You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Self Defense article
- Thread starter divemedic
- Start date
Divemedic: It's hard NOT to take Ms. Rothrock seriously, since she won the world championship legitimately. Go back through some old issues of Black Belt.
9mmHP: I totally agree, a gun of your own is the best option. However, (A) Many people (including college age people and others in "weapon free zones") don't have the option without being made into malum prohibitum criminals, and (B) if the assailant with the gun is close enough, you can reach his faster than you can reach yours.
Justme: The Secret Service argument doesn't fly. The Secret Service hasn't let an assassin within disarming reach of a President since McKinley was killed more than a hundred years ago. Disarming techniques, by definition, are tools to be employed within arm's reach. Besides, the people who need disarming skills most are those who are NOT perpetually surrounded by a cordon of the world's most highly trained bodyguards.
9mmHP: I totally agree, a gun of your own is the best option. However, (A) Many people (including college age people and others in "weapon free zones") don't have the option without being made into malum prohibitum criminals, and (B) if the assailant with the gun is close enough, you can reach his faster than you can reach yours.
Justme: The Secret Service argument doesn't fly. The Secret Service hasn't let an assassin within disarming reach of a President since McKinley was killed more than a hundred years ago. Disarming techniques, by definition, are tools to be employed within arm's reach. Besides, the people who need disarming skills most are those who are NOT perpetually surrounded by a cordon of the world's most highly trained bodyguards.
Once again, my MA training is old, but Ithink it still holds true that the last thing a BG with a gun expects is for you to move IN on him - element of surprise. Going for a weapon of your own ranks about third on his list. Mr. Ayoob, correct me if I'm all wet here, it's been a while.
The whole "disarming" distance does raise an interesting dilemma. In my mind we should be teaching young women to stay well outside of "disarming" distance. By the logic I'm reading it sounds like you guys are saying a young woman would be safer and have more options within disarming distance.
I can actually see the logic in that, since my own self preservation instincts are to keep people well outside of disarming distance if I have a firearm, like oh 18+ feet. In a violent "street" altercation my instinct is to get as close as possible, close enough so a fist or foot or tire iron can't get any momentum.
I can actually see the logic in that, since my own self preservation instincts are to keep people well outside of disarming distance if I have a firearm, like oh 18+ feet. In a violent "street" altercation my instinct is to get as close as possible, close enough so a fist or foot or tire iron can't get any momentum.
Partly agree and partly disagree, Justme.
In pure H2H, out of reach is out of danger, but only in that instant frame of time. Anyone who has run a Tueller drill (21' = 1.5 seconds average) knows how quickly that gap can be closed.
In a world where we can't always keep our distance, we need to know how to fight at the various ranges. The attacker is the actor, we are the reactor, and the attacker's actions generally determine the spatial parameters of the fight. Rapists, for example, are unlikely to attack their victims from 18' away.
When the rapist, mugger, or psycho murderer is within arm's reach, he is within disarming range, and it is useful to know what to do at that point.
In pure H2H, out of reach is out of danger, but only in that instant frame of time. Anyone who has run a Tueller drill (21' = 1.5 seconds average) knows how quickly that gap can be closed.
In a world where we can't always keep our distance, we need to know how to fight at the various ranges. The attacker is the actor, we are the reactor, and the attacker's actions generally determine the spatial parameters of the fight. Rapists, for example, are unlikely to attack their victims from 18' away.
When the rapist, mugger, or psycho murderer is within arm's reach, he is within disarming range, and it is useful to know what to do at that point.
JoeBlackSpade
New member
Some of these responses are hilarious to read.
Let's set aside the credibility of the individual trainers here, which a few have questioned. Further, let's set aside the argument of VA Tech for just a second. What is the goal of any, and all training? With each individual move, each movement, each counter-movement, isn't it merely to give you one additional tool in your bag, just one more little piece of knowledge to draw on, in the slim chance that you might get to use it? By the logic of some, perhaps we shouldn't waste our time on ANY training, since techniques can only be useful if they are practiced until your hands bleed, and you become a Chuck Norris Commando.
