Photo of unbreakable umbrella on a plane

[Kit]

A comment on the recent photo showing the unbreakable umbrella on a plane. http://www.self-defense.info/

I realise that this is a marketing stunt to show how the umbrella can get past security, but surely this particular stunt is unneccessary. Marketing the umbrella as a weapon that can be carried on planes is in poor taste and lacks the level of repsonsibility that I have experienced and expected from Stadion.

Please consider carefully, how an item marketed as a self-defense weapon could easily be seen and then used as something else through such marketing.

[dragon]

" Do you know how to swing a baseball bat? Do you know how to strike with a sturdy stick? If you do, you know all you need to know... "


I found that quote far more irrepsonsible.



Dragon.

[DanBor]

In USA everything seems to be in association with weapon. It is allways somekind of danger for you, your family, your country,...... Allways that feeling that someone wants to hurt you. And it seems to me that this approach is working.

I don't wanna offend nobody, it is just hard to understand it.

Kit and Dragon - I agree!

[dragon]

It is allways somekind of danger for you, your family, your country,...... Allways that feeling that someone wants to hurt you.

Playing on peoples biggest fears is an easy way to convince them they need whatever it is that's being marketed.

It's easy to see when you look through a martial arts magazine and the styles are no longer "self defence" but "anti-terrorist".


Dragon.

[DanBor]

Yes, and I guess "Invest in your personal security " says it all.

[strangedejavu]

I think the point is this: If I'm a card carrying member of al-Qaida and I want to hijack a plane to use it as a missile, I better pray to Allah that Tom Kurz isn't on that plane. I have no problem with good peace-loving people having a blunt weapon on a plane. I personally don't fly enough or have enough enemies to justify buying one. However, for someone that does fly a lot or lives in a dangerous part of town, the $140 may be worth the peace of mind. If I'm ever on a hijacked plane, I'll probably kick myself for not buying one. But hey, at least I have Taekwondo...

I can understand the concern that our enemies will use it. That leads to two questions. Number 1: How effective could the unbreakable umbrella be for getting control of an airplane? I'm sure there's a huge debate just waiting to happen in that question and I really don't know. The second question: Should we not have martial arts schools and self-defense classes? After all, jihadists, gangsters, thugs, etc. could use the instruction for their evil purposes. Of course the answer there is no, but hopefully instructors would refuse to teach suspicious characters or report their suspicions to the authorities. Likewise, I hope that Mr. Kurz would refuse sale to anyone named Jamel Ahmed Mohammed Ali Al-Badawi or anyone else on the FBI most wanted list.

" Do you know how to swing a baseball bat? Do you know how to strike with a sturdy stick? If you do, you know all you need to know... "


I found that quote far more irrepsonsible.

I don't really see it that way. It just makes sense that having such a weapon will make even an untrained person much more effective in countering an attack. I think anyone willing to pay that much would be realistic in what constitutes effective self-defense.

[dragon]

" Do you know how to swing a baseball bat? Do you know how to strike with a sturdy stick? If you do, you know all you need to know... "


I found that quote far more irrepsonsible.

I don't really see it that way. It just makes sense that having such a weapon will make even an untrained person much more effective in countering an attack. .

It won't make an untrained person much more effective in countering an attack,it will only make them believe they are much more effective in countering an attack.If all that is needed is a makeshift weapon there would be no more murders,rapes,muggings,etc.
I stand by what i said,instilling people with a false sense of security is irresponsible.

If you agree with the statement that the only thing you need to know to defend yourself is how to swing a baseball bat,should i assume that you are going to give up Tae Kwon Do and take up baseball instead?

I think anyone willing to pay that much would be realistic in what constitutes effective self-defense.

That's naive.There are people out there willing to spend far more than that in order to short cut the real hard work that is needed to be even half competent in any kind of situation.

Dragon.

[strangedejavu]

It won't make an untrained person much more effective in countering an attack....

I am making an assumption, but not without thought. I can think of two experiments to determine if an unbreakable umbrella can indeed increase an untrained person's ability to counter an attack:

1. Get two untrained people of approximately the same size and strength. Leave one unarmed and give one an unbreakable umbrella and have them go at it. I'd bet good money that the one with the umbrella would win. If one of those people had to be my mother, I would hope she'd be the one with the umbrella, as I think most people would (unless your name happens to be Norman Bates).

2. Send a random sample of 100 untrained people down the street unarmed and have them attacked by the same attacker (not at the same time of course) and see how well they perform. Then, send another random sample of 100 untrained people down the street with an unbreakable umbrella, have them attacked by the same guy, and see how well they perform. Unless the attacker is a Navy Seal or Chuck Norris (in which case everyone dies with a round house kick to the head), it's reasonable to assume that the group with the umbrella would fare significatly better than the group without. After all, most street thugs probably haven't trained for years and years. If you have some opposing data or find some flaw in my assumption, please feel free to dispute my assumption.

