We've forgotten how to fight back
- Thread starter Kacey
- Start date
Kacey, these same thoughts have gone through my head many times since that day. I live only a short drive north of the Tech campus and drive by the south entrance everyday during work. One of the senior students at my dojo attends school there and had he not changed his major this past semester would have been in Norris hall that day. At first I simply couldn't believe that no one had attempted to take the shooter down if even from behind. The sentiment in the article that we are in major trouble if we don't come to grips with the idea that evil walks this earth is one that caused a split between my sister and I shortly after this attack. She seems to think that the world can be cured with a great big group hug. I understand and have seen what evil looks like. I don't believe that everyone who commits a horrendous crime can trace their actions back to a bad child hood or any of the other stock defences that defense attorneys like to use. Some are just plain evil.
This argument with my sister dovetailed nicely with a conversation with my wifes sister about her sons first sparring match in kenpo. She said that he'd had the idea that hitting was wrong drilled into him for so long that he was very uncomfortable sparring another kid his age. He lost the match and was in tears after getting hit in the face. She realized at that moment that she'd done her son a dis-service by having an extreme view and passing it on to her child.
Violence and evil not only exist in our world they are running rampant. Like so many other things in our society the idea of responsible moderation of a concept has been cast aside in favor of a far right/left stance. The idea that the only way to end violence is to drill it into kids heads that there is NEVER a good reason to fight has gotten many of them killed. We tell our children that they are never to hit another. "But what if they hit me first?" is met with the answer of "Run away and go tell a teacher." We can't run the risk of a lawsuit now can we. We can't take the time to teach our children how to defend themselves and when it is appropriate to do so.
This hasn't been my most coherent post, I know. This topic is one that I feel very strongly about. Not only because the Tech massacre took place in my own back yard but because I have grown so tired of the idea that there are no bad people in this world. Yes, there are and it is the right and the duty of all good people to stand up and defend those who are not able to do so by any means available.
This argument with my sister dovetailed nicely with a conversation with my wifes sister about her sons first sparring match in kenpo. She said that he'd had the idea that hitting was wrong drilled into him for so long that he was very uncomfortable sparring another kid his age. He lost the match and was in tears after getting hit in the face. She realized at that moment that she'd done her son a dis-service by having an extreme view and passing it on to her child.
Violence and evil not only exist in our world they are running rampant. Like so many other things in our society the idea of responsible moderation of a concept has been cast aside in favor of a far right/left stance. The idea that the only way to end violence is to drill it into kids heads that there is NEVER a good reason to fight has gotten many of them killed. We tell our children that they are never to hit another. "But what if they hit me first?" is met with the answer of "Run away and go tell a teacher." We can't run the risk of a lawsuit now can we. We can't take the time to teach our children how to defend themselves and when it is appropriate to do so.
This hasn't been my most coherent post, I know. This topic is one that I feel very strongly about. Not only because the Tech massacre took place in my own back yard but because I have grown so tired of the idea that there are no bad people in this world. Yes, there are and it is the right and the duty of all good people to stand up and defend those who are not able to do so by any means available.
I commented on this previously.
This was one of the first major incidents like this to hit a generation of kids that have been raised in the post-Columbine world where we teach kids in school to hunker down, and wait to be rescued. Most of the kids involved were in elementary school during Columbine; they finished school in its aftermath. We, as martial artists, know that you do what you practice. So it's of little surprise to me that nobody took direct action. While it's important to avoid hindsight bias -- the simple truth is that most of these kids were not taught a "tiger mindset" for a tragic event like this. They were taught a "deer mindset"; they froze and fled rather than fought.
I understand the purpose of the lockdown mentality/approach, and support it, in its proper place. But you have to teach the other side of the coin, as well; that, when the time and opportunity present themselves, you HAVE to take advantage of it and bring the fight to the aggressor.
This was one of the first major incidents like this to hit a generation of kids that have been raised in the post-Columbine world where we teach kids in school to hunker down, and wait to be rescued. Most of the kids involved were in elementary school during Columbine; they finished school in its aftermath. We, as martial artists, know that you do what you practice. So it's of little surprise to me that nobody took direct action. While it's important to avoid hindsight bias -- the simple truth is that most of these kids were not taught a "tiger mindset" for a tragic event like this. They were taught a "deer mindset"; they froze and fled rather than fought.
