'Martial' arts & guns & effective self-defense

[YS]

Discuss:

I think a gun beats empty hand in most cases.
First of all, even if you run out of ammo, it's better to whack someone with a gun, than with an empty hand.
Secondly, if you train a little, you can pull out & aim very quickly.
Thirdly, a gun (almost) equalizes differences in physical stature and strength. Bigger people can use bigger guns more effectively, but they die just the same as smaller people if they're hit in the heart, throat, spine, forehead or other vulnerable areas..

Also, on a breast-related note, bigger breast implants offer some chest protection. There've been multiple cases of women stabbed/shot in the chest whose implants diminished the energy or deflected bullets. So menfolk who live in a high-crime area.. do I need to say more? 

*(image courtesy of Oleg Volk, who doesn't mind people re-distributing his gun & civil rights posters)

[Bad Kitty]

mmmmm, how about this:

if they're within reach, manually turn them off
if they're out of reach, use the remote





(I am assuming of course, that all other possible avenues, that do not involve turning anyone off, have been exhausted)

[YS]

Yeah, but how turn off this kind of guy at close range? Or any guy/gal with similar level of strength..

You just gotta avoid physical contact in that case.. too strong probably. If that kind of guy grabs you, you're toast unless you punch him out very quickly.

[Bad Kitty]

Yeah, but how turn off this kind of guy at close range? Or any guy/gal with similar level of strength..

You just gotta avoid physical contact in that case.. too strong probably. If that kind of guy grabs you, you're toast unless you punch him out very quickly.

doesn't matter that much. just pretend to cooperate fully, smile, and then with a jab focusing on speed and placement, apply 80+lbs of force to his larynx.
or just use the remote 

[number3fac]

First of all, even if you run out of ammo...

Wait wait wait...you can run out of ammo?!  My extensive video game training has left me woefully unprepared for this possibility!!   

While I agree that a gun is a highly effective means of self-defense (or a dangerous threat, depending on circumstances and which side of the barrel you're on), I figure that it'd still be wise to have some measure of martial arts training as well.  For those cases when "the bad guys knock the gun out of your hand and it slides waaaaaaay over there" (quote courtesy of Futurama's Leela).

[YS]

Once I'm a bit settled down, I'll go train with some 'martial*' artists.
Just to see how to avoid being disarmed, and how to most effectively defend against Hth with a gun.

*still convinced that it's a misnomer. Marksmanship is rarely considered martial art, while it's the one of the most important skills for individuals in today's wars. First one is how to avoid being seen...

[brakblake]

First one is how to avoid being seen...

You mean like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifmRgQX82O4

[rtpoe]

Beat me to that!

Don't forget the Zeroth Rule of Self-Defense:

Do your best to AVOID getting into a situation where you need either a gun or martial arts skills.

[MasterDragonfly]

Martial arts isn't exclusively the domain of knowing how to punch someone in the snot-locker.

There are close-range 1-on-1 grappling arts (eg, BJJ), standing (and kneeling) styles such as Hapkido and Aikido which make ample use of joint locks.

Then there are areas such as the secure areas at airports (and spreading to non-airport scenarios). Having a concealed carry is all well and good, but unless there's some special handshake I don't know about (air marshals excluded), I suspect that all firearms either need to be stowed (with proper stowage protocol) or said firearm will get confiscated at the checkpoint. After the checkpoint until you leave the checkpoint (either at that airport or at the destination airport), you're back to what you were born with. Err, and any skills learned since then.

Also, a firearm only seems capable of dealing with very high risk threats. For example, if someone shoves you, do you shoot them in return? I would think (hope?) not. What if someone slaps you across the face? What if they're screaming like a lunatic? What if he starts swinging at you with an umbrella? With a chair?

When faced with a life or death situ, it would seem a firearm would be a pretty good thing to have. But is it a panacea for all threatening situations?

Wild speculation, but you might also find that the laws of the USA are not globally universal; even if you could craft safe delivery of your firearm to Australia, you might find that actually using it in a self defense situ down under might not quite work in your favor.

[YS]

For example, if someone shoves you, do you shoot them in return? I would think (hope?) not. What if someone slaps you across the face? What if they're screaming like a lunatic? What if he starts swinging at you with an umbrella? With a chair?

Either engage in a shoving match, if you're up to it physically... or retreat rapidly and give him opportunity to cease being physical.

Wild speculation, but you might also find that the laws of the USA are not globally universal; even if you could craft safe delivery of your firearm to Australia, you might find that actually using it in a self defense situ down under might not quite work in your favor.

Yep, foreign countries are a problem.

