# Family-friendly vs. ruthless: responsible teaching



## StudentCarl (Apr 1, 2011)

In a couple of hours I'm off to help with the kids' class before I workout. When talking about practical use of Taekwondo, I notice that (at least where I am) we're pretty careful to teach good technique to everyone, but less specific about targeting to do the most damage except with more experienced adults.

I'm curious what you do and don't teach at different ages.
Just to add to the mix, here's a list of the MMA technique fouls from the Nevada State Commission. You're not supposed to do these in an MMA match:

Butting with the head
Eye gouging of any kind
Biting
Hair pulling
Fish hooking
Groin attacks of any kind
Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent.
Small joint manipulation
Striking to the spine or the back of the head
Striking downward using the point of the elbow
Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea
Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh
Grabbing the clavicle
Kicking the head of a grounded opponent
Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent
Stomping a grounded opponent
Kicking to the kidney with the heel
Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck
Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent
Spitting at an opponent
What do you reserve for adults or select groups? Are there some things you just won't teach at all?

Carl


----------



## K-man (Apr 1, 2011)

Firstly, I stopped teaching children.  Under special circumstances I will accept a student under 18 but 18 is my normal starting point.  Next, I prefer students who have achieved BB level in any MA.   Finally, I no longer teach 'sport' karate.   

As long as I can be reasonably confident my students are responsible adults I will teach them reality based SD including all the 'nasties'.  If, at any time I feel my teaching is not suited to a particular student I will refer them to another school.

As a result, I don't have a lot of students and the ones I have are an older demographic than most schools.

I teach sound technique in the basics but the application is a lot more flexible.  All strikes and kicks are strategically targeted.   Unless you are into sport, I can't see the benefit of spending years pussyfooting around developing students who can't be reasonably expected to look after themselves in the event they need to use their MA skills.  

So, I suppose what I teach is 'ruthless', but I hope not irresponsible.    :asian:


----------



## Gorilla (Apr 1, 2011)

I think a better term realistic\ rigorous training!


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Apr 1, 2011)

At our school we leave all the "dirty" stuff for our self defence training. All other facets of our training stay within the respectable limits. When teaching self defence though, it is all about doing what ever is neccessary to destroy the opponent as quickly and effectively as possible. My daughter is still about 12 months off black belt and has lovely copy book technique in sparring, form, timber breaking etc but she knows if she is grabbed by someone in "real life" to eye gouge, kick/punch the testicles, attack the throat etc. She wouldnt do this in a schoolyard altercation obviously, but she knows if its "the real deal" its not about staying within the rules. Most of our self defence starts or finishes with attacking the vital points.


----------



## puunui (Apr 1, 2011)

StudentCarl said:


> What do you reserve for adults or select groups? Are there some things you just won't teach at all?




I can tell you that when GM Ji first moved from Korea to the US and started teaching, he taught certain types of techniques in certain ways. Now I notice that he changed certain techniques to make them less lethal. Too bad, the original way I think it was better. Oh well.

But I can tell you that for most techniques, there is a safe way and an unsafe way of doing it, safe meaning you do not permanently injure your opponent. For example, a two handed eye gouge using the thumbs. Most people saw Steven Seagal do it in one of his movies and aim straight for the cornea, which will leave your opponent blind, or at the very least with serious eye damage. A better way of doing the same technique is to aim for the outside corners of the eyes. There is a natural ledge in there which you can grab a hold of. It hurts and is scary as hell, but when you let go, there is no permanent eye damage, or at the very least, the potential for eye damage is greatly reduced. It is a technique I learned from GM Mike Wollmershauser, who I think had some of the best hand techniques I have ever seen or felt. 

Like I have said before, people misunderstand Hapkido and think that it is an art to kill or maim people, but that is not what Hapkido is about at all. If you think those kinds of thoughts and train with that sort of intention, then sooner or later it will return back to you. In self defense, the goal is to get the other person to stop bothering you, not permanently injure them. A hateful or destructive mindset runs counter to Hapkido's philosophy, or any martial art's philosophy really.


----------



## msmitht (Apr 2, 2011)

Technique? I see no technique listed. Most of what you listed are brawing moves with one or two that could get you serious jail time, even if it was self defense.
When I was an infantry marine we were trained to kill and with good reason. Eye gouging, heel stomping, throat ripping were the norm. THESE ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR CHILDREN OR CIVILLIANS. I don't care how you try to rationalize it.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Apr 2, 2011)

msmitht said:


> Technique? I see no technique listed. Most of what you listed are brawing moves with one or two that could get you serious jail time, even if it was self defense.
> When I was an infantry marine we were trained to kill and with good reason. Eye gouging, heel stomping, throat ripping were the norm. THESE ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR CHILDREN OR CIVILLIANS. I don't care how you try to rationalize it.


I can see where you are coming from, but if someone ever grabs my daughter I hope she uses any means neccessary to get away.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Apr 2, 2011)

msmitht said:


> Technique? I see no technique listed. Most of what you listed are brawing moves with one or two that could get you serious jail time, even if it was self defense.
> When I was an infantry marine we were trained to kill and with good reason. Eye gouging, heel stomping, throat ripping were the norm. THESE ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR CHILDREN OR CIVILLIANS. I don't care how you try to rationalize it.


 
OK, you are welcome to your opinion. 

For me, someone tries to hurt me or someone els and I have the power to stop it I will do whatever I can to revoke their birth certificate.


----------



## K-man (Apr 2, 2011)

msmitht said:


> Technique? I see no technique listed. Most of what you listed are brawing moves with one or two that could get you serious jail time, even if it was self defense.
> When I was an infantry marine we were trained to kill and with good reason. Eye gouging, heel stomping, throat ripping were the norm. THESE ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR CHILDREN OR CIVILLIANS. I don't care how you try to rationalize it.


So it's alright for ex-service guys to have the knowledge to protect themselves under dire cicumstances but not ordinary people. They just accept that they could be badly beaten by thugs and are happy not to learn the things that could save their lives.

Something not quite right in that logic .... but, I suppose in the US you can just pull out a gun. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





( ... and, I agree, these things are not suitable for children.)

On a brighter note,  just what brawling technique can't I use to save my life?   I must have read a different law book on self defence!  I thought you could use whatever reasonable force is necessary.  That can include lethal force if required.  You will always have to justify your actions at a later time but as long as the risk remains, I don't see anything in that list I wouldn't use.


----------



## K-man (Apr 2, 2011)

Here's a school that sounds as if they mean business.  Coincidently, it is in Reno.

http://renokravmaga.com/classes.html



> Here are just a few of the things that you can expect to learn...
> ** Knife Combatives
> * Stick Combatives
> * Handgun Combatives
> ...


 
... and I shouldn't teach groin strikes, attacks to the eyes or throat, or a knee to the neck when my opponent is on the deck (still with a knife). BTW, these are all in the traditional Okinawan kata.  I should keep it a secret, yes?