I understand the purpose of the lockdown mentality/approach, and support it, in its proper place. But you have to teach the other side of the coin, as well; that, when the time and opportunity present themselves, you HAVE to take advantage of it and bring the fight to the aggressor.
jdinca
Master Black Belt
This goes well beyond Virginia Tech but that incident does show in some ways where our society has gone. It's not just being able to understand that there are evil people in the world but somehow, we've come to a place in history where many people think that there will always be somebody there to take care of them, so they've never really learned how to stand on their own. I've watched this trend in my profession for many years. As an example I had a doctor calling 911 because his 2 year old son cut his lip. My first thought when I found out he was a physician was "huh?". How about calling 911 for a sprained ankle, or a cut finger? "Well, I thought you could bandage it up for me", or "I know that if I go by ambulance, I don't have to sit in the waiting room".
When someone does something stupid, quite often the first response is "well, why didn't so-and-so tell me not to stick my head out of the high speed train?". They then sue the train company because there was no sign telling them not to stick their head out the window. Yeah, this is a silly analogy but think about how many times you've heard a story where the blame and responsibility is placed on somebody else, when it's the person involved who screwed up? I mean, come on, I bought a 2 sectional staff and it had a label on it saying "warning, martial arts is an inherently dangerous sport". Helloooo.
I strongly feel that we need to teach our children to be self sufficient and self reliant. I've also told my kids that if they start a fight, there are in an incredible amount of trouble. If somebody else starts it, I tell them they better finish it and, if it turns out that they weren't responsible for the fight, I will back them no matter what the touchy feely, "let's all have a group hug" school administration has to say.
It's nice to live in a country that has a large safety net but you can't always count on it. Look at Katrina. Why people were surprised that our government ineptly handled the largest natural disaster in our history is something I can't figure out. When has the federal governement EVER done anything quickly and efficiently? Even the mayor of New Orleans thought that it was somebody else's job to take care of his city, even though it's widely known that the responsibility starts at the local level and moves up from there. 200 school buses sat unused because his citizens "deserved something better" and then blamed everybody else because so many people were still in the city when the storm hit. Btw, 85% of those who were in the city stayed of their own accord, not because they were poor and couldn't get out. Then they turned around and complained because the government didn't show up fast enough to rescue them. Huh?
Virginia Tech was a true national tragedy but one has to wonder if this prevalent mindset didn't at least play a small part in the scale of the incident. It goes beyond just not remembering how to fight back. On 911, passengers fought the hijackers and died because by God, those terrorists aren't going fly this plane into another building full of innocent people. Have we forgotten that lesson already?
When someone does something stupid, quite often the first response is "well, why didn't so-and-so tell me not to stick my head out of the high speed train?". They then sue the train company because there was no sign telling them not to stick their head out the window. Yeah, this is a silly analogy but think about how many times you've heard a story where the blame and responsibility is placed on somebody else, when it's the person involved who screwed up? I mean, come on, I bought a 2 sectional staff and it had a label on it saying "warning, martial arts is an inherently dangerous sport". Helloooo.
I strongly feel that we need to teach our children to be self sufficient and self reliant. I've also told my kids that if they start a fight, there are in an incredible amount of trouble. If somebody else starts it, I tell them they better finish it and, if it turns out that they weren't responsible for the fight, I will back them no matter what the touchy feely, "let's all have a group hug" school administration has to say.
It's nice to live in a country that has a large safety net but you can't always count on it. Look at Katrina. Why people were surprised that our government ineptly handled the largest natural disaster in our history is something I can't figure out. When has the federal governement EVER done anything quickly and efficiently? Even the mayor of New Orleans thought that it was somebody else's job to take care of his city, even though it's widely known that the responsibility starts at the local level and moves up from there. 200 school buses sat unused because his citizens "deserved something better" and then blamed everybody else because so many people were still in the city when the storm hit. Btw, 85% of those who were in the city stayed of their own accord, not because they were poor and couldn't get out. Then they turned around and complained because the government didn't show up fast enough to rescue them. Huh?
