What's the best?

[Toki]

Now now, no drama til you explain the back story.

[BoarSpear]

boarspear your supposed to include saying but the roots and traditional methods and teachings will be more benificial in the long run for your own health and strenth reasons blah blah blah etc etc.

First of all, one thing i aint, is politically correct second if you survive an assault on your life because of your 6 months of combatives training, it had pretty damn good health benifits as well. truth of the matter is the vast majority of TMA as taught TODAY suck at teaching you to defend yourself. However 6 months in combatives can give your TMA skills a crutch until they can walk on thier own....... bring food, its a long trip

[Toki]

I'm very anti-gun. I would never own one, because I don't want them around my kids, and it wouldn't really come in handy in a self-defense situation if I say, left it in the car.

I actually plan on taking amateur boxing next year, which I'm pretty excited about. I've been doing a lot of research the last 2 weeks and going to different schools and I've come to the conclusion that you've all probably figured out--there's really no "best," only what works for you.

I really like kung fu, I plan to stick it out at least another couple years, but I don't find a problem with incorporating other styles into my training. I might bounce from class to class until I find one that really works for me. Aikido was awesome, but there's still so much else I haven't seen in action so I guess I'll have to do some searching.

It's not all that likely I'm going to be attacked anyway.

[jubaji]

if you survive an assault on your life because of your 6 months of combatives training, it had pretty damn good health benifits as well.

That's a very good point!

[treelizard]

See the thing about guns though is that some of us can't carry them everywhere we go--there's a no gun policy at many workplaces and most schools where many women go to pick up their children, etc. as well as many public places. Also there's ALWAYS that chance you won't draw in time or will leave it in your car or run out of ammo or something. Or maybe you're in New Orleans and the cops take your gun away and you can't get to the other ones!

I can relate to the feeling of having studied for a long time and still not being able to protect oneself... I have trained for YEARS in different arts and feel like I have nothing to show for it and STILL couldn't fight my way out of a paper bag. Training in some great systems right now but I still feel incapable--it is not the efficacy of the systems that I doubt, but my ability to learn and use them, to take the knowledge into my own body and be able to use it in a highly adrenalized, stressful situation, the possibility of something happening before I am skilled/trained enough to be able to react correctly, etc.

It has made me focus more on sensing danger, pre-incident indicators, not being there, etc...

[gabbah]

guns

Mike, your policies about guns kind of scare me. Do you live in the US?
A gun can take a life away so easily. You actually tell people to carry guns, without knowing that the person actually will be able to use it correctly?
If you have seen the movie "crash" (great movie!), that's a good example...

Living in Sweden, I think the gun policies of the US are just insane. So many weapons everywhere, carried by people that has not had an extensive training in dealing with threats and so on (I assume cops get good training)... damn it's scary as well as insane.

I think that advocating pepper spray is a better option in that case.

[Toki]

Some people are comfortable with guns, and some are not. As for your point about my attitude towards guns making my children crave to use one, that's not even true. If it is, I'd sure like to see some statistics. No one in my family owns a gun, except one uncle for hunting purposes, and it never made me or my brother want to go play with guns.

Also, I don't have a neverevereverever touch a gun attitude. If my daughters ever want to learn to shoot one, their pap on their father's side could show them, as well as my husband, who learned from the military. But I'd rather them never carry a gun unless they become police officers, not because they're "evil" or something, but because accidents happen. Heck, a gun could be wrestled off of them and used against them, and that could be far more deadly than getting beat up.

Just too much to worry about when guns are involved...

[gabbah]

Heck, a gun could be wrestled off of them and used against them, and that could be far more deadly than getting beat up.

Just too much to worry about when guns are involved...

Yeah this is one of the arguments against carrying a gun, that I would have brought up later if need be.

The attitude towards guns is also based on the country. USA is gun friendly, Sweden (where I live) is not. That's why I asked if you live in USA Mike.

[devildogg]

Toki I agree with BoarSpear The combatives are in my opinion the best way to learn fast self defense techniques, without all the history and tradition. Try looking up Tom Shrenk, I believe he is in your area. He is the founder of Bojuka Self Defense System, Very street effective,also the Sayoc Kali school is in PA, also I think in Pitts.

