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

[Steve]

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

If you kill the guy because you stomp his head into the concrete, you might be legally justified. And to say that he would be morally justified is highly subjective. There are a lot of folks in the world, myself included, who believe that the morality of killing someone is complicated at best, and not something to discuss so cavalierly.

 

[lklawson]

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

But that you want to happen.

From the Cambridge Dictionary:
fantasize
verb [ I or T ]
(UK usually fantasise)
/ˈfæn.tə.saɪz/

to think about something very pleasant that is unlikely to happen:
- He fantasized about winning the Nobel Prize.
- [ + that ] As a child, Emma fantasized that she would do something heroic.

fantasizing

1. present participle of fantasize 2. to think about something very pleasant…

dictionary.cambridge.org

There is a very distinct difference between using visualization drills or "imagining that something could happen" and saying that someone is fantasizing about it and we all know it. Using the term "fantasize" clearly implies that the person "imagining" it wants it to happen or that it would be "pleasant" for them.

You wrote, "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" which has the clear implication that you believe that they want to "pull that thing out and shoot a bad guy." I've seen this exact verbiage of "fantasizing" a lot with exactly that implication and, again, it's just not true.

Now, if you want to clarify and restate, "oh, well I didn't mean to imply that they actually want to shoot someone, but only that they considered the possibility" then this is the time.

 

[lklawson]

If you kill the guy because you stomp his head into the concrete, you might be legally justified. And to say that he would be morally justified is highly subjective. There are a lot of folks in the world, myself included, who believe that the morality of killing someone is complicated at best, and not something to discuss so cavalierly.

Not when it is a clear case of self defense against deadly force being used against the defender.

When deadly force is being used against you, you have every right to use deadly force in defense of yourself.

 

[Steve]

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.



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.



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



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

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.

There's always a way to fantasize about something worse, in order to justify more. A guy joins the wrestling team because he wants to defend himself better. He becomes fit and relatively skilled on the ground. But then someone says, "Hey, what if?" And now that guy thinks he needs to learn striking to defend himself, but then someone says, "But what if?" And so the guy starts getting into knife defense and gun defense... which leads him to buy a gun. But what if there are three guys? I should have a bigger gun, or more guns. Maybe guns and a knife in my sock? I mean, the fantasy could keep going until you have an arsenal... which is exactly where our country is now. Nevermind that the actual danger that guy can reasonably anticipate is very low, or perhaps coming from a completely different place. Like a person in the Midwest carrying an earthquake rider on their homeowner's insurance. I'm sure you could buy it, but do you need it?

To be honest, when I think about self defense and the actual, real dangers I may likely face, it's from neighbors who have arsenals in their homes and espouse conspiracy theories. I am wary of neighbors or strangers who flout mask mandates, not because I'm overly concerned about COVID. Rather, it's an indication that they may be radicalized, and I always presume they are well armed and willing to take a life. Is it fair that I'm painting with such a broad brush? Probably not, but where I live, I'm not going to get jumped by three guys in a dark alley. The danger here is a person who is radicalized and well armed, looking for a reason to use their weapon "in self defense."

 

[Steve]

But that you want to happen.

From the Cambridge Dictionary:
fantasize
verb [ I or T ]
(UK usually fantasise)
/ˈfæn.tə.saɪz/

to think about something very pleasant that is unlikely to happen:
- He fantasized about winning the Nobel Prize.
- [ + that ] As a child, Emma fantasized that she would do something heroic.

fantasizing

1. present participle of fantasize 2. to think about something very pleasant…

dictionary.cambridge.org

There is a very distinct difference between using visualization drills or "imagining that something could happen" and saying that someone is fantasizing about it and we all know it. Using the term "fantasize" clearly implies that the person "imagining" it wants it to happen or that it would be "pleasant" for them.

You wrote, "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" which has the clear implication that you believe that they want to "pull that thing out and shoot a bad guy." I've seen this exact verbiage of "fantasizing" a lot with exactly that implication and, again, it's just not true.

Now, if you want to clarify and restate, "oh, well I didn't mean to imply that they actually want to shoot someone, but only that they considered the possibility" then this is the time.