Give me a break!    :asian:


----------



## msmitht (Apr 2, 2011)

Always the same "well if my son/daughter/wife was being attacked..."
Get over it already. Teaching someone how to rip out another persons throat does not make your style "combat effective". Almost every striking system teaches a finger jab, groin kick, knee stomp...etc, so no, you are not special or unique.
And YES, weapon (gun) combatives should only be allowed for the armed services/police. Why would a teenager need to learn...wait a minute...I'm gonna stop. Some idiot will try to rationalize everything.
K man, your school can teach whatever it wants. Yay for you if someone sticks a gun in one of my kids faces they will probably crap themselves(a normal response. Saw it many times in iraqq) I too took a 4 hour KM seminar in vegas and got a cert saying I could teach it.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 2, 2011)

Why shouldn't anyone willing and capable of being responsible be permitted to learn dangerous martial arts techniques?  Can you guarantee that they'll never need them?

Some techniques are certainly not appropriate for teaching to children.  Some students, no matter their age or maturity, simply don't want to learn that sort of thing, either.  So be it... that's their call.  There are teachers who teach nothing but sport or only the "fun family stuff" and they're legitimate places to train, with skilled practitioners.  But that's a far cry from saying "only military & LE should learn" certain techniques.  If a person is of good character (I won't teach those of bad character) and mature enough and willing to take on the responsibility, they have every right to learn any technique.


----------



## StudentCarl (Apr 2, 2011)

Gorilla said:


> I think a better term realistic\ rigorous training!


 
Rigorous relates to intensity, and realistic depends on the context (realistic for street or for national tournament). You can train rigorously for realistic tournament runs.

Think more like rated G vs rated R. I use the term ruthless to mean the (legitimate) purposeful use of techniques to immediately stop one or more opponents who are serious about maiming or killing your or those you care for.

I think there is a place for training both ruthless mindset and technique, but it clearly should not be taught to all students either by age or rank...hence the question about what to teach when, or whether you just "don't go there". I respect that as an option too.


----------



## msmitht (Apr 2, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> Why shouldn't anyone willing and capable of being responsible be permitted to learn dangerous martial arts techniques?  Can you guarantee that they'll never need them?
> 
> Some techniques are certainly not appropriate for teaching to children.  Some students, no matter their age or maturity, simply don't want to learn that sort of thing, either.  So be it... that's their call.  There are teachers who teach nothing but sport or only the "fun family stuff" and they're legitimate places to train, with skilled practitioners.  But that's a far cry from saying "only military & LE should learn" certain techniques.  If a person is of good character (I won't teach those of bad character) and mature enough and willing to take on the responsibility, they have every right to learn any technique.



Because most people are not capable of being responsible, especially when it comes to a technique that could kill or maim. We play the way we practice. If youlearn a knee stomp, eye gouge and throat strike combination and practice it enough then that will be your automatic response. Same with a jab, cross and hook combo for a boxer. I will agree that there are a few who could learn but why? As a marine I was trained to kill because that was my job. Why do average citizens need to learn the easiest way to break someones neck?


----------



## granfire (Apr 2, 2011)

msmitht said:


> Because most people are not capable of being responsible, especially when it comes to a technique that could kill or maim. We play the way we practice. If youlearn a knee stomp, eye gouge and throat strike combination and practice it enough then that will be your automatic response. Same with a jab, cross and hook combo for a boxer. I will agree that there are a few who could learn but why? As a marine I was trained to kill because that was my job. Why do average citizens need to learn the easiest way to break someones neck?



Well, I think the deal is that 99% are _playing _MA. And really, you can't full out practice how to most effectively maim a body, because sooner rather than later you run out of training partners. 

First of all, not everybody has the desire to know all of that, nor the need to.
Then there are those who are dangerous as it is, no need to add fuel to the fire there and really, there are only a few that need and want to learn 'it all'


----------



## dancingalone (Apr 2, 2011)

granfire said:


> Well, I think the deal is that 99% are _playing _MA. And really, you can't full out practice how to most effectively maim a body, because sooner rather than later you run out of training partners.
> 
> First of all, not everybody has the desire to know all of that, nor the need to.
> Then there are those who are dangerous as it is, no need to add fuel to the fire there and really, there are only a few that need and want to learn 'it all'




I think you have hit on the crux of the matter.  Of course, if we are teaching fully sanitized martial arts, it would probably be more honest to find another label for this activity.  I think the broad public still associates martial arts with learning self-defense skills, sometimes of a violent and possibly lethal shape.

Maybe 'martial sport' or 'martial-themed exercise' could work.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 2, 2011)

msmitht said:


> Because most people are not capable of being responsible, especially when it comes to a technique that could kill or maim. We play the way we practice. If youlearn a knee stomp, eye gouge and throat strike combination and practice it enough then that will be your automatic response. Same with a jab, cross and hook combo for a boxer. I will agree that there are a few who could learn but why? As a marine I was trained to kill because that was my job. Why do average citizens need to learn the easiest way to break someones neck?


Why shouldn't they?  The easiest, most effective way to kill today is a firearm.  The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of every citizen to have access to a gun, and there's no reason they can't learn various tactics and skills to use them combatively.

Are there some tactics and procedures used by the police or military that aren't necessarily appropriate to teach civilians?  I've got mixed feelings.  Because anything can be misused -- and we've got gang bangers serving now, bringing not only training, but real combat experience back to the streets and gangs.  And tactics are adapted to situations, so learning one set of tactics isn't necessarily going to give you an edge if the cops come for you.  

In the end -- I trust my students with the knowledge I share with them.  If I don't -- they aren't my students.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Apr 2, 2011)

*Exactly Jks9199!*  Military, LEO's, Civilian, Children, etc. if someone faces a very violent situation then should they not have the skill sets to protect themselves and or their loved ones?  Especially given the fact that when most (almost all) of these violent things happen there generally is not a military, LEO, etc. around.  Now this does not denigrate LEO's it is just a fact that most predators do not attack their prey when protectors are standing around. (that is reality) 

I say teach them as long as they are of *good moral character* and of course old enough to understand!


----------



## puunui (Apr 2, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> If a person is of good character (I won't teach those of bad character) and mature enough and willing to take on the responsibility, they have every right to learn any technique.




How do you determine whether someone has good vs. bad character?


----------



## puunui (Apr 2, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> I think the broad public still associates martial arts with learning self-defense skills, sometimes of a violent and possibly lethal shape.




If that were the case then commercial dojang filled with kids would not be the norm. Of the schools that give questionaires to new or potential new students, the majority check "discipline" or "respect" or "weight loss" instead of "self defense" as their reason for interest in enrolling.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 2, 2011)

puunui said:


> How do you determine whether someone has good vs. bad character?


