I have received a few comments in regards to the Karambite and its viability as a “last ditch” implement of self defense.
My perception, is that the “last ditch” concept itself is a little off key considering that some would seem to hold “last ditch” as no less than a literal “desperate final attempt”.
So, I would like to speak to this “argument”.
Given the variety of knives in the industry that the term “last ditch” is applied, the common usage of the term might better define “last ditch knife” as “the only implement you are likely to have on your person” (in some cases to utilize for the purpose of defense). As opposed to “an implement of defense that remains concealed, although readily deployed, but only when all other options have failed”.
I am not trying to make any “claims” here. You can say what you please, but don’t take what I have to say as some sort of heavy statement to be rebuked. What I have to say is not directed at proving or disproving anyone.
It is my opinion that there exists no “rules” and “laws” in a dynamic scenario, only theory. There are many theories and no ONE theory can be said to be entirely “true”, or it would no longer be a theory. Some theories can be argued to not be “correct” just as some methods might not be applicable. In my opinion, there are a variety of theories that are practical enough to operate by.
Lets say that what we have “in our heads” (training) dictates what (knives) we put “in our pockets” (not always literally pockets). What we put “in our pockets” we must be capable of deploying, functioning (opening) and utilizing to achieve the objective that we have “in our heads”. Fair enough?
There are various theories on deployment and obviously these theories are not limited to knives. The majority of the theories that I am familiar with in all actuality are related to small arms (handguns). Some of these theories could themselves (in theory) be applied to edged weapons.
I will share with you one such theory for your consideration. This is not my personal theory so please do not ask me to defend it to the death. I am not asking that you take it to heart, I am offering you to take it into account. It is a small arms theory, devised, or perhaps (more than likely) borrowed by, the Israeli Secret Service for the purpose of close protection.
In short this theory presents an examination of the issue of combat range, defined as “Close, Medium and Long”. According to this theory, only at “medium range” is it MOST effective to utilize your side arm to defend the principal. “Long range” is considered to be LESS effective as the adversary is too far away to effectively engage with a hand gun. “Close range” is considered to be the range where it is LEAST effective. At “Close range” it is considered more effective to close distance with an adversary in order to physically subvert his or her attempted action. This action could be anything, including the adversary attempting to draw a side arm.
This last bit is the part that might not make an incredible amount of sense to everyone. But, if you consider that most of us would be more capable of lunging forward and physically engaging an aggressor faster than we could draw our own weapon this makes more sense.
Various methods of blade theory practice what is called “one for one movement”. Meaning that you as the defender do not get to make three defensive movements against an attackers single movement of attack. Therefore, an adversary who you have recognized as drawing a weapon is already engaged in his or her first movement of attack. In theory, you are not twice as fast as the adversary, so you cannot outdraw and shoot them first. You can however counter this action with an action that you can execute more quickly.
If you have taken good note then you realize that this theory does not define range in measured distance but would instead be defined by personal capability. You may also be telling yourself that “this theory applies to throwing your body at an attacker in order to protect someone else”. This is true, but consider how this might be applicable to utilizing an edged implement as a utility for self defense, Define your own range and actions by your own personal capability and the rest falls into place.
Consider how many actions are necessary before you elect to take the action of deploying your chosen implement. Use what ever acronym suits your fancy. Be it, ADE (Assess, Decide, Engage) or perhaps you prefer to Detect, Identify, Decide, Engage, Assess.
There might not be an acronym for “Suddenly Out of No Where, Never Saw it Coming” (whoops, there is now SONWNSC) but there is such thing as getting “jumped”. Getting “jumped” is an all encompassing term for an altercation that happens at “Close range”. The role of the edged implement of your choosing at this juncture is up to you and your personal level capability. Make sense?
Note that this is NOT to say that it is the more capable who choose to engage, deploy, function and counter with an edged implement at this juncture. Perhaps the edged implement is already in his or her hand or perhaps it is better that the individual physically manage as best they can until the opportunity presents itself.
I am not in the business of inventing acronyms. Nor am I in the business of inventing reasons why a thing should be done one way AS OPPOSED to another.
I believe that few would disagree that your survivability on the street is primarily dependent upon your ability to Detect and Identify, Asses and Decide. Should a SONWNSC scenario happen to befall you, the outcome of your actions beyond that point are up to your personal level of default.
– Stay Alive!