Open Hand techniques are just plain silly...

[Lisa]

in this day and age, right? I mean really, most altercations these days involve some sort of weapon. A mugger isn't going to mug you by coming up to you and saying "I have lethal hands, now give me all your money" no, he is going to be yielding a knife or a gun or some other form of weaponry that is going to make him feel he has the upper hand on you.

So, isn't it safe to safe if you train empty hand techniques for self defense that it is silly? Cause what you really need is some fire power or weapon techniques to really save your butt?

[Blindside]

So, isn't it safe to safe if you train empty hand techniques for self defense that it is silly? Cause what you really need is some fire power or weapon techniques to really save your butt?

There shouldn't be a difference between an "empty hand" technique and a weapon based one. Yes, there are different entries and tactical considerations on a weapon, but as a system, attribute development and cqc "technique" should be very similar. Ignoring empty hand techs in favor of weapons is just as silly as the reverse.

Lamont

[CoryKS]

Is it really true that most altercations involve weapons? Or just the ones that make it into the news? I've never been held up, but I've had plenty of altercations where one or the other of us is acting the fool and an invitation is extended to 'step outside'.

[Lisa]

There shouldn't be a difference between an "empty hand" technique and a weapon based one. Yes, there are different entries and tactical considerations on a weapon, but as a system, attribute development and cqc "technique" should be very similar. Ignoring empty hand techs in favor of weapons is just as silly as the reverse.

Lamont

Bold is mine.

I think I understand what you are saying however, does everyone really believe that you would have opportunity to use those techniques to disarm and be successful in doing so without causing yourself or others bodily harm from the weapon in question?

[Big Don]

Why do I shoot? Because a firearm is most likely to save my butt. Why do I train in martial arts? Because I don't always have a gun on me.

[Lisa]

Why do I shoot? Because a firearm is most likely to save my butt. Why do I train in martial arts? Because I don't always have a gun on me.

So are you comfortable in saying that you would be able to disarm a person with a gun in an altercation in all circumstances. That your probability of success is just as even if you had a firearm as well?

[myusername]

in this day and age, right? I mean really, most altercations these days involve some sort of weapon. A mugger isn't going to mug you by coming up to you and saying "I have lethal hands, now give me all your money" no, he is going to be yielding a knife or a gun or some other form of weaponry that is going to make him feel he has the upper hand on you.

So, isn't it safe to safe if you train empty hand techniques for self defense that it is silly? Cause what you really need is some fire power or weapon techniques to really save your butt?

Well here in the UK walking around with firepower or any concealed weapon would get me arrested no questions asked! I would also argue that if you are being mugged and you have time to draw a weapon you also have time to run away or give the mugger your wallet, both of which are by far the better self defence techniques under the circumstances!

If a mugger points a gun at you, give them what they want! Any move to draw a weapon could end your life! I would say that even if the mugger had a knife or a blunt instrument attempting to draw your own weapon could lead to disaster! You don't know how good they are with it or how psychopathic their nature!

That is why I think empty hand techniques makes for good common sense self defence (in my very, very humble opinion) as the chances are when you are attacked you will be caught empty handed.

[Xue Sheng]

Bold is mine.

I think I understand what you are saying however, does everyone really believe that you would have opportunity to use those techniques to disarm and be successful in doing so without causing yourself or others bodily harm from the weapon in question?

Big difference between disarm/stop an attacker and getting injured in the process and dead. And if they are coming at you with a weapon why do you care if you cause them bodily harm?

Way back in the Stone Age I learned techniques on how to deal with attack dogs and basically it came down to you’re going to get bit but the dog will not survive. Give it your arm but protect your throat kind of thing.

If you are faced with a weapon and you have none what are your options? I can tell you debate is not one of them so you are left with empty hand technique as a "Last" option. But I will tell you right now if they walk up to me with a club, knife, gun, etc and ask for my wallet... and if giving it to them makes them go away…. I give them my wallet...even if I had a gun.

[myusername]

If you are faced with a weapon and you have none what are your options? I can tell you debate is not one of them so you are left with empty hand technique as a "Last" option. But I will tell you right now if they walk up to me with a club, knife, gun, etc and ask for my wallet... and if giving it to them makes them go away…. I give them my wallet...even if I had a gun.


I agree totally! Its the only sensible thing to do.

[Bob Hubbard]

Most attacks are done at close range. No one yells from half a city block away "give me your money". Well, no one smart anyway. If the attacker is within 50 feet, your chances of drawing and using your own weapon decrease significantly as the gap closes. At 50 ft you might be able to dodge a bullet. At 5 ft, you'll most likely catch it. If the attacker is that close and has not (note, not) readied their own weapon, you have a chance to engage and disable to improve later evasion. Ie just running away won't likely work if he's that close, so kick him square in the tallywacker, and then use nike-do. ;)

note, that's if attack is imminent and giving the attacker your wallet, watch, cell phone and gold plated bvd's doens't satisfy them.

It also indicates that robbery was the intent, and not assault. Some sick ****s just get their kicks from beating others up. In those cases, you may find that evasion is not an option and you must engage. Then, open hand and a strong tactical sence with on hand and improv weapons is needed.

[myusername]

I've had some interesting chats with ex-drug addicts who have been muggers in the past. I remember one chap said that he would go in really hard when mugging someone to put them into shock and he'd hit the victim first before demanding the wallet! He'd also throw a punch after they'd given it to him to stop them thinking about giving chase. His main interest was the wallet and the phone not hurting the victim but he still obviously felt it necessary to rough the victim up and didn't care if the victim got hurt in the process.

It might be a risky strategy but hearing that makes me feel that if I were to be mugged it would take more than a punch or kick to get me fighting back. I would try and push them back obviously but my main aim will be getting the wallet to the attacker as fast as possible so they leave me alone. If he persisted attacking me after recieving the wallet then I would engage properly as it would then be absolutely clear that he is after hurting me more than the gaining the cash.

[little_miss_fracus]

I'm just a kid and don't know much but I live in a fairly rough area of town. Not gang territory or anything, just kinda rough ya know? Well, I don't see a lot of knives and guns here, just bare-knuckle brawling on occasion and some - - what would you call it - - daring eatch other? Like guys do?

I think - and this is just my stupid personal opinion - that if everyone walked around carrying a gun there'd be a lot of dead ****in' people on the street. I think there are people who can carry them without doing a lot of damage and a whole lot of people who really just shouldn't.

I worry more about being thrown a punch at than having a weapon drawn on me because I think there's a lot more people - well I think it's instinct to put your hands on someone else and you'd have to program yourself a lot to have drawing a gun your first reaction. So I think if someone were going to come at me out of anger or to subdue me in some way, they would use their hands.

But I'm just a kid and all I do is go to school and work part time and play xbox360. Whatever.

[little_miss_fracus]

sorry - didn't know about the swearing thing

[Bigshadow]

I remember one chap said that he would go in really hard when mugging someone to put them into shock and he'd hit the victim first before demanding the wallet!


Wow, that kind of strategy would just get him taken out with the right person on the streets here in the USA. As for myself, his first attempt at hitting me would put me into a mode that would not likely yield my wallet, but a reaction that would deal with the immediate threat at hand. His strategy is quite risky!



It might be a risky strategy but hearing that makes me feel that if I were to be mugged it would take more than a punch or kick to get me fighting back.