Virginia Tech was a true national tragedy but one has to wonder if this prevalent mindset didn't at least play a small part in the scale of the incident. It goes beyond just not remembering how to fight back. On 911, passengers fought the hijackers and died because by God, those terrorists aren't going fly this plane into another building full of innocent people. Have we forgotten that lesson already?
I think it was very coherent, to the point of eloquent. When my kids were younger the rules were simple, if they were not allowed to hit another kid first or they were in serious trouble, but if someone hit them they were allowed, and expected, to fight back, and I would back them up with whatever authorities had a problem with it. The only problem I ever had was trying to explain to my son after an incident that when the kid started running away, he wasn't allowed to chase them and finish defending himself.
It's always preferable to handle things without violence, but some people mistake the reluctance to take physical action as weakness. There is a time to fight, and we've failed to teach that to our children.
This post will probably be as coherent as letch's maybe less so... :idunno: but it's what I'm thinking/feeling right about now...
I grew up fighting... kids in my school/grade were teasing and picking on me almost incessantly. I got in to a lot of trouble because I fought back. I rarely saw my antagonists get in trouble. This confused me for a while... someone messes with me and I fight back... I get in trouble. This continued into high-school as well.
In college, one evening someone kept screwing with me... I hauled off, decked him and kept punching him til he cowered enough to make me stop. Luckily nobody saw this and we were able to come to an mutual agreement about what was the problem.
On the streets any fighting I did was purely survival and thusly justified.
But I've noticed a trend. It's subtle it's almost "not-there". The don't fight mentality. The "I'll sue you for your kid beating up my kid" mentality. The pacification of the children who are deemed too hyper and too "difficult to control" by the use of Ritalin and anti-depressants. Had I been a kid in this day and age I'd probably be prescribed these drugs.
The ever increasing (anti) gun-laws and how (almost) all weaponry is registered so that they know what you SHOULD have in your personal arsenal.
Homeland security; more rights for them to make sure you're not a threat to this country.
Someone made a neat comment to me "...I think it says a lot that our last several presidents are basically ones that dodged their Vietnam duty..."
But these guys were/are in control of the country right now... makes you wonder...
That we got potential time bombs walking around in almost every town, city village, burb, shows that a few are going to fall through the cracks now and again, but it's helpful to let that happen... makes us all the more afraid and wanting someone to help us... to (as mentioned) rescue us instead of fighting back on our own. Why? So that they'll be no resistance when something larger comes along?
But! We're taught that this mentality is paranoia, not worth even mentioning... yet why is it there? Why is it that more and more of the ability and desire to not fight back is being eroded on a national scale? Why is it becoming more and more not ok to ask these questions?
To fight back is to risk harm to yourself...you don't want to get hurt do you?
Well... seems to me we're gonna get hurt sooner or later anyway ... if we fight back or not.
Oh well but that kind of thinking is just stupid! Well maybe it is... but chances are a lot less people might not get hurt.
But it's wrong to hurt people. Well of course it is... but why is it so wrong to hurt the ones hurting us? Why do we need to wait for those who have the "authority" (LEO's) to show up to hurt (stop by any means necessary) the one hurting us? Why is it not okay to resist? The ones hurting us?
Why are we? Why?
I grew up fighting... kids in my school/grade were teasing and picking on me almost incessantly. I got in to a lot of trouble because I fought back. I rarely saw my antagonists get in trouble. This confused me for a while... someone messes with me and I fight back... I get in trouble. This continued into high-school as well.
In college, one evening someone kept screwing with me... I hauled off, decked him and kept punching him til he cowered enough to make me stop. Luckily nobody saw this and we were able to come to an mutual agreement about what was the problem.
On the streets any fighting I did was purely survival and thusly justified.
But I've noticed a trend. It's subtle it's almost "not-there". The don't fight mentality. The "I'll sue you for your kid beating up my kid" mentality. The pacification of the children who are deemed too hyper and too "difficult to control" by the use of Ritalin and anti-depressants. Had I been a kid in this day and age I'd probably be prescribed these drugs.
