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

[Hanzou]

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.

I seriously have to wonder what level of threat you think lies outside your front door for you to believe that you need a gun for "self defense". I see people going to Walmart or Chipotle with guns strapped to them like they're on their way to Afghanistan, and it boggles my mind.

As a person who doesn't own a gun, and has lived in America their entire life (including "bad" areas of major cities), I really don't understand the need unless you're living in a constant state of fear and paranoia. In that constant state, yeah I can see someone fantasizing about shooting a few people and being the "hero".

 

[lklawson]

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

Perhaps.

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".

Of course not.

In fact, that's an important element of my point. In the context of self defense, stabbing someone in the back "based purely on the suspicion of future violence" is immoral and illegal. But that's the modern U.S. self defense context. Change the context to WWII Sentry Removal and not only is it acceptable, it's a darn good idea.

Both are "real fights" but are wildly different contexts. I have continuously argued in this thread that it is a silly proposition to say technique XYZ is not useful in "a real fight" and therefore is not worthwhile for inclusion in a martial art or for study.

And that includes "self defense." As an example, the techniques of Iaido, or the core concepts of a quick draw of a sword with defensive and offensive elements are not particularly applicable to modern U.S. "self defense" fighting. And yet, within their own historical and geographic context, were 100% applicable to self defense. Famously, Cyrano De Bergerac was supposed to have fought off a large number of men who attacked him suddenly. He had to quick draw his rapier, using defensive movements, and then proceed into attack. Few people suggest today that anyone should study techniques for quickly deploying a rapier as valid modern self defense. Nevertheless, it is still valid within it's context.

Just because I will never need to use a rapier for my personal self defense doesn't mean that the techniques are not worth studying.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

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.

Talking about the necessity being forced is not the same as fantasizing about it.

 

[Hanzou]

Perhaps.


Of course not.

In fact, that's an important element of my point. In the context of self defense, stabbing someone in the back "based purely on the suspicion of future violence" is immoral and illegal. But that's the modern U.S. self defense context. Change the context to WWII Sentry Removal and not only is it acceptable, it's a darn good idea.

Both are "real fights" but are wildly different contexts. I have continuously argued in this thread that it is a silly proposition to say technique XYZ is not useful in "a real fight" and therefore is not worthwhile for inclusion in a martial art or for study.

And that includes "self defense." As an example, the techniques of Iaido, or the core concepts of a quick draw of a sword with defensive and offensive elements are not particularly applicable to modern U.S. "self defense" fighting. And yet, within their own historical and geographic context, were 100% applicable to self defense. Famously, Cyrano De Bergerac was supposed to have fought off a large number of men who attacked him suddenly. He had to quick draw his rapier, using defensive movements, and then proceed into attack. Few people suggest today that anyone should study techniques for quickly deploying a rapier as valid modern self defense. Nevertheless, it is still valid within it's context.

Just because I will never need to use a rapier for my personal self defense doesn't mean that the techniques are not worth studying.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Thank you for the clarification.

But clearly you see that you're talking about a context that is no longer valid, while I'm talking about a context that people are currently experiencing right? As I said in the original response, we're not in WW2, but we are in a society where teachers are attacked by their students, and in those attacks, an educator can't just outright kill their attacker.

And I completely agree with you that just because something is archaic or obsolete doesn't mean that it lacks value. However, we were discussing curb stomping, and in general self defense, I simply don't see where it fits. Again, it's a form of execution that goes well beyond simply defending yourself.

 

[Steve]

Talking about the necessity being forced is not the same as fantasizing about it.

Is it a necessity for most people, though? I think you've captured the nut of the debate. If we don't agree that it's a necessity, it makes perfect sense that we would disagree on whether it's a fantasy or not. Don't get me wrong.

When you question this presumption that everyone should be prepared to kill or be killed, it leads to a lot of really interesting and (in my opinion, at least) constructive questions. For example, why are all cops armed at all times?

 

[lklawson]

I seriously have to wonder what level of threat you think lies outside your front door for you to believe that you need a gun for "self defense". I see people going to Walmart or Chipotle with guns strapped to them like they're on their way to Afghanistan, and it boggles my mind.

