# Self Defense for Women



## BraxLimbo (Nov 18, 2015)

What do you think is the best form of martial arts for women? One that can help them with assaults?


----------



## Paul_D (Nov 18, 2015)

So you view self defence as waiting until you are attacked and then fighting back, completely ignorant the 99% of SD skills that are geared towards avoiding attacks in the first place?

That's like teaching children to cross the road by ignoring all the skills they need to avoid getting run over and instead just telling them not to bother with that, just learn this stuntman roll for when you get hit by the car.,

As for which martial art is best, there is no martial art which is best, otherwise we'd all be doing it.  The best martial art is the one you enjoy the most, as then you are more likely to stick at it, and hence get good at it.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 18, 2015)

There is no difference between self defence 'for men' and self defence 'for women'.
Paul's post above is worth reading  a few times to get the truth of it implanted in your head!


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 18, 2015)

Paul_D said:


> So you view self defence as waiting until you are attacked and then fighting back, completely ignorant the 99% of SD skills that are geared towards avoiding attacks in the first place?
> 
> That's like teaching children to cross the road by ignoring all the skills they need to avoid getting run over and instead just telling them not to bother with that, just learn this stuntman roll for when you get hit by the car.,
> 
> As for which martial art is best, there is no martial art which is best, otherwise we'd all be doing it.  The best martial art is the one you enjoy the most, as then you are more likely to stick at it, and hence get good at it.


 
That isn't the way BraxLimbo phrased the question.  But it probably should have been.  If one doesn't learn those aspects of self defense that prevent one from having to fight, one risks having to do a lot of fighting.  That might sound exciting, and perhaps it even is.  The problem is that on any given day, any given martial artist runs the risk of being defeated by any opponent, no matter that opponent's skill.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 18, 2015)

Run-Fu and Chic-Chic-BANG are excellent choices.

Beyond that, it doesn't really matter. Focus on situational awareness and avoidance. If it becomes physical, it won't matter what art you train in. What will matter is how effectively you can apply what you studied.


----------



## GiYu - Todd (Nov 19, 2015)

BraxLimbo said:


> What do you think is the best form of martial arts for women? One that can help them with assaults?


BraxLimbo, I'm glad you're on this forum to ask.  Some of the others may appear a bit critical, but they have lots of good experience.

There is no BEST art form.  Some are sport oriented, self defense oriented, grapping, weapons, punches, kicks, or other.  Almost any form will increase your awareness and skills if you stick with it for long enough to develop your abilities. 

I don't feel there are any that are specifically better for men or women.  There are many "women's self defense" courses out there, but all tend to be short term and only focus on a few highlights... and more importantly, aren't typically seen as very effective to those of us who have spent years training.  At most, I'd say they're better than nothing.  There are also a few schools that teach women only classes, but without training against a larger variety of body types (specifically stronger/taller), your skills in a real scenario may be very limited.

Before making a recommendation, there are several variables to consider.  What is your level of physical conditioning, and how heavy/tall/strong are you?  What schools are available in your area?  How long do you anticipate committing to training?  What are your primary goals for learning martial arts?  These will help determine what might be a best fit for you.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 19, 2015)

BraxLimbo said:


> What do you think is the best form of martial arts for women? One that can help them with assaults?



I think all the advice given so far is pretty good.

Something to note is that in general, fighting back is worthwhile when a woman is assaulted.  That doesn't mean that fighting back will always produce the ideal outcome, but more often than not, it will.

As others have said, situational awareness is actually a big part of self-defense for anyone.  Being aware of where you are, who is around, risk factors, and so on.  Staying in a group, paying attention and not walking with earplugs in and your concentration on your phone, etc.  Simple stuff anyone can (and should) do, but so many do not...

As also as others have said, there are many good martial arts that can teach a woman or a man how to defend themselves.  Legal concealed weapons are also a valid option, depending on your personal view of such things.

One thing that I think is true no matter what you decide to do is that any form of training, even choosing to carry a weapon rather than train in self-defense, requires dedication.  There is no 'one and done' solution to self-defense.  You can't take a seminar or watch a video or read a book or buy a gun and figure you're prepared; in fact, chances are you're in an even worse position, because now you think you can defend yourself, but you cannot.

So if you decide on a martial art; then take it seriously.  It's a long-term investment of your time and effort.  Otherwise, it's not worth even starting, in my opinion.

If you decide to carry a weapon such as a firearm, train with it regularly and learn how to safely carry it, clean it, keep it working, and know the laws of self-defense and deadly force in your area.  Again, just buying a gun and thinking you are good to go is a huge mistake.

Best of luck no matter what you decide.  Martial arts training is fun, good exercise, and can certainly help you to learn to defend yourself.  It becomes a way of life for many of us.  Maybe you're someone who would enjoy that lifestyle as well.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 19, 2015)

BraxLimbo said:


> What do you think is the best form of martial arts for women? One that can help them with assaults?


It doesn't exist.  The best type of martial arts is one that does 2 things.
1. Works well with a person's natural abilities.
2. That trains from the perspective and focus of self-defense.

Because of #1 the answer will be different for every woman and dependent on that woman's abilities and capabilities.
Because of #2, any martial arts school that does not focus their training on actual self-defense will be of little use.  There is more to self-defense than fighting and schools that focus on self-defense will most likely teach the non-physical elements of self-defense.  Even if #1 is satisfied, a school that is focus on martial arts training from the perspective of point sparring will fail at providing actual useful self-defense knowledge.

If I were to tell a woman about the best martial arts for self-defense for women, I would first recommend the fighting system that I take, but with the understanding that there aren't many Jow Ga school around.  So in that light I would, recommend that whatever she decides make sure that #1 and #2 are covered.


----------



## Buka (Nov 19, 2015)

IMO - I believe the most practical road would be an Art that trains actual hands on physical opposition to an opponent in sparring/rolling, preferably both, (BraxLimbo, if you are unsure of what that means, let us know.)


----------



## Tiger84 (Nov 19, 2015)

BraxLimbo said:


> What do you think is the best form of martial arts for women? One that can help them with assaults?


There are some systems that are more refined than others but if you have no experience you wouldn't know which is which anyway. Equally as important is the knowledge of the instructor but again no experience = no clue. You might try to find a boxing school in your area, the information required to be skilled at boxing is quite low ...and by that I mean there are far less strikes, foot manuvers and no kicks. On the flip side of that you could do kickboxing which has kicks and knees but still far less info. Traditional martial arts will have a laundry list of techniques and forms you would have to learn and a ranking system, so there would be a lot of info withheld until you rise in the ranks. That being said if your willing to put in the time and effort martial arts has many benifits other than fighting. I do Parker Kenpo myself and I suppose the best way to describe it would be scientific street fighting. It can be tailored to fit any size or gender, it's basically martial arts MMA before MMA existed. I really like Russian Systema also and that's Russian military fighting. They use a lot of energy redirection and sort of effortless type small movements to get you opponent off base. Remember when in doubt kick them in the balls! Good luck


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 19, 2015)

Bjj.

If you can do more than one, Bjj, and Muay Thai.

During my time in Bjj, I've grappled with women who I outweigh by 40, 50, and in a few cases 80 lbs or more. Those women learn how to deal with someone much bigger and stronger than them throwing them to the ground, and being on top of them and attempting to control them. They have to use skill and technique to overcome it, and either throw me, choke me out, break a joint, and/or get up and run away.

If I had my way, every woman would take Bjj. It would make them so much safer.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Nov 19, 2015)

I find it very telling and humorous when people always advise others  to do the style they do.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 19, 2015)

hoshin1600 said:


> I find it very telling and humorous when people always advise others  to do the style they do.



If that was directed at me, you should know that I just recommended Kyokushin to another poster.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 20, 2015)

hoshin1600 said:


> I find it very telling and humorous when people always advise others  to do the style they do.



Well, they can't advise people on styles they don't do or know nothing about can they? It looks pretty stupid when someone says 'well I do X style but I'd advise you to do Y style' ? Don't they trust or know what their own style is?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 20, 2015)

hoshin1600 said:


> I find it very telling and humorous when people always advise others  to do the style they do.


What martial art style do you train in and what would you recommend?


----------



## hoshin1600 (Nov 20, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> What martial art style do you train in and what would you recommend?


What or how I train is irrelevant.  Like many did state, you should train in anything that you like and will stick with.


----------



## Steve (Nov 20, 2015)

I really wish adastreia were more active.  I always appreciated her considerate posts in this topic.  

I personally think that actual self defense depends a lot on the individual, but seldom really depends on martial skills.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 20, 2015)

hoshin1600 said:


> What or how I train is irrelevant.  Like many did state, you should train in anything that you like and will stick with.


It's relevant to my question and your comment.  I'm curious to know if what you train is the same thing you would recommend.   There's no wrong answer to this. question.  If I trained in olympic style TKD then I wouldn't recommend what I train.  If I trained wrestling then I wouldn't recommend what I train because those two systems have training that's not focused on self-defense.

I train in Tai Chi as well as Jow Ga kung fu and I can tell you without a doubt that I wouldn't recommend learning Tai Chi for self defense.  The reason why is because the amount of training and time that it takes to actually learn how to use it in a real fight.  It's not a fast process, it's complicated in comparisons to other things that can be done for self defense.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 20, 2015)

Steve said:


> I really wish adastreia were more active.  I always appreciated her considerate posts in this topic.
> 
> I personally think that actual self defense depends a lot on the individual, but seldom really depends on martial skills.


Self-defense always depends on the person.  A person can't defend themselves outside of what they are capable of doing.  The only things that are really universal are the non-martial arts, non-physical aspects of self defense such as, don't walk alone at night, always park in a well lit area, always be aware of your surroundings and other things like that are going to be universal.  A person's health is going to limit how much can be learned and what can be deployed.  Someone that isn't flexible will have trouble with doing TKD type kicks to the head. A person with one arm may not be able to do BJJ as a self defense option.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Nov 20, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> It's relevant to my question and your comment.  I'm curious to know if what you train is the same thing you would recommend.   There's no wrong answer to this. question.  If I trained in olympic style TKD then I wouldn't recommend what I train.  If I trained wrestling then I wouldn't recommend what I train because those two systems have training that's not focused on self-defense.
> 
> I train in Tai Chi as well as Jow Ga kung fu and I can tell you without a doubt that I wouldn't recommend learning Tai Chi for self defense.  The reason why is because the amount of training and time that it takes to actually learn how to use it in a real fight.  It's not a fast process, it's complicated in comparisons to other things that can be done for self defense.


It's not relevant because I cannot really answer that question. We would be talking apples and not even oranges but maybe apples and Van Gogh. I don't deal with styles anymore. I guess the best I could say is that I am a traditionally trained reality self defense guy. Lol.  I just view the OP question from a different frame work.


----------



## Steve (Nov 20, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> Self-defense always depends on the person.  A person can't defend themselves outside of what they are capable of doing.  The only things that are really universal are the non-martial arts, non-physical aspects of self defense such as, don't walk alone at night, always park in a well lit area, always be aware of your surroundings and other things like that are going to be universal.  A person's health is going to limit how much can be learned and what can be deployed.  Someone that isn't flexible will have trouble with doing TKD type kicks to the head. A person with one arm may not be able to do BJJ as a self defense option.


I think that what is not universal is pretty much everything you think is universal.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 20, 2015)

Steve said:


> I think that what is not universal is pretty much everything you think is universal.


Yeah not to go off too far.  The world is like Tardigrades.
Just when I think something is universal a "tardigrade" will pop up and prove otherwise.


----------



## Jenna (Nov 21, 2015)

BraxLimbo said:


> What do you think is the best form of martial arts for women? One that can help them with assaults?


I would make a suggestion that the best art bar none for dealing with assaults is YOUR art only AFTER you have trained it to deal in a realistic manner with those potential assaults.

There is no sense searching for a particular beat-em-all art as different arts suit different practitioners irrespective of the situation in which they are deployed.  ANY art will equip you with techniques to deal with an attempted or actual assault and but it is you who must satisfy your self that those techniques actually work FOR YOU in those situations.  In no reality can you say Art X will assuredly work in an assault.  There are too many variables to give any certainty.  Best is to account for as many of those variables as realistically as possible from within your own training.

And but moreover, you absolutely must satisfy your self that YOU are psychologically prepared to and are capable of using those techniques in a moment where you would surely not have wished to.  All the training in the world and all the convincing your self you are badass count for nought if there is not a real preparedness to utilise technique and training. For many women this can be a fatal fail point in an assault situation.  Wishes Jxxx


----------



## hoshin1600 (Nov 21, 2015)

Jenna said:


> And but moreover, you absolutely must satisfy your self that YOU are psychologically prepared to and are capable of using those techniques in a moment where you would surely not have wished to. All the training in the world and all the convincing your self you are badass count for nought if there is not a real preparedness to utilise technique and training. For many women this can be a fatal fail point in an assault situation.


 this thought is great and must be repeated.  it is something i learned sometime ago that for me was a ground breaking concept and have made it a point to teach this ever since. it applies to all self defense methods.  a woman may purchase a gun for self protection but that does not emotionally enable her to actually use it and take a human life if so needed.  in the same way a martial art may teach and have aggressive tactics, like say Krav but that does no good for someone who can not visualize them selves actually gouging someones eyes.  the major road block in self defense for women and also for men is the emotional un-willingness and unfamiliarity with non restrained unleashing of violence on another human being. to overcome a crashing wave of violence, your own wave must be larger, more powerfull and more intense.  you need more firepower. you cant win an armed war carrying a pointy stick.


----------



## WaterGal (Nov 21, 2015)

Jenna said:


> And but moreover, you absolutely must satisfy your self that YOU are psychologically prepared to and are capable of using those techniques in a moment where you would surely not have wished to.  All the training in the world and all the convincing your self you are badass count for nought if there is not a real preparedness to utilise technique and training. For many women this can be a fatal fail point in an assault situation.  Wishes Jxxx



That's a good point.  And especially because - at least for women - most assaults are committed by people you know.  Even if you could (say) shoot a stranger in self-defense, could you shoot your cousin? Your coworker?  Your neighbor?

I think styles that do a lot of sparring will be more likely to help someone be ready for having to fight, because you build muscle memory and instinct for doing techniques in a (relatively) uncontrolled environment with a non-compliant opponent.  But sparring still has rules, the other person usually isn't actually trying to cause you serious harm, unlike in real life.  A person defending themselves will probably have to go harder.

And I think styles that have a good grappling component (BJJ, Hapkido, etc) are a good choice, because they often teach techniques where you can control your opponent or escape their hold without causing them serious harm.  Maybe you're not comfortable kicking your religious leader in the kneecap and gouging his eye (I know personally I couldn't do an eye gouge on a real person), but maybe you could use a wrist lock to escape his grab and run away.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 21, 2015)

WaterGal said:


> That's a good point.  And especially because - at least for women - most assaults are committed by people you know.  Even if you could (say) shoot a stranger in self-defense, could you shoot your cousin? Your coworker?  Your neighbor?
> 
> I think styles that do a lot of sparring will be more likely to help someone be ready for having to fight, because you build muscle memory and instinct for doing techniques in a (relatively) uncontrolled environment with a non-compliant opponent.  But sparring still has rules, the other person usually isn't actually trying to cause you serious harm, unlike in real life.  A person defending themselves will probably have to go harder.
> 
> And I think styles that have a good grappling component (BJJ, Hapkido, etc) are a good choice, because they often teach techniques where you can control your opponent or escape their hold without causing them serious harm.  Maybe you're not comfortable kicking your religious leader in the kneecap and gouging his eye (I know personally I couldn't do an eye gouge on a real person), but maybe you could use a wrist lock to escape his grab and run away.


you'll be surprised what you can do when your safety or life is on the line.  if you have problems then remember this.  To be kind to your enemy is to be cruel to yourself. 
Never assume your attacker will show the same kindness for you well being. If you want to be kind to you enemy then call for medical help and the police after you have beaten your enemy.  Family members kill as well when they go crazy or in a rage.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 21, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> you'll be surprised what you can do when your safety or life is on the line.  if you have problems then remember this.  To be kind to your enemy is to be cruel to yourself.
> Never assume your attacker will show the same kindness for you well being. If you want to be kind to you enemy then call for medical help and the police after you have beaten your enemy.  Family members kill as well when they go crazy or in a rage.



You don't need to be kind, but you can also take someone out without actually hurting them. Pins and chokes work great for that purpose, and often times you can move from pins to chokes and locks if you can't stop with one or the other.