The ever increasing (anti) gun-laws and how (almost) all weaponry is registered so that they know what you SHOULD have in your personal arsenal.
Homeland security; more rights for them to make sure you're not a threat to this country.
Someone made a neat comment to me "...I think it says a lot that our last several presidents are basically ones that dodged their Vietnam duty..."
But these guys were/are in control of the country right now... makes you wonder...
That we got potential time bombs walking around in almost every town, city village, burb, shows that a few are going to fall through the cracks now and again, but it's helpful to let that happen... makes us all the more afraid and wanting someone to help us... to (as mentioned) rescue us instead of fighting back on our own. Why? So that they'll be no resistance when something larger comes along?
But! We're taught that this mentality is paranoia, not worth even mentioning... yet why is it there? Why is it that more and more of the ability and desire to not fight back is being eroded on a national scale? Why is it becoming more and more not ok to ask these questions?
To fight back is to risk harm to yourself...you don't want to get hurt do you?
Well... seems to me we're gonna get hurt sooner or later anyway ... if we fight back or not.
Oh well but that kind of thinking is just stupid! Well maybe it is... but chances are a lot less people might not get hurt.
But it's wrong to hurt people. Well of course it is... but why is it so wrong to hurt the ones hurting us? Why do we need to wait for those who have the "authority" (LEO's) to show up to hurt (stop by any means necessary) the one hurting us? Why is it not okay to resist? The ones hurting us?
Why are we? Why?
jdinca
Master Black Belt
It teaches them to be passive, don't fight back, run away and find a teacher. Guess what they expect you to do the next time the same kid starts beating you up?
It was fine.
Simple fact. Law enforcement is primarily a REACTIVE organization. Even "proactive law enforcement" is a reaction to a problem area; we don't send fleets of cruisers or guys in tac-ninja body armor out into areas that aren't having some sort of problem -- and I doubt most communities would tolerate it if we did!
We have developed responses that are very aggressive to active shooter and similar scenarios -- but we still are RESPONDING to the problem. We (under US law) cannot go grabbing folks up because they MIGHT become a spree shooter or serial killer or anything else.
Each and every one of us has a personal responsibility to be able to protect ourselves and our loved ones, at least until law enforcement can respond. The extent of our individual capability to do so will vary based on our own moral beliefs as well as our own physical and intellectual abilities; we may have to substitute awareness and avoidance or even waiting for the right moment based on the situation or our own beliefs but that does not absolve us of the individual responsibilty for safety. I can't make a driver obey the law, so drive defensively and avoid the nutjobs that drive like maniacs. I can't make people not rob, steal or beat you; don't invite them and don't meekly, unthinkingly submit to them. I HATE taking reports that read like "complainant left their car running while they entered the store" or "complainant reports that all doors were left unlocked prior to the burglary."
Again -- I'm not suggesting that automatic, active resistance is the only solution. Instead, I'm saying that you have to be aware of the options available, considering the total situation, and when the time is right -- take the right action. For elementary school students in a lockdown for an unknown situation, that means sitting still and obeying the teacher's direction. For a high school or college jock who sees a guy having to pause and reload during his shooting spree -- it may well mean taking a stand and tackling the monster. For an off-duty officer pushing his kid around in a stroller who sees a bank robbery -- maybe it's time to call 911, and take cover. That same officer, alone... Maybe he can take action. The appropriate action is situational; there are times to wait for help, just as there are times to jump in immediately.
Instead, we seem to be teaching learned helplessness more and more...
I'd really like to hear from military basic training instructors and others who might be able to tell whether they're having trouble instilling a "warrior mentality" in recruits. I know we've seen more people in police academies who are shocked to discover that people actually fight the cops!
