Defense against melee implements with a sword in modern day?

Yeah, using a blade to stop a sizeable force of thieves using various knives, bats, machete to protect personal belongings would be kinda crazy.  Run like Hell while calling the police.  Now, if it's a knife wielding punk or two with knives and you have a firearm, they are gonna get a draw down and threat to shoot while telling them I'm calling the cops (whether I did or not).  Remember, there is also a risk of running out the back because you can't know completely there is not someone else out there, and of course, being hunkered down behind locked doors with a gun (while hopefully the police are on their way) is a pretty good defense.

I like hypothetical fighting scenarios with swords but it makes no sense to me to imagine an unwinnable situation.
And I think several thugs with clubs, machetes and knives can't be beaten by a man with a sword, except they're dumb as bread like in the movies.
Even if one uses the wide continuous swinging montante twohander style to keep them at distance they just have to wait til one is tired enough.
I'd say it's hard enough to fight a single armed opponent in a doorway (with shield and gladius btw.).
If you lose and run away, you can win another day!

I dont know other places but here in US most armed home invaders will kill or attack anyone who is present in the home.they dont just leave you be if youre standing near them. And if they are in your home any means self defense id allowed. Unless they turn their back to flee and you shoot them from behind running away from you. Fire arms are best and often if someone doesnt have a gun they are with someone who does or others who might be hiding around a corner. Most will run if a homeowner shoots. With a sword? You better immobalize them fast before anyone else gets a chance to jump in.

That's definitely unique to USA. Most people in Canada are usually robbing garages or empty houses. They might attack you if startled, I'm not sure about that one, but not many people here take guns with them to rob houses. In fact, most people don't have a gun here.

I've heard of break and entries done with machetes, bat's, bear mace, tire irons and the like. Against those, a sword, a shield, and maybe some goggles, would be more than enough. But in Canada, if someone comes in your house, and you both have a gun and use a gun, you are either dying or going into some extreme legal battle that will end with a bunch of people making a parade in the criminals name and chanting for your head.

This country is stupid

Is my stuff worth more than his life? One thing I don't get is why I have to ask myself that. Why can't the criminal ask himself if his life is worth my stuff. But I live in Canada

Yea that's usually how it is. If they are theives, it's usually just stuff they want not a battle. It seems that the last people in Canada who were going house to house to kill people, Usually knocked on the door, pretending to need assistance. Luckily, our murderous types aren't very hard workers

Yea man, I hear you. I agree entirely. As far as things go, the advice I give isn't always the stuff I would do either, but I don't like to give advice that would get anyone in trouble either

>YOU are the one feeling threatened

From a legal standpoint, this seems pretty subjective. I'd prefer a more concrete definition of what being legitimately threatened means.

If I'm in genuine fear of my life, I'll defend myself as best I can and face whatever consequences need to be faced.

But shouldn't there be some kind of concrete threshold we can offer to avoid it boiling down to the word of the person who's defending himself?

You are very correct, and this is a perfect example of why I suggested consulting legal counsel/obtaining proper training.

In my State use of deadly force is justified if you perceive a threat to your person necessitating that response (VERY paraphrased). Use of deadly force in defense of any OTHER person requires such threat of harm "in actual fact."

Here's a hypothetical case. Someone draws a gun on you in a carjacking. You honestly believe that if you comply you will be killed anyway to leave no witnesses. Our law of castle applies to vehicles and self-defense via use of deadly force may be legally justified. YOUR perception of a threat, as long as reasonably believed, may not even get you arrested if it is clear-cut.

Next case, you walk by a parking garage and witness someone draw a gun, giving demands as though carjacking someone else. You draw, fire, and fatally wound the would-be attacker with one shot, intending restraint as you saw the gun drop on the first hit. Then people start screaming, including the driver, who cradles the dying "perp". In actual fact, that was a prank between friends. The gun was a prop, and the perp was the Best Man "abducting" the groom for his bachelor party. "In actual fact" there was no threat. You'll likely face manslaughter for that one.

Same scenario, different contexts. Defense of self and defense of others have different standards here. That's where I live, though. Country/State/Local laws vary. Hence, why it's helpful to talk to legal folks who know what's what.

Sorry for the tangent, the legal advice I was given by the State tends to be in the context of firearms but we may also conceal carry practically anything here, to include knives or swords (if you could pull that off).

Don't get me started on how an NFA item complicates things. That WOULD belong in the Firearms sub-forum.