longbough

It's not that a sword can't be used for self-defense ... it just isn't the best tool for the job.

1.) The definition of self-defense.

The first tenet of deadly force (knife, gun, sword etc.) in self-defense is that your main objective is to STOP, not to KILL. It doesn't mean that the other fella won't die - it just means that your main goal is to stop an element that represents a threat to yourself or someone you would protect. I've discussed the subject many times before in this forum so I'll excerpt text from some of my earlier posts.

First we need to define our terms:

The intent to "stop" is distinctly different from an attempt to "kill." Let's say I'm using a firearm in self-defense. My objective is to STOP the aggressor - And even though the aggressor's death is a likely outcome it isn't the goal. If I happen to shoot and miss but the agressor drops his knife and/or runs away - the aggressor is STOPPED.
If I shoot him and the bullet lacerates the thoracic aorta but he is able to plunge a knife into a loved one just before he dies from rapid internal bleeding - the aggressor is NOT STOPPED. That's the difference between STOPPING and KILLING.

My only concern is the protection of my family - the aggressor's health is a secondary consideration. That's why we say that a gun in personal defense is for STOPPING a violent act.

2.) A baseball bat is at least as good as a sword for self-defense.

Now regarding melee weapons. Consider a baseball bat vs. a sword. The kinetic force of a strong blunt impact causes involuntary reflexive contraction when striking skeletal muscle. That's why you can effectively strike large muscle groups with a bat - e.g. a good blow to the thigh can cause someone to fall.

A bladed weapon would cut large muscle groups. And, unless it's a complete laceration (e.g. severed leg - which rarely happens) or precise cut through tendon, the effect is usually not immediately noticed by the victim unless he's lost significan amount of blood.

Skeletal muscle is comprised of many fibers that work in unison. Slicing some % of a muscle group does not necessarily incapacitate. Recognize that even a bladed weapon delivers some kinetic impact in addition to "cutting." The problem is that it sacrifices much of that in comparison to the blunt impliment like the baseball bat.

3.) A sword is not good for indoors.

The other problem with a full-length sword is that it's not designed for indoor use. I don't care how big your place is or how high your ceilings are - you still have to walk through doorways and around corners.

4.) A sword is not good for close quarters.

If you must use a sharp impliment use a knife. If someone is trying to kill you with anything but a gun they're going to quickly get up close where they can stab you repeatedly with a knife, strangle you, straddle you while pummeling your face etc. With a sword it is in your interest to keep someone at a distance. Even an expert swordsman won't claim that it's impossible for anyone to close in on him.

5.) A sword can bind.

If you impale someone through the rib cage with your sword you're going to have to draw it out again. If there's more than one aggressor you're vulnerable until you free the blade. Even if there's only one aggressor - a thrust through the abdomen won't kill him instantly. If you're still holding on to the sword you're still stuck close to a guy who may have both arms free and a knife in one hand.

Please consider what I've said.

I'm not saying the sword is a lousy weapon. It's quite effective for its intended purpose. But your specific needs are entirely different.

I've worked in various hospitals on both coasts of the US, too. Last month I treated two patients in our ED who came in with their throats cut with improvised blades. An effective strike from a sword is more likely to maim and mutilate than kill. After years of treating thoracic punctures, abdominal stab injuries, deep lacerations to arms, legs and face, as well as a variety of gunshot wounds, I believe it's both more "humane" and more effective to use a firearm for the self-defense.

And, with regard to your reluctance to use a firearm, I wouldn't recommend getting one unless you get the proper training. But that's true with any weapon - sword included.

I have strong opinions on the matter because I have studied matters of self-defense and deadly force for a long time. The basic theory of self-defense is not in dispute by "experts" in the field. It's not really a debatable issue.

Then again, what applies to the masses may be irrelevant to you in particular. If your skills, knowledge, abilities and mental and physical preparation make my points irrelevant in your case then just disregard everything I wrote and do what's best for yourself. Good luck.