StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Lagmonster wrote:One of my peers is a woman who takes karate. She was recently talking about a big martial arts event aimed towards women, wherein they teach the idea that karate or whatever is a sure-fire tool to ward off muggers, home invaders and rapists.

A friend of mine is called Joie Vejjajiva. In the 1970s she was the Thai Women's Karate Champion and was being groomed for their Olympic team. You may remember her as one of the two Thai schoolgirls who assisted James Bond in The Man With The Golden Gun. (She arranged all the fight sequences in that film).

Talking one evening, this very topic came up. Her comment was that Karate and pretty much any other martial art was worse than useless for self defense. It simple convinced people that they could fight armed attackers with their bare hands and they can't. As a result, they took chances they shouldn't. Her definition of things like Karate, Ju-jitsu etc was not that they were fighting styles, she defined them as being art forms. Style triumphing over substance. One girl's opinion certainly but I'd put it to you that Joie was extremely well qualified to make the judgements she did. Note that she didn't run a training school or give classes so she had no financial axe to grind in promoting a specific school or style.

Kanastrous wrote:

Zixinus wrote:

Simply as being superior in defensive value, to hand-to-hand fighting.

If distance can be made and the gun can be drawn. At which point the perp realises that he is staring down a barrel.

Ideally, at which point the perp sees a bright flash.

So you have the perp at gunpoint and you shoot first, no matter what happens? Am I the only one that sees a problem with this?

I am not saying that you shouldn't shoot when you need to. I am saying that your first thing you should not do is shoot.

Again, you need distance and the ability to pick out your gun to do anything with it, by which point you have the upper hand.

He's starring right into a barrel and you have the upper hand, therefore in the position to dictate terms. In case the attacker is still aggressive, firing a warning shot makes it pretty clear to the attacker that you will not hesitate to use your weapon. Once that happens several things can happen:
- the attacker attacks regardless, in which case lethal force is appropriate.
- the attacker reaches for his own firearm. From this you either fire a warning shot again to show that you are not afraid to use your gun, and tell the attacker to slowly lay the gun on the ground by its barrel. Or you fire, if the attacker is psychotic enough to fire at someone who already is aiming at him, which is very unlikely to happen.
- you tell the attacker to lay down his weapons and run (either you or the perp).
- you tell the attacker to drop to the ground and call the police or for help.

Shooting first will not always be clear case of self-defence (and please, no "Greedo shot first" jokes) and can pretty easily land you in jail. You need to use the gun to defend yourself, not to kill first.

Shooting first can actually land you in a WORSE situation, in case you miss. Then the attacker will take out his own firearm and a fire fight ensures. If the attacker is not armed with a firearm, then he can still take the window of opportunity and most likely will, after all, you have shown that your intention is lethal and not mere defence and the perp will now fight for his life.
Or he will give up, in which case the above list goes.

The whole thing will be even more worse if there are multiple attackers. If you shoot first and still hit, then his comrade will defend his own life as you made it pretty clear that you have no intention to let them go.

Lethal force is the desperate measure.

That's one of the points of self-defence: to get into a position to counter the perp's attempt to subdue you and show that you are not willing target. That alone can discourage an attacker.

Zixinus wrote:Perhaps not making blanket assertions that "anyone" who is serious about self defense should get a gun would be a good idea then. That can easily be interpreted to mean you think anyone who wants to be able to defend themselves should get one and just ignore any other alternatives that exist, which is stupid.

Perhaps not making the blanket assumption that my interlocutors won't immediately leap to the most extreme and foolish possible interpretation of what I wrote, would be a good idea, too.

My own fault for leaving an opening, it's true.

I'll work on that.

I didn't write that. Please correct that.

EDIT:

f I recall correctly Wing Chung was actually designed for women to defend themselves against men. However Jeet, being derived from Wing Chung, Boxing, and Greco-Roman Punkration would probably be best.

If I recall the legend correctly, it was developed first by a man then lost half his arm and later further developed by a woman. From there, more people added their own bits, like fighting with the staff.

Stuart wrote:

Lagmonster wrote:One of my peers is a woman who takes karate. She was recently talking about a big martial arts event aimed towards women, wherein they teach the idea that karate or whatever is a sure-fire tool to ward off muggers, home invaders and rapists.