Personally.. I've never been in the US. Live in Czech Republic, where we have better gun laws than certain US states, and self-defense with guns does happen. Like here:

http://www.praguepost.cz/news/11711-shooting-of-roma-man-stokes-tensions.html

The article is so slanted because most English lang coverage of the shooting is by minority activists, who are so bigoted that it's hard to believe.

The shooter was attacked from behind with a knife, escaped with bleeding wounds on his head.
The two, or maybe three attackers were all Roma youths, two of whose had convictions for larceny. Only after he was lying on his back on the ground and bleeding did he shoot. (and there are multiple witnesses to that)

[MasterDragonfly]

Either engage in a shoving match, if you're up to it physically...

Not always an option, certainly as was discussed in a (recently resurrected) thread, women are (generally, but definitely not always) at a strength/size disadvantage.

Plus shoving is generally done in order to escalate to something more provocative.

Plus martial arts generally try to train you mentally for the engagement. If someone grabs your wrist, they're likely either getting ready to try and drag you off somewhere, or they're getting ready to pop you in the face with their free hand. If they wave a knife in your face, you don't stop to ponder how to negotiate with them ("Hey whoa there buddy, what seems to be the problem here?"), you *react*.

Here's an example where Dr Rey (noted cosmetic surgeon) is outside of a nightclub when some random smack talk ends up with a knife getting flashed in his face:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DJ1b9ED_S4

Note: Dr Rey has extensive Taekwondo training, but something tells me that either a) he wasn't trained what to do when someone sticks a knife in your face or b) he made the questionable decision to do nothing and just talk down the situation.

or retreat rapidly and give him opportunity to cease being physical.

Retreat is a good option, if you have the option. It's not always an available option.

Personally.. I've never been in the US. Live in Czech Republic, where we have better gun laws than certain US states, and self-defense with guns does happen.

You might find the story of the Texas man who ended up shooting trespassers on his neighbor's property interesting. Or the more recent Oklahoma woman who shot and killed one of two burglars, and the court ended up finding the other burglar responsible for his cohort's death.

The shooter was attacked from behind with a knife, escaped with bleeding wounds on his head.
The two, or maybe three attackers were all Roma youths, two of whose had convictions for larceny. Only after he was lying on his back on the ground and bleeding did he shoot. (and there are multiple witnesses to that)

Yup, knife attacks are pretty bad. And it's fortunate that that story turned out well. I don't know whether we can extrapolate a general guideline from such a specific sequence, though.

Check out the Port Arthur massacre in Australia to see how one event helped to shape gun laws in that country.

[YS]

I'm familiar with the Port Arthur massacre.
It is curious that the far worse massacre in South Korea hasn't prompted a change in laws there though..

I guess if a cop is to blame, it's just the one individual cop, but if a civilian, clearly the laws are atrocious and must be tightened. No matter that had the old ones been enforced, the deaths could've been prevented..

[Bad Kitty]

Don't forget the Zeroth Rule of Self-Defense:

Do your best to AVOID getting into a situation where you need either a gun or martial arts skills.

best rule evar
____

RE: shoving matches, threatening situations which are not fully escalated, etc:

You pretty much just have to play it by ear.
It's generally not that hard to de-escalate a situation if the other person is not dead set on violence. And if they are dead set on violence, well, that type of situation has it's own set of rules I think.

So either a person is intent on causing violence, or they're F'ing with you for sport. If they're F'ing with your for sport, you must remember to control your reactions, as an overt display of fear could 'tempt' a predatory assailant into attacking outright.

Diplomacy is not a bad idea at all. Also, making eye contact, and making conversation, pre-emptively, is a good step. There have been several situations where I was relatively certain that an individual was "laying in wait" where I HAD to pass by, but by making eye contact, smiling, and making friendly chitchat, as I approached, I basically "ruined the mood" for the would be mugger. It would be easy to dismiss this as just my misinterpretation of their intent, but I'm a far cry from paranoid, and not the sort to judge on appearances. I feel pretty confident that I'm talking about actual instances of psychologically deflected aggression.

That guy in the video pulling that knife, was definitely not intent on cutting anyone. But he was pretty stoned, and he got a 'rush' out of seeing peoples' reactions to pulling out a knife like that. He was power trippin. Best response would be a friendly one. tell him he has a cool knife, and move on. I think the person in the video responded pretty appropriately. If the person looked a bit more intent on 'using' his knife, then you could draw a weapon at your side, flip on the laser sight (which will draw a LOT of attention), and again, smile and tell the guy you like his knife, make all kinds of friendly space for the other person to back down in while saving face.