As a person who doesn't own a gun, and has lived in America their entire life (including "bad" areas of major cities), I really don't understand the need unless you're living in a constant state of fear and paranoia. In that constant state, yeah I can see someone fantasizing about shooting a few people and being the "hero".

Well, first off, let me say that if you make a decision for you then that's 100% fine, as long as you're not feeling like you should make decisions for other people.

If you're wondering about statistics, on the other hand, the Cliffs Notes version is that there have been multiple studies of Defensive Gun Uses (DGU) in the U.S. and results range from the low of around 76,000 per year in 1996 (1996 National Crime Victim Survey by the DOJ) t a high of somewhere north of 2,000,000 per year (Centers for Disease Control survey) with various others in the middle such as the Hart studies and the Mauser study.

Interestingly, even the lowest of those DGU numbers, 76,000, exceeds the latest CDC annual murder rate of 19,141 by around 4 times, meaning that Americans use firearms to protect their lives at a minimum of 4 times more often than people are murdered, and likely a lot more if the DGU rate falls closer to the CDC DGU number or somewhere in the middle.

What I think you're seeing here is a bias (either intended or unintended) against reporting DGU's on the national level combined with a bit of Normalcy Bias ("I don't see it happening regularly, therefore it can't happen") but DGUs happen, literally, every day. Here's a running list of some of them: NRA-ILA | Armed Citizen®

Just going by the statistics, it looks like there's reason enough for someone in the U.S. to decide that legally carrying a firearm for personal defense is a reasonable decision. I understand if you haven't "seen" the information.

If you don't believe that it's the right decision for you, that's fine.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[JowGaWolf]

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.

Horrible = doing the following when someone attacks you. Each varies and depends on the danger that the person feels that they are in or actually in. These are things done for the purpose of trying to stop the attack or the attacker
1. Break an arm
2. Poke an eye with the intent on damaging the eye or blinding them.
3. Intentionally strike your attacker with brutality.
4. Stab someone
5. Shoot someone
6. Hit someone in the face or head with a bat
7. Stomp on someone's head
8. Push someone into traffic
10. Shoot someone multiple times
11. Stab someone multiple time
12. Elbow someone
13. Punch someone
14. Throw a rock, brick, at someone.
15. Stab someone with a spear
16. Kick someone's knee with the goal of dislocating it.
17. grab a mans groin and squash the grapes.
18. In extreme cases kill someone as a result of doing any of the above.

All of these things are horrible things. Torture is not done in self-defense.

Maiming can be done in the act of self-defense. There's literally numerous techniques in martial arts that are for the purpose of doing such a thing.

We're literally in a thread where TMA guys are talking about killing folks.

Yes, because striking, kicking, stabbing, shooting, choking out and attacking someone in the context of self-defense can do such a thing. To act as if those things cannot produce death is irresponsible.

People have died in combat sports because they were hit in the back of the head. People have died from repeated strikes to the head. People have died from being shot in act of self-defense. Regardless of if a person intends to kill someone or not. The possibility is real. And know one should think that a blow to the head is something that isn't horrible.

I'm pretty sure that some teens would have "played the knockout game" had they known that their punch could have resulted in someone's death.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I'm sure it's just common sense self defense.

Nothing common sense about it.

 

[lklawson]

Thank you for the clarification.

But clearly you see that you're talking about a context that is no longer valid, while I'm talking about a context that people are currently experiencing right?

Not exactly. I'm talking about a context that isn't valid for you. It could be valid for other people, living right now, who are in a different context. Should I go on youtube again and start posting "machete fights" or "knife fights?" I'll concede that "sword fights" don't happen much in the U.S. so self defense for most in the U.S. doesn't often include that. In South America, on the other hand, "sword" attacks (machete and the like) are more common. People are currently experiencing them. Just because it's not valid for you or may not be valid for me, doesn't mean it's not valid.

As I said in the original response, we're not in WW2, but we are in a society where teachers are attacked by their students, and in those attacks, an educator can't just outright kill their attacker.