A friend of mine is called Joie Vejjajiva. In the 1970s she was the Thai Women's Karate Champion and was being groomed for their Olympic team. You may remember her as one of the two Thai schoolgirls who assisted James Bond in The Man With The Golden Gun. (She arranged all the fight sequences in that film).

Talking one evening, this very topic came up. Her comment was that Karate and pretty much any other martial art was worse than useless for self defense. It simple convinced people that they could fight armed attackers with their bare hands and they can't. As a result, they took chances they shouldn't. Her definition of things like Karate, Ju-jitsu etc was not that they were fighting styles, she defined them as being art forms. Style triumphing over substance. One girl's opinion certainly but I'd put it to you that Joie was extremely well qualified to make the judgements she did. Note that she didn't run a training school or give classes so she had no financial axe to grind in promoting a specific school or style.

She's right as long as she's talking about the traditional formalized kata. AS long as you step away from that, she's full of shit.

The place where I practiced jujutsu didn't do kata at all. They taught us what kind of moves can be used to counter what kind of attacks, how to combine and improvise and otherwise come out on top. The first thing they taught us was how to fall, because you need to know how to do that to avoid injury from something as simple as slipping on an icy street. The first thing they taught us about actual self defense was "Your feet are your best self defense. When shit happens or even looks like it could happen, run away as fast as you can. If you need to use what we teach you here, you've screwed up." The place was run by a guy who actually provided security training for a lot of big companies in Finland, for our police and he had contracts with Russian businesses to train some of their security and bodyguards. This was in the early 1990s. There's a world of difference between ritualized kata and the kind of hands-on, practical self defense e.g. Hokutoryu jujutsu teaches. That style of jujutsu has NO kata at all. It's all hands on and practical.

As far as the fighting armed attackers goes, they made it really clear to us that in that kind of situations, we'd be fucked. A knife you can perhaps handle if you know what you're doing, get lucky and the perp isn't prepared, but you're more than likely to get hurt. If the perp has a gun, you're dead. They drummed that to our skulls quite effectively too.

Kanastrous wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:Or is she supposed to keep it hidden until a rapist sneaks up and jumps her, at which point she'll never be able to get it out and use it safely?

You can practically carry concealed for a fast-draw. I have done it routinely.

Really? You have "routinely" practiced the technique of carrying a weapon securely enough to jog with it, and then managing to draw it and use it while grappling with someone who has got you in a hold? Or have you just practiced your Wild West quick-draw techniques, as if that's the same thing?

Zixinus, he's talking from the perspective of an American. Given how fucking batshit insane their country is and their attitude to guns, if I lived there and had to some perp actually gave me cause to pull gun (assuming I was carrying one), I'd pull the trigger not once, but three times. Twice to center of mass, once to head and fuck him.

There's no reason to even try to discuss this with a moron like Kanastrous who is utterly incapable of stepping outside the context of the American society where you have essentially free license to kill anyone who tries to attack you even if they are not armed. That's an exaggeration, but it is how they think and how they will often act. So best assume its the standard operating procedure there. Do things that way anywhere in Europe and you will be in court facing second degree murder charges, followed by several years in prison.

Edi wrote:<snip America bashing>

I take exception to that. I'm from New York City originally. The Bronx. And that is definitely not our attitude. I, nor any of my close friends, have carried concealed without cause. The only close friends I have that carry at all are NYPD, Suffolk PD and one or two bonded couriers (and they only carry while working).

Most of us are not gun toting idiots who draws down on people at any perceived hint of threat. Also, you don't have anywhere close to free license to kill in most states. You're allowed to respond with necessary force. If a guy is barehanded attacking you and you draw a gun, you're in the wrong. At least in New York. Unless you can show you are in actual life threatening danger.

Edi wrote:Zixinus, he's talking from the perspective of a Republican.

Fixed for you. Not all of us are gun-nuts incapable of realizing some countries are actually strict on firearms.

Mobiboros wrote:

Edi wrote:<snip America bashing>

I take exception to that. I'm from New York City originally. The Bronx. And that is definitely not our attitude. I, nor any of my close friends, have carried concealed without cause. The only close friends I have that carry at all are NYPD, Suffolk PD and one or two bonded couriers (and they only carry while working).

