Techniques you learn in your MA that are probably not a good idea for Self Defense

[Steve]

Ankle picks or low singles basically.

Yeah, grappling does a pretty good job, I think. But there aren’t a lot of curb stomps in wrestling or BJJ. I think there’s an interesting point in there. I bet you get it, but I’m not sure how many others will.

 

[Steve]

I don't. I know a great number of people who carry the firearm. None of them fantasize in this way. Are you sure you actually know real people?

I'm not trying to insult, but this is a thing that I hear a lot. And it's just not true the majority of the time. It's something that people say who are afraid of the gun. I don't think that's you but it concerns me that you are willing to repeat that silliness.

I’m not afraid of guns at all and, while not an expert by any means, have used them professionally in the military and for fun at the range personally.

regarding the fantasy, I think you’re being very generous with your friends.

 

[drop bear]

Yeah, grappling does a pretty good job, I think. But there aren’t a lot of curb stomps in wrestling or BJJ. I think there’s an interesting point in there. I bet you get it, but I’m not sure how many others will.

The thing I have always found interesting about this torture porn style of martial arts is that people will go to a course pay a bucket load of cash to get taught how to throw the slipper in to a guy when he is down, and think they have learned something.

I could have come up with curb stomping on my own.

Let's use old Tim larkin. This for all its deadly deadlyness. Is not good technical striking.

 

[Dirty Dog]

So you’re saying that stomping or kicking someone in the head incapacitates them 100% of the time, and there’s zero chance of you missing, which would thus force you to attempt to do it again?

In most cases I'd be surprised that someone read something so totally different to what was actually written, but it seems to be your specialty.

 

[Hanzou]

In most cases I'd be surprised that someone read something so totally different to what was actually written, but it seems to be your specialty.

You implied that a curb stomp takes far less time and is more efficient than a choke or a limb break. I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were really talking about general head stomps and not actual curb stomping, which would require quite a bit of set up to get the desired effect. I'm rather positive that I can pop a limb or choke someone out long before you properly set up someone to get curb stomped.

Curb stomping someone would definitely end a confrontation, but it requires you to actually set up your assailant's body and head to get the desired effect. You stomping their head on the concrete is not the same thing, and has a chance of not ending the confrontation.

I hope that clarifies things a bit.

 

[Dirty Dog]

You implied that a curb stomp takes far less time and is more efficient than a choke or a limb break.

I implied nothing. I said flat out that in some circumstances it is the best choice. Trying to turn that into some absolute statement of 100% effectiveness is purely your imaginary argument.

 

[Hanzou]

Of course you could. But since curb stomping them takes a LOT less time than, say, choking them out, it reduces their opportunity to stab you while you're occupied. It all comes down to the very specific circumstances involved in a particular confrontation.

I'm going to say that is a you problem, since it addresses something nobody said.

I implied nothing. I said flat out that in some circumstances it is the best choice. Trying to turn that into some absolute statement of 100% effectiveness is purely your imaginary argument.

You're right, you didn't imply it, you outright said it. My mistake.

 

[dvcochran]

Given your recent track record of not understanding what is being discussed, I really think you need to do more reading and less writing for a w

You wish you could evade the vague and pompous comments you made that easy.

Explain what is different about your post and @JowGaWolf's post in regards to intent in a SD situation? And what that has to do with the OP?

For the first time that I can remember you acknowledged SA, however vague and indirect, as valid. But you have spent most of this thread as a tool to further you SD bashing agenda.
It is way past tiring.

 

[dvcochran]

I know a lot of dudes who carry a gun around all the time fantasizing about an opportunity to pull that thing out and shoot a bad guy.

Where, in your video games? That is Your pure fantasy.

If you truly know of such people, what have you done about it? Reported them to the authorities? Are they on a watch list?
It is more truthful for you to admit that you think of all LEO as you described in your post.
Just more of your vagueness and obvious hate for law enforcement.

 

[JowGaWolf]

That’s true. So why are instructors trying to normalize killing folks?

I don't see how teaching someone to protect themselves or to do something horrible is normalizing killing folks. How many people are in military? How many of those people are out there performing mass shootings at schools and on the streets.

