This is something I've noticed come up here constantly over the last 5 years since I joined this site. Basically, some members will say anecdotally what works, while others say that since there are no empirical studies for it, there anecdotal stories don't count.
The issue with empiricism here, from what I can gather, is that it's tough to empirically study self defense encounters, as they're not something you can directly plan. So it's literally impossible to know what is effective self-defense and what isn't.
That said, what is the issue with making logical assumptions about whether something is good for self defense or not? And what is the issue with utilizing LEO research to determine good self defense procedures? I understand that they are, for the most part, in different situations than civilians, but considering we cant do ethical empirical studies focused on self defense, that seems the closest to me to determine what is or isn't effective.
The issue with empiricism here, from what I can gather, is that it's tough to empirically study self defense encounters, as they're not something you can directly plan. So it's literally impossible to know what is effective self-defense and what isn't.
That said, what is the issue with making logical assumptions about whether something is good for self defense or not? And what is the issue with utilizing LEO research to determine good self defense procedures? I understand that they are, for the most part, in different situations than civilians, but considering we cant do ethical empirical studies focused on self defense, that seems the closest to me to determine what is or isn't effective.