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.

 

[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 WEAPON TACTICS AND COUNTER TACTICS.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).