The true meaning of self-defense

[Kung Fu Wang]

You want to beat up your opponent in such a way that

- His head will look like a pig's head.
- His own mother won't be able to recognize him.
- He has to spend hours to pick up his missing teeth on the ground.
- He will need a nurse to take care of him for the rest of his life.
- He will regret that his mother ever brought him into this world.
- He will believe that death may be a better option afterward.
- ...

Please add more into this list.

 

[skribs]

The attack stops.

If I kiyhap or draw my gun and he runs for the hills, I don't need to do any more.

 

[Steve]

Self defense is getting to know some like-minded people and working out a little in a safe and friendly environment, for fitness and fun.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The attack stops.

If I kiyhap or draw my gun and he runs for the hills, I don't need to do any more.

This. That's pretty much all I'm looking for when considering self-defense. Mind you, if he happens to get a new look in the process, I'm okay with that.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Self-defense is peeing and crapping on yourself to stop an attack.

 

[TSDTexan]

 

[Chris Parker]

You want to beat up your opponent in such a way that

- His head will look like a pig's head.
- His own mother won't be able to recognize him.
- He has to spend hours to pick up his missing teeth on the ground.
- He will need a nurse to take care of him for the rest of his life.
- He will regret that his mother ever brought him into this world.
- He will believe that death may be a better option afterward.
- ...

Please add more into this list.

No.

I'm calling this out.

This is precisely NOT self defence. It is ego driven self indulgent violence and thuggery, and, if you teach your students this ideal for 'self defence', you're setting them up to go to jail for a long time.

You actually do anything with this idea in mind, you deserve to go to jail for a long time.

You think this is a good thing, or anything to do with self defence, stop thinking you teach self defence at all. Now. You obviously have no idea what it is. And, in today's society, you are completely ill-qualified to discuss it.

 

[jobo]

No.

I'm calling this out.

This is precisely NOT self defence. It is ego driven self indulgent violence and thuggery, and, if you teach your students this ideal for 'self defence', you're setting them up to go to jail for a long time.

You actually do anything with this idea in mind, you deserve to go to jail for a long time.

You think this is a good thing, or anything to do with self defence, stop thinking you teach self defence at all. Now. You obviously have no idea what it is. And, in today's society, you are completely ill-qualified to discuss it.

I fear you may have missed the humour in the op.

when he cries like a puppy,

 

[Chris Parker]

I would agree with you if John didn't say this kind of thing often. Additionally, there is no indication of a 'humorous' thread or idea... it's very much in keeping with his other postings... and his ideas on martial arts... which are, to my mind, very superficial and lacking. This understanding of "self defence" matches that lack of genuine appreciation of the subtleties and realities of the situation.

 

[wab25]

The true meaning of self defense is: "I can go to work tomorrow."

I have a lot of things on my list to do tomorrow. Being in jail, the hospital or the morgue is not on that list, and I prefer to keep it that way. Self defense, is doing whatever I need to, in order to keep those things off my list. That may include, crossing on the other side of the street, going home early, apologizing for something I didn't do, handing over my wallet, running away. I am good with that, as I have a lot of things on my list for tomorrow. I get that we don't want to just hand over the wallet... but really, how much money is in your wallet? $20? $40? How much are hospital bills? How much is bail? How much is your lawyer going to charge?

Things may require a physical response. But the goal of applying a physical technique is to get to a position, where I can run away. And then, run away. I used to work with a guy, that thought he was getting into a fist fight. He was a big guy, and could handle himself. He found out, that he was in a gun fight... and he broke rule number one: Bring a gun. He died at the scene. (he was the one starting the fight, so technically it was the other guy defending himself... but the point stands, you don't know what the other guy has, or what his friends have. There are quite a few stories of people getting into gun fights, without a gun, because they thought it was a fist fight.)

Its acceptable to use similar phrases like: "I can go to school tomorrow," or "I can go on my vacation tomorrow."