I use the word "get" on purpose, since each technique involved in martial arts/ weapons retention/ disarming, all require a convergence of unique circumstances, in order for that individual technique to be employed. The more techniques you know, the greater the number of circumstances one of those techniques might be applicable, and the better prepared an individual is in a broader range of scenarios. In other words, if you know a great number of techniques (and you can execute them properly), you'll be more prepared for a variety of confrontations, as opposed to someone who knows few techniques. As Mas Ayoob pointed out, disarming is for when a weapon is presented at close range. The technique isn't applicable, except in specific cases. Obviously, you aren't going to attempt to disarm someone at 15 meters, who is shooting at you. Do you really need to tell a 23-year old woman to RUN LIKE HELL if she's being shot at from across a parking lot? I doubt it. Disarming isn't about teaching someone how to run away. It's about what to do when you are backed into an allyway, (or a classroom) and a crazy shooter has just wiped out your friends, turns the gun on you at 2 feet away, and you have run out of options. As addressed above, such cases happen all too frequently. In such cases, a 10-hour course can give the victim a fighting chance, which is all we can ask from ANY training that falls below the level of professional.
Having said that, there are many, many instances where a close range shooting turns into a grappling match- by default. This is due to the victim's tendency to instinctively reach out, palm out, in a blocking motion. I've seen many videos where someone is getting shot at point-blank range, and the response is almost always the same: An untrained, instinctive, almost pleading hands-out-blocking motion. This is true of all cultures, all people, virtually all body types, with all other things being equal. Of course the blocking motion does absolutely no good, but without any training at all, what can one expect? These poor people have zero chance of surviving, other than to hope for a catastrophic failure in their attacker's weapon.
Disarming technique training- however brief- at least gives someone in this position a fighting chance- however small- to get their hands on the weapon, and interfere with the attacker carrying out his plans. In that moment of grappling, perhaps the defender can take out an eye, or perhaps in the scuffle, the attacker will lose his nerve. Perhaps LE will show up, or maybe someone else in the group will get up their nerve and join in. My point is that no matter how brief, no matter how cursory, a little bit of weapons disarming training is better than absolutely zero, if nothing else than to familiarize someone with the dynamics involved, and remind them that they should stay vigilant and try to avoid these circumstances at all costs.
Let's set aside the credibility of the individual trainers here, which a few have questioned. Further, let's set aside the argument of VA Tech for just a second. What is the goal of any, and all training? With each individual move, each movement, each counter-movement, isn't it merely to give you one additional tool in your bag, just one more little piece of knowledge to draw on, in the slim chance that you might get to use it? By the logic of some, perhaps we shouldn't waste our time on ANY training, since techniques can only be useful if they are practiced until your hands bleed, and you become a Chuck Norris Commando.
I use the word "get" on purpose, since each technique involved in martial arts/ weapons retention/ disarming, all require a convergence of unique circumstances, in order for that individual technique to be employed. The more techniques you know, the greater the number of circumstances one of those techniques might be applicable, and the better prepared an individual is in a broader range of scenarios. In other words, if you know a great number of techniques (and you can execute them properly), you'll be more prepared for a variety of confrontations, as opposed to someone who knows few techniques. As Mas Ayoob pointed out, disarming is for when a weapon is presented at close range. The technique isn't applicable, except in specific cases. Obviously, you aren't going to attempt to disarm someone at 15 meters, who is shooting at you. Do you really need to tell a 23-year old woman to RUN LIKE HELL if she's being shot at from across a parking lot? I doubt it. Disarming isn't about teaching someone how to run away. It's about what to do when you are backed into an allyway, (or a classroom) and a crazy shooter has just wiped out your friends, turns the gun on you at 2 feet away, and you have run out of options. As addressed above, such cases happen all too frequently. In such cases, a 10-hour course can give the victim a fighting chance, which is all we can ask from ANY training that falls below the level of professional.
