Self Defense article

[Samurai]

I simply cannot believe some of the 1950's-era, Leave-it-to-Beaver, male-chauvinistic garbage I'm reading here!

Is a woman strong enough to take a gun away from a man? Of COURSE she is! What kind of silly question is that?!?

Anyone who knows anything about martial arts knows that it ISN'T about strength. It's about leverage, and about putting the right amount of weight on the right places on the body. A young CHILD can be taught to find the weak points on an arm joint, the nerve points that cause the grip to relax, and the right way to lean into a grapple such that the majority of the child's body weight is focused onto a weak part of the attacker's arm. ANYBODY can learn to do this, male or female, old or young!

I come from a large family of hillbilly redneck brawlers, and although I have 25 years of martial arts training and not a few violent encounters on my resume', I wouldn't take on one of my cousins or uncles for any amount of anything.

Justme, for some reason, I'm getting a disconnect, here. You have 25 years of martial arts training, and you don't believe that a grown woman has enough body weight to pop a wrist? Come on, man! What, do you not believe that a woman can train up? Or, do they just not absorb the knowledge as fast as men do? Perhaps, are all the disarms that you know strength-dependent? What POSSIBLE justification do you have for saying that women can't learn to do this stuff?

Even if a woman were to get that nifty disabling thumblock to work how long is she going to hold it for? There is no official yelling "STOP!" to call off the action.

Wow, Musketeer. Just... WOW! So, a woman might actually be quick enough to put a "thumblock" (What-da-heck is a "thumblock"?...) on a man, but that doesn't matter, because she's not strong enough to actually disable his hand? Is that what you're saying? It sounds to me like you don't know much about human physiology. You might want to actually try attending one of these classes, before you start publicly downplaying the ability of women as a whole to perform the techniques. Just a suggestion...

Guys. Come on, here! We've GOT to do better than this! We're supposed to be authorities on the right to self-defense! A woman can't learn to disarm a man, because "it's too violent"?!?

I expected a little more from this group.:barf:

 

[Justme]

Samurai, I was answering the question as posed. I don't believe a 250lb man could learn enough to be effective at disarming someone in such a situation either.

Some things I have learned over the years:
1. - Training and practice can go a long way toward addressing the imbalance between larger and smaller people, but size is still a disadvantage

2. - All other things being equal a bigger person, whether male or female, has an advantage. (I have aunts I wouldn't want to tangle with either) It's not about the sex of the person involved, it's about muscle mass and strength.

3. - Nothing ever happens as predicted or planned.

4. - 90+% of the time the person who strikes the first clean blow wins the brawl. I taught young women how to land a headbutt to the nose or a spike heel to the top of the foot, both of which can be effective fight stoppers. I also taught that the most effective defense against a firearm is prayer.

5. - Martial arts are overrated by most people. I have seen boxers win tae kwon do tourneys after a couple of weeks of training. My own instructer had a boxing bronze medal from the olympics. I would put the average semi-pro boxer up against the average suburban black belt any day.

6. - People who have never been in a street fight or bar brawl have no clue just how violent and sudden they really are. It's not like TV or movies, if you can last more than 3 or 4 seconds you are lucky.

Finally, interpersonal communication is under-rated by most people. A young woman used to being assertive and verbal should try to keep the conflict in that realm, a realm where she may well have more experience than the BG. As soon as she entires the BG's world she loses.,

 

[Musketeer]

Samurai, sorry you disagree but I stand by my assertion, the average woman (or man for that matter) is completely ill equipped with regards to skill and determination let alone physiology to deal with the average physically violent criminal. No one or two day course is going to change that. Unarmed fight training is not going to change that unless it is intensive and carried on for years. If someone with such dedication takes courses in how to disarm a criminal targetted at those with a "profesional" interest then they can certainly benifit. The benifit to the casual person interested in self protection and simply taking a course at a local Y or gym though is next to nil and the time far better spent on teaching awareness techniques.

The criminal is almost always going to pick on someone who is at a physical disadvantage. This is often a woman, because on average they are smaller than men, but could also be a smaller man (I am only 5'4" and a prime target for a strongarm type criminal). Physically you are going to be outclassed because the criminal will almost always target someone they think they can take. Rather than going hand to hand with such a criminal something like pepperspray or a gun should be used. If nothing is available to you respond as brutally and explosively as possible and use any opportunity to escape because the longer it goes the worse you will fare.