Personal assessment.  Keeping the class small enough that I know my students fairly well.  Bearing and conduct.  

Yeah, it's subjective.  And I might be fooled.  I'm not looking for a saint and I don't require a criminal history check (I know of one or two clubs that do) -- but if they set me on edge, have poor self control, or just plain give me a hinky feeling... they generally aren't welcome and don't stick around long.

Do you teach people you suspect of being of questionable character?


----------



## dancingalone (Apr 2, 2011)

puunui said:


> If that were the case then commercial dojang filled with kids would not be the norm. Of the schools that give questionaires to new or potential new students, the majority check "discipline" or "respect" or "weight loss" instead of "self defense" as their reason for interest in enrolling.



I agree, yet I think self-defense skills are somewhere in the top 3, even if it is in the back of the mind.  If I were trying to lose weight, I would do something that has me always moving.  In martial arts classes, there's quite a bit of time where we listen or observe instead of do.  Likewise with character or life skills, I'm not saying martial arts couldn't be an avenue through which to teach them, but I could think of other more focused alternatives.

Viable SD needs to be part of the offering.  That doesn't mean we have to teach how to break joints or poke out eyes however.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Apr 2, 2011)

StudentCarl said:


> I'm curious what you do and don't teach at different ages.
> 
> Just to add to the mix, here's a list of the MMA technique fouls from the Nevada State Commission. You're not supposed to do these in an MMA match:


 
Below is the list from the banned techniques you mentioned and my comments about whether or not I was taught them/taught them myself. I learned all of them by the time I was a 6th gup, IIRC. Likewise, I taught them all to my students when I had my own club.
 Butting with the head (both with the forehead and the back of the head though these techniques were presented as last resorts due to the possibility of being injured yourself)

Eye gouging of any kind (using flat finger tip thrusts, cross cuts, fore- and double finger strikes, thumb strikes)

Biting (no)

Hair pulling (yes, to escape from being grabbed)

Fish hooking (no)

Groin attacks of any kind (uh, yeah, _tons_ of these, literally too many to list)

Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent. (no)

Small joint manipulation (yes)

Striking to the spine or the back of the head (yes, with both kicks and hand techniques)

Striking downward using the point of the elbow (yes)

Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea (yes, many such techniques)

Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh (yes, especially helpful when being grabbed)

Grabbing the clavicle (no, but we learned early on to just break the clavicle with the base-of-knife-hand)

Kicking the head of a grounded opponent (yes)

Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent (actually no)

Stomping a grounded opponent (yes, the stomping kick with the back sole is a pretty common technique)

Kicking to the kidney with the heel (yep)

Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck (no)

Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent (not holding their shorts or gloves, but being taught to grab the opponent and hit him several times definitely)

Spitting at an opponent (no)



> What do you reserve for adults or select groups? Are there some things you just won't teach at all?
> 
> Carl


 
Most of those techniques are taught to students teenage and up but some come into play younger. All the ones indicated are taught to adults. Frankly, I'm surprised people would omit some of the techniques listed. Others (such as biting and spitting) I'm not surprised at.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd (Apr 2, 2011)

msmitht said:


> Technique? I see no technique listed. Most of what you listed are brawing moves with one or two that could get you serious jail time, even if it was self defense.


 
Actually, techniques such as finger tip thrusts, cross cuts (raking the eyes), breaking the clavicle, attacking the groin, etc. are all quite common attacks in Taekwon-Do. To be fair, the list offered was more a combined list of vital spots to attack and techniques, not just techniques.



> When I was an infantry marine we were trained to kill and with good reason. Eye gouging, heel stomping, throat ripping were the norm. THESE ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR CHILDREN OR CIVILLIANS. I don't care how you try to rationalize it.


 
Can't say I agree with you since I believe in a well armed citizenry.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## msmitht (Apr 2, 2011)

chrispillertkd said:


> Actually, techniques such as finger tip thrusts, cross cuts (raking the eyes), breaking the clavicle, attacking the groin, etc. are all quite common attacks in Taekwon-Do. To be fair, the list offered was more a combined list of vital spots to attack and techniques, not just techniques.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Everyone has a right to their own opinion. Of course some of the techniques appear in forms and some schools actually still teach one steps as a viable form of self defense. Yes I do believe vital spots should be taught. But we do not practice them full speed and power. It would be impossible and dangerous. Like I said, we play the way we practice.


----------



## granfire (Apr 2, 2011)

chrispillertkd said:


> Below is the list from the banned techniques you mentioned and my comments about whether or not I was taught them/taught them myself. I learned all of them by the time I was a 6th gup, IIRC. Likewise, I taught them all to my students when I had my own club.
> Butting with the head (both with the forehead and the back of the head though these techniques were presented as last resorts due to the possibility of being injured yourself)
> 
> Eye gouging of any kind (using flat finger tip thrusts, cross cuts, fore- and double finger strikes, thumb strikes)
> ...



well, all those techniques are imbedded in the average TKD form.
But most people do not make the connect between the move performed into thin air, or playfully executed with a friend and a lethal move.


----------



## puunui (Apr 2, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> Do you teach people you suspect of being of questionable character?




Sometimes.


----------



## puunui (Apr 2, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of every citizen to have access to a gun




Actually, the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of individual states to have a well regulated militia, which today we call the National Guard. But I am sure no one here is interested in that subject.


----------



## StudentCarl (Apr 2, 2011)

puunui said:


> Actually, the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of individual states to have a well regulated militia, which today we call the National Guard. But I am sure no one here is interested in that subject.


 
Different topic to be sure, but I believe there is now case law supporting the position that the right is individual and not governmental.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)


----------



## Earl Weiss (Apr 2, 2011)

K-man said:


> Here's a school that sounds as if they mean business. Coincidently, it is in Reno.
> 
> http://renokravmaga.com/classes.html
> 
> ...


 
I like the "Krav Maga is not a Martial Art" line. An Israeli guy told me that 25 years ago. At that time it had not yet been mass marketed.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Apr 2, 2011)

puunui said:


> Actually, the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of individual states to have a well regulated militia, which today we call the National Guard. But I am sure no one here is interested in that subject.


 
I do. Read a recent article on the Supreme court  decisons and the wording, and must say I don't agre with your post. But that is a discourse for another forum / day. Dang, if I knew this would have come up I would have saved the article. It was an interesting dissection of the wording I had not really seen before.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Apr 2, 2011)

The biting thing brought back memories of a technique I learned in the 1970's as a colored belt and one I still teach. (Credit to Instructor Gregg Youstra) Call it the "Count Dracula" 

Big guy grabs you in a bear hug arms enclosed from the front with their chin on your shoulder. 
Turn your face toward their neck and start biting out chunks of flesh. See if they let go.