That's something to remember in diplomacy, always create room for the other person to change his course of action and still save face. While putting as many psychological blockades as possible between him and his original idea of attacking you. You're basically throwing up walls, and leaving trails of breadcrumbs, to corral his behavior towards a desired outcome. Done artfully (thinking something like Derren Brown), without any form of threat, it can make you wonder if there is such a thing as free will.

And you know, before a situation comes to real violence, you can 'threaten' as a last resort. something like "I've tried really hard to not have to kill you, you gonna make all that good will that go to waste?" or, if time doesn't allow, just being directly aimed at, with a very serious facial expression, will communicate the message. A show of force, as a last resort before an application of force.

One downside of martial arts defense, is that it doesn't have as much deterrence value. Having a laser sight on their chest or head makes the situation 'crystal clear' for a would-be assailant. While assuming a martial arts stance doesn't really communicate the same sense of 'finality' to the would-be assailant.

One upside of a physical approach though, is that you can "not-kill" your assailant, just pull him into an arm lock or something and break his arm, or apply a lot of force to his testes, etc. Which is advantageous if the situation is not really a life and death situation.

I'm familiar with the Port Arthur massacre.
It is curious that the far worse massacre in South Korea hasn't prompted a change in laws there though..

I guess if a cop is to blame, it's just the one individual cop, but if a civilian, clearly the laws are atrocious and must be tightened. No matter that had the old ones been enforced, the deaths could've been prevented..

south korea isn't nearly as liberal as austrailia. also S korea lives under a constant state of siege from N korea, and private ownership of firearms is part of the national defense there.

also, frankly, the port arthur massacre only went on for as long as it did, because of a lack of popularity/legality of carrying firearms there. I am reminded of an incident in a Jerusalem airport quite a long time ago, where two terrorists pulled AK-47's out, and started shooting at the civillians... who in turn... pulled out firearms of their own and killed the terrorists before they managed to kill anyone, and long before security arrived.

The only really bad scenario, the scenario which causes "massacres" that make international news, is when lawful citizens are strongly discouraged or forbidden from being armed, while simultaneously failing to completely block the access of criminals to arms. So that the only armed parties are the criminals. Whether you are in favor or against gun control, it's painfully obvious that this 'halfway' point is by far the worst arrangement.

Personally I'm fairly strongly against gun control, for 2 reasons, one, it's an equalizer between genders, people of different body sizes, the disabled, and numbers of people (small gangs etc)... so that weaker parties can deter violence against them, and/or defend themselves if necessary. and two, I don't trust the government any further than I can throw it, which is to say 'not at all'. And ultimately, an armed populace is a 'last line of defense' against governments committing atrocities, or putting populations under the thumb of tyranny. either one of these two reasons being more than sufficient argument by itself.

Besides which, it's been shown "exhaustively" that legalized concealed carry of firearms dramatically reduces violent crime in an area (though it does increase "non-confrontational crime", a fair trade IMO).




But you know, purely random acts of violence are not all that common. much more common is getting yourself into trouble by failing to be aware of your surroundings and/or failing to interact with others effectively. Even being too quick to be suspicious of others can be a trigger. As Bill & Ted said: "be excellent to each other", it goes a long long way.
(it also doesn't hurt if you understand the thought processes going through the other person's head better than they do)

___

and on that note, I've got a bit of time off from work. So I'm going to cart the boyfriend critter off to the shooting range either today or tomorrow, and spend lots of money on ammunition, and mercilessly kill innocent pieces of paper.

[MunchWolf]

Beat me to that!

Don't forget the Zeroth Rule of Self-Defense:

Do your best to AVOID getting into a situation where you need either a gun or martial arts skills.

LIKE

-Munch "also giving a LIKE to Bad Kitty's followup" Wolf

[Robin_K]

Other great self-defense tips:

Turn the other cheek.
Do unto others, etc.

[Bad Kitty]

RE: turn the other cheek:
i prefer Bill & Ted's version. "be excellent to each other"
it's a little more positive, and less heavy on the "be a doormat" philosophy which i don't really abide. and honestly I think being too much of a doormat invites conflict just as much as being a hothead. moreso even.

and technically "turn the other cheek" is a poor translation job, (edit: what YS said better)

the "do unto others" bit is pretty solid though buddha's quote originally, but worth repeating in any religious text

[YS]

@Robin_K
Turning the other cheek doesn't mean what you think it means. In Roman times, if you did that, it was like asserting you're on the same level with them.

At the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance.[3] If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed.[4] The other alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality.

south korea isn't nearly as liberal as austrailia. also S korea lives under a constant state of siege from N korea, and private ownership of firearms is part of the national defense there.