[gabbah]

You make some good points Mike.
However, I believe that if you pick 100 people and gave them training, only 50 of them would make the right decisions and take proper action when the time comes.
The rest would either use too much force (shoot when not needed) or don't act when it was necessary. Perhaps a big differance when comparing cop with a gun, and a civilian is that in case of the latter the attack is aimed at the person, whereas in the former case it's generally aimed at someone else or something else.
So perhaps when the threat is directly aimed at you and adrenaline and fear is pumping in your veins, instinct has a tendency to take over. Other than that, policemen have simply had more encounters and thus has had a lot more (real) training, so it's easier for them to keep somewhat calm. And probably they get more training as well?

About pepper spray, I thought it was actually practically impossible to see if you get it in your eyes? Good points made here by you about enraging. So you don't think it will stop the rapist or the mugger if he gets it in the face?

There is also another aspect. If you don't carry a gun, you can't pull it on the person trying to mug you. If he has a gun, in most cases he doesn't want to shoot you just for the sake of it. So if you are calm and give him your wallet, your still alive at the end of the day.
On the other hand, if you do carry a gun, with adrenaline pumping and being confused and scared shitless, you will probably make some misstake (letting him see your pulling a gun, or simply shooting too fast before having aimed, so you hit his leg or something), and he ends up shooting you. Or, let's say you shoot and kill him, a kid trying to rob you. You will have to live with it the rest of your life, which can really **** you up, no?
I think that if you look at statistics, in total it's best if only one party carries a gun. It's sort of like "peace through superiority" or something.

I think we have different views of people in general. I think that if they can make a misstake witha gun, they will.
I don't have a high belief in peoples ability, even with training. When I say this I mean that even if 60 or 70 of those 100 people act correct and thus benefit from carrying a gun, the rest will have their life destroyed because of it. For those people, it would have been better to "just" be beaten/scared and robbed of material possessions.

But I agree that a complicated issue with no easy answers, especially in USA where guns are so common. It's like with countries and nuclear weapons: "well that other country has nuclear weapons, so we must have them too to balance things out...". No easy answers.

Sorry if I can't express my view with better arguments, english is a second language to me. Retoric can win arguments you know

[treelizard]

Hope I'm not stealing Mike's thunder here but just wanted to post my $.02...
First of all, it is ILLEGAL to kill someone over property. You have to be in fear for your life. So if somebody is really going to kill someone who was just going to rob them, they would not be in the right in the eyes of the law. But you don't need a gun to kill people anyway. In fact even a lot of the "gentle" styles of martial arts may teach you moves that applied quickly and with pressure could kill someone. You don't even need a martial art to kill people. People kill people every day. Some woman just threw her kids over the edge of a cliff in San Francisco, so what are they going to do, outlaw ledges? Outlaw water? There are many things people can do on a regular basis that will cause them and others serious bodily injury. For example drinking and driving can kill people, or rather, the person irresponsible enough to mix the two will at best hurt themselves and at worse hurt themselves and others. It is true that having effective self-protection tools (such as guns) may increase your chances of mistakes, and guns certainly aren't for everyone... I do not carry but the risk is absolutely too high for some people to NOT carry and I support them 100% in that decision.

Ever heard what happened in Luby's restaraunt in Killeen, Texas in the early '90s? A mean named George Hennard brought a gun into a restaraunt, open fire, RELOADED, amd continued killing people. He killed 22 people. There was a woman in the crowd named Suzanne Gracia-Hupp who watched both her parents get killed. She usually carried a concealed handgun (illegally back then) but had left it in her purse, in the car. Yes it's true that some people who have guns (like this mass murderer) may use excessive force or shoot when not needed. All the more reason for good people to get some training.

If you are worried about adrenaline and fear forcing you to make wrong decisions, get some training so that you will get over it. I have heard good things about Massad Ayoob's courses.

As far as pepper spray, it is really a crapshoot. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. In any case, it is best to have multiple options. Guns aren't the only one, but at least have more than just one...

[gabbah]

By the logic, "If they can make a mistake, they will," then it's unsafe for people to train in anything violent for fear that it will be misused. Knife fighting and self-defense methods can kill as easily as a gun, and there are certainly a lot of martial arts "bullies" out there who take pleasure in beating up people who can't defend themselves. What stops that behavior? Training and proper mindset, right? Because of my work, I am around people with guns a great deal. Even soldiers, who's training is top notch, but who are allowed to use deadly force every day, refuse to take killing others lightly. I believe that training, values assessment, and mental training are very effective elements of firearms training and ownership, and I believe that if someone dedicated as much to their training with a firearm as most high level martial artists dedicate to their fighting arts, you'd have a person who was both very capable and very responsible.