WTF? A committed assault on you and you aren't going to protect yourself or attempt to flee? Why would you wait to find out what they want?



but my main aim will be getting the wallet to the attacker as fast as possible so they leave me alone.


You probably should practice that often so you don't end up hurting the attacker or yourself quick drawing your wallet.:p

[Kacey]

I'm just a kid and don't know much but I live in a fairly rough area of town. Not gang territory or anything, just kinda rough ya know? Well, I don't see a lot of knives and guns here, just bare-knuckle brawling on occasion and some - - what would you call it - - daring eatch other? Like guys do?

I think - and this is just my stupid personal opinion - that if everyone walked around carrying a gun there'd be a lot of dead ****in' people on the street.

There's nothing stupid about your opinion; first, it's yours, and second, your rationale is clearly stated.

My opinion is maybe yes, maybe no. In the Old West, most people carried guns, and few of them died of gunshot wounds... but it was a different time and the social rules were different. Knowing that you could as easily die as kill someone (who is as likely to have a gun as yourself) can put a stop to a lot of attacks.


I think there are people who can carry them without doing a lot of damage and a whole lot of people who really just shouldn't.

The trick is figuring out which ones are which!


I worry more about being thrown a punch at than having a weapon drawn on me because I think there's a lot more people - well I think it's instinct to put your hands on someone else and you'd have to program yourself a lot to have drawing a gun your first reaction. So I think if someone were going to come at me out of anger or to subdue me in some way, they would use their hands.

I think it depends on if the weapon is drawn in response to a situation causing anger, in which case, in many instances, you'd be right, or for protection, as in a mugging or rape, in which case the reaction would be fear. Myself, I stick with empty hands because I cannot carry at work, even if I knew how to fire a gun... silly rules that don't allow teachers to carry guns, y'know! But even so, I'd rather not be tempted - and there are days when, if I'd had access to a gun, I'd have been tempted.


But I'm just a kid and all I do is go to school and work part time and play xbox360. Whatever.

What does "just a kid" have to do with it? You shouldn't discount your opinion because of you age, especially as you seem to be basing it on your own experiences - which is what everyone else does too; some of us just have more experiences to base our opinions on - but that doesn't make yours wrong, it makes it yours.


sorry - didn't know about the swearing thing

No worries - that's why there's a filter! Just type what you mean and let it work.

[Bigshadow]

So, isn't it safe to safe if you train empty hand techniques for self defense that it is silly? Cause what you really need is some fire power or weapon techniques to really save your butt?

Nothing is guaranteed to save anything.

However, based on my observations, there are differences in strategy and tactics between empty hand arts and weapons arts.

For example one would not necessarily want to forearm block a swing from a machete, axe, or baseball bat, because the damage could cause serious harm. Weapons based art strategies tend to make use of tactics that puts one in a place that the weapon cannot harm. This could be putting one's self just of range or combining footwork and timing to put one's self between the attacker and the weapon. But rarely are weapons met head on, without using a weapon to block or parry, unlike blocks and parries from unarmed systems.

However, the same general movements when wielding a weapon are used when fighting empty handed, so the weapons based tactics still generally work well.

The answer lies in the tactics and strategies more so than the techniques, IMO.

[Blindside]

I think I understand what you are saying however, does everyone really believe that you would have opportunity to use those techniques to disarm and be successful in doing so without causing yourself or others bodily harm from the weapon in question?

Disarm?

Disarming is the third priority behind control of the weapon hand and putting all kinds of hurt on the attacker.

My assumption is that my attacker is armed and that I can't see what they are armed with. Darren Lauer did some interesting work with police officers showing that most officers (something like 80%) didn’t recognize a weapon when it was drawn and presented to them, before engaging in a confrontation. This translates into my personal study, that grab and punch combination isn't a grab and punch, it is a grab and stab.

Link to a document written by Mr. Lauer:
http://www.personalprotectionsystems.ca/EDGED%20WEAPON%20TACTICS%20AND%20COUNTER%20TACTICS .doc

That assumption of an armed attacker doesn’t guarantee me anything, it doesn’t mean I won’t get hit or stabbed. But it gives me a better opportunity than the opposite assumption.

Lamont

PS: Given any sort of forewarning, I will be coming to the party armed myself.

[Blindside]

So are you comfortable in saying that you would be able to disarm a person with a gun in an altercation in all circumstances. That your probability of success is just as even if you had a firearm as well?

Again, disarm is not the priority.

I train close quarters shooting and weapon retention techniques, and while I hate to assume an incompetant weapon using attacker, quite frankly a huge failing in many of the unarmed arts, I'm going to say my abilities at close range are going to likely be better if the situation was reversed.

[punisher73]

I don't feel that empty hand techniques are silly. I think you are going to come into contact with more non-weapon situations than those that involve a knife/gun.

Also, even if you do have a CCW there are plenty of restrictions on where you can legally carry it. In Michigan, a bar for example is illegal to carry it, but where do ALOT of fights happen? Do they require lethal force? Not in most cases, but you better be able to defend yourself against an empty handed attack.

[KenpoTex]

in this day and age, right? I mean really, most altercations these days involve some sort of weapon. A mugger isn't going to mug you by coming up to you and saying "I have lethal hands, now give me all your money" no, he is going to be yielding a knife or a gun or some other form of weaponry that is going to make him feel he has the upper hand on you.

So, isn't it safe to safe if you train empty hand techniques for self defense that it is silly? Cause what you really need is some fire power or weapon techniques to really save your butt?

Some very valid points in the first paragraph. I think a major failing of most martial-arts systems is that they do not realistically address the types of situations that we are going to face if targeted by a criminal. I think it is pretty safe to assume that if someone is going to target you either for your property, your body, or your life they are going to be armed, they will have an accomplice, or both. To assume otherwise (that they're going to be inept, unarmed, and alone) is not a mindset conducive to good training.
With that being the case, I feel that anyone who is training for self-defense should include the use of weapons in their "SD toolbox." To ignore the advantage afforded by a weapon is stupid.

As to your second paragraph, I don't feel that training in empty-hand techniques is silly...quite the oposite actually. There are many situations where a weapon is not the proper choice either because of legal or tactical considerations. In some cases, unfortunately, even though you may be morally justified in using a weapon on someone, the fractured legal system may preclude such action.
In other situations, you may not have time to access a weapon which means that YOU MUST have an effective empty-hand skillset to either end the threat or buy you time to access your weapon (whichever comes first). An example of what I mean would be having to deal with
someone who has just stuck a gun in your face. Just because you have your own gun or knife doesn't really mean much at that point because they have the advantage of having theirs in their hand while yours is still in your waistband or pocket. If you don't have an empty-hand solution to this problem, you are out of luck.


It might be a risky strategy but hearing that makes me feel that if I were to be mugged it would take more than a punch or kick to get me fighting back. I would try and push them back obviously but my main aim will be getting the wallet to the attacker as fast as possible so they leave me alone.
wow just...wow. Your mindset needs some serious work. I truly hope that you don't find yourself in a violent encounter before you've had a chance to revise your thinking.


I think - and this is just my stupid personal opinion - that if everyone walked around carrying a gun there'd be a lot of dead ****in' people on the street. I think there are people who can carry them without doing a lot of damage and a whole lot of people who really just shouldn't.
Do some research on concealed-carry laws, the crime rates among those who lawfully carry weapons, and the number of crimes prevented by people who lawfully carry weapons. I'm not attacking you personally but your opinion in this case is mere supposition.



edit: I decided to change a few things 'cause I was a little mean in the first version (even though it was 100% true).