 

[Steve]

I would agree with you if John didn't say this kind of thing often. Additionally, there is no indication of a 'humorous' thread or idea... it's very much in keeping with his other postings... and his ideas on martial arts... which are, to my mind, very superficial and lacking. This understanding of "self defence" matches that lack of genuine appreciation of the subtleties and realities of the situation.

In your opinion.

 

[Steve]

The true meaning of self defense is: "I can go to work tomorrow."

I have a lot of things on my list to do tomorrow. Being in jail, the hospital or the morgue is not on that list, and I prefer to keep it that way. Self defense, is doing whatever I need to, in order to keep those things off my list. That may include, crossing on the other side of the street, going home early, apologizing for something I didn't do, handing over my wallet, running away. I am good with that, as I have a lot of things on my list for tomorrow. I get that we don't want to just hand over the wallet... but really, how much money is in your wallet? $20? $40? How much are hospital bills? How much is bail? How much is your lawyer going to charge?

Things may require a physical response. But the goal of applying a physical technique is to get to a position, where I can run away. And then, run away. I used to work with a guy, that thought he was getting into a fist fight. He was a big guy, and could handle himself. He found out, that he was in a gun fight... and he broke rule number one: Bring a gun. He died at the scene. (he was the one starting the fight, so technically it was the other guy defending himself... but the point stands, you don't know what the other guy has, or what his friends have. There are quite a few stories of people getting into gun fights, without a gun, because they thought it was a fist fight.)

Its acceptable to use similar phrases like: "I can go to school tomorrow," or "I can go on my vacation tomorrow."

step one in self defence: don't assault other people.

That aside, I tend to agree with your broad definition of self defense. But will point out that it leads down a path where fighting skill is relatively unimportant.

 

[wab25]

But will point out that it leads down a path where fighting skill is relatively unimportant.

I am not going to change my definition of self defense in order to make fighting skill more important.

People have different roles. Those roles determine what our fighting skills should be accomplishing. As a civilian, your fighting skill should be about surviving and going to work tomorrow. As a LEO, your fighting skill should be about detaining people. In the military, killing people. My assumption is that we are talking about civilian self defense.

I have already pointed out, how you really don't know what the other guy has, until to late. The longer you are engaged in using your fighting skills, the more opportunity you give the other guy to produce anything he has. There is always the lucky shot or weapon of opportunity as well. Your risk for injury goes up, the longer you are engaged.

There are many threads here about the legal aspect of self defense. The take away is that it is not an easy, cut and dry question. If you are in a situation where you need to use your fighting skill, and you get to a point where you could run away and you don't... then you are choosing to stay and engage in combat. That whole complicated legal mess that is self defense, just got a lot more complicated because you choose to continue to engage in combat. A really good bit of evidence that should help your case for self defense, would be that you ran away. You were in fear for your life, or great bodily injury... and you ran away, as soon as you could. This looks better than you were in fear for your life, or great bodily injury, so you engaged in combat, choked him out and or pounded his face to a pulp. The bit where you ran away, supports the statement that you were in fear for your life, much better than ground and pounding him into unconsciousness.

Given the choice, I will use every other skill first, before physical combat. If I have to use physical combat, I will use it to escape, and then escape. If that lowers the importance of fighting skills in self defense... I am okay with that.

 

[Steve]

I am not going to change my definition of self defense in order to make fighting skill more important.

People have different roles. Those roles determine what our fighting skills should be accomplishing. As a civilian, your fighting skill should be about surviving and going to work tomorrow. As a LEO, your fighting skill should be about detaining people. In the military, killing people. My assumption is that we are talking about civilian self defense.

I have already pointed out, how you really don't know what the other guy has, until to late. The longer you are engaged in using your fighting skills, the more opportunity you give the other guy to produce anything he has. There is always the lucky shot or weapon of opportunity as well. Your risk for injury goes up, the longer you are engaged.