Having said that, there are many, many instances where a close range shooting turns into a grappling match- by default. This is due to the victim's tendency to instinctively reach out, palm out, in a blocking motion. I've seen many videos where someone is getting shot at point-blank range, and the response is almost always the same: An untrained, instinctive, almost pleading hands-out-blocking motion. This is true of all cultures, all people, virtually all body types, with all other things being equal. Of course the blocking motion does absolutely no good, but without any training at all, what can one expect? These poor people have zero chance of surviving, other than to hope for a catastrophic failure in their attacker's weapon.
Disarming technique training- however brief- at least gives someone in this position a fighting chance- however small- to get their hands on the weapon, and interfere with the attacker carrying out his plans. In that moment of grappling, perhaps the defender can take out an eye, or perhaps in the scuffle, the attacker will lose his nerve. Perhaps LE will show up, or maybe someone else in the group will get up their nerve and join in. My point is that no matter how brief, no matter how cursory, a little bit of weapons disarming training is better than absolutely zero, if nothing else than to familiarize someone with the dynamics involved, and remind them that they should stay vigilant and try to avoid these circumstances at all costs.
BlackWidow
Inactive
Now, that sums it all up. Great going JoeBlackSpade. Now maybe some of these guys will "get it"
BlackWidow
BlackWidow
I don't think anyone is saying that more knowledge is exactly bad, just that it can be dangerous. I use the term "journeyman hubris" to describe the concept that a little knowledge can be a bad thing. I have seen people get hurt and break things because they have a misplaced sense of their own competence.
I think there is a very real chance that a young woman who takes one of these courses, in isolation as opposed to part of overall training, can develop a misplaced sense of how well she can execute such a move in an emergency situation. I feel confident that good professional trainers like Mr Ayoob recognise and address this issue. I feel equally confident that the people who made that utube video and teach the class in question do not.
I think the number 1 thing that we need to teach young women, and men for that matter, is to obey their instincts. Fear is a very valuable human emotion and if people obey their fear they are less likely to get hurt. I read a book on that issue a few years back but can't remember the author's name or even the title. MrAyoob might know remember the guys name, he was pretty popular for 6 months or so on the talk radio and TV circuit.
The bottom line is that psychological factors are even more important than physical ones. We have to be very very careful that in putting someone in a better position physically we don't put them at greater risk psycholgically. I'm not sure how to write that, but I hope it makes a little sense.
I think there is a very real chance that a young woman who takes one of these courses, in isolation as opposed to part of overall training, can develop a misplaced sense of how well she can execute such a move in an emergency situation. I feel confident that good professional trainers like Mr Ayoob recognise and address this issue. I feel equally confident that the people who made that utube video and teach the class in question do not.
I think the number 1 thing that we need to teach young women, and men for that matter, is to obey their instincts. Fear is a very valuable human emotion and if people obey their fear they are less likely to get hurt. I read a book on that issue a few years back but can't remember the author's name or even the title. MrAyoob might know remember the guys name, he was pretty popular for 6 months or so on the talk radio and TV circuit.
The bottom line is that psychological factors are even more important than physical ones. We have to be very very careful that in putting someone in a better position physically we don't put them at greater risk psycholgically. I'm not sure how to write that, but I hope it makes a little sense.
JoeBlackSpade
New member
I don't think anyone is saying that more knowledge is exactly bad, just that it can be dangerous.
We're talking about staring down the barrel of an attacker's smoking .357. Danger is inherent.
In any case, knowledge itself is never dangerous, merely the misapplication of that knowledge.
I use the term "journeyman hubris" to describe the concept that a little knowledge can be a bad thing.
