Self Defense article

Yes, you can teach a 1 or 2 day class to your average person and give them techniques for self-defense and/or disarming an attacker. Out of a class of 20, however, I'd guess that probably 2-4 will dedicate themselves to practicing consistently over the next three months or longer. 6-8 will practice unevenly over the next two months and the rest will show a friend or family member what they learned, maybe fool around with it a little and then slide back into routine life.

There must be a caveat with these types of classes however. That some people will be bigger, stronger and better than you are. When this happens, you need at least one or two things you can do as "backup" plans.
 
I wasn't going to mention that--but yes, in many cases you don't need any skill at all with a firearm to deter an attack. In most cases it's not even necessary to know how to "make it go bang".

Oddly enough, that's true with unarmed combatives too. Many serial rapists will desist if the intended victim resists in any way.

BillCA's post makes good sense. People with the right attitude toward training are rare. That's not a failure of the training, but of the student.

pax
 
Re: Pax

In answer to your question, I would suggest that you not give ANYONE this foolish false sense of security by suggesting that they can now defend against a determined attacker because they took a one-day feel good class. It's irresponsible and it's dangerous, and can lead to taking greater risks.
 
I'm sorry that it offends you to be told this, but it is possible to learn basic disarms in a single weekend -- given the proper mindset and a commitment to practice.

The disarm/retention portions of LFI-2 are significantly less than a weekend in length, and will allow the average person to defeat most threats if followed through with rigorous practice.

Steve Tarani's classes also are a few days in length and the techniques are ones that can be easily picked up and used if (there are those magic words again) followed through with rigorous practice.

The basic and critical information can be conveyed in a weekend. Taking that information and making it instinctive and competent requires repetitive, quality practice.

Strangely, that's what Tarani, Ayoob, Awerbuck, Rogers, and most every other instructor teach: the basic skills are easy, making them instinctive requires dedication.

Wait . . . isn't that what Pax has been saying all along? ;)

Wait
 
Pax - you are fighting against a tendency of gun boards. Every question must have a 0,1 answer. It has to be absolutist and macho.

It's like the OC debate. Since there are some folks who can fight after being sprayed - NO ONE SHOULD CARRY OC AS IT MAKES THEM OVERCONFIDENT

Since some folks aren't stopped by a 22 LR or a 32 ACP NO ONE SHOULD CARRY A MOUSE GUN AS IT MAKES THEM OVERCONFIDENT

Thus a young woman or an old man for that case is better off not being able to disengage or stop a reasonable amount of attackers as some on the list think they are super physical specimens.

Nor do I think that most folks who take such courses think they are completely confident against all attackers. They have learned something.

It's funny - how many posts start with some guy, saying "I'm 6'6" and 250 and most folks don't mess with me". Are they a touch overconfident as compared to a little guy with a knife?
 
Is it better to be totally ignorant or to have your basic ignorance increased? Believing you can disarm anyone after a few hours of class, no matter how many hours of private practice, means you have increased instead of decreased your ignorance.

Anyone who thinks they can disarm an angry sociopath is deluded and has obviously never spent much time dealing with violent people. I have trained for decades and am under no delusions that I could disarm anyone. I drive daily but I don't think I could take a weekend class and then race on the F-1 circuit, but in my mind that is what is being suggested as possible.

Anyway, so a 125lb woman disarms an angry sociopathy, what now? Think he really needed the gun in the first place? If you answered yes, go sit in the corner.

If it was possible to reliably disarm someone a gun would be worthless in self defense.

Why does everyone think that sociopaths are easy to disarm but law abiding gun owners are not? That makes no sense.

BTW I am 5'8" and carry a keltec .32, which I don't think anyone could take from me without getting shot. Oddly enough nobody ever messes with me either. I could be because I have 10-15 first cousins who are mean bastards.
 
Justme ~

The Boston Strangler was really easy to defeat. ANY level of resistance against him, from making a noise to fighting back in any way, would cause him to run off. He got his jollies out of killing non resistant women.

Ted Bundy never kidnapped anyone who did not get willingly into his car with him (except those who were bludgeoned into unconsciousness while sleeping, and had no chance either to comply or resist).

Any resistance at all will generally cause the most dangerous types of serial rapists/murderers -- the experienced guys who have done it again and again and again, escalating from rape to murder, and with plans to keep going without getting caught -- to leave the woman alone. Provided, that is, that the resistance begins early enough: only one woman survived without crippling injury after getting into Bundy's car. Any resistance at all while in public was enough to chase him off. Waiting until they were inside the car, she was dead.

Non-educated resistance (flailing or striking the torso; yelling, etc) might stop those guys, but it will generally make the non-"professional" rapists angrier and more apt to do serious damage up to and including murder. But against the guys who intended murder in the first place, even non-educated resistance is often surprisingly effective.

Capable, educated resistance will generally deflect the majority of date rapes and other "social situation" sexual assaults, provided the woman has educated herself enough to understand the social dynamics of what is going on and does not stop to argue or discuss once she has begun to make her escape. Simply knowing the escapes from common grabs, coupled with a basic understanding of date-rape psychology, may enable her to make good an escape that she would not have been able to make without that knowledge.

There are a lot of studies that show an unarmed woman who physically resists a rape or sexual assault is more likely to be injured than those who do not resist. However, a closer look at the data generally show that a majority of women who were injured and also fought back generally were injured first, then began fighting back, rather than the other way around. In other words, it was the injury that provoked her to fight, rather than her fighting that provoked the injury.