...it will only make them believe they are much more effective in countering an attack.

Based on what I said previously, I don't think that's true if a person has no choice but to fight. However, in situations where someone's best bet is to run regardless of what weapon they possess, then I'll agree that fighting confidence will be counterproductive. Likewise, if a mugger has a gun up to their head demanding money, they should probably just part with the money.

...should i assume that you are going to give up Tae Kwon Do and take up baseball instead?

No way. Baseball's boring.

strangedejavu wrote:
I think anyone willing to pay that much would be realistic in what constitutes effective self-defense.


That's naive.There are people out there willing to spend far more than that in order to short cut the real hard work that is needed to be even half competent in any kind of situation.

When I say realistic, I don't mean kung fu masters. I mean that anyone who's vigilant enough about protecting themselves to pay $140 and carry around a baseball bat in the form of an umbrella would probably know that they have to strike hard to survive. I don't know anyone that carries around a baseball bat for personal protection, but it conjures up quite an image. It's not quite the same as my image of someone that carries around $10 pepper spray. Nevertheless, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that there probably are some people out there who would take that statement too literally and think such a product would make them invincible. They will probably receive a Darwin Award some day.

Finally, let's put the statement in context:

Anyone who can use a stick for defense can use this umbrella.

Do you know how to swing a baseball bat? Do you know how to strike with a sturdy stick? If you do, you know all you need to know...

Do you practice such martial arts as hapkido, jodo, kendo, kali, escrima, le baton or la canne? Do you practitice with Chinese weapons or Indian weapons? Then you know even more... and you can truly appreciate this Unbreakable Umbrella (patent pending).

It also says you should be able to use a stick for defense and practicing a weapons art will make you more effective. I simply don't see this statement as being irresponsible. I can understand Kit's point about the picture on the plane as I discussed in my previous post.

By the way, if you don't believe that Chuck Norris can kill anyone with a round house kick, it's true. You can read about it on www.chucknorrisfacts.com

[strangedejavu]

Oh yeah, and for the record, I am not actually condoning conducting those two experiments. They are merely rhetorical.

[dragon]

1. Get two untrained people of approximately the same size and strength. Leave one unarmed and give one an unbreakable umbrella and have them go at it. I'd bet good money that the one with the umbrella would win. If one of those people had to be my mother, I would hope she'd be the one with the umbrella, as I think most people would (unless your name happens to be Norman Bates).

The terms "trained" or "untrained" would perhaps be better replaced with "experienced" or "unexperienced",as a lot of attackers may not have any formal fight training but they may have a lot of experience doing what they do.
If this is the case,the victim with the umbrella would be one lucky individual if they encountered a mugger with exactly the same experience as themselves (no previous experience of what works/doesn't work,have-a-go heroes,etc).
For example,i seriously doubt anyone's mother is going to be attacked by someone exactly the same size and strength as you suggest in the above experiment.

2. After all, most street thugs probably haven't trained for years and years.

Refer to my point above about trained vs. experienced.I've said it many times before(including on this forum):- If there was a conflict between a martial artist who's never had a fight and a fighter who's never done a martial art,my money would be on the "untrained" fighter everytime.
I think hands on experience beats text book theory.

...it will only make them believe they are much more effective in countering an attack.

Based on what I said previously, I don't think that's true if a person has no choice but to fight. However, in situations where someone's best bet is to run regardless of what weapon they possess, then I'll agree....

There's a saying,"Give someone a hammer and suddenly everthing looks like a nail".

I think this saying is true.You're talking from a trained individual point of view.However,how many untrained people out there would lash out at every shadow due to the fact they panic and happen to have a weapon with them?

I mean that anyone who's vigilant enough about protecting themselves to pay $140 and carry around a baseball bat in the form of an umbrella would probably know that they have to strike hard to survive.

That's exactly my point.Anyone can strike hard but it takes training to strike well.

Finally, let's put the statement in context:

Anyone who can use a stick for defense can use this umbrella.

Do you know how to swing a baseball bat? Do you know how to strike with a sturdy stick? If you do, you know all you need to know...

Do you practice such martial arts as hapkido, jodo, kendo, kali, escrima, le baton or la canne? Do you practitice with Chinese weapons or Indian weapons? Then you know even more... and you can truly appreciate this Unbreakable Umbrella (patent pending).

It also says you should be able to use a stick for defense and practicing a weapons art will make you more effective. I simply don't see this statement as being irresponsible.