Most of us are not gun toting idiots who draws down on people at any perceived hint of threat. Also, you don't have anywhere close to free license to kill in most states. You're allowed to respond with necessary force. If a guy is barehanded attacking you and you draw a gun, you're in the wrong. At least in New York. Unless you can show you are in actual life threatening danger.

Which perception of your society is the one that is pushed on non-Americans at almost every turn, Mobiboros? I realize NYC has a far stricter approach to things than many other parts of the US, but collectively your nation IS a bunch of triggerhappy gun-toting nuts from a European perspective. People like Kanastrous only reinforce that perception, as does almost all of your export media we see. And I did note it was an exaggeration.

Though when we use the fixed quotes kindly provided by General Zod, my post become more accurate (still exaggerated, but more accurate).

Zixinus, he's talking from the perspective of an American. Given how fucking batshit insane their country is and their attitude to guns, if I lived there and had to some perp actually gave me cause to pull gun (assuming I was carrying one), I'd pull the trigger not once, but three times. Twice to center of mass, once to head and fuck him.

There's no reason to even try to discuss this with a moron like Kanastrous who is utterly incapable of stepping outside the context of the American society where you have essentially free license to kill anyone who tries to attack you even if they are not armed. That's an exaggeration, but it is how they think and how they will often act. So best assume its the standard operating procedure there. Do things that way anywhere in Europe and you will be in court facing second degree murder charges, followed by several years in prison.

So the Wild West attitude is actually in the American culture. Lovely. I can see why gun control is an issue with that kind of attitude.

A friend of mine teaches womens self defence from time to time (he runs a BJJ/Muay Thai school) and the majority of what he teaches is the maximum damage philosophy. That is of course, once you get past all the "avoid these situations in any way possible" stuff.

Once you are in a situation like that (for most women) the guy is going to be bigger, stronger and more aggressive. As such he emphasises the need to forget anything but the survival instints. Use anything at hand as a weapon and smash the guys balls, knees, throat, temple, eyes - whatever is easiest to get to. And then run like hell while shouting blue murder/calling the police on a mobile.

Sure the training gets more technical than that - but when it comes down to it, that's what self-defence really should be: an emphasis on survival, not on wanking off over your martial art of choice.

To make it better, whenever running these kind of events most local groups I know would get their biggest, scariest guys in to make it as unpleasant as possible - have them really abusing and *not quite* attacking the women to make sure that they can get any "freezing" in such scenarios out of their system while they're still in the gym.

Lagmonster wrote:One of my peers is a woman who takes karate. She was recently talking about a big martial arts event aimed towards women, wherein they teach the idea that karate or whatever is a sure-fire tool to ward off muggers, home invaders and rapists.

Bullshit.

Don’t get me wrong – some of that stuff CAN be useful but none of it is “sure-fire”.

Now, I'm not going to stand up like an idiot and say that martial arts are utterly useless against a determined male attacker, but I DO question the judgment of telling women that if they learn karate that they need worry less about the risks they take.

PROPER martial art/self defense training teaches to avoid a real fight whenever possible, and that includes taking steps to decrease your risk. That is, altering your behavior so you are less likely to need martial arts training in the first place.

You see, this one woman I know proudly said she no longer fears jogging alone at night on the paths through the woods near her house. I immediately declared this to be asinine, but she was adamant that she was perfectly protected, and started going on about the responsibility of controlling the phenomenal power supposedly inherent in karate, lest she kill random rapists by accident, I suppose.

If the whole fucking secret service couldn’t keep President Reagan from getting shot how the fuck does she think her two little fists/feet will keep her immune from harm? Does she take stupid pills daily?

So considering that I don't know anything about the actual effectiveness of martial arts in the real world, what would someone who knows what they're talking about say to a young woman who said something similar about her ability to fight off surprise male attackers? Is the difference between men and women simply not equalized by martial arts, or is a trained female martial artist really more than a match for muggers and rapists?

Regrettably, I have some life experience in this area.

Yes, martial arts/defense training DID help me get through a couple knife attacks and an attempted rape with my assailants both much more badly hurt than myself. However, a HUGE factor in all of the above was that my attacker was not expecting me to fight back. There was a significant element of surprise that let me hit them hard enough, quick enough, and surprise them enough that I could extract myself from the situation.

Or as I was taught – hit as hard as you can as fast as you can then run like hell.