I appreciate the opportunity to clarify. I don't believe a fantasy needs to be something pleasant, and plenty of dictionaries agree with me. Thanks, though. Are there any other words you'd like me to clarify for you?

 

[Steve]

Not when it is a clear case of self defense against deadly force being used against the defender.

When deadly force is being used against you, you have every right to use deadly force in defense of yourself.

Whether some action is reasonable in the moment, and whether something is deadly force being used against you" are both judgements made by other people. You're presenting a hypothetical as immutable fact.

 

[drop bear]

But that you want to happen.

From the Cambridge Dictionary:
fantasize
verb [ I or T ]
(UK usually fantasise)
/ˈfæn.tə.saɪz/

to think about something very pleasant that is unlikely to happen:
- He fantasized about winning the Nobel Prize.
- [ + that ] As a child, Emma fantasized that she would do something heroic.

fantasizing

1. present participle of fantasize 2. to think about something very pleasant…

dictionary.cambridge.org

There is a very distinct difference between using visualization drills or "imagining that something could happen" and saying that someone is fantasizing about it and we all know it. Using the term "fantasize" clearly implies that the person "imagining" it wants it to happen or that it would be "pleasant" for them.

You wrote, "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" which has the clear implication that you believe that they want to "pull that thing out and shoot a bad guy." I've seen this exact verbiage of "fantasizing" a lot with exactly that implication and, again, it's just not true.

Now, if you want to clarify and restate, "oh, well I didn't mean to imply that they actually want to shoot someone, but only that they considered the possibility" then this is the time.

The NRA sells via fantasy.

Let's not be silly here they are selling a completely emotional argument. And every ad I have ever seen is the same. That owning a gun is this fantasy of being some sort of better person. With extra power and more control over their lives.

The idea that nobody buys In to their power fantasy is pretty naive.

The same power fantasy that is the ability to curb stomp bad guys.

And people buy in to that as well.

Look pretending people don't is fine. Pretend as much as you want. You are also selling an image. Which is of the responsible gun owner. And is the supporting fantasy to the power one.

But it is an image that lacks a lot of introspection. And when it comes to whether or not you are going to kick someone's head off on the deck. I think some honest introspection is warranted.

Rather than selling a fantasy.

 

[seasoned]

Posts are moving in and out of original topic. So to be clear.

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please, return to the original topic.

Seasoned:
Martial Talk Senior Moderator.

 

[drop bear]

The NRA sells via fantasy.

Let's not be silly here they are selling a completely emotional argument. And every ad I have ever seen is the same. That owning a gun is this fantasy of being some sort of better person. With extra power and more control over their lives.

The idea that nobody buys In to their power fantasy is pretty naive.

The same power fantasy that is the ability to curb stomp bad guys.

And people buy in to that as well.

Look pretending people don't is fine. Pretend as much as you want. You are also selling an image. Which is of the responsible gun owner. And is the supporting fantasy to the power one.

But it is an image that lacks a lot of introspection. And when it comes to whether or not you are going to kick someone's head off on the deck. I think some honest introspection is warranted.

Rather than selling a fantasy.

Check this out for a back on topic twist.

This is why we have the self defense systems that are ultra violent while also being super easy to be good at.

This is why you can do over a room full of guys in your first week of RSBD. While MMA you are still struggling to get that arm lock on one bloke.

Almost all of these techniques you learn are not a good idea for self defense. Because they either don't work or only work when you are so much better off than your opponent that you become the predator.

 

[lklawson]

There's always a way to fantasize about something worse, in order to justify more. A guy joins the wrestling team because he wants to defend himself better. He becomes fit and relatively skilled on the ground. But then someone says, "Hey, what if?" And now that guy thinks he needs to learn striking to defend himself, but then someone says, "But what if?" And so the guy starts getting into knife defense and gun defense... which leads him to buy a gun. But what if there are three guys? I should have a bigger gun, or more guns. Maybe guns and a knife in my sock? I mean, the fantasy could keep going until you have an arsenal... which is exactly where our country is now. Nevermind that the actual danger that guy can reasonably anticipate is very low, or perhaps coming from a completely different place. Like a person in the Midwest carrying an earthquake rider on their homeowner's insurance. I'm sure you could buy it, but do you need it?