And I've given half a dozen other examples which still fit as valid for self defense in someone else' context even if not for yours. Which is my point.

And I completely agree with you that just because something is archaic or obsolete doesn't mean that it lacks value. However, we were discussing curb stomping, and in general self defense, I simply don't see where it fits. Again, it's a form of execution that goes well beyond simply defending yourself.

And I thought we were discussing "Techniques you learn in your MA that are probably not a good idea for Self Defense." Which I generally reject because "self defense" and a "REAL fight" (as specified in the opening post) are highly context sensitive. What may or may not constitute a "REAL fight" and "self defense," right now, in Venezuela (for instance) may not be the same as in Portland, Indiana. I have a buddy in Venezuela. Things are rough there, today, right now. He's been kidnapped for ransom multiple times, assaulted, mugged, and witnessed straight-up executions. So just trying to limit it to "a context that people are currently experiencing" still leaves pretty much everything on the table.

See what I'm getting at?

 

[lklawson]

Is it a necessity for most people, though?

If they are forced to it, yes. Perhaps there was some confusion because I thought that's what I wrote.: Talking about being forced into a situation where one may be required to use deadly force to preserve life and limb is not fantasizing about shooting someone.

I think you've captured the nut of the debate. If we don't agree that it's a necessity, it makes perfect sense that we would disagree on whether it's a fantasy or not. Don't get me wrong.

I think we're still at loggerheads. Realizing that there is some non-zero chance of being forced into such a situation, then discussing it (and possibly training to mitigate) is not the same thing as fantasizing about it.

When you question this presumption that everyone should be prepared to kill or be killed,

Odd. I don't presume that everyone should be prepared. I presume that if they decide to be prepared for the possibility it does not equate to fantasizing about killing someone.

 

[lklawson]

Nothing common sense about it.

Every time I hear "common sense," I think of this:

Common Sense

On the famous Thomas Paine pamphlet "Common Sense"

www.thomaspainesociety.org

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Hanzou]

Well, first off, let me say that if you make a decision for you then that's 100% fine, as long as you're not feeling like you should make decisions for other people.

If you're wondering about statistics, on the other hand, the Cliffs Notes version is that there have been multiple studies of Defensive Gun Uses (DGU) in the U.S. and results range from the low of around 76,000 per year in 1996 (1996 National Crime Victim Survey by the DOJ) t a high of somewhere north of 2,000,000 per year (Centers for Disease Control survey) with various others in the middle such as the Hart studies and the Mauser study.

Interestingly, even the lowest of those DGU numbers, 76,000, exceeds the latest CDC annual murder rate of 19,141 by around 4 times, meaning that Americans use firearms to protect their lives at a minimum of 4 times more often than people are murdered, and likely a lot more if the DGU rate falls closer to the CDC DGU number or somewhere in the middle.

What I think you're seeing here is a bias (either intended or unintended) against reporting DGU's on the national level combined with a bit of Normalcy Bias ("I don't see it happening regularly, therefore it can't happen") but DGUs happen, literally, every day. Here's a running list of some of them: NRA-ILA | Armed Citizen®

Just going by the statistics, it looks like there's reason enough for someone in the U.S. to decide that legally carrying a firearm for personal defense is a reasonable decision. I understand if you haven't "seen" the information.

If you don't believe that it's the right decision for you, that's fine.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

I really don't want to turn this into a debate about guns, but don't you think it's a little problematic that the statistics for DGU are almost 30 years old, and that they range from 76k to over 2 million? I would really like to see more recent and better statistics for that, but I'm sure I read somewhere that powerful folks in the gun lobby prevented the government from doing that type of research.

In any case, yeah I agree everyone has a right to decide for themselves whether or not carrying a gun is right for them. I'm just a little concerned that there's bad actors out there making our society seem more violent and dangerous than it actually is.