----------



## msmitht (Apr 2, 2011)

Earl Weiss said:


> The biting thing brought back memories of a technique I learned in the 1970's as a colored belt and one I still teach. (Credit to Instructor Gregg Youstra) Call it the "Count Dracula"
> 
> Big guy grabs you in a bear hug arms enclosed from the front with their chin on your shoulder.
> Turn your face toward their neck and start biting out chunks of flesh. See if they let go.



Wow. Thought that would be instinctual. They were not worried about hiv...or turning into a blood sucker that needed to be staked through the heart. Hey there's a lethal technique to add to the curriculum...rotflol!


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 2, 2011)

puunui said:


> Actually, the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of individual states to have a well regulated militia, which today we call the National Guard. But I am sure no one here is interested in that subject.


You may wish to review _*District of Columbia v. Heller*_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).



> 1. The    Second Amendment   protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with  service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful  purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2&#8211;53.
> (a) The Amendment&#8217;s prefatory clause  announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the  second part, the operative clause.   The operative clause&#8217;s text and  history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and  bear arms.  Pp. 2&#8211;22.
> (b) The prefatory clause comports with the  Court&#8217;s interpretation of the operative clause.  The &#8220;militia&#8221; comprised  all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common  defense.  The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would  disarm the people in order to disable this citizens&#8217; militia, enabling a  politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.  The response  was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals  to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens&#8217; militia would be  preserved.  Pp. 22&#8211;28.
> (c) The Court&#8217;s interpretation is confirmed  by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded  and immediately followed the    Second Amendment .  Pp. 28&#8211;30.
> ...


----------



## chrispillertkd (Apr 2, 2011)

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, *the right of the people* to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Anywho.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd (Apr 2, 2011)

msmitht said:


> Everyone has a right to their own opinion. Of course some of the techniques appear in forms and some schools actually still teach one steps as a viable form of self defense.


 
:lol: 



> Yes I do believe vital spots should be taught. But we do not practice them full speed and power. It would be impossible and dangerous. Like I said, we play the way we practice.


 
If you don't train with them full speed but you believe that "[you] play the way [you] practice" then why bother to teach them?

Pax,

Chris


----------



## K-man (Apr 3, 2011)

msmitht said:


> Always the same "well if my son/daughter/wife was being attacked..."
> Get over it already. Teaching someone how to rip out another persons throat does not make your style "combat effective". Almost every striking system teaches a finger jab, groin kick, knee stomp...etc, so no, you are not special or unique.
> And YES, weapon (gun) combatives should only be allowed for the armed services/police. Why would a teenager need to learn...wait a minute...I'm gonna stop. Some idiot will try to rationalize everything.
> K man, your school can teach whatever it wants. Yay for you if someone sticks a gun in one of my kids faces they will probably crap themselves(a normal response. Saw it many times in iraqq) I too took a 4 hour KM seminar in vegas and got a cert saying I could teach it.


I find what you say hypocritical. 





> And YES, weapon (gun) combatives should only be allowed for the armed services/police.


You did not say that you should not be allowed to own firearms, just that you shouldn't be trained how to use them.

In the US you can legally own military assault weapons. These have one purpose, to kill human beings. Yet you say, yep you can have one but You shouldn't be taught how to use it. Training not only includes how to aim and fire the weapon but how to maintain it, how to store it securely, how to look beyond your target before you fire etc etc.

Exactly the same principles apply when teaching RBSD.

If I own a firearm for self defence (which I don't) and some one invades my home, I can shoot them (at least in the US). It doesn't matter if the shot goes through the eye, the groin or the neck. If I am a martial artist (which I am) and someone invades my home you say I can't use my bare hands to gouge his eyes, crush his testicles or break his neck. I'm sorry, I can't follow your logic.



You are what you train, as you said:


> We play the way we practice. If you learn a knee stomp, eye gouge and throat strike combination and practice it enough then that will be your automatic response.


I would guestimate that over 90% of MA schools train for sport and/or fitness. The remaining 10% would include KM, Systema and the very few schools like mine that do not train for sport. I don't have any problem with that with one proviso. I don't allow contact to the head. There is more than enough medical evidence to demonstrate that even light hits to the head cause accumulating damage that is likely to predispose a person to mental health problems in later life. So if you like MMA, fine. Just be aware of the danger in years to come. Same for boxing, kickboxing and Muai Thai. As for TKD. You can kick to the head as hard as you like, ko fine ... but you can't punch to the face? http://www.tkd.net/tkdnetwork/sport.html 

Now if you are into MAs for sport, fine. If you are into MAs for SD, fine. But don't be confused. Sport based MAs may give you an edge in a bar fight but against a seasoned street fighter, I'll put my hard earned on the thug any time. If you want to train for survival in a life or death situation then you are what you train. 

I am selective in whom I train, the school is not-for-profit so there are no financial pressures to accept children or unsuitable adults and none of my students are interested in tournaments. I prefer students who have obtained a BB in one of the traditional MAs. These people have demonstrated a commitment to their training. So, I have no problem teaching the real meaning of the kata. That has been my area of interest for many years. I have no problem with teaching them the lethal techniques contained within. Every traditional kata is a system to kill. 



> Because *most* people are not capable of being responsible, especially when it comes to a technique that could kill or maim.


I would love you to produce any form of evidence to support your hypothesis. 
Driving a car can kill or maim. Most people ARE responsible. 
With a firearm you can kill or maim. Most people ARE responsible. 
If you have a knife you can kill or maim. Most people ARE responsible. 
If you have a bow and arrows you can kill or maim. Most peo... , hang on, I think I said that before! 
Now we look at Martial Arts and all of a sudden most people ARE NOT responsible. Why are martial artists different?

As *JKS* said:





> There are teachers who teach nothing but sport or only the "fun family stuff" and they're legitimate places to train, with skilled practitioners. But that's a far cry from saying "only military & LE should learn" certain techniques. If a person is of good character (I won't teach those of bad character) and mature enough and willing to take on the responsibility, they have every right to learn any technique.
> 
> and ...
> 
> In the end -- I trust my students with the knowledge I share with them. If I don't -- they aren't my students.


 
I couldn't have said it better. :asian:


----------



## msmitht (Apr 3, 2011)

K man,
My reference to gun combatives was specifically about self defense against them(what I have seen is almost laughable). There is always going to be some idiot who says....oh wait, I already said that.
So you teach lethal striking but no head shots? You gripe about tkds lack of head punching but don't teach it yourself?Interesting. You believe that most people are responsible? My mom has been a police dispatcher for 40 years. 
Car: how many dui related deaths per year? Speedind tickets? Road rage incidents?driving while on phone/make up/eating/smoking?
Gun: how many teens/adults used a gun in a violent crime last year? How many parents came home to find their child dead because they left their own gun in an unsecure place? How many suicides by gun?
Knife:same as gun but in uk. Why else would they give a year in jail for public posession of a blade over 3 inches.
Bow and arrow: I was once shot in the foot with one. True story:my brother CT shot one straight up in the air and said RUN! Landed in my foot.  He is an idiot...lol
So yes, I do think the avarage person can be irresponsible regularly. Just not all of the time....hopefully.