[thardey]

I daily carry a phone, a knife, a gun, and practice empty-hand techs.

The knife is a tool primarily, I use it a lot on generic stuff, but I do know how to use it.

The gun is only as useful to me as I can draw and fire it. I've been spending a lot of time on the firearms forum getting advice on quick-draw techs. A holstered gun does nothing for me.

The phone is my first weapon of choice, but it takes time to "deploy." At best I can dial 911 and have them recording the incident.

That said, what am I supposed to do until I can get the other weapons into play? If I not surprised -- well no issue. I leave before I get trapped, or deploy my phone, gun, or knife.

If I am surprised, I need to buy some time with the only (physical) weapons that are constantly deployed -- hands and feet.

Some people think that because I have a black belt, that I have no need to carry a weapon. On the contrary, by black belt training is there to give me the opportunity to bring the weapon into play.

[myusername]

Wow, that kind of strategy would just get him taken out with the right person on the streets here in the USA. As for myself, his first attempt at hitting me would put me into a mode that would not likely yield my wallet, but a reaction that would deal with the immediate threat at hand. His strategy is quite risky!

Yes I should imagine that this guys mugging strategy may not translate to a country where people can carry firearms! To be honest he wasn't the brightest spark I ever met but I think that he would pick his victims based on how likely they looked to be able put up a fight. Still there is always the risk of picking on the wrong person!


WTF? A committed assault on you and you aren't going to protect yourself or attempt to flee? Why would you wait to find out what they want?

Reading through my original post I can see that I didn't make myself 100% clear. Of course I will try and flee if I see the opportunity and by no means will I allow myself to be a punchbag. But I maintain in that situation my primary method of defence will be to give the mugger the wallet so that they leave me alone. I know this is all theory but I don't imagine getting mugged is pretty and I would expect to be a bit roughed up from what I have heard. I think resisting too much initially would get me hurt more but if the mugger continued attacking even when he has the wallet then I hope something would kick in and I would know for definate that anything goes because I will be fighting for my life.



You probably should practice that often so you don't end up hurting the attacker or yourself quick drawing your wallet.:p

LOL! Don't worry my girlfriend makes sure I getting plenty of practice quick drawing my wallet! :wink1:

[myusername]

wow just...wow. Your mindset needs some serious work. I truly hope that you don't find yourself in a violent encounter before you've had a chance to revise your thinking.

Like I said to BigShadow I admit I probably didn't make myself that clear with my post. I would obviously try and get away if I had the chance and I would naturally not allow myself to be a punchbag. However, I think to fight back too strongly early on could get me hurt a lot more? Surely if the mugger is just after my wallet when they have it they will leave me alone. Now if I gave them the wallet and they persisted in beating me then I would in no doubt that I am in a fight for survival and would throw everything I've got at them to stay alive.

I think the difference in our responses comes down to confidence at the end of the day. I am very new to the martial arts not yet getting beyond white belt so my confidence in my ability to fight off a determined mugger is quite low at the moment. My strengths at present are as a result of my mental health nurse training - I can keep cool and talk under pressure and I know some basic breakaway techniques from my control and restraint training that can minimise harm to myself. Therefore, I do think the safest option for me is to give the mugger what they want as quickly as possible. It's about making a risk assessment at the time of the incident and recognising my limitations.

[tellner]

in this day and age, right? I mean really, most altercations these days involve some sort of weapon. A mugger isn't going to mug you by coming up to you and saying "I have lethal hands, now give me all your money" no, he is going to be yielding a knife or a gun or some other form of weaponry that is going to make him feel he has the upper hand on you.

So, isn't it safe to safe if you train empty hand techniques for self defense that it is silly? Cause what you really need is some fire power or weapon techniques to really save your butt?

You really need to do a little bit of research before saying things like this. Most simple assaults do not involve weapons. Neither do most aggravated assaults or the overwhelming majority of sexual assaults. The last few years that I looked at the UCR and NCVS data only a bare majority or robberies involved weapons.

The idea that you have to have a weapon for real self defense is a very dangerous and frankly stupid one. It fosters utter dependency. If someone really swallows the "without a weapon you're toast" line they will be prone to give up if they don't have a gun, knife, sword or whatever and will look outside themselves for their personal safety. That's a suicidally bad attitude.

Let's go back a moment and consider those sexual assaults. A blade or bullet is a very good thing to have if someone is trying to stick tab A into slot B, C, D or E (don't ask) without your permission. But it isn't always available and it often isn't apparent that it will be appropriate until it's too late to effectively deploy. Unless you're suggesting a "shoot first and don't bother to ask questions" approach the dependency strategy is a very poor one.

[Lisa]

You really need to do a little bit of research before saying things like this. Most simple assaults do not involve weapons. Neither do most aggravated assaults or the overwhelming majority of sexual assaults. The last few years that I looked at the UCR and NCVS data only a bare majority or robberies involved weapons.

The idea that you have to have a weapon for real self defense is a very dangerous and frankly stupid one. It fosters utter dependency. If someone really swallows the "without a weapon you're toast" line they will be prone to give up if they don't have a gun, knife, sword or whatever and will look outside themselves for their personal safety. That's a suicidally bad attitude.

Let's go back a moment and consider those sexual assaults. A blade or bullet is a very good thing to have if someone is trying to stick tab A into slot B, C, D or E (don't ask) without your permission. But it isn't always available and it often isn't apparent that it will be appropriate until it's too late to effectively deploy. Unless you're suggesting a "shoot first and don't bother to ask questions" approach the dependency strategy is a very poor one.

Sometimes posing the question in a way that gets people to react and have a good discussion doesn't necessarily mean that its the way one truly thinks. ;)

[Kacey]

Like I said to BigShadow I admit I probably didn't make myself that clear with my post. I would obviously try and get away if I had the chance and I would naturally not allow myself to be a punchbag. However, I think to fight back too strongly early on could get me hurt a lot more? Surely if the mugger is just after my wallet when they have it they will leave me alone. Now if I gave them the wallet and they persisted in beating me then I would in no doubt that I am in a fight for survival and would throw everything I've got at them to stay alive.

I think the difference in our responses comes down to confidence at the end of the day. I am very new to the martial arts not yet getting beyond white belt so my confidence in my ability to fight off a determined mugger is quite low at the moment. My strengths at present are as a result of my mental health nurse training - I can keep cool and talk under pressure and I know some basic breakaway techniques from my control and restraint training that can minimise harm to myself. Therefore, I do think the safest option for me is to give the mugger what they want as quickly as possible. It's about making a risk assessment at the time of the incident and recognising my limitations.

Your last line is the key to any type of avoidance or defense, and I agree with it completely.

[tellner]

Sometimes posing the question in a way that gets people to react and have a good discussion doesn't necessarily mean that its the way one truly thinks. ;)

Heh. Gotcha.

[Makalakumu]

One of the things that I recenty learned and found very interesting is that in traditional karate, weapons are supposed to come first. Empty hand flows from weapon techniques. The sensei who told me this and demonstrated said something very simple, "why train your least effective weapons the most?"

[MJS]

in this day and age, right? I mean really, most altercations these days involve some sort of weapon. A mugger isn't going to mug you by coming up to you and saying "I have lethal hands, now give me all your money" no, he is going to be yielding a knife or a gun or some other form of weaponry that is going to make him feel he has the upper hand on you.