 

[Hanzou]

Not exactly. I'm talking about a context that isn't valid for you. It could be valid for other people, living right now, who are in a different context. Should I go on youtube again and start posting "machete fights" or "knife fights?" I'll concede that "sword fights" don't happen much in the U.S. so self defense for most in the U.S. doesn't often include that. In South America, on the other hand, "sword" attacks (machete and the like) are more common. People are currently experiencing them. Just because it's not valid for you or may not be valid for me, doesn't mean it's not valid.

Uh, I never said machete or knife attacks weren't valid in the modern era. I'm saying a WW2 tactic where you stab an enemy soldier in the back before they kill you isn't a very valid tactic in the modern, civilian world.

And I thought we were discussing "Techniques you learn in your MA that are probably not a good idea for Self Defense." Which I generally reject because "self defense" and a "REAL fight" (as specified in the opening post) are highly context sensitive. What may or may not constitute a "REAL fight" and "self defense," right now, in Venezuela (for instance) may not be the same as in Portland, Indiana. I have a buddy in Venezuela. Things are rough there, today, right now. He's been kidnapped for ransom multiple times, assaulted, mugged, and witnessed straight-up executions. So just trying to limit it to "a context that people are currently experiencing" still leaves pretty much everything on the table.

See what I'm getting at?

Okay, but again, we were talking about curb stomping, a form of unarmed execution that requires a decent level of setup and sadism to pull off. Perhaps we have different views of what self defense is, but I believe that forcing a downed assailant to bite down on a curb while you stomp the back of their neck goes quite a bit beyond the confines of self defense.

Do you believe that curb stomping is a viable tactic for self defense purposes?

 

[lklawson]

I really don't want to turn this into a debate about guns,

That's fair. I don't want to either. Nevertheless, to be fair, you brought out the topic by opining, "I seriously have to wonder what level of threat you think lies outside your front door for you to believe that you need a gun for "self defense". I see people going to Walmart or Chipotle with guns strapped to them like they're on their way to Afghanistan, and it boggles my mind."

If you'd like to retract that line, I'm OK with that.

but don't you think it's a little problematic that the statistics for DGU are almost 30 years old,

I included the '96 CVS in an effort to be honest and complete. It represents the low-water mark and I wanted to be honest and fair in the bounds of the numbers. Yes, it's old. Newer studies put the numbers much higher, often a lot. But, again, I was wanting to be fair in what I was was writing. Various other studies are much more recent and show increasingly higher DGU numbers. The DGU numbers for more recent studies usually come in at a low-water mark of around 500,000 per year and go up from there:

Data Visualization | Defensive Gun Uses in the U.S. | The Heritage Foundation

According to almost every major study on the issue, Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year. From @HeritageDataViz

datavisualizations.heritage.org

If you prefer, I can recast my statement, leaving out the '96 CVS study and moving to the 500,000 minimum number:
Interestingly, even the lowest of those DGU numbers, 500,000, exceeds the latest CDC annual murder rate of 19,141 by more than 26 times, meaning that Americans use firearms to protect their lives at a minimum of 26 times more often than people are murdered, and likely a lot more if the DGU rate falls closer to the CDC DGU number or somewhere in the middle.

and that they range from 76k to over 2 million? I would really like to see more recent and better statistics for that,

No problem. I'll include a link with references (above).

but I'm sure I read somewhere that powerful folks in the gun lobby prevented the government from doing that type of research.

I know you've read that. I've read it too. But they lied to you. I wrote about it here:

Let The CDC Study Gun Violence

Let The CDC Study Gun Violence by Kirk Lawson [The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention logo (tm)] Should there be studies on gun violence? A lot of America gun owners seem as if they are afraid of studies on gun violence. If someone on on social media suggests that there should be...

www.hipointfirearmsforums.com

In any case, yeah I agree everyone has a right to decide for themselves whether or not carrying a gun is right for them. I'm just a little concerned that there's bad actors out there making our society seem more violent and dangerous than it actually is.

I understand. No one wants to see something they love bad mouthed. Violent crime in the U.S. (well, most places) is a complex topic that it seems too many people want to apply simplistic solutions to which will typically not be particularly effective.

 

[lklawson]

Do you believe that curb stomping is a viable tactic for self defense purposes?