I agree with you, in the sense of misapplication- say for example if I read a medical journal on Tuesday, and attempted brain surgery on Wednesday. In that case, sure, you make a superb point.
However, in absolute survival situations, we're talking about life-or-death. Doing nothing = certain, violent death.
I feel equally confident that the people who made that utube video and teach the class in question do not (teach proper application).
That may well be the case. If so, let the "buyer" beware. In this case, the person taking the class better know the background of their trainer. Of course, the same is true of anything else we might buy- whether services or goods.
I looked at the "Hollywood" video on the MySpace page, and many of those techniques are authentic, and have only been dramatized since the parties who made it apparently also do stunt work.
"The Gift of Fear" by Gavin de Becker
Yes, that's the one. My wife was a child and adolescent psychiatrist who also did a fair amount of advocacy work for women on sexual harrasment and discrimination. She made our daughter read that book before she went off to college.
BTW She would be angry and haunt me if I didn't thank Mr Ayoob for all the help he gave professional women in the area of sexual descrimination law. I don't remember the name of the case, but weren't you the expert witness who basically said the FBI was wrong for expecting women to use guns sized for men?
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Being a well trained researcher and psychologist - and yes, folks on this list and moderators know that I am me - I have to fall back on my training.
Would someone like to cite reliable data that demonstrates that individuals with such training as described have come to a bad end do that training being misapplied?
Otherwise - lot of armchair speculation worth not much.
It is markedly similar in tone to that of antigunners suggesting that if civilans have guns they won't be able to use them successful and/or they will be taken away. That was disproven. Since I've read the techy literature on victimology - I don't recall seeing one discussion that implies that self-defense training was a handicap as compared to none or that it make people overly confident.
I remember my Judo teacher saying, Use technique, get away, run!!
BTW, I took LFI-1 in Dallas with a broken wrist and shot the whole thing nondominant hand. My autographed target is in the garage. Thus, I think I and Mas actually exist.
Would someone like to cite reliable data that demonstrates that individuals with such training as described have come to a bad end do that training being misapplied?
Otherwise - lot of armchair speculation worth not much.
It is markedly similar in tone to that of antigunners suggesting that if civilans have guns they won't be able to use them successful and/or they will be taken away. That was disproven. Since I've read the techy literature on victimology - I don't recall seeing one discussion that implies that self-defense training was a handicap as compared to none or that it make people overly confident.
I remember my Judo teacher saying, Use technique, get away, run!!
BTW, I took LFI-1 in Dallas with a broken wrist and shot the whole thing nondominant hand. My autographed target is in the garage. Thus, I think I and Mas actually exist.
There are some assumptions being made here.
First, a gun pointed at you does not = certain death. In the vast majority of cases, a bad guy pointing a gun at you has no intention of shooting you. When you escalate the situation through a poorly executed disarming maneuver (what other way could you execute it with 10 hours of training?) you are actually increasing the chances that the assailant will shoot.
In my job field, we have an assessment called risk verus benefit. Attemping some half-arsed wanna be karate maneuver increases your risk, and unless the maneuver is properly executed, does not increase the benefit.
Staying in a malfunctioning aircraft may include a high degree of risk, and some would argue that you should jump out to avoid the crash. That becomes foolish if all you are using as a parachute is a trash bag or an umbrella.
First, a gun pointed at you does not = certain death. In the vast majority of cases, a bad guy pointing a gun at you has no intention of shooting you. When you escalate the situation through a poorly executed disarming maneuver (what other way could you execute it with 10 hours of training?) you are actually increasing the chances that the assailant will shoot.
In my job field, we have an assessment called risk verus benefit. Attemping some half-arsed wanna be karate maneuver increases your risk, and unless the maneuver is properly executed, does not increase the benefit.
Staying in a malfunctioning aircraft may include a high degree of risk, and some would argue that you should jump out to avoid the crash. That becomes foolish if all you are using as a parachute is a trash bag or an umbrella.