That said, if someone put a barrel of a gun to the back of my head I’ll suddenly turn into Ms. Cooperative ‘cause really, at that point, you are fucked. That’s why avoiding situations is so important. A bullet to the head and you lose. It’s also why you can’t rely on martial arts for home defense – if someone gets in while you’re asleep and you wake up with an assailant already with a gun to your head, or pinning you down, you are fucked. There is always someone out there bigger than you , stronger than you, and more skilled than you.

Another concern is that much martial arts training involves controlled conditions and sparring with rules. In a real-world attack there are no rules. People who are masters at sparring and tournaments may get tripped up by their conditioning regarding rules, explicit or implied.

Edi wrote: Then there's the other self-defense stuff that can be used even without training to get a momentary advantage so you can get away, but you have to be ruthless enough to do it without hesitation and take it to the end or you're better off not even trying it. I mean literally gouging out eyes, hitting on the throat to crush the larynx and possibly damage other things, biting pieces off people and other similarly unpleasant stuff.

Yes, you have to be utterly, utterly ruthless. I broke a major bone in an attacker once because I have zero compunction about hurting an attacker. (On the other hand, I do not start physical fights – I would much prefer never to have to hit another human being for the rest of my life) I fight very, very dirty because I will normally be at a definite size/weight/height/reach disadvantage. Breaking my would-be rapist’s leg gave me the opportunity to escape – I didn’t stick around for fancy moves. To be honest, I doubt I could perform the same feat today because I was in far, far better shape 30 years ago, little miss super-jock before it was ever fashionable (I could lift my bodyweight over my head – rare for a woman even today – and my lower body was stronger yet). I’m not in nearly as good as shape now. And that’s another factor – age, illness, and fatigue can be factors in how well you are able to defend yourself.

So yes, the self-defense training was useful, in that I had some clue what to do when the attack occurred, I had practiced some moves, etc. and yes, I did cause major damage – but like I said, a bullet to the head can trump all that. We are all mortal and all, to one degree or another, vulnerable. Forget that at your peril.

Bubble Boy wrote:Furthermore the size and strength difference between human males and females is not something to be taken lightly.

There's only so much effectiveness that training and discipline can overcome before the size and strength disparity takes over.

Even men have to consider this – it’s the “always someone bigger, badder, taller, stronger , better trained than you” factor.

Kanastrous wrote:Anyone serious about self defense - especially women serious about self defense - should master the use of a handgun (including weapon-retention and proper discretion regarding when to use it), and carry routinely.

Martial arts, electronic devices and irritant agents can all be very effective under the right circumstances, but there's no substitute for a couple of slugs in the chest.

While a gun CAN be of use, it’s no guarantee either and let’s be frank here, some people should NOT be permitted firearms.

First of all, a gun is fucking useless if you aren’t willing to use it. I’ve seen women in self-defense classes whine “but I don’t want to hurt someone!” Honey, if that’s the case hire a goddamned bodyguard to do it for you. If a mugger/rapist/whatever is intent on causing you bodily harm hurting him might be the only other option than meekly submit. And you don’t train to simply wound someone with a handgun you train to kill someone with a handgun. Other than target shooting or as a collectible, that IS the primary function of a handgun – to kill someone attacking you.

As far as “carrying routinely” – there are a LOT of places in today’s world were you can’t – airports, government buildings, schools (including universities) and so forth. The entire city of Chicago. Entire nations in Europe. Etc. Violating these laws can earn you a jail sentence even if you don’t actually use the weapon, just carry it.

Additional problems are people like my eldest sister – mentally ill, so thus more vulnerable to attack but also not someone you’d want to give a gun to (she wound up killing herself in the end). My mother, which is exactly the sort of person who would wake up at 2 am, hear a noise, and wind shooting a family member taking a piss or getting a drink of water in the middle of the night. I’m sure there are other examples, those are just the two that pop into my mind first. Not everyone should be given a gun, but some of those folks are actually some of the most vulnerable people. As it happens, my eldest sister was a self-defense instructor (knowing how to defend herself alleviated a lot of her anxiety) and it wasn’t a bad option for her.

The bottom line here is that while carrying a gun can, some places, be an option I really can’t advocate it as a standard self-defense tactic.

Zixinus wrote:What martial arts do is to give knowledge how to fight and perhaps give some conditioning and confidence. Nothing more by itself, although some may find more to it then others.