----------



## msmitht (Apr 3, 2011)

chrispillertkd said:


> :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When I said "we" I was generalizing. I.e., not being specific to me and/or my school. Atemi waza is important but can not be taught at full power. I will concede that they, vital point striking(not that dillman garbage or neck stomping/fish hooking crap) can be taught at full speed to advanced practitioners.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Apr 3, 2011)

msmitht said:


> When I said "we" I was generalizing. I.e., not being specific to me and/or my school. Atemi waza is important but can not be taught at full power. I will concede that they, vital point striking(not that dillman garbage or neck stomping/fish hooking crap) can be taught at full speed to advanced practitioners.


 
Interesting. 

I'd still be interested in your thoughts on not teaching  such techniques at full power if you really believe "the way we play is the way we fight." If you don't train them full power it seems you would think they would not be used at full power in a self-defense situation.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## K-man (Apr 3, 2011)

msmitht said:


> K man,
> So you teach lethal striking but no head shots? You gripe about tkds lack of head punching but don't teach it yourself?Interesting. You believe that most people are responsible? My mom has been a police dispatcher for 40 years.   ..............
> 
> So yes, I do think the avarage person can be irresponsible regularly. Just not all of the time....hopefully.


Please show me where I said I don't teach punches to the head. I said I don't allow contact to the head although occasionally we put on the full face head guards, even though they are more to protect the eyes. I'm not sure there are too many lethal head punches you are likely to encounter. I prefer open hand strikes to the head or neck. I don't want my guys to instictively punch for the face. It is too low percentage. But my aversion in sparring of punching hard to the head is to do with permanent brain injury caused by medium grade impact and concussion. 

Far from my "griping" about TKD, I am amused by the anomaly. You see two guys kicking the s#!t out of each other, they come within striking range then they stop fighting, move back and start kicking again. I accept TKD as a sport and I can accept that some TKD people genuinely train for SD but *every* bit of TKD I have personally seen has been training for the mat. To my mind, your TKD kicking to the head in competion, attempting to knock your opponent out, demonstrates perfectly your point of;_ "the average person can be irresponsible regularly"_. The kicks I teach are traditional karate kicks. Basically that means, we don't kick above the waist. 

Now let's talk about your Mom. I'm sure she has dispatched literally thousands of cars to many horrendous incidents caused by your _regularly irresponsible_ normal persons, and, she has told you about it. As a result you, quite rightly are concerned about this irresponsible behaviour of your fellow citizens. Can I now ask, why aren't you calling for people to stop driving cars? Why aren't you saying get rid of guns? No, stopping people driving is ridiculous, banning firearms, especially in the US, is not possible, but you don't want people teaching lethal close combat techniques to people who have demonstrated a dedication to the study of martial arts.

You have said nothing to allay my confusion. :asian:


----------



## K-man (Apr 3, 2011)

chrispillertkd said:


> Interesting.
> 
> I'd still be interested in your thoughts on not teaching such techniques at full power if you really believe "the way we play is the way we fight." If you don't train them full power it seems you would think they would not be used at full power in a self-defense situation.
> 
> ...


We put on chest and stomach protectors to enable full power strikes to the torso. That means we can teach some atemi at full power.



> From *msmitht*: When I said "we" I was generalizing. I.e., not being specific to me and/or my school. Atemi waza is important but can not be taught at full power. *I will concede that they, vital point striking(not that dillman garbage or neck stomping/fish hooking crap) can be taught at full speed to advanced practitioners. *


 Although George Dillman is promoting some things that I have not personally experienced, I think it a bit cruel to talk about "Dillman garbage". Dillman is an accomplished martial artist in his own right and has done an enormous amount for MAs particularly in the US. 
_"Official Karate magazine (Nov. 1982) described Dillman as "one of the winningest competitors karate has ever known." Dillman was four-times National Karate Champion (1969-1972) and during this period was consistently ranked among the top ten competitors in the nation by major karate magazines. During his nine-year competitive career, Dillman claimed a total of 327 trophies in fighting, forms, breaking and weapons."_

If you (*msmitht*) think you can train vital point striking at full speed (power) you are mistaken. A full power punch to the torso normally won't cause permanent injury. A full power strike to many vital points may kill or permanently disable.


----------



## msmitht (Apr 3, 2011)

K-man said:


> Please show me where I said I don't teach punches to the head. I said I don't allow contact to the head although occasionally we put on the full face head guards, even though they are more to protect the eyes. I'm not sure there are too many lethal head punches you are likely to encounter. I prefer open hand strikes to the head or neck. I don't want my guys to instictively punch for the face. It is too low percentage. But my aversion in sparring of punching hard to the head is to do with permanent brain injury caused by medium grade impact and concussion.
> 
> Far from my "griping" about TKD, I am amused by the anomaly. You see two guys kicking the s#!t out of each other, they come within striking range then they stop fighting, move back and start kicking again. I accept TKD as a sport and I can accept that some TKD people genuinely train for SD but *every* bit of TKD I have personally seen has been training for the mat. To my mind, your TKD kicking to the head in competion, attempting to knock your opponent out, demonstrates perfectly your point of;_ "the average person can be irresponsible regularly"_. The kicks I teach are traditional karate kicks. Basically that means, we don't kick above the waist.
> 
> ...


Again, most people are not responsible enough for lethal cqc. Your rant about banning guns and driving is ludacris even though I would like to see a ban on firearms personally. You did say you don't allow head contact. I assumed you referred to all head strikes, including punching.
You are just arguing for the fun of it and I am done with you. Personally I find that the only style of karate I like is kyokushin, which I studied for 5 years. Most other styles were weak to say the least. My brazillian friends proved that long ago.


----------



## msmitht (Apr 3, 2011)

K-man said:


> We put on chest and stomach protectors to enable full power strikes to the torso. That means we can teach some atemi at full power.
> 
> Although George Dillman is promoting some things that I have not personally experienced, I think it a bit cruel to talk about "Dillman garbage". Dillman is an accomplished martial artist in his own right and has done an enormous amount for MAs particularly in the US.
> _"Official Karate magazine (Nov. 1982) described Dillman as "one of the winningest competitors karate has ever known." Dillman was four-times National Karate Champion (1969-1972) and during this period was consistently ranked among the top ten competitors in the nation by major karate magazines. During his nine-year competitive career, Dillman claimed a total of 327 trophies in fighting, forms, breaking and weapons."_
> ...



