with his knife? Was he close enough to hurt you with that knife?"

"Sir, I felt threatened by the knife!"

"My question is: Was that man close enough to you to reach you with the blade?"

"Ahm, ohm, I'm not sure..."

"You hit that man with a whip, which had an overall reach/length of nearly seven feet. 5 feet braided and two feet of some cord with some fluffy thing at the end. That means, the man was about 2,5 meters away from you. I see that this man doesn't have arms like an ape. So it was absolutely impossible for him to reach you with his knife. So - please - explain me where the threat was..."

Conclusion: I hurt a man who was way too far away from me to be a real & physical threat to me. Even if would've yelled at me - he-was-too-far-away-from-me. And even if someone yells at you: I kill you!!!! As long as he's not close enough, it's not more than yelling. Got the point...? I think, I'll go to jail and pay for the poor man for the rest of my life. That good a whip is as weapon!

If the man would have had a gun, pointing at me - then it is a serious and real attack. But then I wouldn't take my whip. Would you?

You can't justify the attack at another person which is obviously too far away as he could do any harm to you. You carry a gun. Suddenly a person - let's say about 30 feet away from you - looks at you and starts to run straight into your direction. You draw the gun and shoot him. Pitty, that he was realizing that he's going to miss the bus, he was waiting for. And so he started to run, and the bus station was 40 feet behind you...

There is a huge difference in difference. As long as you defend yourself against someone who's close enough to be a threat - hands, knife, screwdriver, broken bottle... - you are the defender. But the same moment you hit someone who is NOT near enough to hurt you - with a knife, screwdriver, bottle etc. - YOU will be the attacker! And the same moment, you hit someone with a whip, you're hitting a person which is not close enough to be a real and physical threat. YOU are the attacker, then.

That was a long story, but it's worth to be told. That's the story I tell my students on every seminar I give, when the (unavoidable) question comes "Can I defend myself with a whip?" Now think again. What would you say when you read an article in a newspaper, which says that someone defended himself with a 7 ft. long spear against someone who was yelling at him? Of course you would say first: "What idiot is this to carry a spear?" Careful, friends, careful. If someone would read such an article, that one defended himself with a whip, others would say instantly "Which idiot carries a whip...?"

In my opinion and experience it's a wishful, romantic and adventurous thinking to be a hero like Indy or Zorro out on the streets. In fact you'll be an inmate in the state prison for hurting someone without reason...

Robby

That's just the part they leave out of every movie. Of course that's because it would be boring if every action movie sequel started with a court scene or a prison life montage, but admit it, you would love to see Johnny the Aryan Douche facing charges for the attempted murder of Daniel in Karate Kid. But I digress.

It's funny how violence seems like the perfect quick solution to problems for people with poor impulse control, but considering what Robby said above, it's far from quick. Actions do have consequences even for the good guys. Very good point, thanks.

- Pokkis

You can practice to kill a person with a phone book, if you like. I have "zero problems" with that, too. But if you try to use that and hit someone on the head, I know a few folks who will have a problem. They are called "Police" and later on "Judge". I was not talking about practicing anything. I am talking about attacking other people and then to face the consequences. I don't think you really got my point.

Robby

It is true, Robert.  A flew years ago we had a police officer who shot and killed a man who was shooting at him and rushing towards him.  He did everything that his police training told him to do in a situation like that.  However, since he has martial arts training he had to go to trial to explain why he used his gun.  Any other cop would not have been questioned like that.

I absolutely agree, Robert!

It seems to me that, at the heart of this problem, there is far too much blurring in people's minds between fantasy and real life. I was astonished (and horrified) to read recently that American soldiers in the Middle East have sometimes repeated a particular assault two or three times just to get good videos of themselves in action! This article (in The Spectator magazine, a highly respectable source) suggested that they 'wanted to look like Rambo' more than to be good and effective soldiers. It quoted one of them saying, 'Everyone wants cool stuff to show their friends on Facebook.'

I have no problem with fantasy - but let's do all we can to make sure it's never confused with with life!

You know, when I started making whips just over a year ago it never occurred to me tat I was making a weapon. All I saw, and still do today, is  a thing of beauty and practical function. That's why I make 'em!

That can be a bit difficult to explain to someone who just heard whips can be a hobby. First question is mostly "are they sex toys", and after explaining the difference between supersonic whips and those flappy spanking thingies sold in sex shops, the next question is "are they weapons then?"

A funny thing really, I just noticed that almost nobody asks anything about them at first. Mostly I just have to listen to a lot of assumptions and say "no" a lot.

- Pokkis

Quod erat demonstrandum.

- Pokkis