This is especially great for women, since strength or size isn't a huge requirement to pull them off, and the arts that use those tactics provide women with ample practice pulling those techniques off against larger and stronger opponents.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 21, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> You don't need to be kind, but you can also take someone out without actually hurting them. Pins and chokes work great for that purpose, and often times you can move from pins to chokes and locks if you can't stop with one or the other.
> 
> This is especially great for women, since strength or size isn't a huge requirement to pull them off, and the arts that use those tactics provide women with ample practice pulling those techniques off against larger and stronger opponents.


I'll let you and others walk that path. If I have to use kung fu, punch, kick, or use a knife or gun, then the point of being kind has passed. Me being doesn't extend beyond me saying"stop."


----------



## drop bear (Nov 21, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> I'll let you and others walk that path. If I have to use kung fu, punch, kick, or use a knife or gun, then the point of being kind has passed. Me being doesn't extend beyond me saying"stop."



Is a fight so important that you feel the need to maim someone?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 21, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Is a fight so important that you feel the need to maim someone?



Maybe I wouldn't have maim someone if they didn't attack me in the first place.  As for the fight,  I don't care about the fight. I care about my safety.  Self-defense isn't about the fight it's about protecting myself.  Just like some people have no problem with shooting a person in self defense, I have no problem with using my martial arts to the fullest when necessary.  

Where you see fight, I see defending myself.  I think it's funny how your comment ignores the person who is out to do me harm or worse.  If a person thinks it's so important to attack me and do me harm, then I think it's important for me to defend myself to the best of my abilities which doesn't include fancy submissions holds that I never trained in.   I train to break bones and cause damage so that's what 's coming down the pipe.  Maybe that's something people should think about before F-ing with someone.

"Don't start none, won't be none."

 I just don't understand this compassion for an attacker when the attacker is more than happy to maim the victim.  Like I said.  I'll let you walk that path and have sympathy for your attacker.


----------



## Steve (Nov 21, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> Maybe I wouldn't have maim someone if they didn't attack me in the first place.  As for the fight,  I don't care about the fight. I care about my safety.  Self-defense isn't about the fight it's about protecting myself.  Just like some people have no problem with shooting a person in self defense, I have no problem with using my martial arts to the fullest when necessary.
> 
> Where you see fight, I see defending myself.  I think it's funny how your comment ignores the person who is out to do me harm or worse.  If a person thinks it's so important to attack me and do me harm, then I think it's important for me to defend myself to the best of my abilities which doesn't include fancy submissions holds that I never trained in.   I train to break bones and cause damage so that's what 's coming down the pipe.  Maybe that's something people should think about before F-ing with someone.
> 
> ...


what are you doing that you're getting attacked so often?


----------



## Koshiki (Nov 21, 2015)

Steve said:


> what are you doing that you're getting attacked so often?



Methinks there may be a touch of the hypothetical in his comments?


----------



## Steve (Nov 21, 2015)

Zack Cart said:


> Methinks there may be a touch of the hypothetical in his comments?


Exactly what I'm thinking.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 22, 2015)

Steve said:


> Exactly what I'm thinking.


My comments are accurate no hypotheticals.  That's the action plan.  The last time I was at risk of being attacked was from some local drug dealers in a Baltimore MD.  They wanted me out of the neighborhood and actually tried to recruit people to do their dirty work.  They made no efforts to hide those efforts and the threat was to jump me at night after work when I was leaving the building.  I wasn't the only one in that situation. My coworker had the same plan. 

Before that incident, I was in a verbal confrontation with a guy that I was more willing to kick into traffic had he tried to attack me.  This happened when I came to the aid of a teenager that this man was trying to pick a fight with.

When I get into situations where I'm at risk of being attacked it's never over something small like "why are you looking at my girl." or "you think you are tough, alpha male street cred fights."   I've been in situations where someone has tried to break into my house, had they made it into the house they would have been met with one family member who had 6 inch blade and another family member who had a gun. 

So when I say I will bring the full extent of my self-defense capabilities on my attacker then that's what I mean.  That's the plan. If my attacker gets maim, then so be it. I'm probably one of the few people in MT that mentally prepares himself to do terrible things to another human in the act of self defense.  In my eyes when a person shoots and kills someone in self defense is far more than what I plan on doing.  

Just because you guys won't take it the same extent doesn't mean that I follow the same rules.  It also doesn't mean your attacker will equally care about your well being.
While you guys may not be willing to break an arm, I'm more than willing to do so if the situation calls for it and if the opportunity presents itself.   It may sound strange and unreal to you guys, but someone pushing me, grabbing my shoulder, starting a bar fight with me, are things that have never even come close to happening to me.  Maybe it's because I naturally look mean or the way I carry myself. But very few people have been willing to go the extra mile to see if I'm bluffing.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 22, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> Maybe I wouldn't have maim someone if they didn't attack me in the first place.  As for the fight,  I don't care about the fight. I care about my safety.  Self-defense isn't about the fight it's about protecting myself.  Just like some people have no problem with shooting a person in self defense, I have no problem with using my martial arts to the fullest when necessary.
> 
> Where you see fight, I see defending myself.  I think it's funny how your comment ignores the person who is out to do me harm or worse.  If a person thinks it's so important to attack me and do me harm, then I think it's important for me to defend myself to the best of my abilities which doesn't include fancy submissions holds that I never trained in.   I train to break bones and cause damage so that's what 's coming down the pipe.  Maybe that's something people should think about before F-ing with someone.
> 
> ...



I like the idea that i can stop a guy without going full retard on them.

I am pesonally not a fan of people who have no sense of proportion. It turns a fight where both parties could have walked away into a situation where neither party walks away.

If i saw a guy going crazy and breaking dudes arms. i would arrest them.


----------



## Jenna (Nov 22, 2015)

@hoshin1600, I wonder is it difficult to visualise gouging someone's eyes because the situation that warrants such an action is a situation most of us would prefer to think will never happen?  What do you think? Jx

@WaterGal, yes I agree with you.  I wonder too if it is not just styles that do a lot of sparring helping someone to be ready for having to fight and but also that training in ANY style can help a woman to FEEL more confident, and in feeling more confident then look like less of a potential victim?  Does that sound plausible do you think?? Jxxx


----------



## hoshin1600 (Nov 22, 2015)

Jenna said:


> @hoshin1600, I wonder is it difficult to visualise gouging someone's eyes because the situation that warrants such an action is a situation most of us would prefer to think will never happen?



I have been teaching since the mid 1980s and I have put a lot of thought and research into women's self defense.  One of the things I have found to be true is that women often find it difficult to express and explore aggression and violence.  I would say the ratio is one out of twenty that have absolutely no issues letting loose. It ranges from not being able to do pad work to admitting "oh I could never do that"  "I don't want to hurt anyone "  I don't think it's a simple issue or cause but it is something that must be taken into account in training


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 22, 2015)

hoshin1600 said:


> I have been teaching since the mid 1980s and I have put a lot of thought and research into women's self defense.  One of the things I have found to be true is that women often find it difficult to express and explore aggression and violence.  I would say the ratio is one out of twenty that have absolutely no issues letting loose. It ranges from not being able to do pad work to admitting "oh I could never do that"  "I don't want to hurt anyone "  I don't think it's a simple issue or cause but it is something that must be taken into account in training



I agree wholeheartedly with this even though I'm probably that one in twenty.  I was taught to box from about five years old by my father, I was also given things like train sets, cowboy sets etc as a child, I did get dolls as well I just wasn't brought up like a typical girl.
I've taught a lot of women both martial arts and self defence, it is hard teaching sparring at first, it's not so much they are afraid of being hurt as many think but _they are afraid of hurting_.
Boys grow up having mock fights with their mates, often this carries on into adulthood lol, but girls don't do this, it would be discouraged very quickly if they did anyway so the idea of physically fighting even in fun is an alien concept to many women, those with brothers though like myself find it easier! Even so, when brothers and sisters fight they will both be told off for it but there will be more disapproval for the girl while the boy is thought to be 'just doing a boy thing'.


----------



## Prostar (Nov 22, 2015)

One of my favorite lessons was to throw a chair, some empty boxes and other stray items into the sparring area.  I told them that the world is full of stuff, use it.  It was great to watch how they used stuff.  The best fighters were brought down a peg or two when someone could put a chair between them and their opponent.

Do you war game a situation when walking down the street?  Just engaging in the mental exercise can go a long way towards keeping safe.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 23, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> I'll let you and others walk that path. If I have to use kung fu, punch, kick, or use a knife or gun, then the point of being kind has passed. Me being doesn't extend beyond me saying"stop."



I think its important to recognize when something is life and death, and when something is just some idiot who needs to be temporarily put in their place. Very few situations are worth going to jail over, and even then, with proper skill you don't need to permanently maim or kill anyone.

Look at those women who stopped *rape* attempts and attempted robberies with Triangle Chokes. They took out their attackers, but didn't seriously hurt them.

Well except that one who performed a mounted triangle and proceeded to punch the guy in the face multiple times, but I digress......


----------



## WaterGal (Nov 23, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> Maybe I wouldn't have maim someone if they didn't attack me in the first place.  As for the fight,  I don't care about the fight. I care about my safety.  Self-defense isn't about the fight it's about protecting myself.  Just like some people have no problem with shooting a person in self defense, I have no problem with using my martial arts to the fullest when necessary.
> 
> Where you see fight, I see defending myself.  I think it's funny how your comment ignores the person who is out to do me harm or worse.  If a person thinks it's so important to attack me and do me harm, then I think it's important for me to defend myself to the best of my abilities which doesn't include fancy submissions holds that I never trained in.   I train to break bones and cause damage so that's what 's coming down the pipe.  Maybe that's something people should think about before F-ing with someone.
> 
> ...



I'm not expressing compassion for some random criminal, I'm talking about how people react to situations.  When the attacker is your spouse, child, friend, etc, a lot of people are not going to be emotionally prepared to cause them serious bodily injury.

Can you tell me honestly - if your spouse got drunk and started hitting you, would you feel 100% comfortable punching them in the face until they were knocked out?

And this is especially important when it comes to women. Lets say, for example, your boss or a client gropes you and you respond by breaking his arm, you'll at very least be out of a job, and possibly get sued.  But a submission technique that causes pain but no injury?  That might get him to back off and leave you alone.


----------



## WaterGal (Nov 23, 2015)

Jenna said:


> @WaterGal, yes I agree with you.  I wonder too if it is not just styles that do a lot of sparring helping someone to be ready for having to fight and but also that training in ANY style can help a woman to FEEL more confident, and in feeling more confident then look like less of a potential victim?  Does that sound plausible do you think?? Jxxx



Sure.  Anything that makes you exude confidence and situational awareness is going to make someone think twice about attacking you.  But if they do anyway, then I think it's important to have spent time doing contact sparring or something similar.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 23, 2015)

WaterGal said:


> And this is especially important when it comes to women.



Sure. Because men are never the targets of sexual harassment or assault...



WaterGal said:


> Lets say, for example, your boss or a client gropes you and you respond by breaking his arm, you'll at very least be out of a job, and possibly get sued.  But a submission technique that causes pain but no injury?  That might get him to back off and leave you alone.



You stopped a sexual assault, which can quite often result in grave physical injury, in addition to the psychological injury, by doing nothing more than breaking an arm? I am not a lawyer, but I am pretty sure most places (at least in the US) consider attempted rape to be reason enough to use lethal force. So I'd say you showed great restraint if you only broke their arm.
And... out of a job? Seriously? You're suggesting anyone (of either gender) should continue working in a place where they have been sexually assaulted???
And I'm pretty sure you're backwards on who would get sued. I suspect  the company will be shitting bricks over the lawsuit they could face for allowing a sexual predator to run rampant through the corporate halls. And if they fired you for defending yourself? Please... Make my case even stronger, thank you.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 23, 2015)

WaterGal said:


> When the attacker is your spouse, child, friend, etc, a lot of people are not going to be emotionally prepared to cause them serious bodily injury.


I understand this is true for other people but I was raised differently.  There's is a difference between not wanting to do serious harm versus having to do it.  No one wants to do serious harm but sometimes it's necessary. 



WaterGal said:


> Can you tell me honestly - if your spouse got drunk and started hitting you, would you feel 100% comfortable punching them in the face until they were knocked out?


If my wife got drunk and came at me in a drunken rage then I would be 100% with punching her in the face.  If the punch knocks her out then it knocks her out.  If that same punch stops her from attacking then that's good for me.  There's no reason for me to continue to attack after my attacker is no longer attacking me.  That's just how I am as a person. 

A drunk person doesn't mean that the person is harmless.   Some drunk people become extremely violent as easy as flipping on a light switch. One second they seem harmless and the next they are shooting their spouse or stabbing someone.  If a person is a violent drunk then I don't expect things to get better during his or her drunken rage.



WaterGal said:


> when it comes to women, because we're told our whole lives to "be nice", to always give people another chance, to tolerate people violating our personal space, to tolerate sexual harassment, etc. If, for example, your boss or a client gropes you and you respond by breaking his arm, you'll at very least be out of a job, and possibly get sued.


 Women shouldn't get that out of their minds "to be nice" to the attacker, "oh he wasn't himself", "oh he was stressed because of work."  Don't tolerate violent behavior no matter who it comes from.

If your boss gropes you then you need to let him know right there and then that the behavior is unacceptable, don't giggle, smile, or make light of the situation..  Many work places processes to deal with such behavior.  If he continues then you need to press charges, and sue the company and get some money out of it, but before you do any of that you need to create some distance and take a defensive posture to ensure your safety especially if it's just you in him in the area..  If your boss attacks you, slaps you, try to push you in a room to assault you, or punches you in the face then do what you need to do to protect yourself.  Even if it means breaking his arm.

Here's a similar scenario of a woman who was groped and got punched when he did it a second time.  If she was going to take a punch to the face anyway, then she should responded with more than just a push.: Notting Hill Carnival: Punched woman talks of outrage



WaterGal said:


> But a submission technique that causes pain but no injury


 There is no such thing as "pain without injury" the reason you are feeling pain from a submission is because damage is being done.  The intensity of that pain is directly related to the amount of damage being done.  Do you know how to tell when a submission is being done wrong?  It causes little to no pain and no damage..


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 23, 2015)

WaterGal said:


> Can you tell me honestly - if your spouse got drunk and started hitting you, would you feel 100% comfortable punching them in the face until they were knocked out?



Damn right I would feel comfortable, not only comfortable but happy to do it.



WaterGal said:


> And this is especially important when it comes to women. Lets say, for example, your boss or a client gropes you and you respond by breaking his arm, you'll at very least be out of a job, and possibly get sued. But a submission technique that causes pain but no injury? That might get him to back off and leave you alone.



Break his arm? I'd break both arms and possible his legs too. Sued be damned, I would be arresting him for attempted rape or sexual assault, if he tried to sack me I'd be off to an Industrial Tribunal suing for unlawful dismissal. I'd refuse to keep quiet or not hurt them just because I was afraid of losing my job with them, I'd walk anyway and sue for constructive dismissal, I will not be afraid at work.


----------



## Steve (Nov 23, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> Sure. Because men are never the targets of sexual harassment or assault...


Depending on which organization you're looking into, it's somewhere between 10 and 20% men who allege harassment.   Not a small percentage, but not enough to cop that attitude.





> You stopped a sexual assault, which can quite often result in grave physical injury, in addition to the psychological injury, by doing nothing more than breaking an arm?


I'm not sure what I missed, but I think watergal mentioned a boss or coworker groping a female employee.  While certainly, this could meet the criteria for being sexual harrassment, it doesn't seem likely to result in grave physical injury.   





> I am not a lawyer, but I am pretty sure most places (at least in the US) consider attempted rape to be reason enough to use lethal force. So I'd say you showed great restraint if you only broke their arm.


I'm not a lawyer, either.  Can anyone clarify whether a grope in an office equates to rape?  I wouldn't think so, but I'm open to correction. 





> And... out of a job? Seriously? You're suggesting anyone (of either gender) should continue working in a place where they have been sexually assaulted???


Just for what it's worth, I can think of many legitimate reasons why a person would want to continue working at a place even were they sexually harassed.  The harassment may or may not be systemic, even if it has progressed to the point where it would be considered illegal (To be unlawful, the conduct must create a work environment that would be intimidating, hostile, or offensive to reasonable people.