You are full of it. I never said full power. Full speed yes. Ill bet you think that you can kill with one punch, right? I have participated in a demo where a dillman pressure point expert called some of us on stage and tried to ko us with a few light slaps and finger jabs. It worked fine on his students but when he got to volunteers not one of us went down. So yes, I call it crap because that is what I saw/felt.
Stop trying to put words there that are not. I can see that we are not going to agree on many things. 
Have a nice life, mate.


----------



## msmitht (Apr 3, 2011)

Yes! Figured out how to "ignore" someone on mt. YAY!


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 3, 2011)

msmitht said:


> Again, most people are not responsible enough for lethal cqc. Your rant about banning guns and driving is ludacris even though I would like to see a ban on firearms personally. You did say you don't allow head contact. I assumed you referred to all head strikes, including punching.
> You are just arguing for the fun of it and I am done with you. Personally I find that the only style of karate I like is kyokushin, which I studied for 5 years. Most other styles were weak to say the least. My brazillian friends proved that long ago.


It's not that ridiculous.  You point to irresponsible driving, and criminal use of firearms as proof that "ordinary people" aren't to be trusted with lethal techniques.  *Legal *firearm ownership and use is not strongly connected with recklessness, or each hunting season would be a bloodbath.  If you want to assess recklessness on the road, you also have to consider the raw number of drivers and miles driven each day...  Your argument that most people are irresponsible doesn't hold much water when you look at the relative numbers.

But... you say servicemen and women and police are responsible enough?  I know plenty of service members and vets who are of questionable judgment and responsibility...  Ask any provost marshal's office if you want numbers!  And -- ignoring the outright criminals who somehow get badges -- I know more than a few cops with bad tempers, lousy judgment outside the narrowest confines of the job (and sometimes within them...)


----------



## Earl Weiss (Apr 3, 2011)

K-man said:


> In the US you can legally own military assault weapons.
> . :asian:


 
This is a problematic statement in that there is no accepted definition of the term "assault Weapon" 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

Those seeking to limit gun ownership define this term to suit their needs in order to choose what they want to limit with no rational basis for choosing those things over another.


----------



## K-man (Apr 3, 2011)

Earl Weiss said:


> This is a problematic statement in that there is no accepted definition of the term "assault Weapon"
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
> 
> Those seeking to limit gun ownership define this term to suit their needs in order to choose what they want to limit with no rational basis for choosing those things over another.


I have no problem with that. I was just trying to point out that, according to *msmitht,* being allowed to own and use a firearm to kill someone if needed is fine, but using your hands in lethel self defence shouldn't be taught. Now, in light of the fact that I have stated I don't teach children and I agree that it shouldn't be taught to children, *msmitht* seems to be sticking to the proposition: 





> *msmitht *When I was an infantry marine we were trained to kill and with good reason. Eye gouging, heel stomping, throat ripping were the norm. THESE ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR CHILDREN OR CIVILLIANS. I don't care how you try to rationalize it.


All I'm saying is that I disagree with him.  :asian:


----------



## K-man (Apr 3, 2011)

msmitht said:


> Again, most people are not responsible enough for lethal cqc. Your rant about banning guns and driving is ludacris even though I would like to see a ban on firearms personally. You did say you don't allow head contact. I assumed you referred to all head strikes, including punching.
> You are just arguing for the fun of it and I am done with you. Personally I find that the only style of karate I like is kyokushin, which I studied for 5 years. Most other styles were weak to say the least. My brazillian friends proved that long ago.


 
Let's look at what I actually said:


> Can I now ask, why aren't you calling for people to stop driving cars? Why aren't you saying get rid of guns? *No, stopping people driving is ridiculous, banning firearms, especially in the US, is not possible*, but you don't want people teaching lethal close combat techniques to people who have demonstrated a dedication to the study of martial arts.


I had no rant, I did not suggest banning guns and I did say that it would be impossible to achieve. Stopping people driving I said was a ridiculous proposition. 



> _rant_
> _verb (used without object) _1. to speak or declaim extravagantly or violently; talk in a wild or vehement way; rave: _The demagogue ranted for hours. _
> _verb (used with object) _2. to utter or declaim in a ranting manner.
> _noun _3. ranting, extravagant, or violent declamation.
> ...


I did say I don't allow punches to the head but I did not say I don't teach punches to the head. Within that context, I prefer open hand techniques to the head. 

I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. I believe your position is not defendable. I respect that it is your opinion, but you didn't propose it as an opinion. You stated it as a fact in capital letters._ " THESE ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR CHILDREN OR CIVILLIANS. " _I disagree and I have pointed out where I believe your arguement doesn't hold up.

Your other opinion on the only style of karate you like is kyokushin, fine. You're big into sport. Kyokushin may well be one of the more effective styles for SD but it is sport, just like the BJJ you alluded to that is also sport. 

So I'm glad you're blocking my posts. Maybe you won't insult me again (I'm thin skinned)
_" There is always going to be *some idiot* who says....oh wait, I already said that. "_ Yep, that's me your talking about. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




_" *You are full of it*. "_ Yep, but you're helping me to get rid of it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



You bagged George Dillman; _" not that dillman garbage "._
You bag my style without knowing what I teach or how. _" Get over it already. Teaching someone how to rip out another persons throat does not make your style "combat effective". Almost every striking system teaches a finger jab, groin kick, knee stomp...etc, so no, you are not special or unique."_ 
You mock *Earle Weiss*; _" Wow. Thought that would be instinctual. They were not worried about hiv...or turning into a blood sucker that needed to be staked through the heart. Hey there's a lethal technique to add to the curriculum...rotflol! "_
And you manage to put all karate down, bar Kyokushin._ " I find that the only style of karate I like is kyokushin, which I studied for 5 years. *Most other styles were weak to say the least*. My brazillian friends proved that long ago. "_

All that in the space of one thread ... then you run away! :wavey:


----------



## puunui (Apr 4, 2011)

Earl Weiss said:


> Read a recent article on the Supreme court  decisons and the wording, and must say I don't agre with your post.



Try reading Justice Stevens' dissent in the Heller decision. Justice Scalia basically overturned 70 years worth of precedent.


----------



## puunui (Apr 4, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> You may wish to review _*District of Columbia v. Heller*_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).



Read that already and also all of the decisions prior to that dealing with the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## puunui (Apr 4, 2011)

chrispillertkd said:


> "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, *the right of the people* to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."




Yes, let's just focus in on that and ignore the rest of the language. But without doing a google search, can you tell me what the phrase you quoted actually means from a Constitutional law standpoint? Or better yet, what is the significance of a constitutional right vs. a non-constitutional right? Does that mean that I have a right to keep and bear any type of arms for any reason without restriction? For example, can I keep and bear a live hand grenade?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Apr 4, 2011)

puunui said:


> Try reading Justice Stevens' dissent in the Heller decision. Justice Scalia basically overturned 70 years worth of precedent.