For me, in my context? Probably not. But I'm unwilling to completely discount it because I can easily envision a potential scenario where it would be both morally justified and legal and, therefore, "valid." Just because it's unlikely doesn't mean the possibility is zero.

Would you like me to posit one of these potential, if unlikely, scenarios? You're smart so I know you can come up with one or two yourself.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Hanzou]

For me, in my context? Probably not. But I'm unwilling to completely discount it because I can easily envision a potential scenario where it would be both morally justified and legal and, therefore, "valid." Just because it's unlikely doesn't mean the possibility is zero.

Would you like me to posit one of these potential, if unlikely, scenarios? You're smart so I know you can come up with one or two yourself.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

If I'm being totally honest, I really can't. So I'd like to hear your scenarios for where curb stomping would be justified.

 

[lklawson]

If I'm being totally honest, I really can't. So I'd like to hear your scenarios for where curb stomping would be justified.

Let's base it off of a real life event. Happened to a buddy of mine. We'll start there then twist the knob just a little bit.

Like my buddy, let's suppose you're out late one night and get jumped by three men. Now, what happened to my buddy is that one of them drew a knife and he started with that guy. One of them claimed he had a gun, but it turned out he was lying. Punching, grappling, and throws occurred. Now posit, you, in the situation, are jumped by same three. You throw or knock one to the concrete (or asphalt; fill in the [hard surface]) and end up standing near his head. His two buddies, still standing, advance on you while the downed attacker draws a firearm. At that point, you are morally and legally justified in using deadly force to defend yourself, including stomping on his head (the nearest part of his body to you).

It doesn't take much knob-twisting from an actual event to get there.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Hanzou]

Let's base it off of a real life event. Happened to a buddy of mine. We'll start there then twist the knob just a little bit.

Like my buddy, let's suppose you're out late one night and get jumped by three men. Now, what happened to my buddy is that one of them drew a knife and he started with that guy. One of them claimed he had a gun, but it turned out he was lying. Punching, grappling, and throws occurred. Now posit, you, in the situation, are jumped by same three. You throw or knock one to the concrete (or asphalt; fill in the [hard surface]) and end up standing near his head. His two buddies, still standing, advance on you while the downed attacker draws a firearm. At that point, you are morally and legally justified in using deadly force to defend yourself, including stomping on his head (the nearest part of his body to you).

It doesn't take much knob-twisting from an actual event to get there.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

I got you, but what you're describing is NOT a curb stomp. In that situation, a head stomp or a soccer kick to the head or face is perfectly justified.

A curb stomp is purposely placing someone's open mouth or chin on a curb or an elevated hard surface and stomping the back of the head or neck in order to cause severe injury or death. This isn't some heat of the moment thing, this is a methodical act that you do after your assailant is no longer a serious threat.

 

[lklawson]

I got you, but what you're describing is NOT a curb stomp. In that situation, a head stomp or a soccer kick to the head or face is perfectly justified.

A curb stomp is purposely placing someone's open mouth or chin on a curb or an elevated hard surface and stomping the back of the head or neck in order to cause severe injury or death. This isn't some heat of the moment thing, this is a methodical act that you do after your assailant is no longer a serious threat.

I agree that this would be deliberate execution. I've never heard that definition until this thread. It's a hole that was in my vocabulary.

I'm now really curious as to the etymology of the term.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Steve]

If they are forced to it, yes. Perhaps there was some confusion because I thought that's what I wrote.: Talking about being forced into a situation where one may be required to use deadly force to preserve life and limb is not fantasizing about shooting someone.

The literal definition of fantasy is to describe the act of imagining things that are improbable.

I think we're still at loggerheads. Realizing that there is some non-zero chance of being forced into such a situation, then discussing it (and possibly training to mitigate) is not the same thing as fantasizing about it.

Oh, no question we don't agree. But I think I better understand the disagreement. I'm okay with that.

Odd. I don't presume that everyone should be prepared. I presume that if they decide to be prepared for the possibility it does not equate to fantasizing about killing someone.

Well, on this we agree.