It won't be effective againts a surprise attack. If the rapists gets hold of his victim by surprise or by another advantage that she can't get out of, she is fucked. For example, if she is gripped from behind, martinal arts won't help.

Actually, they might - on the attempted rape I was grabbed from behind, around the neck, and still managed to get free. On the other hand, at the time I was much stronger than most women my size, the attacker wasn’t expecting me to fight back, he was somewhat distracted by trying to remove my clothing, and he was only and inch or so bigger than me.

Boy, that’s a lot of variables! But that’s the problem – every fight is different. If he had been a foot taller and a 100 pounds heavier I might well have been raped and beaten. So teaching the techniques to escape that sort of situation are useful, in that they might be used, but when taught it should be made clear that there are NO guarantees you’ll even get a chance to use them, much less be successful.

Kanastrous wrote:

Zixinus wrote:Let me quote a local saying: "You'll get as much for him/her as you would get for a proper person."

Not if it's justifiable homicide, which is to say, self-defense, which is after all what we're talking about.

That’s the case in some parts of the United States – our laws and views do not prevail in many parts of the world. “Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6” is not a universal sentiment.

That said, if the choice is death or jail – well, the bad guy gets death and I’ll be alive in jail, which means I win. Sort of. But really, I’d rather AVOID all that in the first place.

Kanastrous wrote:

General Zod wrote:
Good luck ignoring the cop who decides to arrest you for illegal carrying.

Around here, at any rate, you don't necessarily get arrested for unlawful carry. Your weapon *will* be confiscated, and you *will* have to appear before a judge, and you *can* actually get your weapon returned, if you can satisfy the judge that you had reason to carry, even if you lack the proper permit. I have seen it done, at first hand.

Don’t try that in Chicago – you WILL be arrested. Your weapon WILL be confiscated and you will NOT get it back, period. It is impossible for a civilian to get a carry permit in Chicago and you face a significant risk of jail time.

Kanastrous wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:Or is she supposed to keep it hidden until a rapist sneaks up and jumps her, at which point she'll never be able to get it out and use it safely?

You can practically carry concealed for a fast-draw. I have done it routinely.

Have you tried concealing a gun while wearing women’s clothing? It’s a much different problem than carrying concealed with men’s clothing. Particularly in summer in warm climates.

TheFeniX wrote:[ Self-defense isn't about training or weapons: it's an attitude you present to everyone that says "Don't fuck with me, I am aware of my surroundings." You know what I do when someone is making me uncomfortable? I stop or slow down, look them in the eye, and say "How's it going?"

Another concept we discussed was the OODA loop. Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. The criminal (or maybe it's just some guy caught up in his own world) is already in his act phase when you are being accosted. If you're like most people, you're stuck somewhere between observe and "did I remember to turn the oven off before I left home?". He's already got an edge because he knows how the situation is going to play out provided no new information enters the scenario. By saying "Hello," you run a good chance of "resetting" his OODA loop back to "Observe" as he/she now has new information to process before he can decide on a new course of action. That gives you precious time to make your own decision about his/her intent.

That's getting complicated, but I tell anyone who asks "Where do I start with self-defense?" the same answer: "Get your eyes off the ground, look people in the eye, and talk to them." Criminals love marks who are looking at the ground off in la-la land. Mostly because they couldn't identify them after the fact and they're perfect in that they probably won't know what's going on until long after they've called the police.

This is exactly why I don’t walk down the street with an iPod on or while having a cellphone conversation.

Edi wrote:Zixinus, he's talking from the perspective of an American. Given how fucking batshit insane their country is and their attitude to guns, if I lived there and had to some perp actually gave me cause to pull gun (assuming I was carrying one), I'd pull the trigger not once, but three times. Twice to center of mass, once to head and fuck him.

There's no reason to even try to discuss this with a moron like Kanastrous who is utterly incapable of stepping outside the context of the American society where you have essentially free license to kill anyone who tries to attack you even if they are not armed. That's an exaggeration, but it is how they think and how they will often act. So best assume its the standard operating procedure there. Do things that way anywhere in Europe and you will be in court facing second degree murder charges, followed by several years in prison.

I just want to add that his attitude is by no means universal in the US. I realize that there is a perception of such, but it is a stereotype and thus only rarely accurate.