 
Well, I guess you agree with the dissent and agree with the majority. That doesn't make either or neither right or wrong.


----------



## dancingalone (Apr 4, 2011)

I was about to write to correct some of the misunderstandings about karate, but K-man pretty much covered them.

I'm not aware how Dillman came into the conversation without just scanning the thread as I have, but it should be noted that not all atemi is directed towards pressure points.  Sometimes a good strike to the face is more than sufficient, whether we hit the nose, temple, philtrum, jaw, or not.

Secondly, to say most karate is weak is the same as saying all taekwondo is weak, obviously a statement without merit.  There is much effective knowledge about fighting/maiming/killing contained within karate if one still practices a non-neutered form of the art.  On the other hand, it is indeed true that if you practice a sport form of TKD with lots of full contact sparring, kyokushin is probably the closest karate analog to it.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Apr 4, 2011)

puunui said:


> Yes, let's just focus in on that and ignore the rest of the language.


 
There's a difference between ignoring something and emphasizing a specific part of a statement, Glenn. I thought that was pretty obvious. 



> But without doing a google search, can you tell me what the phrase you quoted actually means from a Constitutional law standpoint? Or better yet, what is the significance of a constitutional right vs. a non-constitutional right?


 
Yes, I can.

I might ask you, however, if you could tell me any reason why I would believe that you would give anything I said an objective hearing since it's obvious that since you first posted here that you're not interested in anything I say because I used to post on the Dojang Digest several years ago?

Also, I might ask you if you are familiar with what the founders said about the nature of the militia mentioned in the 2nd amendment. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## puunui (Apr 4, 2011)

Earl Weiss said:


> Well, I guess you agree with the dissent and agree with the majority. That doesn't make either or neither right or wrong.




Did you read both Justice Scalia's opinion and Justice Stevens' opinion before you decided that you agreed with Justice Scalia?


----------



## puunui (Apr 4, 2011)

chrispillertkd said:


> There's a difference between ignoring something and emphasizing a specific part of a statement, Glenn.



If you say so. 




chrispillertkd said:


> Yes, I can.



Great. I'm waiting for the answer.




chrispillertkd said:


> I might ask you, however, if you could tell me any reason why I would believe that you would give anything I said an objective hearing since it's obvious that since you first posted here that you're not interested in anything I say because I used to post on the Dojang Digest several years ago?



It might be obvious to you, but not to me. You can believe whatever you want. I would just like to hear what you have to say about the issue at hand, something which I have spent time studying on my own. Like I said before I read all of the published decisions, supreme court as well as circuit court, and a couple of district court cases. I'd like to see what your opinions are, and more importantly, the basis for those opinions. 



chrispillertkd said:


> Also, I might ask you if you are familiar with what the founders said about the nature of the militia mentioned in the 2nd amendment.



Should I do a google search on that?


----------



## puunui (Apr 4, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> Secondly, to say most karate is weak is the same as saying all taekwondo is weak, obviously a statement without merit.




I think most martial arts students out there are unable to adequately defend themselves. I think most students (and teachers) are fooling themselves in believing that they can against someone whose skill level is beyond the ordinary or untrained. I think it is unreasonable to think that you will develop any sort of high skill level going to class once or twice per week, 45 minutes per class. I think those who have trained for a long time intuitively understand all of this. I think that it is the big unspoken secret that permeates traditional martial arts, especially in this, the MMA era. That ten move groin kicking, eye poking, head stomping, throat ripping one step sparring routine #43 your instructor worked so hard on developing just will not work against someone who is shooting for your legs and intent on grounding and pounding you.


----------



## dancingalone (Apr 4, 2011)

puunui said:


> I think most martial arts students out there are unable to adequately defend themselves. I think most students (and teachers) are fooling themselves in believing that they can against someone whose skill level is beyond the ordinary or untrained. I think it is unreasonable to think that you will develop any sort of high skill level going to class once or twice per week, 45 minutes per class.



If true, your first statement is a horrific indictment of the martial arts community as a whole.  I would prefer that you be wrong, but you doubtlessly are right to an extent.

That said I do not know that most of us are necessarily training our students to be victorious over highly skilled fighters.  That certainly is not the goal in my TKD class nor do I have any illusions that my students there will attain any great level of skill by and large.  First the talent has to be there.  Unless we select only those with the physical and mental aspects to excel, we will turn out exactly what we generally do:  mostly middle class people in all shapes and sizes who just want some exercise and some SD skills.  That doesn't exactly spell 'deadly warrior' to me.  

What I aim for is for the student to be successful in common bullying or domestic violence situations.  Maybe even an occasional bar fight or in extreme cases, a mugging.  On that level, I do believe what I teach within the limited time frame allocated can be a good solution.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Apr 4, 2011)

puunui said:


> If you say so.


 
I thought it was a very elementary distinction.  



> Great. I'm waiting for the answer.


 
And I am awaiting any sort of evidence that you would take what I said objectively since you tend to disparage or belittle anyone that you don't care for.  



> It might be obvious to you, but not to me.


 
Well, of course it's obvious to me, Glenn, and to anyone who read the initial posts you made regarding my comments about the list you run and how I thought I was banned from it because I posted some questions but how, in fact, I was banned from it because I also subscribed to a list that was owned by someone you don't like.  



> You can believe whatever you want. I would just like to hear what you have to say about the issue at hand, something which I have spent time studying on my own.


 
Excellent.  



> Like I said before I read all of the published decisions, supreme court as well as circuit court, and a couple of district court cases. I'd like to see what your opinions are, and more importantly, the basis for those opinions.


 
Great. And I'd like to see any sort of evidence that you're interested in looking objectively at what someone who you have insulted says.  



> Should I do a google search on that?


 
If that is your preferred method of doing research on topics with which you're unfamiliar, feel free. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## puunui (Apr 4, 2011)

chrispillertkd said:


> Great. And I'd like to see any sort of evidence that you're interested in looking objectively at what someone who you have insulted says.




If you don't wish to respond or participate, then just say so and that will be the end of it.


----------



## K-man (Apr 4, 2011)

puunui said:


> I think most martial arts students out there are unable to adequately defend themselves. I think most students (and teachers) are fooling themselves in believing that they can against someone whose skill level is beyond the ordinary or untrained. I think it is unreasonable to think that you will develop any sort of high skill level going to class once or twice per week, 45 minutes per class. I think those who have trained for a long time intuitively understand all of this. I think that it is the big unspoken secret that permeates traditional martial arts, especially in this, the MMA era. That ten move groin kicking, eye poking, head stomping, throat ripping one step sparring routine #43 your instructor worked so hard on developing just will not work against someone who is shooting for your legs and intent on grounding and pounding you.