OP
OP
Some years ago, there was a student at my middle school who was severely affected by cerebral palsy; most of her muscle movements were outside of her conscious control - and when she was stressed, her involuntary movements would get stronger, and when truly stressed, her muscles would lock. Like all students with mobility issues, she had a safety plan, a predetermined plan to get her out of the building in case of emergency, as she could not use the stairs. The building I work in is built into the side of a hill, so there are exits on both levels; however, at one point, one of the exits from the upper level was unavailable due to construction, and there was concern that the other exit would be blocked in case of a fire, so we had to rewrite her safety plan to accommodate that. We, as a special education department, decided that any department member on the upper floor who was not with children when an alarm occurred would meet at the room she was in and would take her to the stairs closest to the classroom, where we would remove her from her chair and carry her down the stairs, an exercise which required at least 3 people - and 4 would be better; she was 5'9", and strong - best practice called for one person on each limb, to help control her involuntary movements and to avoid dropping her when she contorted. We also determined to leave her at the top of the stairs, with an adult, during drills, rather than risk injury in a non-emergency situation.
The safety plan was submitted to the district through the occupational therapist who worked in our building. When she brought it back, we were told it had been rejected, because if we carried her down the stairs in a real emergency and dropped her, causing injury, we would be liable and might be sued by her parents... and therefore, we were to leave her at the top of the stairs, in front of a large window, and wait for emergency personnel to come in and remove her on a stretcher even if the building was on fire. After a brief discussion, which included our very low opinion of this district policy, we determined that we would follow the above plan, as we would rather violate district policy and save her life - and risk a lawsuit if she were injured and if her parents chose to sue - than leave her at the top of the stairs and risk her death... not to mention the truly nasty lawsuit leaving her in a burning building could have led to. Luckily for us all, it never came up - but it was quite a slap in the face that our district administration would rather we followed their directives and be sued for wrongful death, than risk a possible lawsuit for potential injury. This is, I think, representative of the issue addressed in the article I posted, and I find it idiotic in the extreme.
The question is - as we all seem to agree with the columnist - is, what do we do about it? Both as martial artists and private citizens, what can we do to change this attitude?
The safety plan was submitted to the district through the occupational therapist who worked in our building. When she brought it back, we were told it had been rejected, because if we carried her down the stairs in a real emergency and dropped her, causing injury, we would be liable and might be sued by her parents... and therefore, we were to leave her at the top of the stairs, in front of a large window, and wait for emergency personnel to come in and remove her on a stretcher even if the building was on fire. After a brief discussion, which included our very low opinion of this district policy, we determined that we would follow the above plan, as we would rather violate district policy and save her life - and risk a lawsuit if she were injured and if her parents chose to sue - than leave her at the top of the stairs and risk her death... not to mention the truly nasty lawsuit leaving her in a burning building could have led to. Luckily for us all, it never came up - but it was quite a slap in the face that our district administration would rather we followed their directives and be sued for wrongful death, than risk a possible lawsuit for potential injury. This is, I think, representative of the issue addressed in the article I posted, and I find it idiotic in the extreme.
The question is - as we all seem to agree with the columnist - is, what do we do about it? Both as martial artists and private citizens, what can we do to change this attitude?
michaeledward
Grandmaster
I would like to add a couple of thoughts ...
First, I am not sure that the people at Virginia Tech did not fight back in some shape or form. I have not followed the story closely, but, I understand that there was some measure resistance. I seem to recall seeing that someone managed to shut a door, and hold a door shut with their feet, preventing the shooter from gaining access to the room. I seem to recall hearing that some of the teachers were killed during acts of resistance.
The premise of a 'non-confrontational attitude in America', I think needs to be looked at more closely, and a stronger foundation established to make a more coherent article.
Second, there was an interesting post by 'Doc' not that long ago about the 'do' or 'Way' systems of martial arts. I may horribly mis-remember, and mis-quote his ideas, so apologies up front. But in that post, he told us that the firearm essentially rendered martial arts as a way of life, to be dead on arrival. The gun superceeding martial skill.
As I recall, because the gun had the ability to kill from range, the skills of hand-to-hand combat were no longer a matter of life and death. Thus the transfer of martial arts to a system of teaching about a 'way' of life.
In Dennis Conaster's autobiography in 'The Journey', he tells us all of his martial skill has turned him into a paper tiger. I am paraphrasing here, but he will never be able to get into enough fights to justify the amount of time and energy he has put into his martial training.
Even the most trained and skilled among us will probably never have an appropriate opportunity to fight back. And even if we were presented with that opportunity - the years of training become meaningless against a firearm.