Stating that using an everyday item as a weapon that you've already got experience in is fine.Implying that no expierence in fighting is needed is irresponsible.

Dragon.

[strangedejavu]

For example,i seriously doubt anyone's mother is going to be attacked by someone exactly the same size and strength as you suggest in the above experiment.

The point of that experiment is to show that such a weapon would increase anybody's ability to fight, whether it be my mother or Randy Couture. That doesn't mean necessarily that it'll increase my mother's effectiveness to the point of winning the fight with an experienced street punk. That's where experiment #2 comes in. Every untrained, inexperienced person has some innate ability to fight based on their size, strength, speed, disposition, etc. However, the quality of opponent they can defeat will probably be low compared to experienced street thugs. If you give them an advantage like the umbrella, the quality of opponent they can defeat will increase, as shown by experiment 1. If that increases, the number of punks they can defeat will increase. If that increases, their odds of surviving a punk's attack will increase. Assuming all my assumptions are correct, this will be manifested in experiment 2 with the umbrella-armed people doing better than the unarmed people. If that's the case, then the umbrella would only increase an untrained, inexperienced person's odds of survival, so what's irresponsible about marketing it to them?

There's a saying,"Give someone a hammer and suddenly everthing looks like a nail".

I think this saying is true.You're talking from a trained individual point of view.However,how many untrained people out there would lash out at every shadow due to the fact they panic and happen to have a weapon with them?

I've never thought about that. I know some people for whom that would be true. It probably depends on the personality type.

Anyone can strike hard but it takes training to strike well.

Of course training will optimize one's striking ability by teaching a person how to hold the weapon, where to strike to maximize the damage, etc, optimize being the operative word. If some untrained person hit me hard, it's going to do some damage.

If there was a conflict between a martial artist who's never had a fight and a fighter who's never done a martial art,my money would be on the "untrained" fighter everytime.
I think hands on experience beats text book theory.

No disagreement there.

While I think this weapon will increase a person's odds of survival, it obviously won't make an untrained person invincible. There may be people out there that believe it will, but those same people are the reason my clothes iron tells me not to iron my clothes while they're still on my body. I looked on the website and couldn't find any disclaimer. That would probably be a smart thing to add in small letters somewhere, but only from a legal point of view.

[dragon]

The point of that experiment is to show that such a weapon would increase anybody's ability to fight....That doesn't mean necessarily that it'll increase my mother's effectiveness to the point of winning the fight with an experienced street punk.

And if the advertizing slogan said carrying the unbreakable umbrella is better than carrying nothing i'd agree....but it doesn't say that,it says,"you know all you need to know... ".
The reason why i find this irresponsible is because there are individuals who will believe this.

If you give them an advantage like the umbrella, the quality of opponent they can defeat will increase... .

This may depend on your definition of "advantage".If you mean it's an advantage to themselves being armed as opposed to unarmed then i agree.If you mean an advantage over their opponent then i don't.Giving some individuals a weapon wouldn't even be an equalizer in a fight let alone an advantage.

]
Anyone can strike hard but it takes training to strike well.

Of course training will optimize one's striking ability by teaching a person how to hold the weapon, where to strike to maximize the damage, etc, optimize being the operative word. If some untrained person hit me hard, it's going to do some damage.

Point being,would an untrained person be able to hit you if you were expecting it?I'm sure most experienced thugs will have a back up plan against have-a-go heroes.

While I think this weapon will increase a person's odds of survival, it obviously won't make an untrained person invincible. There may be people out there that believe it will....

And knowing that fact,but still using "sensational" ad slogans is what makes it irresponsible.

As well as the text in the advert,it also shows the photo(which is why this thread started).
Now i can't talk for the people who made this ad.Maybe they were just trying to show that the umbreakable umbrella is so inconspicuous that even airport security won't detect it.Or maybe they were marketing it from a "what if a plane gets hijacked again?" point of view.

It could happen again,and if you're going to die anyway then you have nothing to lose by fighting back as hard as you can(sorry if that offends anyone,but it's true).

But saying...

If I'm a card carrying member of al-Qaida and I want to hijack a plane to use it as a missile, I better pray to Allah that Tom Kurz isn't on that plane.....

.... is going slightly over board and proves that "sensational" advertizing sadly works.It may be a bitter pill to swallow but a lot of terrorists are highly trained,single minded individuals(trained in a lot of cases by special forces),they aren't staggering drunks who want to pick a fight to boost their egos.

Dragon.

