What MUST be taught in a Self-Defense Course?

[Steve]

This is very true.



Absolutely. If your fight or flight hasn't kicked in before the gun shots it WILL kick in once the shots start and you know they are shooting at you. Like I said there was that kid who was shot in the forearm, he didn't fight but managed to zig zag around cars to avoid other shots. I arrived on scene maybe 90 seconds after the call went out and found him walking normally to the point only the blood on his arm was an indication of a gun shot wound and the inside of his arm must have been interesting. He was released from the Trauma Center 2 hours later. "Why" some may ask (but not you, if I recall right you work in an ER?)? The X-Ray revealed the bullet (small caliber .32 or smaller) had hit one of the bones in the forearm and fragmented. They would have done more damage going in and removing the fragments so they said "here are your follow up instructions, good luck they are a souvenir."

Academic knowledge isn't the same as practical knowledge. Stories are just stories if you have limited actual experience. Buka has a career in law enforcement to draw upon... practical experience, and I've never seen him suggest that a story he's telling be taken at face value just because he said it. Chris is a guy who has done a lot of homework. As a historian, I think Parker is very credible. The distinction between the two is very important.

 

[drop bear]

There are gradations. Whether you like Chris or not, he has a great depth of knowledge about his particular arts and their history. Like Buka (a former federal agent) talking about law enforcement or Kirk talking about early boxing, the words of people who are known to have expertise on a subject are going to carry more weight than context-less "I knew a guy who told me he heard about a woman who..." statements.

Only if you take the religious approach.

The scientific approach has fairly definite ideas on the subject.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Absolutely. If your fight or flight hasn't kicked in before the gun shots it WILL kick in once the shots start and you know they are shooting at you. Like I said there was that kid who was shot in the forearm, he didn't fight but managed to zig zag around cars to avoid other shots. I arrived on scene maybe 90 seconds after the call went out and found him walking normally to the point only the blood on his arm was an indication of a gun shot wound and the inside of his arm must have been interesting. He was released from the Trauma Center 2 hours later. "Why" some may ask (but not you, if I recall right you work in an ER?)? The X-Ray revealed the bullet (small caliber .32 or smaller) had hit one of the bones in the forearm and fragmented. They would have done more damage going in and removing the fragments so they said "here are your follow up instructions, good luck they are a souvenir."

Bullets to extremities will do one of four things:
1 - In and out without hitting anything major ([Monty Python]It's only a flesh wound![/Monty Python]) - clean it up and send them out.
2 - In, damage nothing major, and stop - clean it up and send them out. The puncture wound from the bullet track is less traumatic to the body, generally speaking, then digging it out.
3 - In, break the bone or damage vascular structures - repair the damage. This will generally mean a trip to the OR.
4 - In and out (with or without hitting anything major in the limb) and then into the another body part (usually the torso). Probably a trip to the OR.

The first two are the most common. Bullets are considered sterile by many, so most aren't even started on antibiotics. The wounds are most often not even closed, because closing the end(s) of a puncture wound provides a perfect environment for an anaerobic infection.

Although I did see one interesting case that started with an extremity injury...
Three men, hunting deer. 30-06 loaded on the dash. Stopped dinner. Slammed the door, knocked the gun off, and it fired.
The bullet hit the first guy, went through his upper arm, then in the ribs at an angle, bounced off the inside of his sternum, and exited on the other side. He got chest tubes in both sides, and did fine.
Hits the second guy below the ribs, exits on the other side, rupturing his aorta and pulling a big loop of bowel out through the exit wound. Died very quickly.
Hits the third guy at the lower ribs, penetrates a couple inches and stops in the lung. Removed it, put in a chest tube, he also ultimately did fine.

As to the original subject...
I think one thing that needs to be stressed in these short courses is that the goal is not to beat the other person. It's to create an opportunity to escape.

 

[Juany118]

Academic knowledge isn't the same as practical knowledge. Stories are just stories if you have limited actual experience. Buka has a career in law enforcement to draw upon... practical experience, and I've never seen him suggest that a story he's telling be taken at face value just because he said it. Chris is a guy who has done a lot of homework. As a historian, I think Parker is very credible. The distinction between the two is very important.