Lastly, I often have tried to tell my children that integrity takes practice. I have used many different stories to pass on the idea that doing the right thing when faced with small choices is important practice for doing the right thing when the choice becomes more important.
I am not convinced that the 'right' thing to do, in a situation like what happened at Virginia Tech, is to attack the person wielding a gun.
Certianly, the right thing is to help a person who fell in front of an oncoming train, the right thing is to protect a smaller person from physical violence, the right thing is to make certain all the animals get out of the burning barn. But, running toward a person with a gun, may just be outside the tasks demand of by the integrity I describe above.
I think, perhaps, in that situation, the right thing to do is to run away; and to take as many people with you as possible. Colloquially, we have heard the phrase, 'never take a knife to a gun fight'.
I am pretty certain that the agenda being pushed by the author is disgusting. It seems to me that he is using the tragic events at the Virginia school to justify his predisposed position. His use of 'evil' as a noun indicates his agenda, I believe.
First, I am not sure that the people at Virginia Tech did not fight back in some shape or form. I have not followed the story closely, but, I understand that there was some measure resistance. I seem to recall seeing that someone managed to shut a door, and hold a door shut with their feet, preventing the shooter from gaining access to the room. I seem to recall hearing that some of the teachers were killed during acts of resistance.
The premise of a 'non-confrontational attitude in America', I think needs to be looked at more closely, and a stronger foundation established to make a more coherent article.
Second, there was an interesting post by 'Doc' not that long ago about the 'do' or 'Way' systems of martial arts. I may horribly mis-remember, and mis-quote his ideas, so apologies up front. But in that post, he told us that the firearm essentially rendered martial arts as a way of life, to be dead on arrival. The gun superceeding martial skill.
As I recall, because the gun had the ability to kill from range, the skills of hand-to-hand combat were no longer a matter of life and death. Thus the transfer of martial arts to a system of teaching about a 'way' of life.
In Dennis Conaster's autobiography in 'The Journey', he tells us all of his martial skill has turned him into a paper tiger. I am paraphrasing here, but he will never be able to get into enough fights to justify the amount of time and energy he has put into his martial training.
Even the most trained and skilled among us will probably never have an appropriate opportunity to fight back. And even if we were presented with that opportunity - the years of training become meaningless against a firearm.
Lastly, I often have tried to tell my children that integrity takes practice. I have used many different stories to pass on the idea that doing the right thing when faced with small choices is important practice for doing the right thing when the choice becomes more important.
I am not convinced that the 'right' thing to do, in a situation like what happened at Virginia Tech, is to attack the person wielding a gun.
Certianly, the right thing is to help a person who fell in front of an oncoming train, the right thing is to protect a smaller person from physical violence, the right thing is to make certain all the animals get out of the burning barn. But, running toward a person with a gun, may just be outside the tasks demand of by the integrity I describe above.
I think, perhaps, in that situation, the right thing to do is to run away; and to take as many people with you as possible. Colloquially, we have heard the phrase, 'never take a knife to a gun fight'.
I am pretty certain that the agenda being pushed by the author is disgusting. It seems to me that he is using the tragic events at the Virginia school to justify his predisposed position. His use of 'evil' as a noun indicates his agenda, I believe.
jdinca
Master Black Belt
I read the full article and thought this pretty much summed it up.
"When a twisted soul decides to carry out a heinous act, there is precious little we can do to stop it. Where there is a will, there is always a way. All we can do, if caught in their crosshairs, is try to survive."
The question is, how? If you can run away and survive, great. But if the alternative is sitting and waiting for the slaughter, then do we wait like cattle, or do we take our chances to take out the killer before he takes us out? For me personally, I'm going to try and take him out. If I die in the attempt, at least others may have the opportunity to live. I consider it a worthwhile tradeoff.
If you teach your children to avoid conflict at all costs, and that nonviolence is the only way, how would you feel if you received a tragic phone call telling you your child is dead and that he/she died after being lined up against the wall and executed?
If you teach your children to avoid conflict at all costs, and that noviolence is the only way, how would you feel if you received a tragic phone call telling you your child is dead and that he/she died after fighting tooth and nail with a gunmen who was indiscriminantly killing people and your child's actions saved other lives?