There are many threads here about the legal aspect of self defense. The take away is that it is not an easy, cut and dry question. If you are in a situation where you need to use your fighting skill, and you get to a point where you could run away and you don't... then you are choosing to stay and engage in combat. That whole complicated legal mess that is self defense, just got a lot more complicated because you choose to continue to engage in combat. A really good bit of evidence that should help your case for self defense, would be that you ran away. You were in fear for your life, or great bodily injury... and you ran away, as soon as you could. This looks better than you were in fear for your life, or great bodily injury, so you engaged in combat, choked him out and or pounded his face to a pulp. The bit where you ran away, supports the statement that you were in fear for your life, much better than ground and pounding him into unconsciousness.

Given the choice, I will use every other skill first, before physical combat. If I have to use physical combat, I will use it to escape, and then escape. If that lowers the importance of fighting skills in self defense... I am okay with that.

Just out of curiosity, do you think I was agreeing with you or disagreeing with you? Because I think your definition is more of a threat to eatablishment swf defense guys who make a living teaching physical self defense to folks who may not need it.

 

[Headhunter]

Self defence isn't beating someone up. Self defence is getting home safe. Self defence is not getting in a fight. Self defence is crossing the street to avoid a suspicious person or any threat

 

[Headhunter]

I would agree with you if John didn't say this kind of thing often. Additionally, there is no indication of a 'humorous' thread or idea... it's very much in keeping with his other postings... and his ideas on martial arts... which are, to my mind, very superficial and lacking. This understanding of "self defence" matches that lack of genuine appreciation of the subtleties and realities of the situation.

Yeah and frankly I don't see what's funny about this post...I didn't read the op and start laughing because it's simply...not funny

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Those statements were collected from my online Chinese book reading. I think it has great sense of humor (Ah Q spirit). Unfortunately, some people may not appreciate those "jokes". In Chinese, it's called "Ah Q spirit" - spiritual victories.

I have stated about my SD opinion many times in this forum. If someone attacks you, you should put yourself in defense mode and test your defense skill (You will need a great MA skill to achieve that). When your opponent finds out that you have no intention to fight back, he may stop. You and him may live happy ever after.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The True Story of Ah Q - Wikipedia

The True Story of Ah Q is an episodic novella written by Lu Xun, first published as a serial between December 4, 1921 and February 12, 1922. It was later placed in his first short story collection "Call to Arms" (吶喊, Nàhǎn) in 1923 and is the longest story in the collection. The piece is generally held to be a masterpiece of modern Chinese literature, since it is considered the first piece of work to fully utilize Vernacular Chinese after the 1919 May 4th Movement in China.[1]

The story traces the "adventures" of Ah Q, a man from the rural peasant class with little education and no definite occupation. Ah Q is famous for "spiritual victories", Lu Xun's euphemism for self-talk and self-deception even when faced with extreme defeat or humiliation. Ah Q is a bully to the less fortunate but fearful of those who are above him in rank, strength, or power. He persuades himself mentally that he is spiritually "superior" to his oppressors even as he succumbs to their tyranny and suppression. Lu Xun exposes Ah Q's extreme faults as symptomatic of the Chinese national character of his time. The ending of the piece – when Ah Q is carted off to execution for a minor crime – is equally poignant and satirical.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Those statements were collected from my online Chinese book reading. I think it has great sense of humor. Unfortunately, some people may not appreciate those "jokes".

I have stated about my SD opinion many times in this forum. If someone attacks you, you should put yourself in defense mode and test your defense skill (You will need a great MA skill to achieve that). When your opponent finds out that you have no intention to fight back, he may stop. You and him may live happy ever after.

I don't think the chaos of an attack is the time to try to find out if you're that much better than the other guy.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I don't think the chaos of an attack is the time to try to find out if you're that much better than the other guy.

One of my guys got into argument in a pole room. His opponent attacked him, he just dodged and blocked the punches. After 10 minutes, none of his opponent's punches could land on his body. His opponent sat down on the coach, got so mad at himself, didn't know what had just happened, and the fight ended without anybody got hurt.

One Karate guy (I don't remember his name) said,

if you attack me the

- 1st time, I'll back up.
- 2nd time, I'll also back up.
- 3rd time, I'll still back up.
- 4th time, I will make you to believe that your 1st attack on me was a true mistake.

I do like what he had said there.

 

[Steve]

Humor is a funny thing.