Well, and maybe I am off here but I believe in terms of what he really knows, he is also a practitioner. If you know not just the practice but the history of an art I would say you can comment. /shrug

Bullets to extremities will do one of four things:
1 - In and out without hitting anything major ([Monty Python]It's only a flesh wound![/Monty Python]) - clean it up and send them out.
2 - In, damage nothing major, and stop - clean it up and send them out. The puncture wound from the bullet track is less traumatic to the body, generally speaking, then digging it out.
3 - In, break the bone or damage vascular structures - repair the damage. This will generally mean a trip to the OR.
4 - In and out (with or without hitting anything major in the limb) and then into the another body part (usually the torso). Probably a trip to the OR.

The first two are the most common. Bullets are considered sterile by many, so most aren't even started on antibiotics. The wounds are most often not even closed, because closing the end(s) of a puncture wound provides a perfect environment for an anaerobic infection.

Although I did see one interesting case that started with an extremity injury...
Three men, hunting deer. 30-06 loaded on the dash. Stopped dinner. Slammed the door, knocked the gun off, and it fired.
The bullet hit the first guy, went through his upper arm, then in the ribs at an angle, bounced off the inside of his sternum, and exited on the other side. He got chest tubes in both sides, and did fine.
Hits the second guy below the ribs, exits on the other side, rupturing his aorta and pulling a big loop of bowel out through the exit wound. Died very quickly.
Hits the third guy at the lower ribs, penetrates a couple inches and stops in the lung. Removed it, put in a chest tube, he also ultimately did fine.

As to the original subject...
I think one thing that needs to be stressed in these short courses is that the goal is not to beat the other person. It's to create an opportunity to escape.

The above jives, tbh when I inspected the injury before the bus arrived, the entry wound was basically covered by the swelling, hence our suspicion as to the small caliber. I usually see larger wounds, 9mm +. No way to know due to the fragmentation when it hit bone. tbh in 18+ years that was the weirdest thing I ever saw, the "victim" was almost ready to leave the trauma center before the detective got there (no 24 hour Det coverage at my PD had to call him in and tell him to go to a center that is a 25 minute drive away.)

As to the last point 100% spot on. There is no way in 90-120 minutes you learn to beat someone. Metaphorically speaking it's "kick em in the balls and run" anmd that is a best case scenario imo.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

As to the last point 100% spot on. There is no way in 90-120 minutes you learn to beat someone. Metaphorically speaking it's "kick em in the balls and run" anmd that is a best case scenario imo.

This is my thinking. Give them a very small number of ways to do this. Where you can, use a common flinch reaction, maybe show them some very easy targets (e.g., side of the neck). Let them practice those very few things a bit so that MAYBE they will do them under stress later. The more important part you'd be teaching is that "hit, gain space, get out" approach. If you have them practice this every time they practice a movement, you're doing them some good - as much as you probably can with physical defensive skills in that time period.

Wrap each segment with discussion of the non-physical skills (awareness, avoidance, etc.), and you're probably doing the best you can in that space of time.

 

[Juany118]

Quickly...back to the gun bit and how you can easily miss at close range. Fast trigger pulls are what happen in self defense situations. Most people don't train for this and even at close range, under pressure, it can make you miss.

 

[Juany118]

Only if you take the religious approach.

The scientific approach has fairly definite ideas on the subject.

The problem here is that it's not just about a "scientific approach" that defines expertise. These people aren't speaking from assumed authority, a consensus has been formed among a majority of the community that Chris and Buka are experts in the particular fields they decide to speak with authority on. As an example in a Court Room. I have been certified as an expert in both Narcotics and Gangs. How? I was asked questions regarding certifications by the Prosecution, then asked questions to test my knowledge by the Defense. The Defense may try to debate with me as to whether an answer was accurate or not but in the end the Judge decides. In this case the Judge is the consensus of other knowledgeable people. The few that disagree are, in our context, the Defense.