Offensive conduct may include, but is not limited to, offensive jokes, slurs, epithets or name calling, physical assaults or threats, intimidation, ridicule or mockery, insults or put-downs, offensive objects or pictures, and interference with work performance.)

A person may simply not want to start over and abandon what has otherwise been a happy and successful career just because one (or more than one) creep has worked to create a hostile, intimidating or offensive work environment.  





> And I'm pretty sure you're backwards on who would get sued. I suspect  the company will be shitting bricks over the lawsuit they could face for allowing a sexual predator to run rampant through the corporate halls. And if they fired you for defending yourself? Please... Make my case even stronger, thank you.


I don't think you're on as firm of footing as you believe you are.  Surely, everyone might sue everyone else, but this doesn't mean that there will be any finding of wrongdoing.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 23, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> If my wife got drunk and came at me in a drunken rage then I would be 100% with punching her in the face.  If the punch knocks her out then it knocks her out.  If that same punch stops her from attacking then that's good for me.  There's no reason for me to continue to attack after my attacker is no longer attacking me.  That's just how I am as a person.



There's plenty of ways to stop an attack beyond socking someone in the face. Especially when that someone is under the effects of drugs or alcohol, and not in their right state of mind. What if you punch her in the face, she falls backwards and hits a hard object causing brain damage or death? Wouldn't it be better to simply restrain her until she calms down, and then get her the help she needs?



> A drunk person doesn't mean that the person is harmless.   Some drunk people become extremely violent as easy as flipping on a light switch. One second they seem harmless and the next they are shooting their spouse or stabbing someone.  If a person is a violent drunk then I don't expect things to get better during his or her drunken rage.



We're talking about a spouse though. If you're living with this person, and married to this person, you should have some level of understanding of what type of person they are. If she tends to favor the bottle and become violent, that's something you should be well aware of way before you took her down the aisle.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 23, 2015)

Steve said:


> Depending on which organization you're looking into, it's somewhere between 10 and 20% men who allege harassment.   Not a small percentage, but not enough to cop that attitude.



And how often does it go unreported? You may recall that there was a time when far too many female sexual assaults went unreported because the victims were stigmatized and the issue scoffed at. Sort of like you're doing here, in a way.



Steve said:


> I'm not sure what I missed, but I think watergal mentioned a boss or coworker groping a female employee.  While certainly, this could meet the criteria for being sexual harrassment, it doesn't seem likely to result in grave physical injury.



I'm kind of surprised that you take such a soft view of sexual assault. It is absolutely an assault, when you're being groped. Not harassment. And sexual assault certainly justifies a strong response. 



Steve said:


> I'm not a lawyer, either.  Can anyone clarify whether a grope in an office equates to rape?



We've had people groped in the ER, and the assailants were charged with sexual assault. I know a nurse who grabbed a co-workers rear (he's kind of an douche in lots of ways other than this) and was charged with sexual assault. There are degrees of sexual assault just as there are with other assaults. But groping someone is should never be considered harassment; it is a sexual assault. And in Colorado, at least, that is how the law views it. I would hope that other places do the same. And I think it is absolutely wrong to equate a sexual assault with harassment.



Steve said:


> I wouldn't think so, but I'm open to correction. Just for what it's worth, I can think of many legitimate reasons why a person would want to continue working at a place even were they sexually harassed.



Again, I believe it is 100% wrong to equate harassment with assault. And while someone may choose to continue working at for the COMPANY, they certainly should never be expected to work with the assailant. And if the company gives even the slightest hint of support for the person committing the assault (and firing the person for defending themselves from what is one of the most vile forms of assault one person can perpetrate on another certainly qualifies) then there is absolutely a systemic problem.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 23, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> There's plenty of ways to stop an attack beyond socking someone in the face. Especially when that someone is under the effects of drugs or alcohol, and not in their right state of mind. What if you punch her in the face, she falls backwards and hits a hard object causing brain damage or death? Wouldn't it be better to simply restrain her until she calms down, and then get her the help she needs?


1st: Effects of drugs or alcohol, and not in their right state of mind.  That's why it's dangerous. You don't know what they will or won't do because they are not in the right state of mind.  

2nd: What is this entire scenario of, what if she falls backwards and hits a hard object causing brain damage or death? Is that what you think about when someone is attacking you? I think you have missed my response more than once so I'll post it again: When a person attacks me then I no longer care about their safety. Me caring about their safety happened when I try to deescalate. Once I'm attack then it becomes an focus on my safety. 

There's is also no guarantee that my fist is going to knock anyone out with the first punch. That someone is going to fall backwards after getting knocked out and that there will be something hard for them to hit their head on. The way you think of what if scenarios is not healthy for your safety.  The people I know who are able to avoid the most danger and the majority of physical confrontations aren't the ones who are thinking about the attackers safety.



Hanzou said:


> We're talking about a spouse though. If you're living with this person, and married to this person, you should have some level of understanding of what type of person they are. If she tends to favor the bottle and become violent, that's something you should be well aware of way before you took her down the aisle.


  Not true.  People develop dependencies on alcohol and drugs in various stages of their lives.  Just because you married a sober woman doesn't mean that 10 years down the road she'll still be sober.  It also doesn't mean that she needs to be drunk to want to kill you or harm you.  You never know how someone may snap in life and you never know if it's going to be a "clean break" that can be repaired or if it's a shatter there is no way to savage anything.  Murder suicides are an example of this.  Cases of spouse killing each other is nothing new.  You don't have to believe me. Do some research on it.  

Anyone that who is attacking you when they are not in their right mind is more of a reason to be concerned about your safety, than someone who you can try to talk out of doing something horrible.    There's a big difference between someone who is not in their right mind but aren't violent, and someone who is not in their right mind currently in the act of hurting you or killing you.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 23, 2015)

If I ever get drunk and for whatever reason and go into a violent rage, I hope my wife or my son will knock me out if possible or do whatever it takes to stop me or get away from me.  As I'm sober I prefer not to be stabbed or shot. But if I'm not in my right mind then I'm pretty sure I'm not going to be concerned about being stabbed or shot. So if she has to shoot me or stab me then that's acceptable if that's the best way for her to be safe.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 23, 2015)




----------



## Steve (Nov 23, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> And how often does it go unreported? You may recall that there was a time when far too many female sexual assaults went unreported because the victims were stigmatized and the issue scoffed at. Sort of like you're doing here, in a way.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Jesus, man.  I think you're projecting something here.  First, I'm pretty sure most harassment goes unreported, whether against men or women. I neither stigmatized nor scoffed at anyone.  

Second, sexual harassment is a form of sexual assault.   Equating one with the other is 100% correct, whether you feel it's wrong or not.  And Like other forms of sexual assault, it is illegal.  It is also difficult to prove, often unreported, and as likely to result in negative repercussions for the victim.

Finally, I don't know why you're lashing out like this, but I think you should back off and calm down.


----------



## kuniggety (Nov 24, 2015)

Steve said:


> Second, sexual harassment is a form of sexual assault.   Equating one with the other is 100% correct, whether you feel it's wrong or not.  And Like other forms of sexual assault, it is illegal.  .



Sexual harassment and assault aren't the same thing. They're not even in the same league. Not that I condone harassment but saying words (harassment) is not the same as putting your hands on them (assault). The law treats them differently, at least in the US. As a federal employee, I have this stuff stuffed down my throat on a continuous basis. As for harassment being illegal, it's not. I could walk up to a woman and make lewd comments and there's not anything she could do about it other than file a restraining order if I continue to do it. As soon as my hand touches her, say grabbing her ***, that's assault and I could wind up in jail. In a work environment, many companies have policies in place to discourage said behavior though as it doesn't make for a productive work environment with harassment being allowed.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 24, 2015)

*U.S Law*

*Sexual Assault: Definition *
Specific laws vary by state, but sexual assault generally refers to any crime in which the offender subjects the victim to sexual touching that is unwanted and offensive. These crimes can range from sexual groping or assault/battery, to attempted rape. All states prohibit sexual assault, but the exact definitions of the crimes that fall within the category of sexual assault differ from state to state.
- See more at: Sexual Assault Overview - FindLaw

*Sexual Harassment Definition*


In the federal context, sexual harassment is considered to be a form of sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Accordingly to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) "unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment."

There are two different types of sexual harassment claims, although the manner in which a court will distinguish between the two for purposes of deciding whether harassment has occurred has become blurred in recent years:
Quid Pro Quo: Sexual harassment that occurs when a supervisor or one in an authority position requests sex, or a sexual relationship, in exchange for not firing or otherwise punishing the employee, or in exchange for favors, such as promotions or raises.
Hostile Work Environment: Sexual harassment that occurs through the presence of demeaning or sexual photographs, jokes or threats. The inappropriate behavior or conduct must be so pervasive as to, as the name implies, create an intimidating and offensive work environment.

- See more at: Sexual Harassment: What is it? - FindLaw


Australia Law
Sexual Harassment
*Legal Definition of Sexual Harassment*
Sexual harassment is an unwelcome sexual advance, unwelcome request for sexual favours or other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature which makes a person feel offended, humiliated or intimidated, where a reasonable person would anticipate that reaction in the circumstances.

The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) defines the nature and circumstances in which sexual harassment is unlawful. It is also unlawful for a person to be victimised for making, or proposing to make, a complaint of sexual harassment to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.
Sexual harassment is a type of sex discrimination.

The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) makes sexual harassment unlawful in some circumstances. The Sex Discrimination Act makes it unlawful for a person to sexually harass another person in a number of areas including employment, education, the provision of goods and services and accommodation.
Examples of sexually harassing behaviour include:


unwelcome touching;
staring or leering;
sexually explicit pictures or posters;
unwanted invitations to go out on dates;
requests for sex;
intrusive questions about a person’s private life or body;
unnecessary familiarity, such as deliberately brushing up against a person;
insults or taunts based on sex;
sexually explicit physical contact; and
sexually explicit emails or SMS text messages.


Sexual and Indecent assault definition.
Sexual and indecent assault is a serious offence and anyone found committing an indecent act can potentially face a significant term of imprisonment. Indecent assault can include acts that some may not consider as an offence such as:


         kissing someone without their consent, or who might not be consenting;
         touching someone without their consent, or who might not be consenting.


Other types of indecent or sexual assault offences can cover more serious matters, such as rape, attempted rape, sexual intercourse without consent, aggravated sexual offences and indecency.

While there are overlaps, harassment and assault are not viewed as the same. The difference is that one is work place focused and the other isn't.  A guy can give an unwanted invitation to go out on dates in a non-work environment (meaning neither the man nor women work there) such as a club, store or park and it wouldn't meet the legal definition of sexual harassment. Sexual Assault has wider reach and isn't confined to the work place.  Groping would be sexual assault and it wouldn't matter if it happened in the workplace or not.  A person can actually be charged for both sexual harassment and sexual assault charges.

In the 2 legal sites that I viewed. There were no mentioning of the two being the same.


----------



## BraxLimbo (Nov 24, 2015)

Whoa, this post has gone crazy in the few days I was gone. Kind of feel surprised with the reception this has been getting. Unluckily I don't have much time to actually see all the recent posts but feels scared that when I go back, there'll be more. LOL

But I do hope there aren't that much commotion (in case there are, I guess it's inevitable). The reason I asked that was because my daughter often gets noticed at in the street and it scares her. She asked if she can learn martial arts but then asked what's best. from what I know, different types of martial arts deals with varying elements. What I heard once, Judo is great for smaller people with bigger opponents. Then some are more on closed combat. So I asked what might be best for assaults since it's close range and my daughter is petite. I was thinking there might be something more suitable for her.

Of course we are not neglecting the best ways to avoid assaults like being careful. We're just trying to maximize our defenses if necessary.


----------



## Jenna (Nov 24, 2015)

Respectfully to all, how do the legal definitions assist people at their moment of need of SD?

At that moment, what may be an indecent advance that is warded off by an assertive bark could escalate into what it was intended to be.. an attempted rape.  There is not always clinical demarcation of one or the other.  Legal definitions inform legal ramifications yes, though what thoughts of legalities are we meant to consider at that moment of unwelcome sexual advance??

And in cases where the victim is subjugated or perhaps inured to the repeated trauma of sexual assault the legalities they seem distant and rarely have I found people thus situated to be in a state of mind to take much of any action let alone physical SD technique mentioned here and there. What do you suggest constitutes self defence here??? let alone how it is legally defined???

This is an emotive issue, naturally it would be, we are all compassionate human beings though I think legalities, while we have a duty to know our standing and while wholly necessary in the aftermath, I wonder is discussion of legality not to digress away from what is of most importance to anyone in the situation??

Also, while it would seem untrue of today - statistically - specially among younger people of either gender (college/university ages), there is still unfathomable ignorance over what is acceptable sexual conduct.

Jxx


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 24, 2015)

Drunken Rage:
"A South Florida man is charged with first-degree murder after allegedly mutilating, murdering and disemboweling his girlfriend in a drunken rage"
"When first responders arrived, they found Lopez standing next to Nemeth's lifeless body, crying for help, according to the report. Blood surrounded Nemeth's body and there was a large amount on the floor inside the closet, including "what appeared to be several chunks of bloody tissue" later identified as intestinal matter, the report said."

Woman charged with killing boyfriend in drunken rage
"ST. PAUL, Minn. - A St. Paul woman is charged with second degree murder after police say she fatally stabbed her boyfriend in a drunken rage."
"She told police she didn't remember stabbing Hillard and said it was not intentional."


----------



## drop bear (Nov 24, 2015)

It is not really that there are not outright maniacs out there. Guys and girls.

But you can't work on the assumption that everyone you have conflict with is one of those maniacs.  You are just rationalising your own bad behaviour.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 24, 2015)

BraxLimbo said:


> because my daughter often gets noticed at in the street and it scares her. She asked if she can learn martial arts but then asked what's best. from what I know, different types of martial arts deals with varying elements. What I heard once, Judo is great for smaller people with bigger opponents. Then some are more on closed combat. So I asked what might be best for assaults since it's close range and my daughter is petite. I was thinking there might be something more suitable for her.


There is no one size fits all solution for self-defense.  Self-defense starts of with awareness and fighting is what usually happens when all other methods fail. She should take a martial art that is focused on self-defense and not sporting.  This will help her to not be scared. Predators can tell when a person is scared and they will take advantage of that if the opportunity presents itself.  The next thing is to run some what if scenarios and come up with realistic plans. Know where the "exits" are.  If she's on the street then she should have an idea of which businesses or shops she can run to in order to get away. Escape plans should be based on the environment and the footwear being used.  Also try to see if anything in the environment can be used as a weapon or can be used to put some distance between her and a would be attacker. Carry a sharpen pencil or fine tip pen to use as a stabbing tool.  Don't just depend on fighting.  Also mentally prepare to do horrible things if necessary to stay safe.  Some people here don't have the stomach to severely hurt others, but if she's ever in a situation where her life is in danger, then she will need to fight as if her life is in danger.  The biggest issue that I see is that she's scared. If she's scared then she is probably reflecting that in her walk.



Jenna said:


> Respectfully to all, how do the legal definitions assist people at their moment of need of SD?


 They don't assist people at their moment of need when it comes to Self-defense.  No one thinks about the law when they are busy trying to protect themselves unless that person is a police officer and depending on what is happening at that time, the police officer may just shoot the attacker and call it a day. 

The legal definitions only help before the confrontation starts.  Depending on where you are you'll be able to better position yourself legally before the fists start flying.  For example, if someone is harassing a woman at work then she should let it be known.  Make sure there's a record of reporting, that way if it happens again and she's forced to hit the guy for harassing her then she can show a history of the unwanted behavior.  Don't keep silent about harassment on the job.  Sometimes you can see things on the horizon.  In my case it was the drug dealers who wanted to beat me up.  I made sure that my employer and the police knew about what was going on so that I'm in a better position when the crap hits the fan, provided that I would survive such an encounter.  

If you are just out in the street and are a victim violence (an assault) out of the blue, then you need to put everything you have into defending yourself. 



Jenna said:


> inured to the repeated trauma of sexual assault


A person should do all they can to not fall into this category.   A person usually reaches this point when they are defeated mentally. The best thing is to let someone know what is going on and asked for help.  There is always the option to call the police.  If this was something fresh happening on day one then the self-defense thing to do would be not to give the guy a second change.  The person should show that she or he means business.  This doesn't always mean a physical fight, but whatever the response is, it should be a serious one and he should know it.  There should be no mixed signals about unwanted the assault is.  Just remember to always be ready to defend yourself when confronting someone, always stand as if you think the person is going to hit you.  It's better to watch for the punch that never comes than it is to not see the punch coming.