I can't answer that question for myself, because I would never teach that to my children. I teach them to respect others, their rights and to do what they can to avoid conflict but I also teach them that they need to defend themselves, no matter what, if attacked. Were I to receive that tragic phone call, scenario #2 would at least give me a little solace for the basic fact that my child died trying to help others.
One of my tattoos is a WTC tribute. Although I'm not particularly religious, I do have John 15:13 as part of it.
"No man hath greater love than this, that he lay down his life for that of a brother."
I think the flip side of this is eloquently spoken by Harry Dean Stanton in the cult classic Repo Man.
"I'd rather live on my knees than die on my feet."
We're just a few martial artists trying to make sense of this tragedy and are discussing what we can do to change the mindset that we're talking about. The answer is that we can't change society but we can make sure than our own families know what's right and wrong and how important it is not to just lay down and die when there's a chance to fight for your life and live.
"When a twisted soul decides to carry out a heinous act, there is precious little we can do to stop it. Where there is a will, there is always a way. All we can do, if caught in their crosshairs, is try to survive."
The question is, how? If you can run away and survive, great. But if the alternative is sitting and waiting for the slaughter, then do we wait like cattle, or do we take our chances to take out the killer before he takes us out? For me personally, I'm going to try and take him out. If I die in the attempt, at least others may have the opportunity to live. I consider it a worthwhile tradeoff.
If you teach your children to avoid conflict at all costs, and that nonviolence is the only way, how would you feel if you received a tragic phone call telling you your child is dead and that he/she died after being lined up against the wall and executed?
If you teach your children to avoid conflict at all costs, and that noviolence is the only way, how would you feel if you received a tragic phone call telling you your child is dead and that he/she died after fighting tooth and nail with a gunmen who was indiscriminantly killing people and your child's actions saved other lives?
I can't answer that question for myself, because I would never teach that to my children. I teach them to respect others, their rights and to do what they can to avoid conflict but I also teach them that they need to defend themselves, no matter what, if attacked. Were I to receive that tragic phone call, scenario #2 would at least give me a little solace for the basic fact that my child died trying to help others.
One of my tattoos is a WTC tribute. Although I'm not particularly religious, I do have John 15:13 as part of it.
"No man hath greater love than this, that he lay down his life for that of a brother."
I think the flip side of this is eloquently spoken by Harry Dean Stanton in the cult classic Repo Man.
"I'd rather live on my knees than die on my feet."
We're just a few martial artists trying to make sense of this tragedy and are discussing what we can do to change the mindset that we're talking about. The answer is that we can't change society but we can make sure than our own families know what's right and wrong and how important it is not to just lay down and die when there's a chance to fight for your life and live.
Blotan Hunka
Master Black Belt
And leave the rest of the helpless suckers behind to die? When youre in a room with one exit and a gunman. Its fight or wait to be shot. We need to be raising people of courage and conviction, not cattle to the slaughter.
When did we turn from "the greatest generation" to "every man for themselves"?
Thank you :asian:
... and that's my question... why?
This I've seen/experienced first hand. Hoping not to jump too far off topic here but perhaps it is related either way.
Years ago I volunteered for a summer-camp for deaf children (ages 7-18) and once a year the (older) kids are given a quick lesson in safety; whether it be from drugs or kidnappers or whatever dangers that children are (unknowingly) exposed to as they go through their daily lives. That year was for kidnappings, I was asked to be a kidnapper. The campers and staff were all brought out to a local small town outside of camp to have a few hours at a city park to let off some steam and whatever. One of the campers was chosen to be the victim (with his knowledge of course that it was all acting). I was to walk up to him and "entice" him to my car and take off. Immediately I would be chased by the local police (also in on the act-- with one officer who was also a highly skilled sign-language interpreter *... among other things). We drove at (sorta) high-speed around the park where another cruiser would block my way and I was to jump out and "try" to make a run for it.
Here's the fun part, I ran (half-assed) and (pretended to) trip over something allowing the other officers to catch up to me and "arrest me". What they didn't expect was the level of resistance I gave them. After all I just kidnapped a kid, evaded the police/resisted arrest ...and you think I'm just gonna go quietly?