So, isn't it safe to safe if you train empty hand techniques for self defense that it is silly? Cause what you really need is some fire power or weapon techniques to really save your butt?


Well, I'm a big advocate of grabbing an equalizer, especially when there is a weapon in play. Now, this doesnt have to be a gun or knife, it can be a stick, a lamp, a belt or rock...basically, anything I can get my hands on. But, if no weapons or equalizers are available, you're going to need to be capable to using empty hand defense.

[MJS]

Bold is mine.

I think I understand what you are saying however, does everyone really believe that you would have opportunity to use those techniques to disarm and be successful in doing so without causing yourself or others bodily harm from the weapon in question?

I know you're directing this to someone else, but I'll toss in my 2 pennies. :)

IMHO, yes, there is a chance that we can be successful in the disarm. Will we be injured in the process? I'd say yes, there is a good chance of that, just like there'd be a good chance of being injured in an empty hand fight.

Alot of it comes down to how one trains the defense.

[Rich Parsons]

in this day and age, right? I mean really, most altercations these days involve some sort of weapon. A mugger isn't going to mug you by coming up to you and saying "I have lethal hands, now give me all your money" no, he is going to be yielding a knife or a gun or some other form of weaponry that is going to make him feel he has the upper hand on you.

So, isn't it safe to safe if you train empty hand techniques for self defense that it is silly? Cause what you really need is some fire power or weapon techniques to really save your butt?


Lisa,

I thought you were going to talk about closed hand versus open techniques. I prefer open hand techniques.

But to your point, I think it is NOT silly to train in empty hand techniques. Sometimes a person needs to react and to defend themselves with empty hands before they can clear and get a weapon on line.

I have lots of experience of not being able to get to a weapon on me as I was too busy dealing with the bad guy(s) coming at me. But that did not stop me from getting to it eventually or to use weapons of opportunity.

In most cases, if a person uses a knife they are considered to be using an offensive weapon while the fire arm is considered a defensive weapon. I have no understanding of how one can be offensive or defensive. They have a function as a tool and it is up to the person to determine the function of the tool.

Back in the day, after ODS (* Operation Dessert Storm *) there were many guys I knew who used weapons in security and were trained by the military as MP's in baton and or just plain fire arms training. But, even having seen combat some of them could not clear the weapon/tool they had or were carrying, and their empty hands training was lacking. I know there are police and ex military and current military here but, I think the average training of those mentioned in the previous sentence in empty hands is very lacking. Their training depends upon having back up on the radio or just next to them. The police that work alone have some idea, but many still think their uniform, badge and gun will inhibit people. It will inhibit the good guys and those who are not really bad guys. But the bad guys will not let that stop them. They will use what they want to get what they want even if it is just to get away.


Personally, I think empty hands training is required to be able to survive long enough to get to your weapon of choice. I think knife training is required as well so people will understand what a knife can do. I also think firearm training is good, but not required unless a person is willing to make the choice to carry and what that means.

[Hawke]

Good discussion and excellent replies.

Knife - instant draw.

Gun - hhhmm, if this was the Old West, I'll be dead. Takes too long for me to get the gun clear and ready.

Empty Hands - always with me wherever I go. The fastest weapons I can get ready to use.

I train in empty hands. I also train with sticks and knives. I believe in the equalizer concept (rock, broomstick, phone cord, car window, brick wall).

Train empty hands...now put a weapon in it....concept works with FMA (and other MAs as well).

[sgtmac_46]

in this day and age, right? I mean really, most altercations these days involve some sort of weapon. A mugger isn't going to mug you by coming up to you and saying "I have lethal hands, now give me all your money" no, he is going to be yielding a knife or a gun or some other form of weaponry that is going to make him feel he has the upper hand on you.

So, isn't it safe to safe if you train empty hand techniques for self defense that it is silly? Cause what you really need is some fire power or weapon techniques to really save your butt? What happens when you find yourself in a 'Gun Free Zone'? Roll over and play dead?

Empty hand techniques are for when you can't bring a gun or other weapon or can't legally use one. What happens if you're on an airline flight and 9/11 part 2 happens? Unlikely? Probably, but you get the point. There are times and places in this society when all you've got is what you brought!

I've been a police officer for 11 years and a police trainer for much of that time.....does the fact that I carry a gun everywhere make empty hand techniques obsolete? Absolutely not! We can't shoot EVERYONE who resists! Heck, we can't TASER everyone who resists (say, he's covered in gasoline!) We can't pepperspray everyone who resists (say, he's in a HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM!) There are times when ONLY empthy hands will do!

[LawDog]

Though there are many assaults with weapons involved the empty hand attacks / assaults are still alive and well. The news media normally only reports on assaults that have been done with a weapon so I can understand why many feel that the majority of attacks are done with a weapon.
If someone attempts to assault you with a weapon and you defend with a weapon, once he / she loses their ability to use their weapon then you must stop using yours. At this time empty hands must come into play.
To a bad guy if you carry a weapon then he now has access to a weapon. In appearence many bad guys do not all have the sterio type of look and many good guys look like the bad guys. Many times bad guys are right up on you before you know it, you will probably not have time to clear leather. If this happens then it's time to use your backup, your empty hands.
:knight:

[Brian R. VanCise]

I train in a practical tool based approach. I always want to have the advantage in some form or another and if I can have a tool advantage that would be great. Still if caught unawares with no tool in my hands I will need to defend myself either all the way with empty hands or until I can deploy a tool. So empty hands are important but even more important is if your system works in conjunctioin with tools so that they are interchangeable. Meaning that the way I move does not change wether I have a tool or I am using empty hands. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/images/icons/icon6.gif

[kidswarrior]

I've had some interesting chats with ex-drug addicts who have been muggers in the past. I remember one chap said that he would go in really hard when mugging someone to put them into shock and he'd hit the victim first before demanding the wallet! He'd also throw a punch after they'd given it to him to stop them thinking about giving chase. His main interest was the wallet and the phone not hurting the victim but he still obviously felt it necessary to rough the victim up and didn't care if the victim got hurt in the process.There's a lot of this on the streets here, too. The USA is a big place, and not monolithic by any means. Harder to carry a firearm--maybe harder still to carry a knife legally--in some places than in others. So, imho, must think about open hand options just for practicality.


The phone is my first weapon of choice, but it takes time to "deploy." At best I can dial 911 and have them recording the incident.

That said, what am I supposed to do until I can get the other weapons into play? If I not surprised -- well no issue. I leave before I get trapped, or deploy my phone, gun, or knife.

If I am surprised, I need to buy some time with the only (physical) weapons that are constantly deployed -- hands and feet.A very realistic scenario, to me.


Most simple assaults do not involve weapons. Neither do most aggravated assaults or the overwhelming majority of sexual assaults. The last few years that I looked at the UCR and NCVS data only a bare majority or robberies involved weapons.

The idea that you have to have a weapon for real self defense is a very dangerous and frankly stupid one. It fosters utter dependency. If someone really swallows the "without a weapon you're toast" line they will be prone to give up if they don't have a gun, knife, sword or whatever and will look outside themselves for their personal safety. That's a suicidally bad attitude.Agreed.


But to your point, I think it is NOT silly to train in empty hand techniques. Sometimes a person needs to react and to defend themselves with empty hands before they can clear and get a weapon on line.
Personally, I think empty hands training is required to be able to survive long enough to get to your weapon of choice. I think knife training is required as well so people will understand what a knife can do. I also think firearm training is good, but not required unless a person is willing to make the choice to carry and what that means.Rich is on target (excuse the pun), once again.