Jenna said:


> What do you suggest constitutes self defence here??? let alone how it is legally defined???


Any action that you take to ensure your safety can be considered self-defense. Even after being harassed, the goal should be not to let it happen again.  Self-defense doesn't just stop when the assault stops.  If this is something that happens over and over, then preventing it from happening again is self-defense.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 24, 2015)

BraxLimbo said:


> Whoa, this post has gone crazy in the few days I was gone. Kind of feel surprised with the reception this has been getting. Unluckily I don't have much time to actually see all the recent posts but feels scared that when I go back, there'll be more. LOL
> 
> But I do hope there aren't that much commotion (in case there are, I guess it's inevitable). The reason I asked that was because my daughter often gets noticed at in the street and it scares her. She asked if she can learn martial arts but then asked what's best. from what I know, different types of martial arts deals with varying elements. What I heard once, Judo is great for smaller people with bigger opponents. Then some are more on closed combat. So I asked what might be best for assaults since it's close range and my daughter is petite. I was thinking there might be something more suitable for her.
> 
> Of course we are not neglecting the best ways to avoid assaults like being careful. We're just trying to maximize our defenses if necessary.



Judo would be a fine choice. It'll teach your daughter how to off-balance or throw people much larger than herself. If she never finds herself in a bad situation, she can at least participate in the sport aspect, which she may find enjoyable. 

There's also Bjj, which is related to Judo, but favors the ground fighting component over the throwing component, and tends to combine various other grappling and striking arts. However, if she practices Bjj, she should be competent in taking people down as well. Like Judo, there's a sport component that she can partake in beyond simply the self defense aspect.

In this day in age, the Bjj school may be easier to find and offer more bang for you buck.


----------



## Steve (Nov 24, 2015)

kuniggety said:


> Sexual harassment and assault aren't the same thing. They're not even in the same league. Not that I condone harassment but saying words (harassment) is not the same as putting your hands on them (assault). The law treats them differently, at least in the US. As a federal employee, I have this stuff stuffed down my throat on a continuous basis. As for harassment being illegal, it's not. I could walk up to a woman and make lewd comments and there's not anything she could do about it other than file a restraining order if I continue to do it. As soon as my hand touches her, say grabbing her ***, that's assault and I could wind up in jail. In a work environment, many companies have policies in place to discourage said behavior though as it doesn't make for a productive work environment with harassment being allowed.


Okay, I'll take another stab at this and let it go, because it's clearly a sensitive issue with you guys.

Sexual Harassment is illegal.  It is an illegal activity that exists in the workplace.

As you say, making lewd comments outside of work is douchey, but not illegal.  Making lewd comments at work, to the extent that a hostile work environment has been created is called Sexual Harassment, and is illegal.  You're confusing the general act of harassing someone with the legal term, "Harassment."

Guys, harassment can involve unwelcome sexual advances or touching while at work.  As DD pointed out, sexual harassment and sexual assault at work are often the same thing.

@Jenna, the only reason I'm trying to highlight the distinction here is that it is very unhelpful when one person is talking about one thing and another is talking about something else.  Watergal mentioned a person being groped while at work and highlighted a reality that a lot of people (mostly women) face that goes unreported, where someone you trust or who is in a position of authority is abusing that authority.  In my opinion, self defense is contextual.  The right thing to do in one situation is not the same as in others, and truly, sometimes, it's not so easy.  As some here have pointed out, if the person is a drunk family member, a long time friend of the family, a coworker, a boss... all of that comes into play.  A lewd comment is not the same thing as a grope, which isn't the same thing as rape, which isn't attempted murder.  Conflating all of these things and talking about them all as though the right response is to break the bad guy just isn't helpful or realistic.  In my opinion.

And the defensive reactions I got were telling. We have a few guys here who think they know what women should do, are arguing with women who are trying to articulate their experiences, and get butthurt when a thread about women's self defense doesn't also consider that men are sometimes also sexually harassed (an important discussion, but not the subject of this thread).


----------



## WaterGal (Nov 24, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> And... out of a job? Seriously? You're suggesting anyone (of either gender) should continue working in a place where they have been sexually assaulted???
> And I'm pretty sure you're backwards on who would get sued. I suspect  the company will be shitting bricks over the lawsuit they could face for allowing a sexual predator to run rampant through the corporate halls. And if they fired you for defending yourself? Please... Make my case even stronger, thank you.



I think - like a lot of decent men - you're unaware of how common sexual harassment in the workplace is.  If you're a woman working in retail or food service, for example, there really is no job where someone (whether your employer, coworker, or customer) doesn't try to sexually harass you or touch you inappropriately at some point. And if you complain about it, well, usually  "it's not that bad", "you should be flattered", "you're being a *****", "don't ruin his career over something little like that", "you can't prove that", "don't stir up trouble", etc.  Unless the guy is is stupid enough to sexually harass/assault you in front of a camera or in front of his boss who doesn't have the same mindset as him, the company will generally not do anything, and you may lose your job for "assaulting someone" or causing trouble by complaining.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 24, 2015)

WaterGal said:


> I think - like a lot of decent men - you're unaware of how common sexual harassment in the workplace is.  If you're a woman working in retail or food service, for example, there really is no job where someone (whether your employer, coworker, or customer) doesn't try to sexually harass you or touch you inappropriately at some point. And if you complain about it, well, usually  "it's not that bad", "you should be flattered", "you're being a *****", "don't ruin his career over something little like that", "you can't prove that", "don't stir up trouble", etc.  Unless the guy is is stupid enough to sexually harass/assault you in front of a camera or in front of his boss who doesn't have the same mindset as him, the company will generally not do anything, and you may lose your job for "assaulting someone" or causing trouble by complaining.



Or perhaps I am very aware of it, and that's why it pisses me off.


----------



## WaterGal (Nov 24, 2015)

You questioned why the person would stay in that job, and suggested that if a woman complains about sexual harassment or groping the company will punish the perpetrator.  That's why I assumed that you didn't know.  If you do, and your answer is that women should change jobs every few months and break people's bones on a regular basis to establish boundaries, I don't really know what to say to that.


----------



## Jenna (Nov 24, 2015)

@Steve you are saying what is to be done defensively is dependent upon context yes that make sense totally.. I would respond that first, it is not always certain that one "lesser" infraction is precursor to a more serious assault and so in practice it is not always simple to produce any kind of "graded" response to definitions in a situation where on the one hand the reaction is complete shock to a sudden attack, and on the other extreme of longer term abuse, the victim seem to me often completely subordinated to the abuser.

In many cases I have seen, the severity of the trauma causes the mind to blank itself off, yes?  I do not know how that fits here with our SD thinking?  I can only think that muscle memory can prevail were someone sufficiently trained to act.

I do not wish to digress either.  I do not disagree that clarity that you are seeking is a good thing.  My point is just that while definitions are a crucial part of legal process what is also pertinent is what is to be done by the person on the receipt of non-consensual approaches of any kind.  How often is that response a physical defence, which is how many on a martial arts site would picture it?? I do not know the reported statistics of it. Other times where acts have been committed over a longer timespan the response is seeking out side assistance as @JowGaWolf suggested.  Determining how to take the step to seek that out side assistance is horrendously difficult for most. This is some kind of SD by definition and but not what we usually discuss here.

I think it is an emotive issue, yes?  My experience is that it seem to affect or has affected more people than are usually willing to speak about it, I could only suggest perhaps that is why people are passionate in their posts like above? Thank you for your discussion, Jxx


----------



## kuniggety (Nov 24, 2015)

Steve said:


> Sexual Harassment is illegal.  It is an illegal activity that exists in the workplace.
> 
> As you say, making lewd comments outside of work is douchey, but not illegal.  Making lewd comments at work, to the extent that a hostile work environment has been created is called Sexual Harassment, and is illegal.  You're confusing the general act of harassing someone with the legal term, "Harassment."
> 
> Guys, harassment can involve unwelcome sexual advances or touching while at work.  As DD pointed out, sexual harassment and sexual assault at work are often the same thing.



The difference is that sexual harassment, in the workplace, is illegal for the workplace to condone/allow. They will get in trouble for it and so it is usually their policy not to tolerate it (ie you'll get fired). Sexual harassment and sexual assault are not one and the same in the world place. Once you touch someone, that's sexual assault, and that's illegal for you to do and you can go to jail/prison for it. That's inside or outside of a workplace.


----------



## Steve (Nov 24, 2015)

kuniggety said:


> The difference is that sexual harassment, in the workplace, is illegal for the workplace to condone/allow. They will get in trouble for it and so it is usually their policy not to tolerate it (ie you'll get fired). Sexual harassment and sexual assault are not one and the same in the world place. Once you touch someone, that's sexual assault, and that's illegal for you to do and you can go to jail/prison for it. That's inside or outside of a workplace.


Can you go to prison for breaking someone's arm?

How often do you think that a woman (or sometimes, a man) is inappropriately touched while at work?  Watergal has suggested that it is just a matter of time. 


WaterGal said:


> If you're a woman working in retail or food service, for example, there really is no job where someone (whether your employer, coworker, or customer) doesn't try to sexually harass you or touch you inappropriately at some point.


Kuniggety, just think about the implications of that statement.  In food service or retail "there really is no job where someone doesn't sexually harass you or touch you inappropriately at some point." 

I truly understand what you're saying, and believe that the disagreement here is simply the difference between principles (what should be) and reality (what is).  Harassment of any kind is illegal.  People SHOULDN'T do it.  Workplaces SHOULDN'T condone it.  If caught, the people who do it and/or condone it SHOULD be held accountable.  And if a person is harassed or sexually assaulted (in any context) they SHOULD be able to bring their case forward, be treated with respect, be listened to and be helped. 

What actually DOES happen is far more complicated and far less grounded in the principles of the situation.

So, like many discussions about self defense, we have some people discussing what SHOULD happen and other people discussing what ACTUALLY happens.  Harassment is underreported.  We know that.  And of those cases that are reported, most of the time the repercussions are inadequate.

AND, all of that being said, breaking someone's arm or smashing them to unconsciousness is not ALWAYS an appropriate response.


----------



## kuniggety (Nov 24, 2015)

Steve, I really for the most part agree with you. Sexual harassment in the work place is also defined as someone in a person of authority using lewd comments/suggestions as an abuse of their position. I think it's part of just being an overall ******* but no, you're not going to assault someone for being an *******. The same goes for someone not in a position of authority saying something you don't like. I'm what you would describe as a non-politically correct guy. I make off color jokes. I also watch my audience and, especially females, I usually wait for them to make some sort of joke before I ever do.

That all aside, there is a line that is crossed if a guy actually TOUCHES a woman. If that's pinching/grabbing her ***, massaging her shoulders after she has made it clear it's not welcome, etc. she has every right to put that guy on the ground. That's self defense. If a woman has repercussions for defending herself, then she can sue the company (and will win). The man has no right to touch her and a person ALWAYS has the right to self-defense. Does she need to throw him on the ground, break his arm, and then proceed to choke him out? That's going to be overkill but if a man gets hurt while she's defending herself then that's his fault for attacking her in the first place.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 24, 2015)

If I had bashed all the guys that had wanted to touch me inappropriately. By arms would be bloody stumps from the elbows down.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Nov 24, 2015)

kuniggety said:


> Steve, I really for the most part agree with you. Sexual harassment in the work place is also defined as someone in a person of authority using lewd comments/suggestions as an abuse of their position. I think it's part of just being an overall ******* but no, you're not going to assault someone for being an *******. The same goes for someone not in a position of authority saying something you don't like. I'm what you would describe as a non-politically correct guy. I make off color jokes. I also watch my audience and, especially females, I usually wait for them to make some sort of joke before I ever do.
> 
> That all aside, there is a line that is crossed if a guy actually TOUCHES a woman. If that's pinching/grabbing her ***, massaging her shoulders after she has made it clear it's not welcome, etc. she has every right to put that guy on the ground. That's self defense. If a woman has repercussions for defending herself, then she can sue the company (and will win). The man has no right to touch her and a person ALWAYS has the right to self-defense. Does she need to throw him on the ground, break his arm, and then proceed to choke him out? That's going to be overkill but if a man gets hurt while she's defending herself then that's his fault for attacking her in the first place.


 I am not a lawyer. ..this is not legal advise... (thanks for the quote Bill)
If a women is being sexually harassed she is not defending her safety. She will not be seen as defending herself against an assault and battery. The court will argue that at no time did Ms. X fear for her safety and well being.
What she would be defending is her personal space and principles.  Any physical response attempted by her is clearly an assault and could be charged as such. There is a prescribed response to the situation and it is to talk to human resouces and report it, or to the authorities if you are out on the street in which in most cases nothing happens. Unfortunately many men imagine themselves in that situation and the male ego dominance BS comes into play....think about the rape crisis in prison. Most males talk big saying it ain't gonna happen to me, I'll do ....xxxx.... yattaa yaatta shut up, your not going to do a damn thing. unless you have Been there you have no idea what you are really going to do.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 24, 2015)

drop bear said:


> It is not really that there are not outright maniacs out there. Guys and girls.
> 
> But you can't work on the assumption that everyone you have conflict with is one of those maniacs.  You are just rationalising your own bad behaviour.


The way I deal with people and conflict is not to assume that they won't do something crazy.  If I'm in a conflict with someone then I'm not going to assume that he won't punch me in the face.  I rather accept that is a possibility and position myself to be able to deal with that.  If I'm wrong then nothing happens.  If I'm right then I'm prepared.  If I take your approach and assume that someone won't do something. In your case, if I'm right nothing happens, if I'm wrong then I'm the one getting punched in the face, unprepared.


drop bear said:


> It is not really that there are not outright maniacs out there. Guys and girls.
> 
> But you can't work on the assumption that everyone you have conflict with is one of those maniacs.  You are just rationalising your own bad behaviour.


 I don't assume that a person who is "not in their right mind" to have rational decision making capabilities.  I also don't expect their behavior to be normal or even beneficial to themselves or me. I also don't expect them to be stable in with their emotions or actions.

In the U.S. the police who make traffic stops are train to approach the car in a certain manner to help minimize their risk in the event that the driver does something crazy.  They do this regardless of who you are. So is that them rationalizing their own bad behavior?  The problem with people who aren't in their right mind is that you don't know what they will do or if something will send them off into a violent rage.  
"The video released by her force showed her attacker, Craig Radbourne, apparently drunk, in handcuffs and protesting in a squad car before he lashes out." Source





And before the comments come out that he acted this way because he didn't want to get arrested.  Keep in mind that he may be someones boyfriend or husband and it happens all the time.  The wife or girlfriend says something to the drunken husband or boyfriend and it sets him off into a rage.   The police officer took your approach and got her head smashed on the ground for that decision.  Had she taken my approach she would have closed the door then asked the questions or she would have created more distance than she did.  Closing the door would have eliminated the risk of him attacker her like that all together.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 24, 2015)

Here's a woman using self-defense
This is a woman who gets groped on the bus and fights back.
The things that I like about this is that she confronted the guy, she let him know right away that she didn't like what he did. 
I also like that she turns around and confronts him in a fighting stance.  I'm assuming that he spat on her which is why she punched him.
I like that she fights against him trying to pull her off the bus instead of trying to fight and pull at the same time.  All of her energy is focused on not letting that happen.
Here's another




And another


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 24, 2015)

drop bear said:


> If I had bashed all the guys that had wanted to touch me inappropriately. By arms would be bloody stumps from the elbows down.


Wanting to touch you inappropriately isn't the same as actually doing it. And I if they did it, I hope you let them know in a firm way that it wasn't appropriate.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 24, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> Wanting to touch you inappropriately isn't the same as actually doing it. And I if they did it, I hope you let them know in a firm way that it wasn't appropriate.



I work with drunk guys. Of course they actually did it. Going from trying to hug me to trying to punch me is pretty common.

And it depended on how I read the guy. If it stopped a conflict. I put up with it.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 24, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> The way I deal with people and conflict is not to assume that they won't do something crazy.  If I'm in a conflict with someone then I'm not going to assume that he won't punch me in the face.  I rather accept that is a possibility and position myself to be able to deal with that.  If I'm wrong then nothing happens.  If I'm right then I'm prepared.  If I take your approach and assume that someone won't do something. In your case, if I'm right nothing happens, if I'm wrong then I'm the one getting punched in the face, unprepared.
> I don't assume that a person who is "not in their right mind" to have rational decision making capabilities.  I also don't expect their behavior to be normal or even beneficial to themselves or me. I also don't expect them to be stable in with their emotions or actions.
> 
> In the U.S. the police who make traffic stops are train to approach the car in a certain manner to help minimize their risk in the event that the driver does something crazy.  They do this regardless of who you are. So is that them rationalizing their own bad behavior?  The problem with people who aren't in their right mind is that you don't know what they will do or if something will send them off into a violent rage.
> ...