 
At the weekend I participated in a unarmed vs knife workshop. In one way I was disadvantaged by being partnered with 'The Kung Fu Kid', a young expert who knew all there was to know about karate and wing chung. From what I heard I think he had a total of around three years total training but he knew it all. What he couldn't understand was how I kept putting him on the ground and ending up with the knife. His most common phrase for the time ... "Can you do that again?" or "How did you do that?"   My classes are all 2.5 hours and we are always within arms length. We defend against shooting as well as all the other common attacks but rather than train #43, where you might have to stop and think "what comes next?", we work on what naturally flows next.  So as you said, people like "The Kid" and his teacher are deluding themselves if they think what they are training will work on the street.


----------



## puunui (Apr 4, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> If true, your first statement is a horrific indictment of the martial arts community as a whole.  I would prefer that you be wrong, but you doubtlessly are right to an extent.
> 
> That said I do not know that most of us are necessarily training our students to be victorious over highly skilled fighters.  That certainly is not the goal in my TKD class nor do I have any illusions that my students there will attain any great level of skill by and large.  First the talent has to be there.  Unless we select only those with the physical and mental aspects to excel, we will turn out exactly what we generally do:  mostly middle class people in all shapes and sizes who just want some exercise and some SD skills.  That doesn't exactly spell 'deadly warrior' to me.
> 
> What I aim for is for the student to be successful in common bullying or domestic violence situations.  Maybe even an occasional bar fight or in extreme cases, a mugging.  On that level, I do believe what I teach within the limited time frame allocated can be a good solution.




How about for yourself? Is that level of skill enough for you, or do you want something more? Don't you want to see just how far you can take your martial arts? Don't you want to go all the way with it?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Apr 4, 2011)

puunui said:


> Did you read both Justice Scalia's opinion and Justice Stevens' opinion before you decided that you agreed with Justice Scalia?


 
No, I think I agreed with Justice Scalia before I read either opinion.


----------



## puunui (Apr 4, 2011)

Earl Weiss said:


> No, I think I agreed with Justice Scalia before I read either opinion.




Personally, I approached the whole 2nd Amendment issue like how I approach most everything, starting from having no opinion. I guess what I am trying to say is that I approached the issue from a truth seeking or factual perspective, as opposed to from an agenda.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Apr 4, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> If true, your first statement is a horrific indictment of the martial arts community as a whole.  I would prefer that you be wrong, but you doubtlessly are right to an extent.
> 
> That said I do not know that most of us are necessarily training our students to be victorious over highly skilled fighters.  That certainly is not the goal in my TKD class nor do I have any illusions that my students there will attain any great level of skill by and large.  First the talent has to be there.  Unless we select only those with the physical and mental aspects to excel, we will turn out exactly what we generally do:  mostly middle class people in all shapes and sizes who just want some exercise and some SD skills.  That doesn't exactly spell 'deadly warrior' to me.
> 
> What I aim for is for the student to be successful in common bullying or domestic violence situations.  Maybe even an occasional bar fight or in extreme cases, a mugging.  On that level, I do believe what I teach within the limited time frame allocated can be a good solution.


I agree with this. I didnt do tkd to learn how to fight. There were many reasons I started to train and knowing how to beat someone up was not one of them. I think though, that anyone who trains at a reputable school should have no worries disposing of "average joe" on the street. It is unrealistic to think though, that someone who does MA as a hobby a couple of times a week is going to be any chance against someone who trains 5 or 6 days a week and combines it with weights and fitness training, and anybody who thinks otherwise is just kidding themself. Whether or not you can defend yourself on the street is all relative, defend yourself against who? Ive seen enough pub fights and street fights to know that the average guy on the street really cant fight very well at all, and if one of these guys got the better of you after 5 or more years of training you would really start to question what you are being taught.


----------



## dancingalone (Apr 5, 2011)

puunui said:


> How about for yourself? Is that level of skill enough for you, or do you want something more? Don't you want to see just how far you can take your martial arts? Don't you want to go all the way with it?



At the risk of seeming immodest, I am very good.  Certainly better than most I've run across and I make it a point of 'hitting the floor' with most anyone willing to share their time and skill in a variety of disciplines, sporting and traditional.  This shouldn't be too surprising I hope since I was a full-time martial artist for many years.  These days I am somewhat slowed by family life and middle age, but I stay as sharp as I can.  We are a martial family (wife is an aikido teacher) and martial arts is wrapped up into the fiber of our lives.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Apr 5, 2011)

puunui said:


> Personally, I approached the whole 2nd Amendment issue like how I approach most everything, starting from having no opinion. I guess what I am trying to say is that I approached the issue from a truth seeking or factual perspective, as opposed to from an agenda.


 
Perhaps there was a time when I did as well. However that was long ago when the earth was still cooling and the Dinosaurs roamed.  As a third year law student in 1979-1980 I interned with the State prosecutor and among the cases prosecuted were unlawful gun ownership charges.  Later I defended some cases as well. That was coupled with being just north of Chicago which instuted an outright ban on guns as well as an instructor of mine who was a Village Trustee of one  adjoining suburb that banned gun ownership.

 There were also local cases where a homeowner defended his home from an intruder by shooting him. That suburb also banned hand guns. The state refused to prosecute him, but the suburb still did and as I recall obtained a conviction. The intruder who lived was also convicted. 

A couple of weeks after the intruder was released from jail, he was caught after burgalrizing a house a couple of blocks from where he got shot. 

So, with such experiences "close to home" it was well beyond my mindset to have no opinion by the time the gun ownership ban issue got to the US supreme court for the first time, let alone the second time.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Apr 5, 2011)

K-man said:


> At the weekend I participated in a unarmed vs knife workshop............... What he couldn't understand was how I kept putting him on the ground and ending up with the knife. ............................


 
I need to know where you are so if the oppoertunity arises we can get to gether . I am just North of Chicago. Please look me up if you are in town. 

This is a level of skill I need to explore further. I have been thru about 6 knife defense courses.  One was the PPCT edged weapons course. (PPCT is designed for and used by LEO's). When it came to unarmed versus the knife the guy with the knife typicaly cut the snot out of the other guy 90% of the time at these courses.  Succesful controls / disarms were achieved less than 10% of the time.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Apr 5, 2011)

puunui said:


> If you don't wish to respond or participate, then just say so and that will be the end of it.


 
I have no problem with conversing with pretty much anyone, Glenn. But you've shown me that you have no interest in actually listening to anything I say since you still have a chip on your shoulder about me posting on the Dojang Digest. As I said, if you can offer any sort of evidence that would indicate you can be open minded I'd gladly offer you my answers. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Grenadier (Apr 5, 2011)

This is the Tae Kwon Do forum.  

While the subject of the Second Amendment is always a welcome discussion, such matter is better suited for either the Firearms forum, or the Study.  

That being said, let's return this conversation back to the original topic. 

Thank you.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Supermoderator


----------

