First, a definition of terms so we're all on the same page (both literally and figuratively).  Designated weapons are any tool or applied technology created for the specific purpose of being an instrument of harm.  Pretty straight-forward, huh?  Some will split hairs, saying a firearm can be used as a means of technical cultivation as in target-shooting, or as an object of aesthetic beauty as with some collectors who acquire firearms while never firing them.  These weapons-as-not-weapons examples can move beyond firearms to fighting knives that are used to cut bait and rattan sticks used to adorn dojo walls, et cetera, et cetera.  The aforementioned alternate uses are all valid, reasonable uses but it does not diminish the fact that some tools have been created with the primary purpose (whether stated or unstated) to do harm if need be.  No value judgment here whatsoever, simply an observable fact.

Improvised weapons, on the other hand, are any too or technology that while not created specifically for the purpose of inflicting harm can be used for administering harm all the same.  A ballpoint pen has been manufactured to jot down notes although it can be used to jab soft tissues.  The tire iron was created to assist motorists in tire-changes and yet you can still bludgeon to your heart's content with the instrument.  To belabor the point, any object in your environment that can be wielded as a weapon, even if that was not the original intent of the objects manufacture is an improvised weapon.

OK, now that we know what we're discussing, back to today's subject: designated weapons versus improvised weapons.  To say that one class is "better" than the other is a false dilemma.  Any tool whether made for a specific purpose or none used in an ad hoc fashion should be evaluated only on how efficiently the tool performs the given job.  For example, let's say you thwart an attacker using a rattan escrima stick (a designated weapon) and you're having a spectacularly bad day and thwart a second attacker later that same day using the aforementioned tire iron used in the exact same manner as the rattan stick.  Which tool is better, the designated or the improvised?

As long as a given weapon (designated or improvised) serves its purpose it passes the test of utility.  We're in no-brainer territory to this point, but we've been comparing apples to apples, thus far.  A rattan stick and a tire iron are very much alike and it is easy to envision the transfers of technique from the designated weapon to the improved device.  As a matter of fact, I wager that you are already a fantastic improviser; if I were to ask you to list 10 other items that could be wielded in the same manner as a rattan stick, I think you could generate this list rather easily.  But, this is where the cognitive phenomenon known as tunneling may start to intrude.

Tunneling (also known as anchoring or priming) is fixing on one solution (or single class of solution) simply because you have been exposed to that class of solution.  Tunneling isn't a problem as long as you aren't tunneling at the expense of alternative solutions.  How tunneling applies to real-world self protection follows along these lines (and I've conducted this loose survey with clients for more than a few years and it manifests more often than not): let's assume two real-world self protection adherents who wish to up their training by adding improvised weapons, Fighter A has an extensive background in stick training and Fighter B has trained blade work for years.  If both are asked to enter a standard environment (a convenience store, let's say) and make a quick inventory of the objects there that could be used as improvised weapons, Fighter A, for the most part, shows a strong disposition to find cudgel or stick-like objects while Fighter B shows a propensity for objects that can slash and/or stab--there is some overlap between the two, but for the most part they see what they tunnel to see.

Both Fighters A and B are correct in the weapons they catalog, but at the same time both have limited themselves simply by dint of what they "choose" to see (unconscious limiting).  This is not really a problem if there are an equal number of stick-like or blade-like/thrusting type objects in the world, but that is not the case.  Objects in our environment manifest themselves in myriad forms and not all of them are stick-like or blade-like.  We limit our improvised weapons arsenal if we live inside a self-imposed tunnel.

Don't read this as an argument against designated weapons training, on the contrary, designated weapons training builds strong facility with a single class of weapons that can then be used to expand across different classes of weapons.  What I am arguing for here is to dig out of the cognitive tunnel to better MacGyver your environment.  To consider the possibility that your own self-protection is better served by learning the 14 Classes of Improvised Weapons (that's right, 14; more on that next time) and to educate yourself to the movement and tactical applications that are in common among these 14 so that you up your improvised weapons choices exponentially no matter what environment you're in.

Some might see the "splitting of attention" across 14 classes as a detriment, a sort of "Jack of all trades, master of none" phenomenon.  I understand that concern but by approaching the 14 by what they have in common as opposed to how they differ goes a long way towards mitigating that doubt, and as we well know, in real world self-protection when it hits the fan is never of our choosing and if we have chosen to master the one (knife, stick, what have you) and you find yourself where there is no knife, stick, knife-like, stick-like objects then you may just be the master of none.

More on the 14 Classes of Improvised Weapons next time.