You are not closing a door or making yourself safe. You are laying a violent beat down on every guy you get physical with in case they turn out to be a legitimate baddie. And not someone who has just done a brain fart.

You basically become that guy. Who cannot control his responses


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 24, 2015)

drop bear said:


> I work with drunk guys. Of course they actually did it. Going from trying to hug me to trying to punch me is pretty common.
> 
> And it depended on how I read the guy. If it stopped a conflict. I put up with it.


that's right your job is the exception.  I'll have to keep that in mind.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 24, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> that's right your job is the exception.  I'll have to keep that in mind.



I didn't work in a bubble. It was still real life. I just had to come up with tactics that did not involve belting people.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 24, 2015)

drop bear said:


> You are not closing a door or making yourself safe. You are laying a violent beat down on every guy you get physical with in case they turn out to be a legitimate baddie. And not someone who has just done a brain fart.
> 
> You basically become that guy. Who cannot control his responses


If my response is predetermined and planned then it is controlled at the highest level. Uncontrolled  responses are done on impulse.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 24, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> If my response is predetermined and planned then it is controlled at the highest level. Uncontrolled  responses are done on impulse.



Creating a rational to excuse your response is not the same as having control over your response


----------



## Steve (Nov 24, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> If my response is predetermined and planned then it is controlled at the highest level. Uncontrolled  responses are done on impulse.


Maybe this is a little too philosophical, but if something is predetermined, is it controlled or uncontrolled?  I guess it depends on whether you are the one who predetermined the outcome, or are being controlled by it.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 24, 2015)

Steve said:


> Maybe this is a little too philosophical, but if something is predetermined, is it controlled or uncontrolled?  I guess it depends on whether you are the one who predetermined the outcome, or are being controlled by it.



In a terminator no fate kind of way?


----------



## Steve (Nov 24, 2015)

drop bear said:


> In a terminator no fate kind of way?


Yeah. Exactly.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 24, 2015)

Steve said:


> Maybe this is a little too philosophical, but if something is predetermined, is it controlled or uncontrolled?  I guess it depends on whether you are the one who predetermined the outcome, or are being controlled by it.


 I'm only speaking on the action and not the outcome.  Outcomes can change even when the action is controlled.  My actions don't guarantee what the outcome will be, things don't always go as planned regardless of if I throw a punch or not.


----------



## Steve (Nov 24, 2015)

If your actions are predetermined, how much control do you really have over them?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 24, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Creating a rational to excuse your response is not the same as having control over your response


Definition of predetermine: to determine beforehand 
Where is the excuse? what is the excuse?   You create a "rational excuse" to excuse your response so are you telling me that you don't have control over how you handle yourself in a self-defense situation?

Control isn't determine by how gentile or how brutal someone responds in a self-defense situation.  Control is about whether the person determines to take a specific action or not.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 24, 2015)

Steve said:


> If your actions are predetermined, how much control do you really have over them?


Because predetermined is what you choose.  Don't take "fate" definition of predetermined when some powerful force has already decided what will happen to you.  That is totally something different than what I'm talking about.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 24, 2015)

For women, learn how to separate the self-defense mindset from the sporting mindset.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 24, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> Because predetermined is what you choose.  Don't take "fate" definition of predetermined when some powerful force has already decided what will happen to you.  That is totally something different than what I'm talking about.



When I use the term control. I mean you have some sort of finesse over how much force you are using. So that if it is a deadly threat you can respond with deadly force. If it is not a deadly threat you can respond with proportionate force.

So either you can't tell the difference between the level of threat or you can and you can't moderate your own actions to compensate.

You have one solution to every problem which is go full noise. This extremist response to self defence can create as many problems as it solves as it is not as versatile as a measured response.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 24, 2015)

drop bear said:


> You have one solution to every problem which is go full noise. This extremist response to self defence can create as many problems as it solves as it is not as versatile as a measured response.


 Not correct because I've shown in multiple post that I don't have "one solution"  in response to self-defense.  You are not understanding me correctly.  If I'm swinging my fist or using a weapon it means that everything else self-defense wise has failed.  I've said many times I've stated how important being aware of one's surroundings is. How self-defense is not always about fighting and that most of it is about avoiding the fight. 

Considering that I've been able to end or avoid the majority of the confrontations that I have had in my life pretty much shows a high understanding of threat and my ability to moderate my actions.  But if I'm at the stage of where I'm physically fighting for my safety, then I'm not holding back.  

Why should I hold back when I'm defending myself?  Am I going to throw a half powered punch? Am I going to move half speed to avoid my attacker?  Am I going to fight just hard enough to where the fight is going to break even?  For people who have guns, what are they going to do? Pull the trigger half way?  Pistol whip an attacker as warning and then shoot?  

Just because I go full force doesn't mean that it's deadly force.  I do however remember people getting bent out of shape because I don't have problems with punching someone, knocking them out, or breaking bone.



drop bear said:


> This extremist response to self defence can create as many problems as it solves as it is not as versatile as a measured response.


 There is nothing extreme about about I'm saying.


----------



## FriedRice (Nov 26, 2015)

BraxLimbo said:


> What do you think is the best form of martial arts for women? One that can help them with assaults?



MMA is the best for real self defense. Try it out, ie. pay for a month's worth. If it's too rough, then downgrade to Krav Maga which is like, MMA Lite....usually works for people who can't handle full MMA.

There's no shortcut. Male attackers will usually always be much stronger than you. It takes years of dedicated training to close the gap and especially to overcome the greater strength of men. In the meanwhile, carry a gun, pepper spray and a knife for protection (wherever legal). Even if you're well trained and a fighter, you should still carry weapons that are legal. I'm very serious about self defense so I always carry my 9mm, at least 2 mags x10 rounds, a knife and mace.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 27, 2015)

FriedRice said:


> MMA is the best for real self defense. Try it out, ie. pay for a month's worth. If it's too rough, then downgrade to Krav Maga which is like, MMA Lite....usually works for people who can't handle full MMA.
> 
> There's no shortcut. Male attackers will usually always be much stronger than you. It takes years of dedicated training to close the gap and especially to overcome the greater strength of men. In the meanwhile, carry a gun, pepper spray and a knife for protection (wherever legal). Even if you're well trained and a fighter, you should still carry weapons that are legal. I'm very serious about self defense so I always carry my 9mm, at least 2 mags x10 rounds, a knife and mace.



No and no. I train MMA, have done for 16 years as well as TMA which I have trained for far, far longer and MMA isn't best for self defence for a number of reasons. In MMA we coach to win competitive fights, the mixture of martial arts is specific usually to a fighter and used to win ( hopefully) fights. Most MMA fighters can defend themselves when necessary when attacked in 'real life' of course but that isn't just down to MMA training, fighters are martial artists most have training in other styles. MMA doesn't teach ( nor does many other styles by the way) awareness and how to avoid fights and incidents. For proper self defence training you go to a place that teaches self defence, you don't go to the hairdresser for groceries so why would you go somewhere that doesn't teach what you need.

Krav Maga is not MMA 'lite' nor is it 'downgrading' to train it, it's a style on it's own. I think you are confused.


----------



## harlan (Nov 27, 2015)

My POV after studying karate for 10 years, kobudo for 12, R.A.D. training, and surviving an armed home assault:

Best martial art? None.
Best self-defense? Fitness.
Best skill? Situational awareness.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 27, 2015)

Jenna said:


> *Respectfully to all, how do the legal definitions assist people at their moment of need of SD?*
> 
> At that moment, what may be an indecent advance that is warded off by an assertive bark could escalate into what it was intended to be.. an attempted rape.  There is not always clinical demarcation of one or the other.  Legal definitions inform legal ramifications yes, though what thoughts of legalities are we meant to consider at that moment of unwelcome sexual advance??
> 
> ...


 
*Bolded*:  An excellent point Jenna, and mentioned elsewhere as with Watergal.  When I taught, or even when I have been asked about SD, I always try to get the questioner to confront themselves, and examine whet they think they are capable of doing.  If I tell them to gouge out eyes, and their reaction is that they couldn't, I try to get them accustomed to the idea that they need to get their mind settled to do that.  Practice it in their mind until they in fact can do it.  It is all I can do.  That is, I can't make them willing to do it, only try to get them thinking about how to accept it as OK in desperate situations.  If it really looks like they can't, then I have to go to another technique.  The problem in Hapkido, is that most simple techniques (that is, what can be learned quickly and easily), are going to damage.  But how do you easily explain that is isn't a problem in a situation where a person would consider fighting to be the correct response?

Underlined:  That has been a problem for a long time, but I think it is worse now as there is in my opinion, more acceptance of bad behavior, that when I was young, would not have been acceptable.  About 12 or so years ago, I was walking on a university campus with my wife and daughter.  There was a boy and several young girls behind us, but in earshot.  The boy was using a lot of vulgar language.  I put up with it for a minute or two thinking he would quit, and also wondering what to do.  I didn't think it a good setting to get into a physical altercation with him.  I finally couldn't take more of it and turned around and said "Language, there are ladies present."

He quit.  But I overheard him justifying himself to the young girls by saying he didn't understand as he didn't think he was saying anything so bad, and besides he wasn't talking to me anyway.  What really stood out in my mind and made me never forget, was that the young girls didn't seem to mind a bit how he was talking and the vulgar language he was using.  They acquiesced easily.  How then can he learn different behavior?

I have also talked to a lot of men who don't understand no means no.  You cannot correctly assume a woman is just being coy, or trying to appear to be a goody-two-shoes while wanting sex as well, if they are saying "No.".  It may be one of those things.  But a man who pursues sex when a woman says no, risks serious trouble with the law, to say nothing of the mental anguish he may cause the woman, and the effects on her life from then on.

Anyway Jenna, thanks for bring up those points.  I think we all need to keep them in mind.


----------



## Jenna (Nov 28, 2015)

@oftheherd1, I wholly agree with your sentiments here oth1, regarding behaviours, I think if I were permitted to generalise, marketing for commerce has sexualised young people as possibly not previously, would you agree? I think this portrays a lifestyle ideal though horrendously misinforms those young folk as to what is acceptable - for me, music vids I some times am left without words to know that very young kids are exposed to this as normal and as worse, treat it and act it out as almost goal or ideal behaviour, boys and girls both. You make good points.  I am glad your daughter has a father like you  x

Lastly, when you say no means no, I think there is no simpler and but more pertinent mantra in all of this. I was surprised doubt - even jokingly - over its absoluteness even surfaced here on the board.. sad.. thank you though for giving your thought, wishes Jx


----------



## BraxLimbo (Nov 30, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> There is no one size fits all solution for self-defense.  Self-defense starts of with awareness and fighting is what usually happens when all other methods fail. She should take a martial art that is focused on self-defense and not sporting.  This will help her to not be scared. Predators can tell when a person is scared and they will take advantage of that if the opportunity presents itself.  The next thing is to run some what if scenarios and come up with realistic plans. Know where the "exits" are.  If she's on the street then she should have an idea of which businesses or shops she can run to in order to get away. Escape plans should be based on the environment and the footwear being used.  Also try to see if anything in the environment can be used as a weapon or can be used to put some distance between her and a would be attacker. Carry a sharpen pencil or fine tip pen to use as a stabbing tool.  Don't just depend on fighting.  Also mentally prepare to do horrible things if necessary to stay safe.  Some people here don't have the stomach to severely hurt others, but if she's ever in a situation where her life is in danger, then she will need to fight as if her life is in danger.  The biggest issue that I see is that she's scared. If she's scared then she is probably reflecting that in her walk.



That's what I keep telling her. Don't let them know you're afraid. They can smell fear and they would love it. Always be alert and don't panic since it would always help you find the best answer.




Hanzou said:


> If she never finds herself in a bad situation, she can at least participate in the sport aspect, which she may find enjoyable.
> .



I do hope she never finds herself in those situations.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Dec 4, 2015)

Jenna said:


> @oftheherd1, I wholly agree with your sentiments here oth1, regarding behaviours, I think if I were permitted to generalise, marketing for commerce has sexualised young people as possibly not previously, would you agree? I think this portrays a lifestyle ideal though horrendously misinforms those young folk as to what is acceptable - for me, music vids I some times am left without words to know that very young kids are exposed to this as normal and as worse, treat it and act it out as almost goal or ideal behaviour, boys and girls both. You make good points.  I am glad your daughter has a father like you  x
> 
> Lastly, when you say no means no, I think there is no simpler and but more pertinent mantra in all of this. I was surprised doubt - even jokingly - over its absoluteness even surfaced here on the board.. sad.. thank you though for giving your thought, wishes Jx




Jenna, I think you are quite correct.  Music videos, preteen TV shows, advertisements, all seem to throw sex at young people before they are fully capable of understanding consequences of yielding to actions dictated by newly surging hormones.  The same videos, shows and advertisements often promote the extreme desirability of being in the "in group," and early yielding to sexual behavior is an OK path to that in-group acceptance.  That is made easier by the fact that we are social beings, of a sort herd mentality.  Parents, teachers, and society seem to have acquiesced to preteens and teens becoming their own teachers, with no adult involvement. 

I believe the above to be true, and leading our society down a dangerous path.  I would be interested in hearing others' opinions.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 4, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> I agree with most of this, except for the carrying a gun part. Unfortunately, gun ownership has proven not to make anyone safer, and actually make people less safe, especially gun owners themselves. The myth of running to grab your gun when someone robs your house is exactly that. You're far more likely to kill yourself or a loved one than the evil gangbanger trying to rape your family.
> 
> In the end, if you whip out a deadly weapon, be prepared to use it. If a woman pulls out a knife, she better be prepared to kill or permanently injure that person, because if she fails with the knife, there's a very good chance that she's escalated the level of violence to the point of no return.


Absolute nonsense


----------



## RTKDCMB (Dec 5, 2015)

FriedRice said:


> MMA is the best for real self defense. Try it out, ie. pay for a month's worth. If it's too rough, then downgrade to Krav Maga which is like, MMA Lite....usually works for people who can't handle full MMA.
> 
> There's no shortcut. Male attackers will usually always be much stronger than you. It takes years of dedicated training to close the gap and especially to overcome the greater strength of men. In the meanwhile, carry a gun, pepper spray and a knife for protection (wherever legal). Even if you're well trained and a fighter, you should still carry weapons that are legal. I'm very serious about self defense so I always carry my 9mm, at least 2 mags x10 rounds, a knife and mace.



If your MMA is so great for self defense as you say then why do you still feel the need to carry so many weapons?


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 5, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> Absolute nonsense



The “Good Guy With a Gun” Is a Myth


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 5, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> The “Good Guy With a Gun” Is a Myth


yeah that's compete nonsense as well.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 5, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> If your MMA is so great for self defense as you say then why do you still feel the need to carry so many weapons?



Because self-defense isn't about a fair fight.


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 5, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> yeah that's compete nonsense as well.



So you believe that it's a good idea for women (and people in general) to carry loaded guns on their person at all times?

Aren't you a cop?


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 5, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> So you believe that it's a good idea for women (and people in general) to carry loaded guns on their person at all times?
> 
> Aren't you a cop?


Yes not only do I think it's a good idea I encourage everyone I meet to do .  Yes I'm a cop so I know the reality and I also known how long it takes me to get to you when you call for help so your better off saving yourself


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 5, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> So you believe that it's a good idea for women (and people in general) to carry loaded guns on their person at all times?
> 
> Aren't you a cop?



Absolutely. The job of the police is not to protect you. They can't. Their job is primarily to collect evidence about events that are already concluded for the trial, if there is one.
You have to protect yourself.
I carry a gun, and have for years. And yes, it's loaded, because an unloaded gun is just a paperweight.
My wife carries a gun.
Our children have all been taught to use firearms, and about half of them carry on a regular basis.
I am not a cop, but my mother was. So were two of her brothers. One of our kids is a correctional officer at a max security facility. One of my cousins is lead detective. Several of my best friends are street cops or detectives.
I can't think of a single one of them who doesn't think armed and trained citizens is a good idea.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 5, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> Absolutely. The job of the police is not to protect you. They can't.


while this is true just know I'll do everything possible and some impossible things to try


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 5, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> Yes not only do I think it's a good idea I encourage everyone I meet to do .  Yes I'm a cop so I know the reality and I also known how long it takes me to get to you when you call for help so your better off saving yourself



Yeah, but the statistics don't bear that out. It shows the exact opposite effect, and that more guns in the population lead to more (non-self defense) homicides.