Empty Hands - always with me wherever I go. The fastest weapons I can get ready to use.Best summary of my own beliefs. Always legal to carry, always with you, and in my case, far better trained to deploy than any instrument, therefore probably much, much faster and pretty much always effective.


I don't feel that empty hand techniques are silly. I think you are going to come into contact with more non-weapon situations than those that involve a knife/gun.

Also, even if you do have a CCW there are plenty of restrictions on where you can legally carry it.Another succinct, common sense reply.

[Bodhisattva]

in this day and age, right? I mean really, most altercations these days involve some sort of weapon. A mugger isn't going to mug you by coming up to you and saying "I have lethal hands, now give me all your money" no, he is going to be yielding a knife or a gun or some other form of weaponry that is going to make him feel he has the upper hand on you.

So, isn't it safe to safe if you train empty hand techniques for self defense that it is silly? Cause what you really need is some fire power or weapon techniques to really save your butt?

No. That's actually not true.

[sgtmac_46]

Though there are many assaults with weapons involved the empty hand attacks / assaults are still alive and well. The news media normally only reports on assaults that have been done with a weapon so I can understand why many feel that the majority of attacks are done with a weapon.
If someone attempts to assault you with a weapon and you defend with a weapon, once he / she loses their ability to use their weapon then you must stop using yours. At this time empty hands must come into play.
To a bad guy if you carry a weapon then he now has access to a weapon. In appearence many bad guys do not all have the sterio type of look and many good guys look like the bad guys. Many times bad guys are right up on you before you know it, you will probably not have time to clear leather. If this happens then it's time to use your backup, your empty hands.
:knight: Absolutely correct! In many situations involving weapons, the space and time requirements require empty hands to control and repel and initial attack before your own weapon can even be accessed!

[Scarey]

Well here in the UK walking around with firepower or any concealed weapon would get me arrested no questions asked! I would also argue that if you are being mugged and you have time to draw a weapon you also have time to run away or give the mugger your wallet, both of which are by far the better self defence techniques under the circumstances!

If a mugger points a gun at you, give them what they want! Any move to draw a weapon could end your life! I would say that even if the mugger had a knife or a blunt instrument attempting to draw your own weapon could lead to disaster! You don't know how good they are with it or how psychopathic their nature!


A person who is attempting to mug you expects you to reach behind your back. How else would you get your wallet? They know you are pulling out a hidden object. They tend to be caught off guard when the wallet you just pulled out shoots them. Another trick is to do what stage magicians and con artistes do, take advantage of the fact that people watch the hand that's doing what they want to see. While you retrieve your wallet with one hand pull your gun with the other.

On Another note. I feel very sorry for all of you who live in places where the government expects you to die because a criminal doesn't want to be identified in a lineup. Hopefully we can maintain our rights here in the States, in spite of the ravenous anti-gun idiots.

[Lisa]

No. That's actually not true.

So, what is true then? ;)

[searcher]

I have not read all of the posts, so please forgive me if this makes no sense with the current discussion.

There is one of Murphy's Laws that states, "If it looks stupid, but works. It is not so stupid." That is my take on any type of technique and its use. I use a variation on a palm heel in a hooking punch motion that has been very effective in the past.

I am still a firm believer that a firearm is a great equalizer, as long as you have training in it's use, practice regularly, are liscenced to carry, and you have it on you. BTW-when I say training, I mean training from a reputable tranining facility and not some backyard plinking.

[myusername]

A person who is attempting to mug you expects you to reach behind your back. How else would you get your wallet? They know you are pulling out a hidden object. They tend to be caught off guard when the wallet you just pulled out shoots them. Another trick is to do what stage magicians and con artistes do, take advantage of the fact that people watch the hand that's doing what they want to see. While you retrieve your wallet with one hand pull your gun with the other.

Maybe I'm being naive? or perhaps due to never holding a gun or attempting to draw one quickly I do not apreciate how quickly one can access one and point, aim and pull the trigger? But I'm assuming if the mugger has a gun he will already be pointing and aiming it at you whilst you reach behind your back, thus having the advantage, because as soon as he sees it is not a wallet but a gun he will pull the trigger. How confident can you be that you are faster than the mugger? You know nothing about him. Its not a question as to who is the quickest to draw as he doesn't need to as he has already done that. Also how confident are you that even when you have shot him he isn't going to shoot you back on the way down? (Remember that the gun is already pointed at your head!).


On Another note. I feel very sorry for all of you who live in places where the government expects you to die because a criminal doesn't want to be identified in a lineup. Hopefully we can maintain our rights here in the States, in spite of the ravenous anti-gun idiots.

The majority of muggings in the UK though often vicious do not involve guns. I can't help but feel that if the average Granny was packing a piece the muggers would up the ante and start using guns to level the playing field.

[sgtmac_46]

A person who is attempting to mug you expects you to reach behind your back. How else would you get your wallet? They know you are pulling out a hidden object. They tend to be caught off guard when the wallet you just pulled out shoots them. Another trick is to do what stage magicians and con artistes do, take advantage of the fact that people watch the hand that's doing what they want to see. While you retrieve your wallet with one hand pull your gun with the other.

On Another note. I feel very sorry for all of you who live in places where the government expects you to die because a criminal doesn't want to be identified in a lineup. Hopefully we can maintain our rights here in the States, in spite of the ravenous anti-gun idiots. +1 to that!

[sgtmac_46]

Maybe I'm being naive? or perhaps due to never holding a gun or attempting to draw one quickly I do not apreciate how quickly one can access one and point, aim and pull the trigger? But I'm assuming if the mugger has a gun he will already be pointing and aiming it at you whilst you reach behind your back, thus having the advantage, because as soon as he sees it is not a wallet but a gun he will pull the trigger. How confident can you be that you are faster than the mugger? You know nothing about him. Its not a question as to who is the quickest to draw as he doesn't need to as he has already done that. Also how confident are you that even when you have shot him he isn't going to shoot you back on the way down? (Remember that the gun is already pointed at your head!). It depends on how the handgun is carried....but modern concealment holsters are very fast. With training one can draw aim (point at close range) and fire in less than a second. Part of your movement should be to get yourself off line and draw while he's not pointing the gun at you....if he makes contact with your body, you clear his gun hand with one hand, and draw with the OTHER....EMPTYING the gun in to his body at point blank RANGE! Shoot until he drops!

This has been barred out where armed citizens HAVE successfull resisted armed robbers with their own guns. Yes, he already has his gun out.....but he does NOT know you are ARMED! The element of surprise means it's not exactly a 'draw' duel....he's not expecting you to have a gun.....when you draw yours, while distracting him simultaneously (say, by handing him your wallet with the other hand) you've got the advantage of surprise....add speed and violence of actions and you increase your advantage.

The trick is to get inside his OODA loop....reaction is NOT instantaneous as we believe, but involves a series of cycles of decision known as Boyd's Cycle....the OODA loop....or Observation (seeing the threat), Orientation (acknowledging the threat), Decision (making a plan to deal with the threat) and ACTION (actually ACTING on the threat). Action is NEVER instantaneous, and getting inside the muggers OODA loop and disrupting it, with sleight of hand, deceptive movements and actions, slows his OODA Loop down while giving you MORE time to ACT!