As I mentioned before, many localities either ban guns or severely restrict them. Even in places such as the state I live in (Indiana – we have very liberal gun laws) that attitude is not universal, either among those who choose not to arm themselves or even among many gun owners. I believe not too long ago I mentioned my landlord, who was recently attacked by two men attempting to rob him. He did NOT draw his gun – which he is legally licensed to carry – but instead opted for a piece of pipe. Despite the fact the whole incident was caught on tape (CCTV with video recorder) – apparently the approach of the two men can clearly be seen, my landlord was clearly trying to simply get away/break the hold at first before escalating to physical violence – and he did not, in fact, kill his attackers, merely knocked one senseless which prompted the other to flee he is still spending time in court. Yes, it was CLEARLY self-defense but there certainly can be legal processes you have to go through even when you are in the right. Then again, this man, while certainly capable of defending himself most definitely would prefer to avoid a fight, much less having to kill someone. Which, by the way, is a much better attitude than having a gun or martial arts training makes you superman or invulnerable.

Likewise, when my Other Half used a crossbow on someone trying steal our truck it wasn’t simply a matter of the police laughing it off. A good self-defense course will teach you the legal issues of using force in self-defense. Sure, do what you have to in order to survive, but afterwards you will still face consequences.

Zixinus wrote:I didn't write that. Please correct that.

Corrected.

Lagmonster wrote:You see, this one woman I know proudly said she no longer fears jogging alone at night on the paths through the woods near her house. I immediately declared this to be asinine, but she was adamant that she was perfectly protected, and started going on about the responsibility of controlling the phenomenal power supposedly inherent in karate, lest she kill random rapists by accident, I suppose.

She's essentially saying "I took a performance driving course so I can drive 100mph on the highway in a blizzard without wearing my seatbelt, my driving skills will protect me from accidents and death".

Speaking from my experience as the target of a couple attempted muggings, I can safely say that karate and other martial arts which depend mostly upon striking from a distance are useless. By the time the attack is underway, the mugger is inside the striking range and it's next to impossible to kick or punch him and do any meaningful damage that way. Knees & elbows are still in play but from what I've been told by my fiancé and one of his instructors (who also teaches me when we have time), those are rarely taught in karate and certainly not in the context of a clinch position and how to get out of it.

Our instructor, whose day job is training police SWAT teams, stresses awareness and avoidance above all else. In his words, "it doesn't matter how much of a badass you are, or think you are, you only have to screw up once to die". He also said (paraphrased) "overconfidence in your abilities will lead to bad judgement which will put you in bad situations, situations which are otherwise 100% avoidable. Do this enough times and you will die".

To drive this home he had the class spend the entire first day learning how to see and evaluate our surroundings, he walked us through hallways, rooms, backstreets, and various other environments for practice. He showed us videos so we'd know what warning signs to look for and how to pick up suspicious characters. Only after we'd thoroughly absorbed all that did he begin teaching the physical aspects of self-defence training.

Oh, and our instructor is 100% right, a little bit more awareness would've kept me from being a victim in either one of the incidents. In my first case which took place in university, I could've, and should've done something sooner when I heard sudden running footsteps. Maybe it was too late at night, maybe I just didn't put 2 & 2 together, but I waited too long before looking and it almost cost me. I had just enough time to prepare to take a fall which allowed me to roll through and break free of my attacker and run like hell. If I'd looked as soon as I heard the footsteps I could've avoided the tackle altogether. In the second incident I was figuratively caught napping, I was zoned out and not paying enough attention when someone tried to snatch my purse, and when that failed it became a full out fight where I put my knees into him breaking his ribs, his jaw, and putting him out cold, but that's only because he got stupid. If the mugger had decided to blindside me instead of trying to steal my purse first, I never would've seen it coming. Once again, a bit more awareness would've saved me a whole lot of trouble.

Also, I was very lucky in both cases, I'm a fair bit bigger than the average woman and a hell of lot stronger, yet I don't look as big nor strong as I actually am. Most people think I'm around 5'7" 130lbs or so when I'm really a couple inches taller and 25lbs heavier, thus I'm pretty sure both of my attackers underestimated me which gave me a small window of opportunity. Luck is not something one should count on.

The guy actually came running a significant distance to mug you? I would think that if I were planning to mug someone, I'd walk quietly and nonchalantly close to them before I made any overtly threatening moves.

Not necessarily.

With people like me running loose out there, that might get you shot.