There is a different between doing something out of self-defense and doing something because you want to commit a crime. No one here has made or implied that these things should be done outside of self-defense or to be done to assist in a crime.

a seat belt is literally called a passive restraint. It doesn’t involve killing someone or normalizing violence.

There is nothing passive about a seat beat if you have to manually put it on. You must perform the act of putting it on. Failure to do that action may result in you killing yourself or in the case of youth, a young child.

though neither learning to swim or not learning to swim involves normalizing the act of taking another person’s life.

Not knowing how to swim could easily result in you drowning, there for killing yourself. Not knowing how to swim lower your risk of being able to save someone who can't swim or who is unable to swim.

locking doors, installing smoke detectors. I don’t think they involve normalizing violence either.

Now here is the true issue. You are of the belief that violence isn't normal. I do not hold that believe. I not only believe that violence is normal but people should embrace violence and then learn to be responsible and not criminal with the violence that they commit.

Sparring is violence, boxing is violence, shooting a gun is violence, practicing physical self-defense is violence, watching action movies, horror movies normalizes violence. John Wick, Saw, Purge, Three Stooges. Playing football (US), soccer, baseball, basketball all have violence. Wars. Crime, Law Enforcement all have violence in the actions of men, women, and children. Drones, tanks, hit and run, Poisoning, killing of animals. Those are all acts of violence.

So when you say that self-defense teachings Normalize Violence, It's just hard for me to see that, especially when the group of people who are trained in a martial arts school to do horrible things are such a small group. In comparison to all of the other violent stuff going on out there.

 

[dvcochran]

Yeah, but this isn't WW2 and we're not soldiers fighting a total war. In addition, if you stab someone in the back before a fight begins, you're going to jail for a very long time. This is what I mean when I say that I seriously question what MAs are teaching people.

In the majority of self defense encounters you're likely going to deal with in "the real world", there are "rules" in place. Those rules are otherwise known as laws. Laws effect you just as much as the person who is possibly going to assail you. If someone is on the ground and you're standing, that person is no longer considered a threat, period. You believing that that person is a continued threat is open to interpretation, and if it's just you and that other person, your personal ethics is all that matters. If your moral compass allows you to stomp someone to death, so be it.

However, if there are witnesses, well that changes things a bit. If people see you stomp a grounded assailant to death, well there's a very good chance you're going to jail when the cops arrive.

Now, if a gang of ninjas burst into your home and attempt to kill you and your family, feel free to stab them in the back when they're not looking, or stomping their brains in with your combat boots. But in all seriousness, the chances of that happening are not very high, even in America.

I have to say it seems like both of you are arguing from each end of the possible encounter.
One is talking about ways to end the encounter before it ever starts and the other is talking about the 'what-if's' of what may happen after the fact.
So let's talk what-if's.
What if you hesitated and did not plant the knife when you had a chance and instead ended up disarmed, and dead? It could just as easily happen in our made up "what-if" story.
I think what is missing from both of the previous conclusions is the evaluation and assessment that would have taken place up to that point. This can come in small, measured amounts or be f full on split second decision. Something that really, really makes it hard to measure.
An old saying you do not hear too often anymore is "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". I feel this is very applicable here.

 

[Hanzou]

Yeah, grappling does a pretty good job, I think. But there aren’t a lot of curb stomps in wrestling or BJJ. I think there’s an interesting point in there. I bet you get it, but I’m not sure how many others will.

I think in BJJ we have layers to the violence we practice. I can tie a loved one up and not harm them. I can pin someone down and immobilize them. I can choke someone unconscious from multiple angles. I can break arms, legs, shoulders, and wrists. Anything beyond that point would require someone seriously threatening my or my family's life, and even the limb breaking is crossing a line IMO. So yeah, I'm a bit taken aback by some posts I've seen in this thread.

Jumping straight to curb stomping is really an entirely different level of violence, because it is the equivalent of executing someone. If you have the time and ability to drag someone's head to a curb, and have them open their mouths so that they can bite down on said curb, you should have more than enough time and ability to do something far less violent and frankly sadistic.