I also find this all very interesting since a few months ago you were advocating that choking someone in a fight could lead to some serious criminal charges, but you're okay with people blowing each other's heads off in similar circumstances. Wouldn't killing someone also lead to severe criminal charges if you can't prove the shooting was justified?



Dirty Dog said:


> Absolutely. The job of the police is not to protect you.









It was all a lie.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 5, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, but the statistics don't bear that out. It shows the exact opposite effect, and that more guns in the population lead to more (non-self defense) homicides.
> 
> I also find this all very interesting since a few months ago you were advocating that choking someone in a fight could lead to some serious criminal charges, but you're okay with people blowing each other's heads off in similar circumstances. Wouldn't killing someone also lead to severe criminal charges if you can't prove the shooting was justified?
> 
> ...


actually the study done by the CDC after Sandy hook shows your far safer defending yourself with a firearm then any other method or weapon.   Also depending on which study you read there are over 100000+ positive uses of firearms for self defense a year. But hey you got a salon article so facts don't mean much to you.  And you shouldn't be blowing someone's head off or choking someone out in a simple fist fight both will get you in serious trouble.


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 5, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> actually the study done by the CDC after Sandy hook shows your far safer defending yourself with a firearm then any other method or weapon.   Also depending on which study you read there are over 100000+ positive uses of firearms for self defense a year. But hey you got a salon article so facts don't mean much to you.  And you shouldn't be blowing someone's head off or choking someone out in a simple fist fight both will get you in serious trouble.



Fist fights like this;






???

Thankfully, this woman wasn't killed, but this little girl was killed in a completely different situation;

7-year-old girl killed at MI soccer practice after ‘paranoid’ man with concealed carry license opens fire

By a man with a CCW permit.

Also the article was from Slate, not Salon.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 5, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Fist fights like this;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


that's not a fist fight that's a home invasion


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 5, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Also the article was from Slate, not Salon.


Yes I apologize
Here also from "Slate":
*. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively.* “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have *found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies*.”
Ten Surprising Findings From a New Report on Gun Violence


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 5, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Thankfully, this woman wasn't killed, but this little girl was killed in a completely different situation;
> 
> 7-year-old girl killed at MI soccer practice after ‘paranoid’ man with concealed carry license opens fire
> 
> ...


You must of added this or I didnt see it at first which is possible im running on about 16 hours sleep over the last 96 hours.   Yes you found a horror story but we can play that game forever you find a bad story I find a good story tit for tat it really proves nothing either way.


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 5, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> that's not a fist fight that's a home invasion



I said "fist fight" because the attacker was unarmed.

So, would choking the guy, (or blowing his head off) be perfectly justifiable in that instance?



ballen0351 said:


> Yes I apologize
> Here also from "Slate":
> *. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively.* “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have *found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies*.”
> Ten Surprising Findings From a New Report on Gun Violence



So are you okay with articles from Slate.com?



ballen0351 said:


> You must of added this or I didnt see it at first which is possible im running on about 16 hours sleep over the last 96 hours.  Yes you found a horror story but we can play that game forever you find a bad story I find a good story tit for tat it really proves nothing either way.



Sure, but clearly if that guy wasn't armed with a loaded gun (or bought into the notion that he needed to carry a loaded gun everywhere he went) that little girl would be alive today.


----------



## WaterGal (Dec 5, 2015)

Guns can be great for self-defense - if you have the training.  Owning a gun is not enough, you need to put in many many hours of training to develop the skills to be able to use it quickly and effectively under pressure.  Standing around shooting a paper target in an indoor range while wearing ear protection (edit: or shooting empty milk jugs in a quarry, like I used to do with my brother, hahah) is totally different from a real-life encounter, where you have a short time limit, your target is moving, you may be moving, you may be injured, your target may be trying to take the gun from you, etc etc.  If you have a gun and don't know how to use it in that kind of situation, it's not going to help you and may result in your injury or death.

Keep in mind that last year, about 22% of American private citizens owned a firearm, and yet only 229 of them successfully shot and killed someone in self-defense.  Which is less than half the number who accidentally shot and killed themselves or someone else with their gun.

I think, if we encourage people to carry a gun in self-defense, it's important to stress that they'll also need to put a lot of time into training how to use it properly and safely.  (Personally, I think that kind of training should be one of the requirement for a concealed carry permit, and possibly even to buy a handgun at all.)


----------



## WaterGal (Dec 5, 2015)

Jenna said:


> @oftheherd1I think if I were permitted to generalise, marketing for commerce has sexualised young people as possibly not previously, would you agree? I think this portrays a lifestyle ideal though horrendously misinforms those young folk as to what is acceptable - for me, music vids I some times am left without words to know that very young kids are exposed to this as normal and as worse, treat it and act it out as almost goal or ideal behaviour, boys and girls both.



The media absolutely does sexualize young people and promotes unhealthy ideas about sex and relationships and one's interactions with the opposite sex, that's definitely true, but I think that's the result rather than the cause.  Most of the people in charge of "the media" are middle-aged or older men.  They weren't watching sexy music videos as kids.  I think, rather, they view teenage girls as sex objects and then that influences the media that gets made.


----------



## Steve (Dec 5, 2015)

WaterGal said:


> The media absolutely does sexualize young people and promotes unhealthy ideas about sex and relationships and one's interactions with the opposite sex, that's definitely true, but I think that's the result rather than the cause.  Most of the people in charge of "the media" are middle-aged or older men.  They weren't watching sexy music videos as kids.  I think, rather, they view teenage girls as sex objects and then that influences the media that gets made.


there were a couple of good threads in this a while back.   Got a little heated but some good information, nonetheless, if I remember correctly.    On a phone so searching is a little rough but maybr someone can find it.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 5, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> I said "fist fight" because the attacker was unarmed.


if your not able to tell the difference between a simple fight and a home invasion robbery then it's kind of hard to discuss using any type of self defense 


> So, would choking the guy, (or blowing his head off) be perfectly justifiable in that instance?


hitting him with a mack truck would be ok in that instance.  





> So are you okay with articles from Slate.com?


doesn't matter if I am, you are so I used it 




> Sure, but clearly if that guy wasn't armed with a loaded gun (or bought into the notion that he needed to carry a loaded gun everywhere he went) that little girl would be alive today.


you do know Its possible to kill a little girl without a gun right? And in this guys situation had his family and friends stepped up and reported him and his behavior prior he could have possibly gotten some help.  Instead they wait until after he kills and then say oh yeah he was acting crazy.   Again 1 death prices nothing when you have several hundred thousand people a year defending themselves with a gun


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 5, 2015)

WaterGal said:


> Guns can be great for self-defense - if you have the training.  Owning a gun is not enough, you need to put in many many hours of training to develop the skills to be able to use it quickly and effectively under pressure.  Standing around shooting a paper target in an indoor range while wearing ear protection (edit: or shooting empty milk jugs in a quarry, like I used to do with my brother, hahah) is totally different from a real-life encounter, where you have a short time limit, your target is moving, you may be moving, you may be injured, your target may be trying to take the gun from you, etc etc.  If you have a gun and don't know how to use it in that kind of situation, it's not going to help you and may result in your injury or death.


I agree you need to train with all forms of self defense 


> Keep in mind that last year, about 22% of American private citizens owned a firearm, and yet only 229 of them successfully shot and killed someone in self-defense.  Which is less than half the number who accidentally shot and killed themselves or someone else with their gun.


I don't think your numbers are accurate however even if they are there are hundreds of thousands of instances where someone defended themselves with a gun where nobody was shot.  You don't need to fire the weapon to successfully defend yourself


> I think, if we encourage people to carry a gun in self-defense, it's important to stress that they'll also need to put a lot of time into training how to use it properly and safely.  (Personally, I think that kind of training should be one of the requirement for a concealed carry permit, and possibly even to buy a handgun at all.)


again that goes for all types of,self defense.  That's what most of us here do already spending hours a week training for self defense


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 5, 2015)

WaterGal said:


> Guns can be great for self-defense - if you have the training.  Owning a gun is not enough, you need to put in many many hours of training to develop the skills to be able to use it quickly and effectively under pressure.  Standing around shooting a paper target in an indoor range while wearing ear protection (edit: or shooting empty milk jugs in a quarry, like I used to do with my brother, hahah) is totally different from a real-life encounter, where you have a short time limit, your target is moving, you may be moving, you may be injured, your target may be trying to take the gun from you, etc etc.  If you have a gun and don't know how to use it in that kind of situation, it's not going to help you and may result in your injury or death.
> 
> Keep in mind that last year, about 22% of American private citizens owned a firearm, and yet only 229 of them successfully shot and killed someone in self-defense.  Which is less than half the number who accidentally shot and killed themselves or someone else with their gun.
> 
> I think, if we encourage people to carry a gun in self-defense, it's important to stress that they'll also need to put a lot of time into training how to use it properly and safely.  (Personally, I think that kind of training should be one of the requirement for a concealed carry permit, and possibly even to buy a handgun at all.)



Well even when they train, and learn how to use them properly they end up killing themselves, an innocent bystander, or end up getting the weapon turned on themselves.

Heck, look at American cops. They're wrongfully gunning down people left and right instead of using alternative measures. If they can't be trusted with guns with their training, then the average citizen shouldn't be either. Arming the population simply leads to a more paranoid society as a whole.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 5, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Well even when they train, and learn how to use them properly they end up killing themselves, an innocent bystander, or end up getting the weapon turned on themselves.
> 
> Heck, look at American cops. They're wrongfully gunning down people left and right instead of using alternative measures. If they can't be trusted with guns with their training, then the average citizen shouldn't be either. Arming the population simply leads to a more paranoid society as a whole.


except the stats prove this nonsense  wrong sooooooo


----------



## drop bear (Dec 5, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, but the statistics don't bear that out. It shows the exact opposite effect, and that more guns in the population lead to more (non-self defense) homicides.
> 
> I also find this all very interesting since a few months ago you were advocating that choking someone in a fight could lead to some serious criminal charges, but you're okay with people blowing each other's heads off in similar circumstances. Wouldn't killing someone also lead to severe criminal charges if you can't prove the shooting was justified?
> 
> ...



There was a huff a while back in the courts where it was ruled the police do not have a duty to protect you.  But it was more like if you run into a burning building. Yoi cant sue if they dont run in after you.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 5, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Well even when they train, and learn how to use them properly they end up killing themselves, an innocent bystander, or end up getting the weapon turned on themselves.
> 
> Heck, look at American cops. They're wrongfully gunning down people left and right instead of using alternative measures. If they can't be trusted with guns with their training, then the average citizen shouldn't be either. Arming the population simply leads to a more paranoid society as a whole.




As i have said i am middle ground here. 

If you are talking 3 days?  Of training and have come to the conclusion that you have to shoot someone because you are too gumby to arrest them. Then yes the system that lets people habe guns needs a fix. 

But if the person could show he can use a gun with responsibility. Then the issue is lessened.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 5, 2015)

WaterGal said:


> The media absolutely does sexualize young people and promotes unhealthy ideas about sex and relationships and one's interactions with the opposite sex, that's definitely true, but I think that's the result rather than the cause.  Most of the people in charge of "the media" are middle-aged or older men.  They weren't watching sexy music videos as kids.  I think, rather, they view teenage girls as sex objects and then that influences the media that gets made.


I think the media uses What it thinks will,work.  If they think sex sells they use it.  If donkeys dressed as carrots worked then they would use that.  Its less about sex more about money


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 5, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> if your not able to tell the difference between a simple fight and a home invasion robbery then it's kind of hard to discuss using any type of self defense
> hitting him with a mack truck would be ok in that instance.



It wasn't a simple fight because the woman was woefully unequipped to defend herself. Had she trained in a proper martial art things may have been a bit more fair.



> doesn't matter if I am, you are so I used it



So are you recanting your earlier statements about the website using false information and "nonsense"?



> you do know Its possible to kill a little girl without a gun right? And in this guys situation had his family and friends stepped up and reported him and his behavior prior he could have possibly gotten some help.  Instead they wait until after he kills and then say oh yeah he was acting crazy.   Again 1 death prices nothing when you have several hundred thousand people a year defending themselves with a gun



Somehow I think if this guy approached their car window with a knife that little girl would still be alive.

After Sandy Hook a crazed man in China attacked a school full of children with a knife, and no one was killed. A lot more were killed in Connecticut because a large segment of Americans still think that they live in the Wild West and can't leave their homes without a gun at their side.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 5, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> It wasn't a simple fight because the woman was woefully unequipped to defend herself. Had she trained in a proper martial art things may have been a bit more fair.



No it wasn't a fight because it was in her living room.  That makes it a home invasion/ robbery. 



> So are you recanting your earlier statements about the website using false information and "nonsense"?


No the article you posted was nonsense opinion based and lacking of facts.  The arrival I posted was using numbers from,the CDC study if you would prefer I can post the actual CDC study and not the slate article






> Somehow I think if this guy approached their car window with a knife that little girl would still be alive.


Or he would have stabbed her sooner or later at the house.  He was friends with the family and he was CRAZY. 





> After Sandy Hook a crazed man in China attacked a school full of children with a knife, and no one was killed. A lot more were killed in Connecticut because a large segment of Americans still think that they live in the Wild West and can't leave their homes without a gun at their side.


well had someone in Connecticut had a gun at their side alot,less,kids may have been killed. Dude the facts speak for them selves hundreds of thousands of positive self defense uses of guns a year.  That's hundreds of thousands of less victims


----------



## drop bear (Dec 5, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> well had someone in Connecticut had a gun at their side alot,less,kids may have been killed. Dude the facts speak for them selves hundreds of thousands of positive self defense uses of guns a year. That's hundreds of thousands of less victims



The facts still have a source.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 5, 2015)

drop bear said:


> The facts still have a source.


Yes the CDC study that Obama ordered


----------



## drop bear (Dec 5, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> Yes the CDC study that Obama ordered



This one?

First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws


----------



## oftheherd1 (Dec 5, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Well even when they train, and learn how to use them properly they end up killing themselves, an innocent bystander, or end up getting the weapon turned on themselves.
> 
> Heck, look at American cops. They're wrongfully gunning down people left and right instead of using alternative measures. If they can't be trusted with guns with their training, then the average citizen shouldn't be either. Arming the population simply leads to a more paranoid society as a whole.



OK, you don't like people having guns.  Why not?  What are you really against and why?  Does the martial art you train in have no lethal techniques?  You may say a person with a gun can kill more people in a shorter time.  True. 

But if you train in a martial art with lethal techniques, and learn how to use them properly, why aren't you and others killing innocent people and yourselves?

And America cops wrongfully gunning down people right and left instead of using alternate measures?  Really?  Do you think you may have overstated things a little?  Are you trying to bait ballen0351?  Do you think there is a possibility you may bait/insult a lot of good cops?  Or don't you think there are any good cops? 

Do think there is a difference between a split second decision whether to use lethal force or not, and intentionally using lethal force illegally?


----------



## RTKDCMB (Dec 5, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> hitting him with a mack truck would be ok in that instance.


Bit hard to get into your living room.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 6, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> Bit hard to get into your living room.


drive thru beeep beeeepp


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 6, 2015)

oftheherd1 said:


> OK, you don't like people having guns.  Why not?  What are you really against and why?  Does the martial art you train in have no lethal techniques?  You may say a person with a gun can kill more people in a shorter time.  True.
> 
> But if you train in a martial art with lethal techniques, and learn how to use them properly, why aren't you and others killing innocent people and yourselves?



Because it requires a great deal of training to set up a choke or a throw in my martial art. It requires next to zero training to load a gun and fire it in a general direction and harm or kill someone. Heck there are examples of 5-6 year old children killing people with loaded guns.



> And America cops wrongfully gunning down people right and left instead of using alternate measures?  Really?  Do you think you may have overstated things a little?  Are you trying to bait ballen0351?  Do you think there is a possibility you may bait/insult a lot of good cops?  Or don't you think there are any good cops?