The thing is, Mike, you're a smart guy. Smarter than the average thug.

Broomstick wrote:The thing is, Mike, you're a smart guy. Smarter than the average thug.

I suppose we could call it a small blessing that most people who opt to do criminal things are usually not among the sharpest tools in the shed.

The Yosemite Bear wrote:If I recall correctly Wing Chung was actually designed for women to defend themselves against men. However Jeet, being derived from Wing Chung, Boxing, and Greco-Roman Punkration would probably be best.

If you mean Jeet Kune Do, yeah, that'd be great, but it's definitely not a martial art for beginners or amateurs and requires a lot of determination and raw toughness simply to survive the training. I've heard of guys coming back from their classes with black eyes, never mind sparring matches or fights.

Strictly speaking with respect to martial arts and acknowledging all the pertinent arguments about staying out of harm's way being the best choice, Krav Maga still sounds like the best bet to me. I have yet to hear of a martial art created with walking into ambushes in mind, rather than facing a single opponent at the end of a mat.

Edi wrote:

Mobiboros wrote:

Edi wrote:<snip America bashing>

I take exception to that. I'm from New York City originally. The Bronx. And that is definitely not our attitude. I, nor any of my close friends, have carried concealed without cause. The only close friends I have that carry at all are NYPD, Suffolk PD and one or two bonded couriers (and they only carry while working).

Most of us are not gun toting idiots who draws down on people at any perceived hint of threat. Also, you don't have anywhere close to free license to kill in most states. You're allowed to respond with necessary force. If a guy is barehanded attacking you and you draw a gun, you're in the wrong. At least in New York. Unless you can show you are in actual life threatening danger.

Which perception of your society is the one that is pushed on non-Americans at almost every turn, Mobiboros? I realize NYC has a far stricter approach to things than many other parts of the US, but collectively your nation IS a bunch of triggerhappy gun-toting nuts from a European perspective. People like Kanastrous only reinforce that perception, as does almost all of your export media we see. And I did note it was an exaggeration.

Though when we use the fixed quotes kindly provided by General Zod, my post become more accurate (still exaggerated, but more accurate).

Pushed on Europeans by who? Your gross generalizations are simply bullshit. Most people in the U.S. never touch a gun. There are people who own rifles to go hunt animals, some of them are the type of stereotype you're talking about, but that's hardly most of the U.S. In fact most of the more violent gangs in the country are made up of 1st generation immigrants at this point.

There is no sure-fire method of self-defense. Things can and often will go wrong with any given means of defending yourself if it comes up; relying on any given one, whether that be martial arts, firearms, or beating feet, to the exclusion of all else is foolish in the extreme. Boldly declaring that she's not afraid of attackers because she's taken a few karate courses is sheer idiocy.

If (and only if) a given person is proficient with a firearm, comfortable carrying one, in a place where it is legal and practical to carry one, and perhaps most importantly knows when and when not to use it, a firearm is the most reliable practical means of self-defense. It is not at all foolproof, but when it comes down to a choice between fighting hand to hand and having a weapon, the weapon is almost always safer for you. Safer still is getting the fuck out of Dodge, but that isn't always possible.

Is it desirable to kill someone, even an attacker? No. Is it better to kill or maim an attacker rather than be killed yourself (and let the attacker go on to do the same thing to other people)? Hell yes.

I never really got into unarmed martial arts, but I knew a few people who did when I was in college. A couple of them related to me that their instructor very clearly spelled out that in the event of a real attack, he'd opt for a weapon over his bare hands, assuming he couldn't run. When I was in the SCA and learning to fight with various melee weapons, I was taught the same thing on those rare occasions when practical rather than reenactment purposes came up; the tool of defense that keeps the most distance between you and your attacker is the best one. It's a really fucking stupid instructor who tells his students that whatever martial art he's pushing will make them absolutely safe. Even if nothing else, the attacker could also be a martial artist, and at the end of the day even that doesn't matter as much as size and weight differences.

Harrison Ford knows this well.

Zixinus wrote:So you have the perp at gunpoint and you shoot first, no matter what happens? Am I the only one that sees a problem with this?

If you're justified in pulling your gun out, then you're justified in shooting him. If you're not justified in shooting him, then why do you have your gun out?

I am not saying that you shouldn't shoot when you need to. I am saying that your first thing you should not do is shoot.