Are people going straight for curb stomping and other insane acts of violence because they don't understand basic pins, chokes, and locks? I beginning to wonder.....

 

[Steve]

You wish you could evade the vague and pompous comments you made that easy.

Explain what is different about your post and @JowGaWolf's post in regards to intent in a SD situation? And what that has to do with the OP?

For the first time that I can remember you acknowledged SA, however vague and indirect, as valid. But you have spent most of this thread as a tool to further you SD bashing agenda.
It is way past tiring.

I think self defense is inherently funny, and honestly, this thread was very enjoyable. My mistake was to underestimate how many people on this forum think curb stomping is not just a good idea, but essential training for most people. My bad on that.

If you're tired, you could take a nap, or use the ignore feature. I don't mind at all.

 

[lklawson]

Where's the strawman? That's exactly what you said;

Because you wrote, "preemptively stabbing someone in the back because they look 'scary'." That is NOT what I wrote about in any way, shape, or form. What I wrote was, "Many of the world war II era hand-to-hand combat systems, [...] include techniques such as 'stab your opponent in the back before he knows there's a fight'." And then I specifically wrote, "Both are'"real fights,' per se but different contexts."

So, no, I never suggested that anyone stab someone in the back because they look scary. It's a straw man that you threw out just to knock down.

 

[lklawson]

That’s true. So why are instructors trying to normalize killing folks?

Who says they are?

 

[Hanzou]

I have to say it seems like both of you are arguing from each end of the possible encounter.
One is talking about ways to end the encounter before it ever starts and the other is talking about the 'what-if's' of what may happen after the fact.
So let's talk what-if's.
What if you hesitated and did not plant the knife when you had a chance and instead ended up disarmed, and dead? It could just as easily happen in our made up "what-if" story.
I think what is missing from both of the previous conclusions is the evaluation and assessment that would have taken place up to that point. This can come in small, measured amounts or be f full on split second decision. Something that really, really makes it hard to measure.
An old saying you do not hear too often anymore is "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". I feel this is very applicable here.

I would need more information frankly than what you're providing here. If someone had broken into my house in the middle of the night, then yeah stabbing them in the back is a possible option, because this person is a potential threat, and there's no time to ask questions.

However, beyond that situation, where else would me preemptively stabbing someone in the back make sense? I really can't think of too many situations where that situation would arise. Further, if I'm wrong and a stab a person who wasn't doing anything wrong, I've just earned a ticket to a prison cell. Same applies if I bring a knife to a bar fight.

 

[Hanzou]

Because you wrote, "preemptively stabbing someone in the back because they look 'scary'." That is NOT what I wrote about in any way, shape, or form. What I wrote was, "Many of the world war II era hand-to-hand combat systems, [...] include techniques such as 'stab your opponent in the back before he knows there's a fight'." And then I specifically wrote, "Both are'"real fights,' per se but different contexts."

So, no, I never suggested that anyone stab someone in the back because they look scary. It's a straw man that you threw out just to knock down.

I do believe that we're getting hung up on semantics here.

To clarify; Do you think that stabbing someone in the back based purely on the suspicion of future violence is a viable tactic to use in a self defense situation? It's along the same lines as "shoot first, ask questions later".

 

[lklawson]

I’m not afraid of guns at all and, while not an expert by any means, have used them professionally in the military and for fun at the range personally.

regarding the fantasy, I think you’re being very generous with your friends.

You think that people who carry firearms for self defense purposes fantasize about killing people. I hear this nugget frequently enough and it's just not true. It's just simply not all that common at all. It happens with probably lower frequency than Black Belts fantasizing about killing hoards of ninjas. I know that pretty much everyone here who studies (or has studied) "traditional martial arts" has heard someone claim that they're just fantasizing about being in an 80's ninja movie. You know it's not true. You know it's not true for pretty much everyone else who studies TMA because you run in those circles and talk to those people.

It's the same in the firearms for self defense community. There's always some yahoo accusing them of fantasizing about shooting people, but it's not true.