The majority of muggings in the UK though often vicious do not involve guns. I can't help but feel that if the average Granny was packing a piece the muggers would up the ante and start using guns to level the playing field. That's not how it works, actually.....MUGGERS are emboldened by their victims being UNARMED. The balance of power goes ONE WAY! That's why there are MORE MUGGINGS in Europe than in the United States.....our murder rate is higher, but only because of inner-city gang on gang violence. We have less muggings, burglaries and robberies PRECISELY because of the risk is inherently greater!

You see, criminals will ALWAYS have guns....and a gang member or street thug does NOT NEED a gun to enact violence on other citizens....a gun is an EQUALIZER to youth, however.....a gun allows an 80 year old man parity with a gang of street thugs! An 80 year old man armed with a shotgun can take on 10 or 15 gang members! It's irrelavent the assertion 'What if they have guns too' because the 80 year old man being unarmed does not mean the 10 or 15 gang members will be UNARMED!

Moreover, the recidivism rate is LOWER in a society where muggers actually get shot and KILLED for their efforts. ;)

[Touch Of Death]

[quote=CoryKS;942286]Is it really true that most altercations involve weapons? quote]
I seriously doubt it.
Sean

[MJS]

[quote=CoryKS;942286]Is it really true that most altercations involve weapons? quote]
I seriously doubt it.
Sean

Really? Just to expand on this a little:
http://www.courant.com/news/custom/topnews/hcu-hrtfrdrobberies0312,0,4724733.story

[MJS]

And another
http://www.courant.com/news/custom/topnews/hcu-hfdrob-0317,0,3317247.story

[myusername]

It depends on how the handgun is carried....but modern concealment holsters are very fast. With training one can draw aim (point at close range) and fire in less than a second. Part of your movement should be to get yourself off line and draw while he's not pointing the gun at you....if he makes contact with your body, you clear his gun hand with one hand, and draw with the OTHER....EMPTYING the gun in to his body at point blank RANGE! Shoot until he drops!

This has been barred out where armed citizens HAVE successfull resisted armed robbers with their own guns. Yes, he already has his gun out.....but he does NOT know you are ARMED! The element of surprise means it's not exactly a 'draw' duel....he's not expecting you to have a gun.....when you draw yours, while distracting him simultaneously (say, by handing him your wallet with the other hand) you've got the advantage of surprise....add speed and violence of actions and you increase your advantage.

The trick is to get inside his OODA loop....reaction is NOT instantaneous as we believe, but involves a series of cycles of decision known as Boyd's Cycle....the OODA loop....or Observation (seeing the threat), Orientation (acknowledging the threat), Decision (making a plan to deal with the threat) and ACTION (actually ACTING on the threat). Action is NEVER instantaneous, and getting inside the muggers OODA loop and disrupting it, with sleight of hand, deceptive movements and actions, slows his OODA Loop down while giving you MORE time to ACT!

I stand corrected! My apologies, I was being naive as there is obviously more theory and practical technique to handling a gun than I was assuming. I still can't help but feel its a risky game though! What have you to lose by handing over the wallet? A few credit cards you cancel before they are used, a bit of cash, maybe a photograph, a drivers licence that you can replace? Is it really worth risking death for? What if the mugger is aware of the OODA loop and slows yours down first?


That's not how it works, actually.....MUGGERS are emboldened by their victims being UNARMED. The balance of power goes ONE WAY! That's why there are MORE MUGGINGS in Europe than in the United States.....our murder rate is higher, but only because of inner-city gang on gang violence. We have less muggings, burglaries and robberies PRECISELY because of the risk is inherently greater!

You see, criminals will ALWAYS have guns....and a gang member or street thug does NOT NEED a gun to enact violence on other citizens....a gun is an EQUALIZER to youth, however.....a gun allows an 80 year old man parity with a gang of street thugs! An 80 year old man armed with a shotgun can take on 10 or 15 gang members! It's irrelavent the assertion 'What if they have guns too' because the 80 year old man being unarmed does not mean the 10 or 15 gang members will be UNARMED!

Moreover, the recidivism rate is LOWER in a society where muggers actually get shot and KILLED for their efforts. ;)

I don't want to hijack the thread too much as I can see that this discussion can end up making me seem like a member of the ban the gun lobby! Which I can assure you I'm not. As far as I'm concerned you live in the US and it is your culture and your right to carry firearms. I also feel that in the case of the US because guns are a part of the culture banning them now would not lead to criminals suddenly disarming themselves also. However, I respond merely to your assertion that the UK is more unsafe as a result of our gun control laws and that posters such as Scarey and your self feel sorry that we live in a country where we are unable to carry firearms.

For starters, in 1998 - just after the UK banned handguns in the wake of The Dunblane tragedy - the police changed the way that they counted crimes. Crimes like common assault and harassment were reclassified as violent crimes; the underlying crime rates stayed the same, but the recorded crime rate almost doubled overnight. Further changes came in 2002, when police introduced a national standard for recording crime; the Home Office estimates the move inflated violent crime figures by at least another 20%.

According to the British crime survey, which combines police records with a large-scale survey of UK residents and is acknowledged as the gold standard of British crime statistics, the people of Britain are at less risk of being the victim of a crime today than at any point since the survey began in 1981. Violent crime rates have fallen by 43% since 1995; burglary and car thefts have both fallen by more than half. It’s true that murder rates have been running high in recent years - partly due to the retrospective inclusion of Harold Shipman’s victims - but last year they fell back to about the same level as in 1997, even including the 52 victims of the July bombings.

Even the violent crimes we suffer aren’t usually all that violent. Well over a third of the "violent crimes" recorded in Britain last year were crimes like common assault or harassment that involved no physical injury to the victim. A further 43% of cases involved "less serious woundings" like bruises, grazes or black eyes. These may have been traumatic experiences for their victims, but they were scuffles, not shootings. In the vast majority of these cases, the presence of a gun would only - could only - have made matters worse.

Would banning guns in the USA reduce gun crime? I doubt it.

Would allowing the carrying of guns in the UK make the average Brit safer? I doubt that too.

Back to the point of the thread. I think guns and weapons are fine if you are fighting for your life but they are not always availiable, so empty hand techniques are good to know also.

[thardey]

I stand corrected! My apologies, I was being naive as there is obviously more theory and practical technique to handling a gun than I was assuming. I still can't help but feel its a risky game though! What have you to lose by handing over the wallet? A few credit cards you cancel before they are used, a bit of cash, maybe a photograph, a drivers licence that you can replace? Is it really worth risking death for? What if the mugger is aware of the OODA loop and slows yours down first?


If it is only about losing your wallet and/or credit cards, then no, toss the wallet and run. However, common perception is that "simple muggings" are not as common as they used to be. Fewer criminals are actually starving, so you have less of the "I just want money to eat with, I don't really want to hurt anybody" type of crime.

Now it's either about paranoia coming from meth -- They might be thinking: "Now that I've taken his wallet he'll be out to get me, so I should shoot him anyway." If that sound outlandish, consider this: My wife's family lost a good friend because his son came home high on meth. When the Dad tried to talk to his son, the son shot and killed him, then left. When they found him days later, after the high had worn off, he didn't even remember. The had to tell him that he had shot his own father.

Or, criminals are mugging/raping people for the rush of power and danger, which often translates to shooting the victim whether they cooperated or not.