When I said "If they can make a mistake, they will" I was reffering to people with little or no training that use a gun in a stressful situation.
We agree on that if you have a lot of proper training, owning a gun will make the person "both very capable and very responsible", and the chance for error would be small.
My issue is that I believe that way too many people get the gun but don't get the training. And then there are those that get some training, but it's too little, and they don't know that it's too little. Or they know it, but they think it costs to much or that they simple don't have the time right now... "I'll do it later".
If they were FORCED to take the training that you are talking about (good extensive training, and also making it a part of their lifes), then I would have no objections. But too many people are lazy or ignorant, which means they won't get the proper training. When they get the gun, they're looking for the quick fix to a problem. That's comparable to taking a two week crash course in muay thai thinking you could do well in a muay thai match.

When it comes to unarmed self defense (against another unarmed opponent), of course you will make misstakes, and for those you will either have to pay by taking a hit in the face perhaps, or not pay at all because your opponent (who statistically has little or no combat training, right?) fails to take advantage of your misstake. Even people with training miss many opportunities (for instance, if the other guy is out of balance for a short time).
In the worst case, you will get knocked out. Statistically, is it probable that the guy will KILL you after he has knocked you out? I think not. He will probably do what he came for, rob you, and then get the hell out of there.
We can't defend against ALL things in life, but we should try to defend/avoid attacks/situations that are statistically probable to happen.
When it comes to guns, a misstake will probably cost you or your attacker your/his life.

I can tell you that out of 30 people in the first class and 110 people in the second, each and every person passed - meaning that 140 out of 140 were not affected by the pepper spray to a degree that kept them from fighting three separate people and conducting fine motor movements like handcuffing despite the pain. If we could all (without exception) do that in a classroom setting with no stress or adrenaline, I have to imagine that in a fight for your life, it would be even easier. In a nutshell, it's hard to see, but not impossible. It's painful to act, but it's not terribly difficult.

wow I didn't know pepperspray was that ineffective. In that case it's not an option, you have me totally convinced on that one.

If you were to passively give him your wallet, you mat be teaching him two horrible things:
1. You are a willing and easy target
2. By looking at your license or ID, you let him know where you live
Knowing those two things, he now knows where he can visit you if he wants more loot and a proven easy target. That endangers you, your family, and anyone else you associate with. And let's not forget that the passive cooperation with armed criminals is what allowed 9/11 to occur in my country. I simply cannot trust my fate in the hands of madman, hoping against logic and reason that he'll simply get tired of abusing me and let me go.

If you passively give him your wallet and you are not carrying a gun (and he is), I would say you're making the right choice. The "bad guy" will see this logic too, he will not think that you are a wussy for not trying to fight back. And I don't think he would try to mug the same person again (statistically). Logically, the guy that has been attacked once will try to get a gun for protection, and perhaps take other measures as well. The guy might now where you live, but he knows nothing more than that. He doesn't know which people live in the home, or if they have firearms in there. So it really doesn't give him an advantage does it? He would have better chances trying another house, that has not experienced an attack yet, and therefor should be less prepared to handle one in terms of awareness and protection.
Only if you have extensive training and carry a gun you might take action against him. I think many people owning a gun don't have this extensive training though.
As for 9/11 and cooperation with criminals... I don't know much about that, so it would be better if you don't use it as an argument. And AFAIK, many things are unclear about that event, and also it's not interesting to study a particular event only. Instead try to use statistics. (For instance if you would say that statistically, 9 out of 10 people who get mugged also get killed if they don't carry a gun, and only 4 out of 10 get killed if they carry a gun, then you would make me pro gun instantly.)

So while there may be a few people out there who buy guns and then actually have to use them in self-defense, the vast majority will simply be gun owners - not gun fighters. Self-defense is an issue only when it is needed to save a life, and given that criteria, I want the most effective tool I can have.

I fail to see how this fact would change anything in our discussion. Sure, many people that buy a gun will not be forced to use it, but that doesn't change the set of people that do get robbed? It's still the same mixture of no gun vs gun owners in that set, and that is the set we're discussing. What happens to those that never get robbed is irrelevant in our discussion isn't it?

[gregimotis]

Mike -

I'd be interested in your thoughts regarding knives as an alternative to guns.