I am not going to say the training is useless. If it helps one person it is better than nothing. Teaching disarmiong techniques to casual folks who are not really going to practice this intensely and repeatedly does very little good and if you look at the lost opportunity to give them real training in an effective defense it is a less effective use of their time. The training mentioned in the OP though should have included the use of a firearm in personal defense. Most people who get a simple day or two training and think they can now disarm their attacker are going to suffer for it.

So, a woman might actually be quick enough to put a "thumblock" (What-da-heck is a "thumblock"?...) on a man, but that doesn't matter, because she's not strong enough to actually disable his hand? Is that what you're saying?

No, I am not saying it is because she is not strong enough. I am saying it is because she is not brutal enough. Most civilized people will hessitate before kicking in a persons genitals or face when they are down, gouging eyes, dislocating joints or breaking limbs. Criminals won't.

 

[Deaf Smith]

I've been in the martial arts for something like 30 plus years. Taught quite a few people. Most people that come to learn self defense think one or two hours is gonna make a difference.

It will as for knowlege of techniques, but as for ingraining the skills so they can use them later... no. That takes time and lots of practice, both at the place of training and at home.

It's nice they actually get out to learn some, but it really needs to be learned in High School, like a PE class, and you have a full semester of training (but we know the liberals would never do that.)

 

[Lurper]

Generally, I think the value of such classes is questionable at best. To think that one or two classes of technique and practice would enable anyone (woman or man) to effectively disarm someone in a real life situation is fantasy.

Pax is the exception to the rule, because she is smart enough to realize that to reach proficiency, you must not only know the technique but practice it on a regular basis. Most students don't.


I don't see anything sexist or unrealistic about the statement that taking a "Self Defense" class won't give a woman the ability to disarm an attacker. It won't without diligence and discipline on the part of the student.

 

[Justme]

What gets me is the attitude that you can practice on your own and "perfect" this skill over time. With all due respect nobody but nobody would suggest that you could become an olympic level boxer by yourself in a basement gym, but some are virtually suggesting that as it applies to self defense.

I have also coached soccer for 25+ years. The level of skill needed to disarm someone is higher than that needed to be a decent HS level soccer player. I defy anyone to take a weekend class, practice in the back yard for a few months, and then see if they could play rec league soccer at a HS level.

The hours of training it takes to be even remotely proficient in any martial art is incredible. You can go to the range for two hours a week and be fairly proficient in use of handguns, it takes more like two hours a day for at least 2 or 3 years to become proficient at a martial art.

I apologise in advance if my post offends by it's tone. The fact is I get annoyed when the hours and hours I have spent training gets belittled by those who think it is easy or simple. Besides, if it was easy my scars wouldn't mean so much and I couldn't impress they ladies.

 

[JohnKSa]

There's a disconnect in the discussion. I think the problem is that no one's saying that attackers come in all varieties.

Yes, one can learn effective techniques for disarming an attacker in a single session. Yes, with practice, one can use these techniques effectively against some attackers.

But it's just like any other kind of self-defense. If you come up against a strong, skilled, determined attacker your chances of using techniques learned in a one day class to neutralize him are slim to none.

 

[Lurper]

You can go to the range for two hours a week and be fairly proficient in use of handguns, it takes more like two hours a day for at least 2 or 3 years to become proficient at a martial art.

Is it just me or does anyone else see the contradiction in this statement? Handguns are no different. I can assure you that you will not reach my level of skill by two hours a week, even for 10 years. Handguns are no different than anything else. Why would anyone think that you could learn handgun skills from one class and be reasonbly proficient yet say that it takes years to learn to be proficient in physical skills?

 

[pax]

And meanwhile, no one has taken a stab at answering the question I asked in post #19 of this thread:

Now, given that reality and none other (not the fantasy world we all wish were true!), what would you suggest this 18 year old going off to college do about personal defense?

1) Learn nothing at all.

2) Take a basic, reality-based class in defense skills, increase her personal awareness, practice those skills, and learn more when she is able to do so.

pax

 

[Justme]

Why would anyone think that you could learn handgun skills from one class and be reasonbly proficient yet say that it takes years to learn to be proficient in physical skills?

Because it's true. That's the beauty of guns, they are simple to learn and simple to use. It does not take a great deal of practice and training to be competent with a gun. The guy beside me shot expert in basic training even though he had never held a gun before in his life.

If a victim of domestic violence asks me how to protect herself I would not hesitate to suggest any one of a dozen good handguns, which she could learn to use in the course of a weekend. After 2 or 3 years of training 10-12 hours a week that same woman, were she in good physical shape, might be able to defend herself against a violent man.

It's a little like cars. It doesn't take that much practice before you can go pick up some groceries, but that doesn't mean you're going out on the F-1 circuit either.