For every bad cop out there, there are entire police departments that cover up for them. Take that recent incident in Chicago for example where the cop shot a knife-wielding kid on the ground 16 times. It took a year for that case to go to trial, and the only reason it reached that point was because of a video. Before that video, the cops (not just the shooter, but every cop on the scene) outright lied about the incidents that took place leading up to the shooting.



> Do think there is a difference between a split second decision whether to use lethal force or not, and intentionally using lethal force illegally?



Certainly, and my point was that those with the most training (cops) can't even be trusted to make those decisions, so how can ordinary citizens?


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 6, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Because it requires a great deal of training to set up a choke or a throw in my martial art. It requires next to zero training to load a gun and fire it in a general direction and harm or kill someone. Heck there are examples of 5-6 year old children killing people with loaded guns.


you do realize people have been strangling eachohter to death with no training forever right.  Its not rocket science. I bet you can even figure it out


----------



## CatNap (Dec 6, 2015)

BraxLimbo said:


> What do you think is the best form of martial arts for women? One that can help them with assaults?



I think the best training is one that they'll show up for class for. There's no best martial arts style for women any more than there are "guns for ladies." Whatever works.....

Laura


----------



## oftheherd1 (Dec 6, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Because it requires a great deal of training to set up a choke or a throw in my martial art. It requires next to zero training to load a gun and fire it in a general direction and harm or kill someone. Heck there are examples of 5-6 year old children killing people with loaded guns.



I never learned how to choke in my art, only how to defend it.  But we did learn very early on how to use throws.  Naturally we got better at throwing the longer we trained.  But I see no connection between throwing and accidently or illegally killing with a gun.  Your last two sentences are disconnected.  The fact that young children have played with loaded guns and accidently killed someone does not mean they know how to load a gun, much less that they are old enough to form a legally malicious intent.  I think your whole argument is weak; see ballen0351's post just above on choking.



Hanzou said:


> For every bad cop out there, there are entire police departments that cover up for them. Take that recent incident in Chicago for example where the cop shot a knife-wielding kid on the ground 16 times. It took a year for that case to go to trial, and the only reason it reached that point was because of a video. Before that video, the cops (not just the shooter, but every cop on the scene) outright lied about the incidents that took place leading up to the shooting.?



None of that is proven, other than that it certainly appears to be an illegal killing by the video.  It is indeed difficult to defend shooting 16 rounds, some of which were reportedly fired while the person was already down, and only armed with a knife, and there were other officers who could have engaged the suspect.  But how do you know that every cop on the scene lied?  They may have, do you have  inside information?  I think they would not likely prosecute with only the video.  Maybe they have made a deal with the other cops.  Do you have any facts on that?  Perhaps more importantly, can you show where type of illegal behavior is rampant?



Hanzou said:


> Certainly, and my point was that those with the most training (cops) can't even be trusted to make those decisions, so how can ordinary citizens?



So is your complaint that cops can't be trusted to make the split second decisions you would have made (after you have had time to analyze the situation and think about it for a while?)  They do that anyway, knowing there are no muggins.

As to ordinary citizens, where do you think police come from?  Regarding the uptick in gun violence, where do you think it comes from?  Do you think the guns are responsible?  Why in the late 40s, 50s, 60s and later, there was not the same level of mass gun violence?

Nonetheless, what does that have to do with the difference  between a split second decision and an illegal act?


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 6, 2015)

oftheherd1 said:


> I never learned how to choke in my art, only how to defend it.  But we did learn very early on how to use throws.  Naturally we got better at throwing the longer we trained.  But I see no connection between throwing and accidently or illegally killing with a gun.  Your last two sentences are disconnected.  The fact that young children have played with loaded guns and accidently killed someone does not mean they know how to load a gun, much less that they are old enough to form a legally malicious intent.  I think your whole argument is weak; see ballen0351's post just above on choking.



Yet children DO kill each other with guns. The fact that they may not know how to load them is fairly irrelevant. Children killing each other with guns is such a problem that there's actually laws that require owners to keep their guns unloaded and locked up. There aren't many cases of children choking each other to death.

It takes training to choke someone in an efficient manner. The choking Ballen is talking about is choking utilizing brute force typically performed by assailants far larger than the people they're choking. The choking I'm talking about is the type of choking that weaker people can perform on much stronger people, and choke them out fairly quickly. The latter type of choking requires a great deal of training to pull off.

The same applies to throwing. Quite difficult for a 120 lb person to throw a 200+ lb person untrained. Quite another thing for a 120 lb Judo black belt to do it.




> None of that is proven, other than that it certainly appears to be an illegal killing by the video.  It is indeed difficult to defend shooting 16 rounds, some of which were reportedly fired while the person was already down, and only armed with a knife, and there were other officers who could have engaged the suspect.  But how do you know that every cop on the scene lied?  They may have, do you have  inside information?  I think they would not likely prosecute with only the video.  Maybe they have made a deal with the other cops.  Do you have any facts on that?  Perhaps more importantly, can you show where type of illegal behavior is rampant?



There's the case in Cleveland where cops shot the 12 year old, and lied about what happened. Video proved otherwise. There's the case in South Carolina where the cop shot the black gentleman in the back and said that he fought over his taser. Video proved that untrue. There's the case in Baltimore where the guy was placed in the back of a cruiser and got his spine snapped. Then there's the case in Minnesota where the guy was shot while he was handcuffed. Then there's the aforementioned Chicago situation.

All of that has happened within the last year. Seems pretty rampant to me.




> So is your complaint that cops can't be trusted to make the split second decisions you would have made (after you have had time to analyze the situation and think about it for a while?)  They do that anyway, knowing there are no muggins.
> 
> As to ordinary citizens, where do you think police come from?  Regarding the uptick in gun violence, where do you think it comes from?  Do you think the guns are responsible?  Why in the late 40s, 50s, 60s and later, there was not the same level of mass gun violence?
> 
> Nonetheless, what does that have to do with the difference  between a split second decision and an illegal act?



My complaint is that if the police can't be trusted to make split second decisions with firearms (as demonstrated in several cases around the country), and they get loads of training, how can the same be expected of ordinary people who get considerably less to zero training?

I'll let you have the last word though, since this topic isn't the purpose of this thread.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 6, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Yet children DO kill each other with guns. The fact that they may not know how to load them is fairly irrelevant. Children killing each other with guns is such a problem that there's actually laws that require owners to keep their guns unloaded and locked up.


300,000,000 guns in the US and 99.99% have never been used by a kid to kill another kid so its really NOT that common.


> There aren't many cases of children choking each other to death
> It takes training to choke someone in an efficient manner. The choking Ballen is talking about is choking utilizing brute force typically performed by assailants far larger than the people they're choking. The choking I'm talking about is the type of choking that weaker people can perform on much stronger people, and choke them out fairly quickly. The latter type of choking requires a great deal of training to pull off.
> .


LOL wait so we are only allowed to talk about the type of chokes you want to discuss?  The far more common and the kind you don't need any training for as you described we just are supposed to forget about them?  Ok then we are not allowed to talk about handgun violence we only can discuss skill snipers that murder people


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 6, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> 300,000,000 guns in the US and 99.99% have never been used by a kid to kill another kid so its really NOT that common.



Yet thousands of children are killed every year by other children. Ever hear of a toddler choking a baby to death? I haven't, but a toddler has shot a baby while their parents were in the store.



> LOL wait so we are only allowed to talk about the type of chokes you want to discuss?  The far more common and the kind you don't need any training for as you described we just are supposed to forget about them?



Chokes only came up because I was asked if there were lethal techniques in my system of martial arts. Chokes are part of that system, however the chokes we do aren't the same types of chokes you're describing.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 6, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Yet thousands of children are killed every year by other children. Ever hear of a toddler choking a baby to death? I haven't, but a toddler has shot a baby while their parents were in the store.


There are not "thousands" of children killed every year by other kids with guns lol 



> Chokes only came up because I was asked if there were lethal techniques in my system of martial arts. Chokes are part of that system, however the chokes we do aren't the same types of chokes you're describing.


And ? they are still effective.  Your claim was you needed skill and training to choke someone to death and thats just not true.[/quote][/QUOTE]


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 7, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> There are not "thousands" of children killed every year by other kids with guns lol



Yeah, my mistake, I got that number mixed up with the total number of children killed by guns annually in the U.S. 




> And ? they are still effective.  Your claim was you needed skill and training to choke someone to death and thats just not true.


[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

My argument was that you need skill and training to apply the chokes from my martial art. The kind of chokes you're talking about have limited effectiveness, and are easy to counter.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 7, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, my mistake, I got that number mixed up with the total number of children killed by guns annually in the U.S.


even that number still isnt thousands 




> My argument was that you need skill and training to apply the chokes from my martial art. The kind of chokes you're talking about have limited effectiveness, and are easy to counter.


if you call death limited effectivness ok


----------



## BraxLimbo (Dec 7, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> I think the media uses What it thinks will,work.  If they think sex sells they use it.  If donkeys dressed as carrots worked then they would use that.  Its less about sex more about money



Absolutely right. I think it's not the media that caused the whole "objectifying girls and women" thing. It's the people viewing, reading, buying and loving these themes which makes it so popular these days that even the media backs it up. The media needs something that people will talk about, whether negatively or not. Talking is what brings popularity and ultimately money.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 7, 2015)

Folks, this is not a thread for debate about gun control. 
If you want to engage in political debate, do it in the appropriate forum. Which MartialTalk is not.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 7, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> Folks, this is not a thread for debate about gun control.


apparently it is since there is like 4 pages of it


> If you want to engage in political debate, do it in the appropriate forum. Which MartialTalk is not.


I think its very appropriate since a gun is the most effective form of self-defense


----------



## Paul_D (Dec 7, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> I think its very appropriate since a gun is the most effective form of self-defense


Considering that the majority of people in the world don't have access to guns, how can it be the most effective form of self defence?


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 7, 2015)

Weapons can be effective in some cases but the majority of attacks on women are done by someone the woman knows and wouldn't think to use their guns on. They probably wouldn't at first think to use self defence techniques either.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 7, 2015)

Paul_D said:


> Considering that the majority of people in the world don't have access to guns, how can it be the most effective form of self defence?


A firearm is the great equalizer.  A 5 ft tall 90 pound 13 year old and drop a 6'4 350 pound man in seconds.  No other form of self defense has that capability.  I didnt say it was the most common form only the most effective.


----------



## Jenna (Dec 7, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> A firearm is the great equalizer.  A 5 ft tall 90 pound 13 year old and drop a 6'4 350 pound man in seconds.  No other form of self defense has that capability.  I didnt say it was the most common form only the most effective.


Would training be needed for the 5 ft 13yo to be effective and equal in this case to the 6'4?


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 7, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Weapons can be effective in some cases but the majority of attacks on women are done by someone the woman knows and wouldn't think to use their guns on. They probably wouldn't at first think to use self defence techniques either.


Id even say most people in general don't fight back regardless if they know the attacker or not.


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 7, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Weapons can be effective in some cases but the majority of attacks on women are done by someone the woman knows and wouldn't think to use their guns on. They probably wouldn't at first think to use self defence techniques either.



Add on the fact that many people store their guns unloaded and locked in their homes, that makes it even more difficult for a woman to utilize a firearm in a bad situation. 

Chokes work wonders though. I also think most women would prefer to put their assailant to sleep instead of blowing their head off.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 7, 2015)

Jenna said:


> Would training be needed for the 5 ft 13yo to be effective and equal in this case to the 6'4?


training to shoot a gun?  Sure I start teaching my kids to shoot at 5.  My daughter is 12 now and is very proficient with handguns rifles and shotguns.  She 4'6 maybe 80 pounds and I have no doubt should could drop a man.  She dropped a 180-pound deer last week.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 7, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Add on the fact that many people store their guns unloaded and locked in their homes, that makes it even more difficult for a woman to utilize a firearm in a bad situation.


says who?  I know alot of people that keep a loaded gun on the house for easy access.  Its kinda pointless to keep it unloaded in a safe for the reason you already pointed out.  


> Chokes work wonders though. I also think most women would prefer to put their assailant to sleep instead of blowing their head off.


Well of course nobody wants to kill anyone but its alot easier to keep distance and draw a gun then to get close grapple with an attacker to get to a position to choke him out


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 7, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> says who?  I know alot of people that keep a loaded gun on the house for easy access.  Its kinda pointless to keep it unloaded in a safe for the reason you already pointed out.



The point would be to make sure young children don't get a hold of them and accidentally shoot someone. Also some states have laws regarding unsecured firearms in the home.



> Well of course nobody wants to kill anyone but its alot easier to keep distance and draw a gun then to get close grapple with an attacker to get to a position to choke him out



I would actually disagree. Women tend to end up in grappling range pretty consistently in bad situations.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 7, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> The point would be to make sure young children don't get a hold of them and accidentally shoot someone. Also some states have laws regarding unsecured firearms in the home.


 Keeping out of a childs hand and sto; accessible to the adult is easy to do.  Add that to teaching kids about guns and its not an issue.



> I would actually disagree. Women tend to end up in grappling range pretty consistently in bad situations.


because they are not training to create distance and draw a weapon.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 7, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> Id even say most people in general don't fight back regardless if they know the attacker or not.



True enough for a number of reasons. women are often told not to fight back and it would be easier for them, however they are also told to fight back because without bruises etc they won't be believed, a no win situation for women basically because whatever advice they follow it could end badly.
We had a Fijian female soldier come and train with us, she was tall and very strong and muscular, she could after a bit of training throw most of our men, she punched like a pro and was quite scary when sparring but she would also get beaten up by her Fijian boyfriend, also a soldier. she could have taken him on easily but because of cultural traditions she didn't. Nothing we said ( nor the army) could change this for her, she just couldn't see how it was wrong or how and why she should change the situation. It was frustrating to say the least for us.


----------



## Grenadier (Dec 7, 2015)

If you want to discuss the pros and cons of using a firearm when it comes to women's self-defense, please feel free to do so.  It can certainly be a relevant part of the subject matter.  

If you want to discuss the politics of firearms, then please take it elsewhere.  While some political discussion will trickle in, that could be acceptable, for example, someone saying that firearms are illegal in my country, or I can't get a permit, the promotion of pro or anti-gun causes is better suited elsewhere.


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 7, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> Keeping out of a childs hand and sto; accessible to the adult is easy to do.



Yeah, it's called locking the weapon away, typically unloaded. Even if you have it unlocked and loaded, it's pretty unlikely you're going to be carrying a loaded weapon on you at all times.



> because they are not training to create distance and draw a weapon.



Draw a weapon from where exactly? You think women are walking around with guns holstered at their sides? That's not even common in America, much less countries where firearms are illegal. Even if that were the case, you still have to maintain distance, draw the gun, make sure the safety is off, and aim the weapon.

If the gun isn't on your person, you need to reach for the gun (wherever it may be), and perform all the steps above. But again, women tend to not carry loaded guns while jogging, out on a date, or sitting at home watching Netflix.


----------



## Buka (Dec 7, 2015)

I soooo want to get in on this debate. But I ain't gonna'. Nope, not going to do it.

Let's talk religion and politics instead. Drunk. Yeah, that's the ticket.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 7, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, it's called locking the weapon away, typically unloaded. Even if you have it unlocked and loaded, it's pretty unlikely you're going to be carrying a loaded weapon on you at all times.


except millions of homes have guns loaded and atthe ready so your wrong.



> Draw a weapon from where exactly? You think women are walking around with guns holstered at their sides? That's not even common in America,


Really?  I know plenty of woman that have guns on them.  There is an entire industry dealing with woman conceal carry.  Just because your not familiar with them doesn't make it true.  300,000,000 million Guns in America your pretty naive if you believe woman are not carrying guns.  


> much less countries where firearms are illegal.


I couldnt care less about other countries


> Even if that were the case, you still have to maintain distance, draw the gun,


About 4 to 6 inches is pleanty in an emergency


> make sure the safety is off


Unless it has no mechanical safety


> , and aim the weapon.


not at the distance were talking about


> If the gun isn't on your person, you need to reach for the gun (wherever it may be), and perform all the steps above.


nope again your talking out your backside


> But again, women tend to not carry loaded guns while jogging, out on a date, or sitting at home watching Netflix.