Well do you?
It was convincing enough that the arresting officer actually had to put some "hurt" on me which quieted me down quick enough because I knew that they could put on the "hurt" because their training says it's sometimes necessary.
Afterwards I was put in the cruiser and "driven away" still in cuffs. As we were driving away (oddly enough I was in the front seat -- so much for realism there
) the "arresting officer" radioed his thanks to the assisting officers. The reply back from one of them, was something like in a stunned/disbelieving voice: "....uh, yeah ... I... I just didn't ... expect it to be so real!"
The "arresting officer" grinned and winked at me and said: " he's a new guy"
I was brought back to the park and the officer (since uncuffed me) introduced me as the "good-guy" that we were acting... "But! Kids, you got to ...." and on he went with his safety spiel.
This makes me wonder if more officers are taking MA courses outside their SD/H2H training outside the academy. There probably are and it should be so. But then the average, law-abiding citizen should too.
*yes CC it was the one and only Jack Rose :wink2:
It seems that way I'm sure, but I'll hope for the best and say no we're not, but we're being taught not to resist or not to fight back as it is for those in authority to do so, so that we "don't take the law into our own hands" so to speak.
As for Michael's comments...
But this I disagree with ... there is justification. There is always justification to training in self-defense whether or not you ever use it at all. The fact that you're prepared and have kept your skills honed (in a manner of speaking) to the point that you'll react appropriately and timely when the opportunity arises.michaeledward said:
My father, who upon hearing of the Va. Tech tragedy also felt for the parents of the slain and told me that he would be heart-broken if I were among them. But I know him well enough to know that like you, jdinca, he would prefer the phone call resultant of scenario #2. But of course like any parent he would prefer not to get the call at all ... or at least a phone call from me saying "I'm okay, I wasn't in any danger because I didn't have any classes that time/day..." But he would've appreciated and found solace (and pride) in that I fought back and tried to stop the monster so that others would be spared... parent and student alike.jdinca said:
I am very aware of John 15:13 and keep it in my heart because I believe it is one of the truest statements ever made.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
This is the unfounded premise I am talking about. It is an awfully big sweeping generalization to say that all of society is being taught to "avoid conflict at all costs". I just don't think that is true.
And most of the people posting on this thread seem to be saying, 'yeah, it's horrible, that everybody else in our country is going all Ghandi'.
And, I am thinking back to this thread ... http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=665724&postcount=1 ... where a student, showing a bit of resistance was greated with the opposite idea; that fighting back is unAmerican, and the student got what he deserved.
Again, I wasn't there. I haven't followed the story very closely. I have heard of snippets of resistance. I have heard of students jumping out windows. I have not heard of students lining up along a wall to await their execution. I think the author may be projecting a bit of "Bill O'Reilly facts" to his argument.
The last fact for now is, life has many random occurances that can impact our lives, no matter what our choice is; be it the oncoming bus, a plane whose final destination is a building or field, or a crazed gunman in our engineering class. There are things outside our control.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
I just saw this article ..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070513/faked-attack
Elementary School Students? I am not certain I can find language that describes how abhorent I find this. To me, it qualifies as 'terrorism'.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070513/faked-attack
Elementary School Students? I am not certain I can find language that describes how abhorent I find this. To me, it qualifies as 'terrorism'.
Shaderon
Master of Arts
That's disgusting, I do agree with fighting back and we should teach out kids not to be targets and to not take pacifism to an extreme but this is not even fighting back, it's traumatising kids!
If they were going to have a drill, ALL the people in the building should have been warned, including the kids and the parents of the kids so they could choose not to have thier kids involved. Doing something like that to a group of children could have just as bad long term affects as the real thing, it's not training for it because the kids won't remember the things they were told, they'll just remember how scared they were. To properly train for something like this you have to remove the danger or any threat and train in an environment which is good for positive reinforcement learning, and a threatening environment like that isn't.
I don't think that's quite a comparable case. You're referring to an incident where a student refused to comply with lawful demands, created a disturbance, and got tazed. That student was fighting against the rules -- not acting against a violent, unlawful attack.