[strangedejavu]

Dragon- All the semantics and probability analysis aside, I think our difference of opinion boils down to different impressions we took from the ad. For me, when I first read it, I was a bit sceptical and thought, "Really? That's all I need to know? Having weapons training won't help?" until I read the second paragraph explaining that you'll know even more if you know hapkido, escrima, etc. In that context, I took it to mean that it's a simple weapon that requires only simple motions that everbody knows, unlike nunchaku or something requiring fancy motions. You took it to mean that having this weapon will give you all the fighting effectiveness you will ever need and training will not be beneficial because you have this weapon. So, I think we would both agree that my interpretation would not be irresponsible and your interpretation would be irresponsible. Hopefully Mr. Kurz will help us clarify what interpretation he had in mind. If he meant that it'll make you invincible and training will be of no benefit, then it's irresponsible and there's nothing left to argue. If he meant that it's simple to use and will be helpful, but weapons training will be even more helpful, then perhaps he should reword it or include disclaimers to get his point across without being open to misinterpretation. If not that, maybe he can include a booklet with instructions like "Don't hit your kid with it" or "If someone has a gun to your head wanting your wallet, just give up your wallet and don't try to use it to knock the gun out of his hand."

Now i can't talk for the people who made this ad.Maybe they were just trying to show that the umbreakable umbrella is so inconspicuous that even airport security won't detect it.Or maybe they were marketing it from a "what if a plane gets hijacked again?" point of view.

I think they're marketing it from both points of view. While I was echoing what I believe to be the aim of the picture on the plane, I do think having a self-defense-obsessed guy like Tom Kurz on a plane with a weapon would throw quite a monkey wrench in their plans (although having five untrained guys was enough to screw up their plans on flight 93 that landed in Pennsylvania, and that wasn't until after the passengers learned the terrorist plot). I don't delude myself by thinking it would go as smoothly as a Jet Li movie and I doubt he could do it alone, but I think he would be an effective force against them.

[dragon]

Dragon- All the semantics and probability analysis aside, I think our difference of opinion boils down to different impressions we took from the ad........ You took it to mean that having this weapon will give you all the fighting effectiveness you will ever need and training will not be beneficial because you have this weapon.

Not exactly.My impression of this ad as a potential customer is irrelevant as this ad doesn't apply to me:-

1)I'm not the kind of guy who would carry an umbrella anyway and think it would stand out if i did(you'd have to see me to know what i mean i guess).
2)In the UK,the criminal justice act says," 'Offensive weapon' is defined as any article made or adapted for use to causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use."

Therefore,carrying an ordinary umbrella is fine.Carrying an umbreakable one isn't.It's classed as a weapon because it's being marketed as such.

I'm trying to base my opinion of this ad from an outsider's point of view.If they don't know any better,why would they doubt the information given?

"If someone has a gun to your head wanting your wallet, just give up your wallet and don't try to use it to knock the gun out of his hand."

And the fact that you've used that as an example means even a small part of you must believe there are people out there who would do that.I have no doubt there are people who would.

Like you say,it's just different opinions/interpretations.

Bottom line for me though is,if this ad is aimed at responsible,trained individuals like you and I then that type of hype isn't needed.If it's aimed at everyday people then i find it a cheap shot at playing on peoples fears.

Dragon.

[strangedejavu]

My impression of this ad as a potential customer is irrelevant as this ad doesn't apply to me

Oops. Perhaps I should have said "your interpretation of the intent of this ad".

I'm not the kind of guy who would carry an umbrella anyway

Really? I thought it rained all the time in the UK. Maybe you just get used to it and don't care?

strangedejavu wrote:
"If someone has a gun to your head wanting your wallet, just give up your wallet and don't try to use it to knock the gun out of his hand."


And the fact that you've used that as an example means even a small part of you must believe there are people out there who would do that.I have no doubt there are people who would.

Oh, I would never deny the lack of common sense in this world. I've witnessed it many times, often from myself (ever try opening your front door with your car remote? Yeah, I've been there). I mentioned this several posts ago:

...in situations where someone's best bet is to run regardless of what weapon they possess, then I'll agree that fighting confidence will be counterproductive. Likewise, if a mugger has a gun up to their head demanding money, they should probably just part with the money.

For situations like that, a pamphlet may be smart regardless of the ad slogan used (although like I said, probably most people who didn't know that wouldn't carry around a baseball bat umbrella, but I'm sure there are exceptions). For those clueless people that have watched too many Bruce Lee movies and have ruthless lawyers, a careful disclaimer is probably necessary. However, considering the ridiculously long and laugh-inducing disclaimer at the beginning of Power High Kicks with No Warmup, I'm sure Mr. Kurz has it covered.

Whew! This has been fun and educational, but I think I'm all worn out on this topic.