South Korea bans almost all guns. People have  to hunt with airguns.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2011/01/gun-control-in-korea.html

[Bad Kitty]

people hunt with real guns in korea. they need permits, most of the US does too, though in korea they lock up the guns when it's not hunting season.

but a disproportionately large number of koreans have access to firearms through being military reservists.

the article is a bit off base though, comparing completely different cultures on a 1:1 basis is never statistically smart. I mean, the per capita rate of playing MMORPG's is about 4 times the US rate. The obesity rate is one tenth the US... it's a different culture, all the stats are different, irregardless of the gun control laws. it's apples & oranges.

I live 15 minutes from a city which is *always* in the top 5 US cities for murder rate. I mean the sort of neighborhood where if you get a flat tire, even on the raised interstate, you just keep driving till you're somewhere safer to change it, and worry about buying a new wheel later. And people are stabbed, bludgeoned, run over, burned alive, etc, at least as often than they are shot. put another way, it's not the availability of firearms which is causing people to kill each other. and firearms are equally available (more available actually) in nearby cities, but the nearby cities have pretty much zero murder rate. Depressed economic opportunity, extreme prevalence of very illicit drugs, glorification of gangland culture, and racism & inverse racism are all MUCH bigger factors.

Availability of firearms just allows weaker or outnumbered people to be on equal footing regarding their participation in whatever violence is occurring. And makes it much safer for a caucasian girl to commute across. Knowing that if I broke down, I'd have a sporting chance of being alive and unmolested when the tow truck arrived. It also helps, not knowing where you may break down, to just avoid wearing red or blue if you're traveling that way.

point being, it's so very obviously not the availability of firearms making one town safe and another unsafe.

[MasterDragonfly]

I will certainly concede the point that it takes years of training to be reasonably competent in the martial art of your choice.

Likewise, if I go buy a basketball today, read a few books and watch a few videos on how to play basketball, and spend a few months shooting hoops with some friends, I wouldn't have a hope in hell of being able to play a decent game of 1-on-1 with anyone in the NBA, let alone become a draft pick.

I will also concede that there is a fair chunk of psychology at play in any adversarial situation. Do they prep you for that when you get your firearms license? Or is it basically a matter of a) spending time at the range, and b) locating a more advanced 'realism' course and spending time with that?

To put things in perspective: Some percussive martial arts, at the more advanced levels, encourage the breaking of boards and bricks. But as I've certainly heard in the past, bricks and boards don't fight back. Likewise, a target on a shooting range isn't trying to shoot back at you. Yes, both examples help you focus and polish up certain aspects of your skillset.

At any rate, these threads tend to be more about sharing what we enjoy doing or have a particular belief (religious discussions tend to fall into this category as well), or put another way, rationalizations for the decisions which have brought us to where we are today. I wouldn't expect many folks here to say "my god, you are absolutely right, I've been totally wasting my time doing what I'm doing, I'm going to stop doing it immediately and start doing what you're doing, tomorrow!" It may happen from time to time, but if I were a gambling man, I would guess it to be relatively uncommon.

[Bad Kitty]

hehe, i wouldn't take that bet MD

I don't think that either martial arts nor firearms training really prepares someone "psychologicaly" for confrontational situations in the real world. I see a lot of "armchair expertise" in either group.
growing up in a sh** neighborhood does kinda prepare one though :p or at least causes some desensitizing.


Personally, I like to study minds, psychology, sociology, sentience, cognition, etc. not proffessionally, but as a sort of multidisciplinary hobbyist. And I find it has a lot of informative crossover applications for something like a confrontation.


Probably the trickiest, and most valuable thing, is to 'switch off' emotionally in a crisis. Like you said, paper targets don't shoot back, and boards don't hit back. But if you approach it the same way... focus, calm, controlled breathing, aim, controlled trigger squeaze-off, etc. Or in martial arts, keep your wits about you, focus, watch the other's movements, be aware of both party's center of balance, look for openings to strike or opportunities to turn an attack into a lock or counterblow, be aware of the weak points of the other person's body, etc. Channeled properly, you can use the adrenaline to power an extra-intense level of focus, instead of disrupting your focus. The result being just faster reaction times, strength, and seeing things in a sort of slow motion, all of which are helpful to performance rather than hurtful. In other words, approached correctly, I think a person could actually be much 'more' effectual in an actual dangerous situation, as apposed to a training situation.

As my grandfather used to say, the worst thing you can do in a panic situation, is panic.



Really though, I think the weakest point of the human body is between the ears. making people not want to conflict with you is arguably easier than anything else.