So really I think your video works against your point.

 

[Steve]

The problem here is that it's not just about a "scientific approach" that defines expertise. These people aren't speaking from assumed authority, a consensus has been formed among a majority of the community that Chris and Buka are experts in the particular fields they decide to speak with authority on. As an example in a Court Room. I have been certified as an expert in both Narcotics and Gangs. How? I was asked questions regarding certifications by the Prosecution, then asked questions to test my knowledge by the Defense. The Defense may try to debate with me as to whether an answer was accurate or not but in the end the Judge decides. In this case the Judge is the consensus of other knowledgeable people. The few that disagree are, in our context, the Defense.

So really I think your video works against your point.

This isn't court. And there's a clear line to be drawn between the two posters you've named. One has experience with real world violence and the other has none.

The big difference between you, buka and Chris Parker is that you guys have worked as cops. Parker has admitted in the past he has limited, practical experience with real world violence. It's all theoretical with him. A person who has trained as a cop but never actually worked in the profession wouldn't be an expert in court. Would he? As I've said in the past, he's the flight instructor who's never actually flown a plane, but speaks with authority because he has a lot of experience in a simulator.

 

[Juany118]

This isn't court. And there's a clear line to be drawn between the two posters you've named. One has experience with real world violence and the other has none.

The big difference between you, buka and Chris Parker is that you guys have worked as cops. Parker has admitted in the past he has limited, practical experience with real world violence. It's all theoretical with him. A person who has trained as a cop but never actually worked in the profession wouldn't be an expert in court. Would he? As I've said in the past, he's the flight instructor who's never actually flown a plane, but speaks with authority because he has a lot of experience in a simulator.

First I am not personally aware of the admission you said Chris made. I went on the respect he is shown by many here (I am still, imo, the fng here)

As for me mentioning court it was simply to show that being called an "expert" doesn't necessarily require letters next to your name and diplomas on the wall.

If on your point about "training as a..." it would depend on the context. What are they testifying to. You can have someone trained as a forensic analyst via the military (they exist for the analysis of enemy leaders etc) testify in a Criminal Case in the civilian world, as an example.

But if someone has limited to no experience as to how real fights go down and then tries to speak of them, it would be situational I will admit because then context of the response becomes very important. By context I don't only mean what was said but in totality. If someone who admits to lacking rl experience matches what is said by those who have said, that needs to be considered.

I say the last because there are people who from years of training and study simply "get it." Even without the rl practical experience they know the answer too. However as I said in the beginning I don't really follow/stalk anyone here so often look at what the consensus is and say "good enough for me." As a relative FNG here that's my default setting when it comes to reputation.

 

[drop bear]

The problem here is that it's not just about a "scientific approach" that defines expertise. These people aren't speaking from assumed authority, a consensus has been formed among a majority of the community that Chris and Buka are experts in the particular fields they decide to speak with authority on. As an example in a Court Room. I have been certified as an expert in both Narcotics and Gangs. How? I was asked questions regarding certifications by the Prosecution, then asked questions to test my knowledge by the Defense. The Defense may try to debate with me as to whether an answer was accurate or not but in the end the Judge decides. In this case the Judge is the consensus of other knowledgeable people. The few that disagree are, in our context, the Defense.

So really I think your video works against your point.

The group just decided?

So it is less about actual verifiable information and more about popular support.

That is almost the definition of dogma.

 

[Juany118]

The group just decided?

So it is less about actual verifiable information and more about popular support.

That is almost the definition of dogma.

The video you linked speaks to consensus. Ultimately the simplest definition of a consensus is "the largest group of <insert X> decided" and that's not an exaggeration.

The question lies in how much do you respect the knowledge of those in the group. That said see my response to Stage above. My mind isn't closed and I admit to gaps in my knowledge of personages there.

 

[drop bear]

The video you linked speaks to consensus. Ultimately the simplest definition of a consensus is "the largest group of <insert X> decided" and that's not an exaggeration.