 

[Steve]

I don't see how teaching someone to protect themselves or to do something horrible is normalizing killing folks.

Do you not see the inherent conflict in that statement? Unless by "horrible" you mean torture and maim, but not kill? I truly don't see a distinction.

How many people are in military? How many of those people are out there performing mass shootings at schools and on the streets.

How many of them commit suicide? How many of them struggle with mental and emotional trauma so significant that they harm their loved ones? You're looking at this all wrong. I encourage you to look into it if you haven't done so already. 20 years of war and advances in field medicine have resulted in a lot of disabled veterans who need a lot of help, and the trauma of killing and seeing people killed and injured takes a toll.

There is a different between doing something out of self-defense and doing something because you want to commit a crime. No one here has made or implied that these things should be done outside of self-defense or to be done to assist in a crime.

Self defense is inherently a defense against prosecution for committing a crime.

There is nothing passive about a seat beat if you have to manually put it on. You must perform the act of putting it on. Failure to do that action may result in you killing yourself or in the case of youth, a young child.

It's literally referred to as a passive restraint system. But honestly, that's beside the point, which is that putting it on doesn't involve an ethical dilemma or preparing oneself to kill someone else. The emotional and mental load of the act is very low. Click it or ticket. I really don't think you are getting the point.

Not knowing how to swim could easily result in you drowning, there for killing yourself. Not knowing how to swim lower your risk of being able to save someone who can't swim or who is unable to swim.

It's early and I'll be honest, I don't know if you're yanking my chain or not at this point. I may just need more coffee, but this seems really ridiculous in a discussion about possible long term effects on regular folks who are being indoctrinated into a belief that they need to always be on guard and prepared to kill someone else, or be killed themselves.

Now here is the true issue. You are of the belief that violence isn't normal. I do not hold that believe. I not only believe that violence is normal but people should embrace violence and then learn to be responsible and not criminal with the violence that they commit.

Okay. Cool. We can agree to disagree on this. Or at least, disagree that the idea of killing someone is something we should all get used to. I think it's pretty much always a lot healthier for folks to train for sports in a supportive school with a good coach... more reliable skill development, too. That's very ironic, to me.

Sparring is violence, boxing is violence, shooting a gun is violence, practicing physical self-defense is violence, watching action movies, horror movies normalizes violence. John Wick, Saw, Purge, Three Stooges. Playing football (US), soccer, baseball, basketball all have violence. Wars. Crime, Law Enforcement all have violence in the actions of men, women, and children. Drones, tanks, hit and run, Poisoning, killing of animals. Those are all acts of violence.

So when you say that self-defense teachings Normalize Violence, It's just hard for me to see that, especially when the group of people who are trained in a martial arts school to do horrible things are such a small group. In comparison to all of the other violent stuff going on out there.

There's a logical fallacy in there, but I'm going to make myself some coffee and let you find it yourself. I'll give you a hint. When I talk about this idea that people need to be prepared to kill folks and having them practice techniques that will permanently maim and kill, and you talk about sparring... we're having two different discussions.

For what it's worth, I agree to an extent, that pretend violence has an impact, though not as significant as being personally told someone you trust to train you, who appears credible to you, that you have to compartmentalize your emotions and be ready to kill someone else, and then learn from that person techniques you believe will do the job... that's not the same.

 

[Steve]

You think that people who carry firearms for self defense purposes fantasize about killing people. I hear this nugget frequently enough and it's just not true. It's just simply not all that common at all. It happens with probably lower frequency than Black Belts fantasizing about killing hoards of ninjas. I know that pretty much everyone here who studies (or has studied) "traditional martial arts" has heard someone claim that they're just fantasizing about being in an 80's ninja movie. You know it's not true. You know it's not true for pretty much everyone else who studies TMA because you run in those circles and talk to those people.

It's the same in the firearms for self defense community. There's always some yahoo accusing them of fantasizing about shooting people, but it's not true.

We're literally in a thread where TMA guys are talking about killing folks. I think whether it's a fantasy or not depends on whether you're in the community or not. Inside the community, I'm sure it's just common sense self defense.