After you toss them the wallet, it doesn't mean that they'll leave. If someone's already pointing a gun at me, he's made the decision to use it, as far as I'm concerned.

But Sgtmac isn't exaggerating on the quick-draw. Even though the guns are now concealed, and we don't carry pearl-handled revolvers, the idea of the "quick draw" is still very much alive. If I have my hand on my gun, which is carried over my right-hip pocket (where most men carry their wallets), I can easily draw and hit a target 10 ft. away three times in under a second, and I'm just starting to train. It's not uncommon for people to be able to start with their hands on their head, draw and fire in about 7/10ths of a second. Check out this thread (http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57914) for more detail on that.


I don't want to hijack the thread too much as I can see that this discussion can end up making me seem like a member of the ban the gun lobby! Which I can assure you I'm not. As far as I'm concerned you live in the US and it is your culture and your right to carry firearms. [snipped]


Back to the point of the thread. I think guns and weapons are fine if you are fighting for your life but they are not always availiable, so empty hand techniques are good to know also.That's pretty much where I'm at, as well. It's more than just changing laws, you'd have to reprogram an entire culture. And no, I don't think the U.K. would be safer if you re-introduced guns. Some of the stuff that people are trying to ban, though, just make me scratch my head.

[navyvetcv60]

Bold is mine.

I think I understand what you are saying however, does everyone really believe that you would have opportunity to use those techniques to disarm and be successful in doing so without causing yourself or others bodily harm from the weapon in question?

Lisa: I feel comfortable in saying that if an individual pulled a gun or knife on me in close proximity, and they hesitated for even a second, i think i could disarm them, I've trained on this technique a lot. Don't under estimate the power of an unarmed martial artist, cause were really never unarmed.

[Balrog]

Why do I shoot? Because a firearm is most likely to save my butt. Why do I train in martial arts? Because I don't always have a gun on me.
There it is.

[sgtmac_46]

I stand corrected! My apologies, I was being naive as there is obviously more theory and practical technique to handling a gun than I was assuming. I still can't help but feel its a risky game though! What have you to lose by handing over the wallet? A few credit cards you cancel before they are used, a bit of cash, maybe a photograph, a drivers licence that you can replace? Is it really worth risking death for? What if the mugger is aware of the OODA loop and slows yours down first? If you're facing a 'mugger' with a knowledge of the concept of Boyd's Cycle and 'OODA' loops per se.....you're not facing a mugger, you're facing someone who has come to kill you, and you've got a serious problem! Of course that kind of person is going to shoot you before know what's going on! Of course it's kind of like saying 'What if I don't have the Flu, what if it's EBOLA!'

If someone walks up and shoots you in the head before you know they are there, there's nothing you can do.....if they hesitate and give you an opening, there's much you can do. Life's imperfect, the best you can do is train to exploit any opening.

But I hear far too often the refrain 'What have you to lose by handing over your wallet?'.....it's based on a false assumption....that if you COOPERATE he WILL NOT SHOOT YOU! It's a risky GAME simply having a robber pointing a gun at you, and the risk to your life is REAL whether you cooperate or not! Because it is dangerous the assumption that all he wants is your money and your wallet, and that he won't shoot you after he gets what he wants to eliminate witnesses of armed robbery.....and the HISTORY of armed robbery doesn't really inspire me with confidence. What you've done is to put your LIFE under the good will of some jackass who robs people with a GUN!

I don't like having to rely on the good will of a criminal to ensure my safety. You're risking DEATH as much or MORE by doing NOTHING! I can make a LIST of robberies where the victim was COMPLETELY COOPERATIVE and ended up murdered as a result of their cooperation! You CANNOT read the mind of the robber, but the fact that he's armed shows that his INTENT is pretty clear!

So it's not as SIMPLE as 'Your money OR your life'.......cooperation very well COULD mean your money AND your life! But there is a mindset that, well if you don't resist and get killed anyway, at least that's better than resisting and getting killed! :confused:



I don't want to hijack the thread too much as I can see that this discussion can end up making me seem like a member of the ban the gun lobby! Which I can assure you I'm not. As far as I'm concerned you live in the US and it is your culture and your right to carry firearms. I also feel that in the case of the US because guns are a part of the culture banning them now would not lead to criminals suddenly disarming themselves also. However, I respond merely to your assertion that the UK is more unsafe as a result of our gun control laws and that posters such as Scarey and your self feel sorry that we live in a country where we are unable to carry firearms.

For starters, in 1998 - just after the UK banned handguns in the wake of The Dunblane tragedy - the police changed the way that they counted crimes. Crimes like common assault and harassment were reclassified as violent crimes; the underlying crime rates stayed the same, but the recorded crime rate almost doubled overnight. Further changes came in 2002, when police introduced a national standard for recording crime; the Home Office estimates the move inflated violent crime figures by at least another 20%.

According to the British crime survey, which combines police records with a large-scale survey of UK residents and is acknowledged as the gold standard of British crime statistics, the people of Britain are at less risk of being the victim of a crime today than at any point since the survey began in 1981. Violent crime rates have fallen by 43% since 1995; burglary and car thefts have both fallen by more than half. It’s true that murder rates have been running high in recent years - partly due to the retrospective inclusion of Harold Shipman’s victims - but last year they fell back to about the same level as in 1997, even including the 52 victims of the July bombings.

Even the violent crimes we suffer aren’t usually all that violent. Well over a third of the "violent crimes" recorded in Britain last year were crimes like common assault or harassment that involved no physical injury to the victim. A further 43% of cases involved "less serious woundings" like bruises, grazes or black eyes. These may have been traumatic experiences for their victims, but they were scuffles, not shootings. In the vast majority of these cases, the presence of a gun would only - could only - have made matters worse.

Would banning guns in the USA reduce gun crime? I doubt it.

Would allowing the carrying of guns in the UK make the average Brit safer? I doubt that too.

Back to the point of the thread. I think guns and weapons are fine if you are fighting for your life but they are not always availiable, so empty hand techniques are good to know also. Except for the inner-cities of the United States, crime is much like it is in Britain....minor assaults and much property crime.

It should be noted, however, that Scotland leads the industrialized world in violent crimes, including rape and serious assault.



As you're probably away, the US' tradition of firearms ownership is less about crime (though a tradition of dealing with frontier crime is a component) and more about GENERAL distrust of STRONG government. The United States is a unique phenomenon in the world, and perhaps the most individualist industrialized society in history. Even those who oppose guns understand that banning guns in America is a futile endevor at best!

[searcher]

the US' tradition of firearms ownership is less about crime (though a tradition of dealing with frontier crime is a component) and more about GENERAL distrust of STRONG government.



Close. We have a general distrust of any government at all.


We need to remember, a man with a gun in his hand is a citizen and a man with no gun in his hand is a subject.

[kidswarrior]

So it's not as SIMPLE as 'Your money OR your life'.......cooperation very well COULD mean your money AND your life! But there is a mindset that, well if you don't resist and get killed anyway, at least that's better than resisting and getting killed! :confused: Thanks for articulating something that's been in the back of my mind for a long while.


It should be noted, however, that Scotland leads the industrialized world in violent crimes, including rape and serious assault.
:erg: I thought the British Isles (are they even called that anymore? :p) were peaceful and genteel--since the Angles and the Saxons calmed down, anyway, and notwithstanding the whole Braveheart episode. :idunno:

[DArnold]

Great post Kenpotex,

I have trained with police and watched them being asaulted by someone with a knife. I could cut you up and leave you for dead, within 50 feet, before you could get your gun drawn and fire!