I hope it is clear that I am not arguing for ignorance here. Obviously more training is better. Obviously a solid mindset is better than a flabby one and an assertive attitude is better than an aggressive one or a passive one.

What I am arguing against, very strenuously, is the ridiculous notion that women can't learn some basic physical actions that will increase their safety in any time frame short of "years." I strongly detest the fallacy that unless you are (physically and emotionally) prepared to take on the worst of the worst in an extended altercation, unless you dedicate years of your life to learning this stuff and spend half your waking hours thinking about it, well you might as well forget it and learn nothing at all. That's the foolishness I'm arguing against.

If you heard me arguing against getting more training than a weekend, or if you heard me saying that a single day of training without a good mindset and without continued practice, would be enough to take on every guy who ever landed on Death Row -- well, if you heard that, you heard wrong. That's not what I said.

I'm not arguing for false or misplaced confidence. I AM arguing that head-in-the-sand ignorance is a bad thing, training a good thing -- and training plus the commitment to practice and learn more is best of all.

pax
 
I was into Martial arts for years. My ex-wife (tough character) was only a yellow belt when she took a two day course in the use of a kubaton (spelling?). I was mortified at how proficient she was, especially after being her practice dummy for a few weeks. She took it seriously - that's the key.
 
Justme, so no one on the planet could disarm you reliably? I would take that with a grain of salt.

Besides, Keltecs have much diminished stopping power - why bother to carry it? One can carry a snubby of much greater power or a pocket nine. That gun gives you an unwarranted amount of confidence. A crazed sociopath would absorb rounds like that as if they were M&Ms. Tsk, Tsk!
 
Also, I've been to trainings that cost me a bundle. Good stuff, but the best (and simplest) technique I've ever learned to keep someone from grabbing your gun from your holster was shown to me in about five minutes from a corrections officer at my gun club. I practice that whenever I can.
 
Last edited:
I have a cousin who decided to take judo while in college. The instructor (at one time, nationally ranked) decided to cross the line while they were off campus. He propositioned her while she was on a date with her future husband.

It took several people to pull her off of him while she was in the process of breaking his arm for his . . . indiscretion.

A little bit of knowledge, combined with dedication and an understanding that one doesn't know everything is highly effective. A lot of knowledge and an arrogant belief in one's own superiority is highly ineffective.
 
The real question IMO, is not whether or not the woamn CAN disarm the man at all, but whether she can do so without getting herself shot. I submit to ANYONE that learns a martial art that unrestricted, violent encounters against an assailant who is fighting you without warning and without any regard for your safety is much harder than taking on someone in a contrived situation in your Dojo while you are stretched, ready, and you know that all is safe.

Why do so many articles and "experts" recommend learning a questionable skill set when carrying a weapon is much more effective?

I think the skill CAN be learned, but not in a one day class. For too long the martial arts industry has peddled this tripe in an attempt to take your money. I don't care how much karate you know, an 80 pound child is not going to be able to overcome a 220 pound man, if that man has no mental restrictions about hurting said child.
 
I think there is a difference between courses and courses. A realistic combatives course tries to teach an easy to remember set of techniques to disengage and get out of Dodge. They are not trying to impart an entire martial arts domain in a couple of days.

There are frauds in everything. However, my experience with the combatives course were that they were quite realistic as to expectations. Some simple tricks that were better than nothing.

I wonder how many posters actually train intensively with their firearms? Or just shoot a tin can at the range once in awhile.
 
Why do so many articles and "experts" recommend learning a questionable skill set when carrying a weapon is much more effective?

Apart from the political answers to that question (not gonna go there today, thanks), there are two solid answers I can think of right off the bat.

1) Who said it's either-or??? Police officers learn basic disarms and retentions in academy training. They also learn something called "defensive tactics," police jargon meaning unarmed defense skills. Why do they do that instead of carrying a weapon? Answer: they don't. They carry a weapon ... too.

2) In the real world, not in the fantasy world we'd all like to live in, carrying a firearm is not always legal and even where legal it is not always practically possible (as anyone who is honest with himself will admit). Given the choice between a super-effective but sometimes unavailable weapon and a less-effective weapon which will always be present, I'd take both. Wouldn't you?

Many reputable firearms trainers with a solid track record for teaching good material and avoiding twaddle do teach the basic disarms and retentions. And your local cops - who also carry guns - are trained to bet their lives on it when the chips are down and the gun is not a viable choice.

pax
 
Carrying a weapon is neat - this is a gun list. However, learning a simple way to escape someone grabbing your arm is a complimentary skill.

For example, it could be the crazy lady in the laudramat (seen this) - hosing her with your Kel-tec 32 ACP might be frowned upon.
 
It's all about attitude. Nobody is going to reliably disarm me because I will not draw a weapon until I have made up my mind to use it. If the keltec comes out of the pocket bullets are going to fly, and hopefully some will hit their mark.

Go ahead, take your classes, practice in the basement by yourself in front of mirror, just don't think it is going to make one wits worth of difference in the real world.

The single most important thing we can teach anyone about self defense is to listen to their fear. Anything that is done to reduce that fear is by it's very nature dangerous. People have become too civilized to truely appreciate how important their instincts are, especially fear.
 
well...

...geez...
Anyone heard the saying, Beware the man with one gun, he may just know how to use it...
If you learn only one technique, but have real kung-fu (time and work), you may be proficient with it...It's not an either-or, situation. Just another possible way...to survive
 
Back
Top