Many simply aren't willing to consider carrying guns and as said earlier, many places disallow them anyway. On the other hand, a knife plus appropriate training is almost as effective 'equalizer' and may be more acceptable to some people.


Agree, disagree, or comments?




(Perhaps starting another thread would be appropriate)

[Garland]

Hope I'm not stealing Mike's thunder here but just wanted to post my $.02...
First of all, it is ILLEGAL to kill someone over property. You have to be in fear for your life. So if somebody is really going to kill someone who was just going to rob them, they would not be in the right in the eyes of the law. But you don't need a gun to kill people anyway. In fact even a lot of the "gentle" styles of martial arts may teach you moves that applied quickly and with pressure could kill someone. You don't even need a martial art to kill people. People kill people every day. Some woman just threw her kids over the edge of a cliff in San Francisco, so what are they going to do, outlaw ledges? Outlaw water? There are many things people can do on a regular basis that will cause them and others serious bodily injury. For example drinking and driving can kill people, or rather, the person irresponsible enough to mix the two will at best hurt themselves and at worse hurt themselves and others. It is true that having effective self-protection tools (such as guns) may increase your chances of mistakes, and guns certainly aren't for everyone... I do not carry but the risk is absolutely too high for some people to NOT carry and I support them 100% in that decision.

Ever heard what happened in Luby's restaraunt in Killeen, Texas in the early '90s? A mean named George Hennard brought a gun into a restaraunt, open fire, RELOADED, amd continued killing people. He killed 22 people. There was a woman in the crowd named Suzanne Gracia-Hupp who watched both her parents get killed. She usually carried a concealed handgun (illegally back then) but had left it in her purse, in the car. Yes it's true that some people who have guns (like this mass murderer) may use excessive force or shoot when not needed. All the more reason for good people to get some training.

If you are worried about adrenaline and fear forcing you to make wrong decisions, get some training so that you will get over it. I have heard good things about Massad Ayoob's courses.

As far as pepper spray, it is really a crapshoot. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. In any case, it is best to have multiple options. Guns aren't the only one, but at least have more than just one...

This whole argument was on Penn and Teller the other night, and included the Luby's restraunt story.

[gabbah]

Mike, I've read your answer a few times and I feel you have focused on the one scenario where we already agree (as I stated in my previous post), and left out the ones where we do not agree yet, which are the ones we should be discussing.

I will try to summarize our discussion so far as I see it.

We agree on that pepperspray is not very effective. We agree on that a person with good extensive training (and that keeps his skills fresh) can carry and use a gun responsibly, with minimal risk of error. For this guy, carrying a gun can only make the situation better when he is threatened. EVEN if it's not a life threatening situation, he can use his gun to take control of a situation in a good way I think.

The other scenarios are:
a) Guy with unsufficient training in a non-life threatening situation.
b) Guy with unsufficient training in a life threatening situation.

In scenario B), I think that if the victim carries a gun, he can't make the situation much worse, because the attacker would very likely have killed the victim anyway.
In scenario a) however, I belive the victim can and in many cases will make the situation worse. He may very well turn it from non-life threatening to actual life threatening, because he carries a gun and makes a misstake, either technical or tactial. A guy with little or no training will probably make both types of misstakes. The victim in this scenario has a hard time judging the situation, and can either judge it too lightly or too hard. He will for instance FEEL it's already life-threatening when the "attacker" is yelling at him, holding a baseball bat in his hand, looking very angry. Boom the shot goes off. I'm sure you're better than me coming up with good examples of this.

The scenario a) (which I belive to be much more common than b) ) combined with my belief that way too many gunowners don't have the proper training (and/or don't keep training fresh) is the issue I have against recommending guns as self defense. Now, I know your recommendation is "gun PLUS extensive training", BUT how many people of the ones getting a gun will actually put in the time for the training? How many are looking for a quick fix to a problem? They may just have been threatened and think they need some defense. So they go looking for self defense, and get recommended getting a gun plus training. So they go get a gun and then shoot a few hours in the range... then they think "fine, I can shoot now, now back to my normal life, I have a gun now so I can protect myself when I need", when in fact, they need all kinds of training. So when the time comes, they probably will react in a bad way, escalating the situation instead, making it more dangerous than it was.

I hope I have made my way of viewing this a bit more clear, and I hope you can answer the right things so that we don't talk past eachother (not saying it's your fault hehe).
I'm not trying to convince you of my point of view or win the argument, I'm trying to find your point of view so that I can change mine if your makes more sense.