Self Defense article

Furthermore, whether or not someone is Mas Ayoob is rather beside the point when said poster tries to argue that what works in training experience policemen is effective when training inexperienced young women. But hey, there are books and seminars to sell, a person is hardly going to sell lots of those if he tells people the truth. The truth is that very few affluent americans are equiped to handle violent people, and a few hour seminar is not going to change that.
Click to expand...

I really didn't want to come back to this...

There are a couple things being mixed together here and some incorrect assumptions being made.

The #1 assumption someone like Mr. Ayoob has to make when offerring training that includes physical combat is that the trainee will take the training to heart and PRACTICE it. I would think he probably stresses this since he knows as well as anyone about ingrained training.

The using of what has been proven effective with police to train "inexperienced young women" is a justifiable if the above assumption is used. One does not seek out LFI if one is interested in only a 1 or 2 day education with no further personal investment. If I am going to be trained something I certainly want it to be something that has been show to be effective.

Don't use innuendo, just accuse Mr. Ayoob of hawking his courses to people to make a buck at the expense of his students' safety. I think you are wrong though for the reason I gave at the begining. Ask him what training he would recommend to a woman who admits no interest in continued physical practice and I would bet it would be something more in line with observation and evasion skills, which he couls also certainly offer.

As we coverred before, you are dead on in your last statement. "The truth is that very few affluent americans are equiped to handle violent people, and a few hour seminar is not going to change that." I agree completely. When you start shelling out the time and money for training from a world class proffesional though I think we are a step beyond the type of person who is taking a "self defense for women course" at the Y. It all depends on the commitment of the student we are discussing.
 
But hey, there are books and seminars to sell, a person is hardly going to sell lots of those if he tells people the truth. The truth is that very few affluent americans are equiped to handle violent people, and a few hour seminar is not going to change that.
Click to expand...

What a way to win hearts and minds, by implying that Mas is a liar and does so for profit at the expense of his readers and students. Nice.

The "truth" is the vast majority of people who seek out Mas' training (or that of most any top tier instructor) are not the fat and happy fools you think most are. Instead, they are dedicated enough to incur the expense in terms of time, cost and (often) physical discomfort to learn these techniques. So, the people who obtain his training are the ones who are most likely to put it into effect.
 
very few affluent americans are equiped to handle violent people
Click to expand...

Hell, most violent people aren't equipped to handle violent people. Unfortunately, sometimes you aren't left with a choice.

Buzz' point is a good one: That LFI grads (or any of the name schools) aren't better by virtue of attending the class. They're better by virtue of recognizing that they need to spend the time, money, and effort to train up to possibly defend themselves. They're better because they have the awareness that it might one day be necessary to kill that guy.
 
But this thread is not about Mas' class it is about a few hour seminar at the Y. He mentioned the value of teaching LE people retention and disarming techniques and people were off to the races saying I was wrong about this particular course.

There is a very good course highlighted on this very section of this forum that seems to stress avoidance and awareness. When I read the outline I thought, "this is what we need to be teaching young people"
 
Justme, your posts here (and in a similar vein in an adjacent thread on "When would you pull the trigger?") seem to presume that your opponent is a rational individual you can negotiate with. The trouble is, if he was a rational, reasonable person, he wouldn't be sticking a gun in your face.

By definition, disarming is only possible at very close range. This means that your chance of escape from the opponent's remote control weapon is extremely poor. Yes, I and others preach avoidance, but we also teach fallback options when avoidance fails or is not possible. Disarming is one of those options.

Yes, in the best of all worlds the hypothetical young lady facing the gun might use her interpersonal communication skills to negotiate with the person immediately threatening her life. However, when negotiations are going to take place across a gun barrel, they seem to go a lot better for the person holding the gun. Yet another reason to be able to perform a disarm. As Bill Jordan wrote once in the foreword for one of my books, it "lends weight to your side of the argument." :)

If the young lady in question was one of my daughters, I would want her to have all possible options at her disposal, and not have to leave her survival up to the whim of someone so out of control that he points guns at innocent people.

A short course at the YMCA won't make anyone a master of disarming, but if the technique is valid and the instructor teaches well, it is entirely possible for the student to leave with one or two moves that, if practiced now and then, will give the student a viable option for survival.
 
I don't want to speak for Mr. Ayoob, he can do that himself, but I haven't seen yet where he's saying a short course is the do all and end all. What I read into it is that there is legitimacy in these courses. An arsenal is just that...a collection of many things. Another do-hickey in a toolbox doesn't take up a lot of space, but you may need it sometime. If I get a flat tire, I'd rather have a cheap car jack than ask my wife to lift the car.
 
We are really far from my original post. Back to the article:

I want someone to tell me that it is better for a woman with a 4 hour class under their belt to try and disarm an armed attacker, or better for her to try and escape.

I am telling you that I think this class is worse than nothing, because it tells these young women that they can disarm someone who is holding them at gun point, using the pathetically inadequate training you get in the course.

We are not talking trained LEOs, or martial arts experts. We aren't talking about mall ninjas here. We are talking 18 year old coeds leaving home for the first time to attend college. I just do not think it is realistic to expect that this will work. I also think that the people teaching this course should be held liable for each female who is injured or killed because they followed this bad advice.
 
