
The Umbrella as a Weapon (2014) - pepys
https://www.geriwalton.com/the-umbrella-as-weapon/
======
giardini
As the article notes, they're useful against angry dogs, who seem baffled by
their deployment. My experience is that even large dogs won't advance against
someone whose leg or arm or torso they cannot clearly view.

~~~
duncan_bayne
If you're able, I'd love to hear how you came by that experience. Sounds like
a great 'over a beer or two' tale :)

~~~
RugnirViking
Indeed, sounds like a fascinating story

------
JohnStrange
LOL, reminds me of the _Unbreakable Umbrella_ Internet classic [1,2]. Not sure
if I would walk around with such an umbrella, though. I used to do a lot of
martial arts before I realized that the general problem with self-defense is
that most thugs who want to rob you have more spare time to train and tend to
be better at it than you.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bO8G5zsQohg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bO8G5zsQohg)
[2] [https://unbreakableumbrella.com/](https://unbreakableumbrella.com/)

~~~
dpark
The general problem with thugs isn't that they are well trained, but that they
are typically carrying better weapons. Umbrella against a gun or even a knife
is a really mismatched fight.

~~~
Eerie
Against a gun, naturally. Against a knife, maybe not so mismatched. I'd not
try to stab someone who is actively poking me in the face with an umbrella.

~~~
glangdale
I think this kind of theorizing about how easy it is to defend against someone
with a knife is very mischievous. People are way too confident about this
("oh, I'll just defend myself with an improvised weapon or wrap my jacket
around my hand"). I would rather have an umbrella than _nothing_ but I suspect
step one would be "he grabs my umbrella with his other hand" and step two
would be "I get stabbed or slashed".

Unless you get a brilliant shot in with the umbrella ("deadly eye poke!"),
you're not going to have much effect, but any stab or slash would can start
you bleeding out and/or degrade your ability to defend yourself.

~~~
YZF
This unbreakable umbrella looks like a formidable weapon. The story goes that
the only time the famous swordsman Myamoto Musashi was fought to a draw was by
Muso Gonnosuke yielding a short staff (Jo). An umbrella designed to be a
weapon would presumably enough mass that trying to grab it while it's flying
at you would be a pretty bad idea. While a Jo is longer you're not fighting a
long sword here ;)

That doesn't mean the average joe should attempt to fight a knife wielding
thug with their random umbrella but I think given training and the appropriate
umbrella the knife is at a disadvantage. The big advantage of a knife is that
it requires relatively little training to become very effective and certainly
extremely difficult to face bare handed ... but a trained staff fighter is
going to have a huge advantage against an equally trained opponent with a
knife.

~~~
glangdale
I was entertained by the 'unbreakable' umbrella vid, I'll admit that.
Generally with a normal umbrella they seem to have a pretty high air
resistance and are not remotely analogous to a staff. The thing that I carry
in real life? No. A heavy enough umbrella with a metal spike in the end? Sure.

Even that being said, a trained staff fighter vs. a knife is at a bigger
advantage fighting, forewarned, warmed up, in loose fitting clothes, starting
at a dignified distance on a unobstructed gym floor against a rubber knife
with both parties wearing protective gear (i.e. "a gym fight"). I would be
very surprised if most of that advantage doesn't evaporate when the psychology
of fighting an _actual_ knife comes into play, or when the knife fighter and
stick fighter start at close quarters or in a cluttered space, etc. "Messy
reality". The logic most people apply to this seems pretty much exactly
analogous to the confident proclamations that karate and TKD dudes used to
issue about being able to defend themselves again, well, anyone from a Judo
player to a rugby tackle.

I don't doubt that it's possible to choreograph a pretty nice fantasy sequence
where the staff beats a knife, but having tried the "put on old clothes and
'fight' someone wielding a deadly magic marker" game, I'm pretty appalled at
how easy it is to be messed up by a determined attacker with a magic marker.
And that's _without_ the added element of fear (and pain) that you would
experience facing a real knife.

I don't really have a horse in the race here - I don't carry a stick, a deadly
unbreakable umbrella or a knife, nor do I plan to attack anyone with one. I'm
just always a bit skeptical about the idea of 'trained staff fighters' having
developed skills in realistic circumstances as opposed to, say, martial arts
LARP'ing. [ all that being said, I wouldn't to be the guy that tried to go
after a Dog Brother with a knife of any kind... :-) ]

~~~
YZF
I'm one of those Karate dudes.

A big part of martial arts training is awareness and readiness. If you're
already in close quarters with a knife wielding attacker you've already failed
and it doesn't matter if you carry a knife, a gun, a stick, or a flamethrower.
You have to always be ready and you have to sense the intentions of would be
attackers. Easier said then done...

The psychological factors are what you train for.