Again, you need distance and the ability to pick out your gun to do anything with it, by which point you have the upper hand.

He's starring right into a barrel and you have the upper hand, therefore in the position to dictate terms. In case the attacker is still aggressive, firing a warning shot makes it pretty clear to the attacker that you will not hesitate to use your weapon. Once that happens several things can happen:
- the attacker attacks regardless, in which case lethal force is appropriate.
- the attacker reaches for his own firearm. From this you either fire a warning shot again to show that you are not afraid to use your gun, and tell the attacker to slowly lay the gun on the ground by its barrel. Or you fire, if the attacker is psychotic enough to fire at someone who already is aiming at him, which is very unlikely to happen.
- you tell the attacker to lay down his weapons and run (either you or the perp).
- you tell the attacker to drop to the ground and call the police or for help.

Warning shots? Brilliant! Where are the warning shots going? Also, at this point, you're brandishing your weapon, which can land you in jail, regardless of whether you're justified in shooting the guy. If you're going to shoot, shoot him.

Shooting first will not always be clear case of self-defence (and please, no "Greedo shot first" jokes) and can pretty easily land you in jail. You need to use the gun to defend yourself, not to kill first.

Shooting first can actually land you in a WORSE situation, in case you miss. Then the attacker will take out his own firearm and a fire fight ensures. If the attacker is not armed with a firearm, then he can still take the window of opportunity and most likely will, after all, you have shown that your intention is lethal and not mere defence and the perp will now fight for his life.
Or he will give up, in which case the above list goes.

How fucking long do you think you need to take a follow-up shot? Most criminals would rather run than try to fight it out.

The whole thing will be even more worse if there are multiple attackers. If you shoot first and still hit, then his comrade will defend his own life as you made it pretty clear that you have no intention to let them go.

Lethal force is the desperate measure.

As opposed to running the fuck away?

That's one of the points of self-defence: to get into a position to counter the perp's attempt to subdue you and show that you are not willing target. That alone can discourage an attacker.

The point of self-defense is to keep you and your loved ones safe. If possible run the fuck away, if not, you do what you must.

Rogue 9 wrote:Even if nothing else, the attacker could also be a martial artist, and at the end of the day even that doesn't matter as much as size and weight differences.

This is true, but only in that it takes a disproportionate amount of training to make up for size differences. I've seen small women school the shit out of much larger, stronger men using various martial arts, but they were very proficient fighters and it's not a guarantee. Distance is indeed saftey, even if it's a bit of 2x4.

Zixinus wrote:

Kanastrous wrote:

Zixinus wrote: If distance can be made and the gun can be drawn. At which point the perp realises that he is staring down a barrel.

Ideally, at which point the perp sees a bright flash.

So you have the perp at gunpoint and you shoot first, no matter what happens? Am I the only one that sees a problem with this?

You misunderstand.

The rule in civilian self-defense firearms use is that you should only draw your weapon when you intend to use it. That doesn't mean you automatically respond to any threat situation with lethal force, it means that you only take your weapon from its holster when you've decided that lethal force is warranted.

Except you are missing the worrying possibility that if the guy grabs you unexpected he can also take your gun and point it at you, no amount of macho gun bullshit will help you if the opponent points your own weapon at you. A weapon he wouldn't have if you didn't carry it. In my opinion in such a situation (if you can break the hold) the best thing to do is to hit a weak point like the side of the knee, back of the elbow, groin, eye's, throat etc hard enough to crack it and run, don't stick around to be a martial arts badass, it will get you injured or worse. I used to practice Tae Kwon Do and I can say definitely that if your opponent is 50lb's heavier than you, and the fight goes longer than 20seconds, your fucked. And a mugger/rapist isn't going to follow ITA rules. I've had a guy that much heavier than me grapple me when I was in school (he was a fucking psycho) and seriously, it's almost impossible to break a grapple when the guy is that much taller and heavier than you.

I'm kind of confused at the idea that people should be able to routinely defend themselves from large groups of powerful attackers. If larger numbers could be defeated by random-jutsu, people wouldn't use larger numbers to attack people.

And grappling-and-falling-down martial arts are even worse at dealing with multiple attackers than karate and its kin. At least with karate, you remain upright and mobile. When you're all intertwined with some asshole on the floor, it becomes trivially easy for his buddies to curbstomp you.