It is markedly similar in tone to that of antigunners suggesting that if civilans have guns they won't be able to use them successful and/or they will be taken away
Frightening similar. If you believe that civilians having guns are not at danger from having them taken away, how can you suggest that sociopathic bad guys who have guns are at risk of having them taken away? I assure you that the average sociopath is better equiped to disarm the average "civilian gun owner" than the average college coed with 10 hours of training is equiped to disarm the sociopath.
It is a common misperception that criminals are stupid and untrained. They are sociopathic and do not abide from societies rules, but that is not the same as stupid, naive or incompetent.
glock glockler
New member
Justme,
If they're getting within arm's reach they're already making a big mistake, so they're either untrained and foolish, or they're trained and foolish. IMO the overwhelming majority of the martial arts/self-defence stuff out there is really good at setting people up to get killed, it shouldn't be too hard to take their gun away if you now what you're doing.
Also, my previous question might be something good to think about: if you were to kick their leg and render them unable to present any threat, would that count as a disarm?
If they're getting within arm's reach they're already making a big mistake, so they're either untrained and foolish, or they're trained and foolish. IMO the overwhelming majority of the martial arts/self-defence stuff out there is really good at setting people up to get killed, it shouldn't be too hard to take their gun away if you now what you're doing.
Also, my previous question might be something good to think about: if you were to kick their leg and render them unable to present any threat, would that count as a disarm?
In the vast majority of cases, a bad guy pointing a gun at you has no intention of shooting you. When you escalate the situation through a poorly executed disarming maneuver (what other way could you execute it with 10 hours of training?) you are actually increasing the chances that the assailant will shoot.
So surrender/compliance and total reliance on the belief that this individual (who might be looking at a third strike and thus has a motive to eliminate a witness) is the preferred option?
My line of work also does with risk/benefit analysis. In the scenario you depict, the benefit is an absolute unknown as is the risk. Compliance may save your life, or may result in your being raped or killed. There is absolutely no information available beyond the fact that this attacker is already using deadly force against you. So, appealing to risk/benefit analysis is not very beneficial.
Also, my previous question might be something good to think about: if you were to kick their leg and render them unable to present any threat, would that count as a disarm?
No, because more than one criminal has continued shooting even after being grounded by weapons fire, let alone from a leg sweep or knee strike. Even if the criminal dropped their weapon, the two wouldn't be separated by much distance and recovery is easy unless you get in close to obtain the weapon.
glock glockler
New member
buzz_knox,
If a criminal is "unable to present a threat" how can he shoot back at you?
Even if the criminal dropped their weapon, the two wouldn't be separated by much distance and recovery is easy unless you get in close to obtain the weapon
You mean like close enough to disarm them?
If a criminal is "unable to present a threat" how can he shoot back at you?
Even if the criminal dropped their weapon, the two wouldn't be separated by much distance and recovery is easy unless you get in close to obtain the weapon
You mean like close enough to disarm them?
IMO the overwhelming majority of the martial arts/self-defence stuff out there is really good at setting people up to get killed
That is my opinion also. There are a very small number of very good instructors though, and any course with these people is benificial. Alas, if you aren't in that community already you don't always know who these people are.
This is true of therapist too, BTW. Because I worked with a lot of shrinks I came to see the vast gulf in competence that similarly trained people can have.
If a criminal is "unable to present a threat" how can he shoot back at you?
My point was that a leg sweep or knee strike will not render him unable to present a threat. If he is armed with a ranged weapon (i.e. a pistol), then he can present a threat even if lying on the ground, screaming and holding his knee with one hand. As long as the other hand has the weapon, his is a threat.
You mean like close enough to disarm them?
But the pontifications in this thread are that attempting to disarm someone is simply a quicker means of insuring your own death. Isn't that what we are supposed to take away, notwithstanding the fact that people who have no training whatsoever in disarming techniques are effective against cops and criminals on a fairly regular basis?