But your question is not all or nothing, there are varied options. When I am in my house I have arms. If someone comes in my house I am not going to try and fight them. They will be dead!

Many people also have this misconception of Police. When police are in a confrontation... they will win! It's not lets spar and see who can win.

Ignorance of weapons is not bliss...

The statistics show of women attacked 0 are raped when the women are armed.

On the other side of the coin is that people owning guns are unstable and domestic violence of these gun owners is drastically up.

[Scarey]

Great post Kenpotex,

I have trained with police and watched them being asaulted by someone with a knife. I could cut you up and leave you for dead, within 50 feet, before you could get your gun drawn and fire!

But your question is not all or nothing, there are varied options. When I am in my house I have arms. If someone comes in my house I am not going to try and fight them. They will be dead!

Many people also have this misconception of Police. When police are in a confrontation... they will win! It's not lets spar and see who can win.

Ignorance of weapons is not bliss...

The statistics show of women attacked 0 are raped when the women are armed.

On the other side of the coin is that people owning guns are unstable and domestic violence of these gun owners is drastically up.

What? I'm sorry, could you you clarify what you're trying to say there? I'm not sure I quite understand where you're coming from.

[sgtmac_46]

Close. We have a general distrust of any government at all.


We need to remember, a man with a gun in his hand is a citizen and a man with no gun in his hand is a subject. To quote Thomas Paine, 'government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one'.

[Sanchin-J]

Open hand techniques are actually quite feasible in almost any confrontation due to the versatility your granted by the technique. As an example, we use open shutos and palm strikes which tie into what we call the Sanchin fist. Basically, what this does is allows us to go from an intended palm strike to a grab, rake or trapping technique.

[thardey]

Open hand techniques are actually quite feasible in almost any confrontation due to the versatility your granted by the technique. As an example, we use open shutos and palm strikes which tie into what we call the Sanchin fist. Basically, what this does is allows us to go from an intended palm strike to a grab, rake or trapping technique.

I think the O.P. was referring to "Empty Hand" vs. weapon, rather than "Open hand" vs. "Closed fist."

[Xue Sheng]

in this day and age, right? I mean really, most altercations these days involve some sort of weapon. A mugger isn't going to mug you by coming up to you and saying "I have lethal hands, now give me all your money" no, he is going to be yielding a knife or a gun or some other form of weaponry that is going to make him feel he has the upper hand on you.

So, isn't it safe to safe if you train empty hand techniques for self defense that it is silly? Cause what you really need is some fire power or weapon techniques to really save your butt?

hmmmm


I think the O.P. was referring to "Empty Hand" vs. weapon, rather than "Open hand" vs. "Closed fist."

yup... your right :uhyeah:

[MJS]

Great post Kenpotex,

I have trained with police and watched them being asaulted by someone with a knife. I could cut you up and leave you for dead, within 50 feet, before you could get your gun drawn and fire!

Yes, and the video "Surviving Edged Weapons" comes to mind. Amazing how quick distance can be closed.



The statistics show of women attacked 0 are raped when the women are armed.

Of course, like it was was above, its all dependant on if and how quick the weapon can be drawn. Having a weapon in a purse isn't going to do any good during the middle of an attack. Now, if its already out..well, thats different.


On the other side of the coin is that people owning guns are unstable and domestic violence of these gun owners is drastically up.

Hmm...not sure how to read this. Are you saying that anyone who owns a gun is a nut? I won't comment on the last part until I was to see some stats, but I suppose anything is possible.

[KenpoTex]

On the other side of the coin is that people owning guns are unstable and domestic violence of these gun owners is drastically up.Hmm...not sure how to read this. Are you saying that anyone who owns a gun is a nut? I won't comment on the last part until I was to see some stats, but I suppose anything is possible.

I too would like to see some concrete evidence to back up these comments.

[Em MacIntosh]

People have differing philosophies. I don't believe in gun control, I believe in self-control. Unfortunately, my faith in other people's self-control is rather jaded. The last thing you want to do is arm someone who lets their emotions get the better of them. I think most gun owners are responsible and want to protect their rights but there are too many other factors. #1 profits for the gun companies. #2 in regards to #1 they don't want tighter restrictions and background checks. That means less guns if you don't let the irresponsible people have them which means less profits for them. The coorporations run america and it is unlikely that they will see more precise and effective control if it will cost them profits (and kickbacks for certain supporters) My attitude could be summed up as yay for the ATF and boo to the NRA. Though the NRA has many respectable members the association as a whole has really begun to seem like religeous fundamentalists society who only preach the second amendment. Every state is different and it's really tough to tell who really doesn't exercise enough control to own a gun. If nobody had one, nobody would need one but that's not the case. Some guy will always call the rest suckers and take advantage. Canada does seem to do better in ratio of population:gun crimes but whether this is because of our tight regulations or some kind of national attitude, I couldn't tell ya.

[still learning]

Hello, If you check those states that allows carrying of guns? ...you will find crimes are different in those states (alot of times fewer violent ones too)

It is people who commit the crimes NOT guns....

Look at all those who are release early and on parole? ...our criminals do not spend much time in JAIL...70% of crimes are from repeat offenders (FACT)!

It is our system of justice to BLAME. NO one really spends their full time in jail (so many are release early!)

Want to lower crime? ...death sentence that is carry out in 90 days, NO parole boards or more strict regulations, people MUST serve their full term.
Rapist/child predators are NEVER cure...and should NEVER be release for life!

IT now cost over $34,000 ave..to keep one criminal in jail for a year...they get housing,medical,food,clothes,laundry done, TV,libraries,radios,play ground, basket ball courts,weight lifting machines, and sometimes a job.

Aloha ( Hawaii has it share of problems too!)

[KenpoTex]

My attitude could be summed up as yay for the ATF and boo to the NRA.

oh boy...:rolleyes:

[ares]

If a person had a gun and was in front of me (within arms length) I would not hesitate to disarm him. But as in most things, different situations require different things. If the attacker is looking around all nervous then taking the weapon would be easier to do. This person probably doesn't want to shoot you, but the stressed out person is more likely to pull the trigger, so you might want to change tactics. You can tell if the person is going to shoot anyway, I'll trust my training and do what I have to.

[sgtmac_46]

People have differing philosophies. I don't believe in gun control, I believe in self-control. Unfortunately, my faith in other people's self-control is rather jaded. The last thing you want to do is arm someone who lets their emotions get the better of them. I think most gun owners are responsible and want to protect their rights but there are too many other factors. #1 profits for the gun companies. #2 in regards to #1 they don't want tighter restrictions and background checks. That means less guns if you don't let the irresponsible people have them which means less profits for them. The coorporations run america and it is unlikely that they will see more precise and effective control if it will cost them profits (and kickbacks for certain supporters) My attitude could be summed up as yay for the ATF and boo to the NRA. Though the NRA has many respectable members the association as a whole has really begun to seem like religeous fundamentalists society who only preach the second amendment. Every state is different and it's really tough to tell who really doesn't exercise enough control to own a gun. If nobody had one, nobody would need one but that's not the case. Some guy will always call the rest suckers and take advantage. Canada does seem to do better in ratio of population:gun crimes but whether this is because of our tight regulations or some kind of national attitude, I couldn't tell ya. Someone's been drinking the Brady Bunch kool-aid by the GALLON!