The question lies in how much do you respect the knowledge of those in the group. That said see my response to Stage above. My mind isn't closed and I admit to gaps in my knowledge of personages there.

Which is the missing phrase in this discussion. "Expert in my opinion."

Not this universal expert that seems to be implied.

The definition of dogma by the way.

a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

 

[Steve]

First I am not personally aware of the admission you said Chris made. I went on the respect he is shown by many here (I am still, imo, the fng here)

As for me mentioning court it was simply to show that being called an "expert" doesn't necessarily require letters next to your name and diplomas on the wall.

If on your point about "training as a..." it would depend on the context. What are they testifying to. You can have someone trained as a forensic analyst via the military (they exist for the analysis of enemy leaders etc) testify in a Criminal Case in the civilian world, as an example.

But if someone has limited to no experience as to how real fights go down and then tries to speak of them, it would be situational I will admit because then context of the response becomes very important. By context I don't only mean what was said but in totality. If someone who admits to lacking rl experience matches what is said by those who have said, that needs to be considered.

I say the last because there are people who from years of training and study simply "get it." Even without the rl practical experience they know the answer too. However as I said in the beginning I don't really follow/stalk anyone here so often look at what the consensus is and say "good enough for me." As a relative FNG here that's my default setting when it comes to reputation.

An academic expert wouldn't be the same as a practical expert. Correct? Someone who knows about something isn't necessarily able to do that thing. that is the simple point I'm trying to make. The difference between theoretical expertise and practical expertise.

And Parker had indicitated he has very limited actual experience with real world violence.

 

[Juany118]

An academic expert wouldn't be the same as a practical expert. Correct? Someone who knows about something isn't necessarily able to do that thing. that is the simple point I'm trying to make. The difference between theoretical expertise and practical expertise.

And Parker had indicitated he has very limited actual experience with real world violence.

For your first point it really is all about context. Example, you don't need to have actually broken or dislocated a joint to understand, via years of training, that mechanics and physics means a technique can do just that. Now my wife does yell at me for the same thing I will admit but context is everything to me.

 

[drop bear]

For your first point it really is all about context. Example, you don't need to have actually broken or dislocated a joint to understand, via years of training, that mechanics and physics means a technique can do just that. Now my wife does yell at me for the same thing I will admit but context is everything to me.

You would need some sort of trend of that joint being broken in whatever manner.

You cant have spent 20 year going
" kiai joint break" in some gym.

For example most people will think a kimura breaks the shoulder. But it tends to break the arm.

 

[Juany118]

You would need some sort of trend of that joint being broken in whatever manner.

You cant have spent 20 year going
" kiai joint break" in some gym.

For example most people will think a kimura breaks the shoulder. But it tends to break the arm.

Then let me rephrase, you don't need to have broken something to know that a technique and physics dictates that something will break. Here you really did devolve to a defense based largely in minutia/semantics and not the substance.

 

[Juany118]

Which is the missing phrase in this discussion. "Expert in my opinion."

Not this universal expert that seems to be implied.

The definition of dogma by the way.

a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

Actually no. You made a claim about the video. if you watch the video and listen to the narration, it speaks for itself in very blunt and specific terms... The idea of successfully moving and drawing a firearm doesn't come in until the end. Before that they say (short form) "get in that close with a knife fighter you lose."

I wasn't making a dogmatic statement, only calling out a statement of fact as to what a video said, which for many years as standard training for my now almost 20 year career but you claimed it said something different. if you used a different video I may either have answered differently or not at all. I literally can be that anal retentive when it comes to direct evidence like a video

 

[drop bear]

Then let me rephrase, you don't need to have broken something to know that a technique and physics dictates that something will break. Here you really did devolve to a defense based largely in minutia/semantics and not the substance.

Is this real physics we are applying? Or martial arts physics.

 

[Hanzou]

Groundfighting and chokes should be taught in any viable self defense course (especially for women). Those aspects of MA can swing a confrontation into your favor.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Is this real physics we are applying? Or martial arts physics.

Does this question add anything to the discussion? Or are you just trying to be argumentative?