The question here should not be "can a woman (or person in general) disarm an attacker" but "SHOULD someone try to disarm an attacker". I have NO civilian confrontation experience, but lots of good 'ol war experience, and my thought is that force is best met with force. Attempting a disarm should be the LAST effort. Escape, evasion, or shooting the BG in the face are much better options.
Can a small person defeat a larger one? Yes, absolutely. I only tip the scales at about 150lbs, and in my Army hand-to-hand training, I can choke out much larger guys, but in a grappling fight big guys lose some of their strength and mass advantage. In a stand-up striking fight, big guys hold all the cards.
But as I said, attempting a disarm is not a great option. It is certainly a tool worth having. However, fighting skills are perishable, and if not practiced, can work against you as much as for you. The best option is to pull your (insert your carry gun) and aim for the chest and pull the trigger until he stops moving. Don't shoot until you think he's dead. Shoot till he thinks he's dead.
Attempting a disarm is a bit like surviving a knife fight- the best way to win is to bring a gun.

that's my .02
 
Suppose I kick an attacker with a knife and his knee or ankle is now broken and he cannot stand up or effectively attack me, does that count as a disarm?
 
I want someone to tell me that it is better for a woman with a 4 hour class under their belt to try and disarm an armed attacker, or better for her to try and escape.
Click to expand...
I think you guys are really missing the boat here. No one yet has advocated using disarming techniques instead of escape!!!!!!!! What they are saying is that when the alternatives are submit to your attackers whim or attempt a disarm to allow an escape, these techniques are useful (when properly practiced). How can anyone argue with that? Unless you are one of those who feels that compliance is always your best bet.
 
I want someone to tell me that it is better for a woman with a 4 hour class under their belt to try and disarm an armed attacker, or better for her to try and escape.
Click to expand...
In my admittedly old MA training, these were often one in the same. Maybe not to the point of disarmament, but a well placed strike or eye gouge can buy you the time you need to escape.
In a stand-up striking fight, big guys hold all the cards
Click to expand...
I have a few trophies for sparring. I tried like heck to gain enough weight to fight in heavy weight. These guys were slower and more cumbersome. It's the small, physical types who'd come at you like Taz from Bugs Bunny. Give me a big ba*st*rd any day, but just don't let him get hold of you.
 
Last edited:
Thank you divemedic, you are more diplomatic and articulate than I am but summed up my thoughts pretty well.

Mr Ayoob, I am not suggesting that criminal aggressors are rational, in fact I usually use the term sociopath. I think one of the biggest problem is that people underestimate just how sociopathic and violent these people are. Most people are "nice", when "nice" people run into sociopaths the "nice" people usually don't understand the rules of the game. Mall ninja training simply reinforces the erroneous thinking that these young women have.
 
If you haven't taken these folks' training (I haven't) don't be dissing them as mall ninjas and posers. The link provided lists Cynthia Rothrock as one of their instructors. Calling Ms. Rothrock a poser or mall ninja would be like calling Rob Leatham a backyard plinker.

Gentlemen, I have two words for you: "Virginia Tech."

The nation witnessed the spectacle of a sampling of a generation taught to "run away" or "just comply" do exactly that. The results are written in blood, indelibly.

Suppose ONE of those "18 year old coeds" knew what to do when Cho extended a pistol toward her, and had spent two to four hours practicing it...
 
Thank you all for your input, some have shared a great deal of light on the topic of disarming a criminal when you can't escape and others have shared a great deal of heat on the topic....:rolleyes:

can we put this thread to bed yet?

BTW I am conducting self defense seminars for the next 8 weeks on campus, you have given me alot to think about and a great deal of content to add to my classes.

Thanks again, even to the people that I disagree with.
 
Did you by any chance watch their myspace combat video ad? I don't know what Ms. Rothrock is doing being mixed up with these bozos, it doesn't make any sense. I wonder if she even knows.

I am rather tired of hearing about all the simple solutions to Va Tech incident also. The fact is that more time and attention spent on their mental health system would have been the best solution. There is no defense against a madman who is willing to die. Presidents have been shot surrounded by the best trained best armed professionals in the world, suggesting that a young coed would be more succesful than an army of secret service agents seems a bit optimistic.
 
There is no defense against a madman who is willing to die. Presidents have been shot surrounded by the best trained best armed professionals in the world, suggesting that a young coed would be more succesful than an army of secret service agents seems a bit optimistic.
Click to expand...
Come on! The guy would go into a classroom, shoot his guns dry. Walk out into the hall and reload. Come back into the classroom and shoot them dry again. Go back out and reload.

ANYONE with a gun and some guts could have cut down on the body count. In fact, given what I've heard about his tactics, it's possible he could have been taken down by an unarmed but determined person during one of his reloads.

I doubt anyone's suggesting that it could have been completely prevented, but it's painfully obvious that it wouldn't have taken much to save a lot of lives.
 
I do disagree that nothing could have been done at VT. Rule 1: bring a gun to a gunfight, which is my problem with the panacea course described in the new article that started all this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top