Those fighting arts come to us from the messy realities of the past. If you
were a Samurai in Japan you were always ready to fight for your life against
much scarier weapons than a knife. But getting that sort of mentality takes a
lot of work, it's more than a hobby...

~~~
glangdale
> Easier said then done...

Indeed. I have trouble imagining how - or why - cultivating this mentality
would be possible or useful. Given one doesn't have access to a pool of "would
be" attackers, nor anyone who has had said access, it seems far more likely
that one will develop a acute sense of the intentions of "martial arts dudes
pretending to be would-be attackers".

At the very least, it was always possible (though shockingly rare in practice)
to pad up and see you how things would go against a fully committed rugby
tackle - or at least get an approximation. I don't see how the equivalent
reality check can be done for weapons; at least not without the luxury of
having a pre-gunpowder battlefield to experiment on.

------
pacaro
A MechEng student I knew at university tried to design a new umbrella
mechanism that used strips of spring steel that would form helices around the
shaft when furled.

IIRC It had two significant drawbacks, a) it had a very high energy barrier
for state change, requiring extraordinary user strength, and b) (related) when
opening the ends of the strips moved at incredible speed presenting
significant threat of decapitation to the user.

------
vlehto
I have formal training for the use of pistol, pepper spray and baton for self
defense. As a result I think umbrella is the best possible self defense weapon
for civilians in most western nations:

1\. Can be carried openly. (Unlike any other weapon.)

2\. Can be used for threatening. (Unlike pepper spray, taser or knife.)

3\. Legal to own without permit. (Unlike possibly any other.)

4\. Guaranteed to be more effective than bare fists. Especially pepper spray
is sometimes very unreliable on having any effect at all. Especially if the
opponent is under the influence of opiates.

5\. Allows to keep some distance to opponents fists while still being
effective.

6\. Can be used safely against all demographics and in all locations. (Only
batons are equal in this. You can hit the head, but you can also avoid it. You
can't know if someone you spray has asthma.)

7\. Can be used legally. (You can't use knife for self defense "reasonably"
and assume that you don't get charged for manslaughter.)

8\. Everybody has clear understanding on the magnitude of damage an umbrella
(or baton or baseball bat or any other "stick") will make. This means that the
defender with umbrella is less likely to use it completely in excess. Also it
means that the assailant may calculate correctly that the assault is ill
advised.

9\. Is not perceived threatening by itself by innocent by-passers. People
carrying umbrellas don't cause everybody to get tense.

10\. Can be used to various threat levels. You can gently tap a bratty
teenager to the bottom with umbrella. And from there you can incapacitate
violent drug addict with several blows to the head or anything in between.
With pistol you can only use it when lethal force is acceptable.

Openly carried umbrella is one of the very few weapons that can possibly deter
violent crime without anybody knowing. Only pistol and batons are clearly
better from individual viewpoint, but they require permits. Tasers and pepper
sprays are only good as "more tools to the box" for guards and police.

------
tyingq
Thought it might mention this unique umbrella
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_umbrella](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_umbrella)
, it did not.

~~~
malkia
As a bulgarian I dare say nothing of this :) Actually I just did...

------
ende
"I suddenly remembered my Charlemagne. 'Let my armies be the rocks and the
trees and the birds in the sky.'"

------
rjplatte
Plus an excellent way to eliminate ex-spies.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi_Markov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi_Markov)

~~~
llcoolv
Well. Markov was a journalist, playwright and maybe a dissident, never a spy.
It is important as spies are supposed to be able to defend themselves and
playwrights are not.

------
cafard
Early in _The Charterhouse of Parma_ , a sometime minister is set upon and
killed by reactionary thugs armed with umbrellas:

Après la chute de Napoléon, certains personnages puissants à Milan firent
assommer dans les rues le comte Prina, ancien ministre du roi d’Italie, et
homme du premier mérite. Le comte Pietranera exposa sa vie pour sauver celle
du ministre, qui fut tué à coups de parapluie, et dont le supplice dura cinq
heures.

([http://www.gutenberg.org/files/796/796-h/796-h.htm](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/796/796-h/796-h.htm))

------
valuearb
Reminds me of the hero choosing the umbrella instead of the assault rifle in
Kingsman. A perfect choice to sum up that ridiculously dumb film.

~~~
valuearb
Ok downvotes. Defend that movie. Especially the scene with the princess at the
end. I can sort of understand how most people liked it because for most people
the bar is low on movies. But this is HN. How can smart people like a movie
that treats the audience like idiots?

~~~
CapitalistCartr
That movie is intended more as a parody or farce. If you expected a serious
movie, it would be disappointed. Although its been a long time since "action"
movies were serious.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farce](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farce)

~~~
valuearb
Yea, i didn't get it as a parody. What is it parodying? It's too far away from
Bond movies to be a parody of them.

A farce? It wasn't funny enough to be a farce. It was an action movie with a
little humor sprinkled in.