To be honest, when I think about self defense and the actual, real dangers I may likely face, it's from neighbors who have arsenals in their homes and espouse conspiracy theories. I am wary of neighbors or strangers who flout mask mandates, not because I'm overly concerned about COVID. Rather, it's an indication that they may be radicalized, and I always presume they are well armed and willing to take a life. Is it fair that I'm painting with such a broad brush? Probably not, but where I live, I'm not going to get jumped by three guys in a dark alley. The danger here is a person who is radicalized and well armed, looking for a reason to use their weapon "in self defense."

I think you fundamentally misunderstood that entire exchange.

 

[lklawson]

Whether some action is reasonable in the moment, and whether something is deadly force being used against you" are both judgements made by other people. You're presenting a hypothetical as immutable fact.

No. There is nothing hypothetical about the long-standing moral and legal justification of self defense using lethal force against someone engaged in an unjustified lethal attack against the defender. This established doctrine goes back to at least the Code of Hammurabi or earlier.

 

[lklawson]

The NRA sells via fantasy.

Well thanks for bringing up the NRA because, you know, it's not particularly relevant to the discussion, just like the rest of the post.

 

[Steve]

I think you fundamentally misunderstood that entire exchange.

Possible. Or it's possible I've heard it before, and have different things in mind. I don't think you're ready to listen to me yet, at any rate.

Well thanks for bringing up the NRA because, you know, it's not particularly relevant to the discussion, just like the rest of the post

Definitely relevant, though I will grant not convenient to your assertions about gun fantasies.

 

[Steve]

No. There is nothing hypothetical about the long-standing moral and legal justification of self defense using lethal force against someone engaged in an unjustified lethal attack against the defender. This established doctrine goes back to at least the Code of Hammurabi or earlier.

 

[seasoned]

Posts are moving in and out of original topic. So to be clear.

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please, return to the original topic.

Seasoned:
Martial Talk Senior Moderator.

I'm getting this out ahead of this thread. Heed or points and infractions will be given out.

 

[lklawson]

I'm getting this out ahead of this thread. Heed or points and infractions will be given out.

Can you please be a bit more specific? Which posts are veering too far off?

I'll follow a disagreement, time and personal interest permitting, but I'm trying not to run afoul of an official warning here.

Thanks.

 

[JowGaWolf]

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.

The Dominican republic has quite a few.

There are a lot of folks in the world, myself included, who believe that the morality of killing someone is complicated at best, and not something to discuss so cavalierly.

That level of violence is always complicated it's not supposed to be easy. It's not supposed to be something people look forward to doing. It's not something that should be done because one feels afraid of another person. Discussion of things is healthy. In my opinion discussion is better than debating. I don't know about other countries but the U.S does too much debating to score points and not enough discussion, especially if it's a discussion about uncomfortable topics.

We only breed assumptions when we don't talk about the hard topics. People should debate the small stuff like "best tasting icecream" and discuss the difficult topics, especially if it makes everyone uneasy.

 

[seasoned]

Can you please be a bit more specific? Which posts are veering too far off?

I'll follow a disagreement, time and personal interest permitting, but I'm trying not to run afoul of an official warning here.

Thanks.

Some posts seems to have veered quite a bit from the original purpose, to a discussion on gun control and law enforcement.

 

[JowGaWolf]

To get things back on topic. Here's another one. Not so much with Jow Ga that I know of but it's something I've seen before. The 20 strike combos that are taught in class should not be used in a real self-defense situations. It looks good in a demo, but in practical use, it's difficult to lay a large change of combination attacks that will follow as trained. Any thing beyond a 5 strike combo because increasingly unlikely.

 

[Steve]

I'm getting this out ahead of this thread. Heed or points and infractions will be given out.

I don't get it. I'm cool with a DM letting me know what the concern is and am happy to comply.