Pax, of course she should take a REALITY based self defense courrse. I am just suggesting that a course that teaches disarming the first day out is not reality based.

 

[pax]

Justme ~

I'm sorry that it offends you to be told this, but it is possible to learn basic disarms in a single weekend -- given the proper mindset and a commitment to practice.

This is a far cry from "becoming proficient in a martial art." You can keep your it-takes-years belief on that one, for I agree with you.

But learning how to leverage a gun out of an attacker's hand and shoot him with it (or with your own more reliable weapon)? It's not rocket science. Anyone can do that -- given the willingness to learn.

pax

 

[Lurper]

Because it's true. That's the beauty of guns, they are simple to learn and simple to use. It does not take a great deal of practice and training to be competent with a gun. The guy beside me shot expert in basic training even though he had never held a gun before in his life.

I guess if that is your yardstick, then perhaps it is true. But you will not achieve any REAL proficiency any easier than you will with martial arts. Contrary to what you may want to think, it does take a great deal of practice and training to be competent with a gun. Anyone who thinks otherwise has never met anyone who is truly competent. If it was easy, everyone would shoot like Leatham, Jarrett, Miculek or me. I find it amusing how people think that they can become proficient with a firearm by firing 1000 rounds!

In answer to Pax's question:
Obviously some training is better than none. But you still must acknowledge the fact that without practice, the technique means nothing. I think some people believe that these techniques are like knowledge, once you learn it, you don't forget. You can file the technique away until you need it. That isn't true. You have to practice and refine the technique for it to be useful.

 

[Justme]

Lurper, a person does not have to be an IPSA champion in order to effectively use a firearm, which is pretty lucky for the vast majority of us. That was my point about the cars, you don't have to be a F-1 champion in order to pick the kids up from school or go get some groceries.

By your definition not one in ten cops are proficient with firearms, yet they seem to get along just fine with a few exceptions from time to time.

 

[evan1293]

By your definition not one in ten cops are proficient with firearms, yet they seem to get along just fine with a few exceptions from time to time

Actually having spent a good amount of time training with cops its become apparent to me that the average shooting skill level of cops is appaulling. The statistics indicate this with the hit rate of officers being well below 30%. That is why there is such a push to create new techniques and tactics to get cops to actually hit their target. A better suggestion would be to get these cops to routinely practice time proven firearm technique in dynamic range type settings. Fortunately for our LEO, they very rarely if ever have to deploy their weapons in a life or death situation on the job.

 

[cgraham]

That's why guns have been known as "The Equalizer".

There is no equality in a bare-hands on gun situation, so I think the gun discussion is irrelevant to the OT.

(I was responding to Justme's comment)

C

 

[JohnKSa]

...a person does not have to be an IPSA champion in order to effectively use a firearm, which is pretty lucky for the vast majority of us.

Likewise, one does not have to devote a lifetime to martial arts in order to learn and use a couple of disarm techniques.

...it does take a great deal of practice and training to be competent with a gun.

And yet, in the U.S., guns are successfully used in self defense between 1 and 2 million times a year according to a recent study.

This gets back to what I said in my earlier post, there are levels of attackers.

A one day class in disarm techniques won't let you defeat a martial arts expert or a strong, fast, skilled, determined attacker.

A one day class in handgun techniques will not let you defeat a national champion.

BUT, either one will give you tools that you can effectively use against the less "elite".

If your goal is to be the best, a one day class and some practice will not cut it. If your goal is to be better than average--or even a LOT better than average, then that's a different story.

 

[The Canuck]

Psychology of the defender and the attacker are as important as the training.

You take a girl off the high school soccer pitch and make her determined to win her confrontation and put her up against a rapist who will swing either way and I'll put my money on the girl.

A person who is determined to not go down will put up so much of a stink that it will take a very disciplined attacker to put them down.

 

[Lurper]

And yet, in the U.S., guns are successfully used in self defense between 1 and 2 million times a year according to a recent study.

In fairness, in the vast majority of those cases shots are not fired.

However John, you are correct in the final assesment you need only be better than your attacker.

 

[kungfucowboy]

could a smaller female disarm a larger male attacker yes i have personally met 3 who could (all had studied aikido, aikijutsu ect. for 10+ years)

after only a 2 day class no! practice makes perfect in martial arts.

 

[JohnKSa]

In fairness, in the vast majority of those cases shots are not fired.

I wasn't going to mention that--but yes, in many cases you don't need any skill at all with a firearm to deter an attack. In most cases it's not even necessary to know how to "make it go bang".