How do you know?  just because you are afraid of guns dont be surprised  that woman are not


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 7, 2015)

Grenadier said:


> If you want to discuss the pros and cons of using a firearm when it comes to women's self-defense, please feel free to do so.  It can certainly be a relevant part of the subject matter.


we are


> If you want to discuss the politics of firearms, then please take it elsewhere.  While some political discussion will trickle in, that could be acceptable, for example, someone saying that firearms are illegal in my country, or I can't get a permit, the promotion of pro or anti-gun causes is better suited elsewhere.


we did


----------



## Paul_D (Dec 7, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> About 4 to 6 inches is pleanty in an emergency


These guys had more than 4-6 inches, it wasn't enough for them.


----------



## WaterGal (Dec 7, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> I don't think your numbers are accurate however even if they are there are hundreds of thousands of instances where someone defended themselves with a gun where nobody was shot.  You don't need to fire the weapon to successfully defend yourself



I got the homicide numbers from the FBI.  According to their records, 2014, there were 229 justifiable homicide (killing someone in self-defense) by firearm committed by private citizens.  There were also some justifiable homicides by other methods (knives etc), but I don't have the data in front of me right now like I did when I wrote this comment.

It's more difficult to get an accurate estimate of how many people used a gun in self-defense without shooting the other person.  Some people have tried to study that, but it seemed like it's tough to get an accurate figure because it relies on self-reported data and "have you ever defended yourself with a gun?" is sort of a broad question.

(Edited because I typed the wrong word.)


----------



## WaterGal (Dec 7, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Weapons can be effective in some cases but the majority of attacks on women are done by someone the woman knows and wouldn't think to use their guns on. They probably wouldn't at first think to use self defence techniques either.



That's a good point.  And the most common person to attack a woman is her husband/boyfriend or another family member who lives with her, any of which probably also has access to the same gun she'd be using to defend herself.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 7, 2015)

WaterGal said:


> I got the homicide numbers from the FBI.  According to their records, 2014, there were 229 justifiable homicide (killing someone in self-defense) by firearm committed by private citizens.  There were also some justifiable homicides by other methods (knives etc), but I don't have the data in front of me right now like I did when I wrote this comment.
> 
> It's more difficult to get an accurate estimate of how many people used a gun in self-defense without shooting the other person.  Some people have tried to study that, but it seemed like it's tough to get an accurate figure because it relies on self-reported data and "have you ever defended yourself with a gun?" is sort of a broad question.
> 
> (Edited because I typed the wrong word.)


lowest number I've seen is around 100,000 highest was millions. I'd guess it's closer to the low hundred thousand.  We had two just this week I responded too so it happens.  
But as you said it will depend on the victims perception did they believe they were at risk or was it defense of say property.  Or did the victim do something that caused them to need to defend themselves.  But even say 50,000 legit cases that's great in my book


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 7, 2015)

Paul_D said:


> These guys had more than 4-6 inches, it wasn't enough for them.


Yes if your ever attacked my a knife expert your probably going to be in trouble.  Thankfully we don't go up against experts very often.  
Also police are a bad example they have other goals besides self defense including detention and apprehension.  If your a civilian you would be approaching the 
Dude for him to stab you


----------



## Paul_D (Dec 7, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> Yes if your ever attacked my a knife expert your probably going to be in trouble.  Thankfully we don't go up against experts very often.
> Also police are a bad example they have other goals besides self defense including detention and apprehension.  If your a civilian you would be approaching the
> Dude for him to stab you


Agreed but your point was 4-6 inches is enough, yet is you look at people getting sucker punched in the street/bars/argument they do so from 6 inches away.  I can't see how if two people are stood 6 inches away and having and argument (or if a criminal/mugger is talking to you during the interview stage of his crime) you can pull a weapon faster than he can sucker punch you.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 7, 2015)

WaterGal said:


> That's a good point.  And the most common person to attack a woman is her husband/boyfriend or another family member who lives with her, any of which probably also has access to the same gun she'd be using to defend herself.


the guns kinda irrelevant in that scenario since shes not going to fight back anyway.  But there are many cases where woman do shoot the husband. 
We had one woman fight back just tonight the wife was getting beat up.  she grabbed a kitchen knife and stabbed him in the gut.  Then ran out and called us.  I didn't go to that call so I don't know the full story but hes at shock trauma and shes still being interviewed by detectives when I left to go home


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 7, 2015)

Paul_D said:


> Agreed but your point was 4-6 inches is enough, yet is you look at people getting sucker punched in the street/bars/argument they do so from 6 inches away.  I can't see how if two people are stood 6 inches away and having and argument (or if a criminal/mugger is talking to you during the interview stage of his crime) you can pull a weapon faster than he can sucker punch you.


I said in an emergency. If your being attacked you only need enough room to get the gun clear of the holster and pointed toward the attacker.  Then you just start shooting.  We practice it on the range all the time it's called close quarters shooting.  Its not ideal but in a life or death emergency it's all you need just a few inches to point the hurt end at the bad guy.  Also I'm not shooting or drawing a gun in someone that wants a fist fight.  That's not life or death.


----------



## Paul_D (Dec 7, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> I said in an emergency. If your being attacked you only need enough room to get the gun clear of the holster and pointed toward the attacker.  Then you just start shooting.  We practice it on the range all the time it's called close quarters shooting.  Its not ideal but in a life or death emergency it's all you need just a few inches to point the hurt end at the bad guy.  Also I'm not shooting or drawing a gun in someone that wants a fist fight.  That's not life or death.


You did say emergency yes, my apologies!


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 7, 2015)

Paul_D said:


> These guys had more than 4-6 inches, it wasn't enough for them.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 7, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> View attachment 19686


Thats hilarious You win Threads over folks time to go home now


----------



## GiYu - Todd (Dec 7, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Well even when they train, and learn how to use them properly they end up killing themselves, an innocent bystander, or end up getting the weapon turned on themselves.
> 
> Heck, look at American cops. They're wrongfully gunning down people left and right instead of using alternative measures. If they can't be trusted with guns with their training, then the average citizen shouldn't be either. Arming the population simply leads to a more paranoid society as a whole.


 
You seem to imply this is the majority of occurences with firearm owners.  I contend these are all extremely rare instances, unless you can provide a source otherwise.  If you believe that no trained law-abiding civilians or law enforcement are competent enough to be allowed to carry firearms, how would you recommend protecting against those criminals who would continue to keep theirs? 



drop bear said:


> There was a huff a while back in the courts where it was ruled the police do not have a duty to protect you.  But it was more like if you run into a burning building. Yoi cant sue if they dont run in after you.


 
Police have no duty to act... although most willing do so when possible.  If police happen to reach a crime in progress, their legal obligation is to accurately report the details in their paperwork, not to get between the criminal and their intended victim.  Although I've never known any who wouldn't help, even at great personal risk, if they thought they could protect the innocent.



ballen0351 said:


> even that number still isnt thousands


 
Most of the statistics on "children" tend to count people into their early 20s... and do not separate out gang members who typically shoot other teenaged gang members at a high rate.  Chicago alone had close to 2500 shootings (410 homicides) in 2014... and it has extremely strict gun control laws.  Only 16 of those fatal shootings came from police.  (source: SunTimes).  So, technically, thousands MAY be a correct value, but the number needs clarification since the majority are from gang-on-gang shootings.



Hanzou said:


> Draw a weapon from where exactly? You think women are walking around with guns holstered at their sides? ...
> But again, women tend to not carry loaded guns while jogging, out on a date, or sitting at home watching Netflix.


 
My wife carries, as do several of her friends.  None have had occasion to utilize one, which is fortunate.  I hope they never need them.

You're correct that she doesn't carry while watching Netflix.  That would be uncomfortable.  But there is one secured nearby.   



WaterGal said:


> It's more difficult to get an accurate estimate of how many people used a gun in self-defense without shooting the other person.  Some people have tried to study that, but it seemed like it's tough to get an accurate figure because it relies on self-reported data and "have you ever defended yourself with a gun?" is sort of a broad question.


 
I can speak of at least one occurance late last year.  I had two men rush up to me at an ATM late at night.  One came up behind me, the other came up to my right with hands in his pockets.  As per my training, I moved lateral to avoid them surrounding me, and drew into low ready (that's both hands on weapon, but pointed at the ground, for those unfamiliar).  The gentlemen quickly disengaged and left.  I didn't report it due to the fact that I never saw a weapon (it was implied in pocket of the man to my right), yet had technically brandished mine. 

I wasn't happy to have been forced to defend myself.  I didn't go out looking to "pump lead" into anyone.  It wasn't even my choice to have to draw that night.  I was in fear for my life and took what measures were needed to stay alive. 

And to Hanzou... it wasn't taken and used against me, I didn't shoot myself, and didn't slaughter innocent bystanders.  I'm also not paranoid. I went back to that same ATM last night, as I've done dozens of times since.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 7, 2015)

GiYu - Todd said:


> Police have no duty to act... although most willing do so when possible.



Here our police officers have a duty to act, they have to perform their statutory role of protecting life and property, preserve order, prevent crime and detect offenders.


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 7, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> except millions of homes have guns loaded and at the ready so your wrong.





> Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
> • For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
> • 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
> • In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.



10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down

The self defense portion is quite telling.




> Really?  I know plenty of woman that have guns on them.  There is an entire industry dealing with woman conceal carry.  Just because your not familiar with them doesn't make it true.  300,000,000 million Guns in America your pretty naive if you believe woman are not carrying guns.



That's not what I said. I said that it isn't common, and if they are doing it, its probably in their handbags, or in the glove compartments of their cars. I've never personally witnessed anyone having a holstered firearm on their person while jogging, at stores, in restaurants, on the job, or elsewhere, and I've lived in several states. Heck, in most states it's illegal to carry firearms into schools and businesses anyway.



> I couldn't care less about other countries



Well there are some posters on this forum who live outside the US. Additionally what if an American woman is traveling to a country where firearms are illegal? Is she just SoL?



> About 4 to 6 inches is plenty in an emergency



Better make sure you don't miss.



> Unless it has no mechanical safety



But what if it does?



> not at the distance were talking about
> 
> nope again your talking out your backside



So if you just happen to not have your gun nearby you don't have to get it, or reach for it? How else would you use your weapon? The Force?

Talking out your backside is the notion that your gun is in your hands at all times, and is loaded and ready to go.



> How do you know?  just because you are afraid of guns don't be surprised  that woman are not



Nice assumption. See above.


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 7, 2015)

GiYu - Todd said:


> You seem to imply this is the majority of occurences with firearm owners.  I contend these are all extremely rare instances, unless you can provide a source otherwise.  If you believe that no trained law-abiding civilians or law enforcement are competent enough to be allowed to carry firearms, how would you recommend protecting against those criminals who would continue to keep theirs?



The same way people in other countries where firearms are banned do it.



> You're correct that she doesn't carry while watching Netflix.  That would be uncomfortable.  But there is one secured nearby.



So she carries a loaded firearm one while jogging, shopping, eating, working, etc.?



> And to Hanzou... it wasn't taken and used against me, I didn't shoot myself, and didn't slaughter innocent bystanders.



This time....


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 7, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> 10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down
> 
> The self defense portion is quite telling.


lol that article has been debunked like 20 times in the last few years man you need to do a little bit better research.





> That's not what I said. I said that it isn't common, and if they are doing it, its probably in their handbags, or in the glove compartments of their cars. I've never personally witnessed anyone having a holstered firearm on their person while jogging, at stores, in restaurants, on the job, or elsewhere, and I've lived in several states. Heck, in most states it's illegal to carry firearms into schools and businesses anyway.


well since YOU never witnessed it and you have lived in "several" state's then it must be true lol.  




> Well there are some posters on this forum who live outside the US. Additionally what if an American woman is traveling to a country where firearms are illegal? Is she just SoL?


I don't care about posters from Other countries.  As for traveling out of the country well make smart choices and do what you need to do to survive 




> Better make sure you don't miss.


I wont




> But what if it does?


Then learn How to use your weapon and it takes tenth of a second to flip a safety lever or button so not a big deal.  





> So if you just happen to not have your gun nearby you don't have to get it, or reach for it? How else would you use your weapon? The Force?


I can't think of a time I wouldn't one near by but if i didn't guess I better do something else.  I never said firearms are the ONLY way to,defend yourself I said it's the most effective


> Talking out your backside is the notion that your gun is in your hands at all times, and is loaded and ready to go.


not in my hand at all times But I've ALWAYS got one close by that I can get too.  




> Nice assumption. See above.


Lol which part since everything you posted is nonsense.  Look you don't like guns great don't buy one.  But to dismiss a gun as an effective self defense tool is silly.  I can teach a woman, teen, man, anyone how to effectively defend themselves with a gun in just a few days.  No other martial art can say that.  No other martial art allows a 5 ft 100 pound woman instantly drop a 6'2 300 pound attacker after just 2 weeks of classes.


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 7, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> lol that article has been debunked like 20 times in the last few years man you need to do a little bit better research.



Would you prefer this article?

Pros And Cons Of Owning A Gun In The Home: Gun Safety and Security

It says the same thing, as does numerous other studies. In short, you're far more likely to shoot yourself or someone you know than an intruder.



> well since YOU never witnessed it and you have lived in "several" state's then it must be true lol.



That the majority of women aren't walking around the country with guns at their hip in a holster? Yeah, I'm willing to bet that that's true.



> I don't care about posters from Other countries.



That's unfortunate.



> I won't



Everyone isn't a cop.



> Then learn How to use your weapon and it takes tenth of a second to flip a safety lever or button so not a big deal.  I can't think of a time I wouldn't one near by but if i didn't guess I better do something else.  I never said firearms are the ONLY way to,defend yourself I said it's the most effective
> not in my hand at all times But I've ALWAYS got one close by that I can get too.



Again, everyone isn't a cop.



> Lol which part since everything you posted is nonsense.  Look you don't like guns great don't buy one.  But to dismiss a gun as an effective self defense tool is silly.  I can teach a woman, teen, man, anyone how to effectively defend themselves with a gun in just a few days.  No other martial art can say that.  No other martial art allows a 5 ft 100 pound woman instantly drop a 6'2 300 pound attacker after just 2 weeks of classes.



The part where people simply aren't capable of carrying a firearm everywhere they go. Further, I'm not sure most people would want to in the first place, since people openly carrying firearms can have a significant psychological impact on society. That said, I never dismissed guns as an effective self defense tool, I dismissed it as something someone should rely on to defend themselves with, since so much can go wrong in their uses. Not everyone can mentally recover from killing someone, especially if they killed that person accidentally.


----------



## CatNap (Dec 7, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> There are not "thousands" of children killed every year by other kids with guns lol



That's 100% correct....thousands of children and adults are killed _*by terrorists with guns *_(and explosives) every year. The lesson here is the way you fight crime is to shoot back!


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 7, 2015)

CatNap said:


> That's 100% correct....thousands of children and adults are killed _*by terrorists with guns *_(and explosives) every year. The lesson here is the way you fight crime is to shoot back!



Number of mass shooters stopped by bystanders with a concealed weapon: 0


----------



## Steve (Dec 7, 2015)

GiYu - Todd said:


> I can speak of at least one occurance late last year.  I had two men rush up to me at an ATM late at night.  One came up behind me, the other came up to my right with hands in his pockets.  As per my training, I moved lateral to avoid them surrounding me, and drew into low ready (that's both hands on weapon, but pointed at the ground, for those unfamiliar).  The gentlemen quickly disengaged and left.  I didn't report it due to the fact that I never saw a weapon (it was implied in pocket of the man to my right), yet had technically brandished mine.
> 
> I wasn't happy to have been forced to defend myself.  I didn't go out looking to "pump lead" into anyone.  It wasn't even my choice to have to draw that night.  I was in fear for my life and took what measures were needed to stay alive.
> 
> And to Hanzou... it wasn't taken and used against me, I didn't shoot myself, and didn't slaughter innocent bystanders.  I'm also not paranoid. I went back to that same ATM last night, as I've done dozens of times since.


I've posted my opinions on this subject over the years, and won't get into it.  Suffice to say I believe I represent a moderate, middle ground on the issue, and I'm glad to see that my comparison to the automobile model is catching on (and it only took about five years! )

But from a purely "self defense" perspective, the passage above stands out.  GiYu - Todd, do you think that hitting the ATM at night, alone is a good idea?  That seems like avoidable, risky behavior.  You mention that you've been back to that ATM, even gone back that same night and dozens of times since.  Doesn't that seem like a willful disregard for self defense 101?  That's right up there with, don't go to the strip club with large amounts of cash and a low tolerance for alcohol.  

Do you think you would be more careful about this if you weren't armed?  Do you think you would frequent this ATM late at night if you were female?  Would you be more careful if the situation had unfolded for the worse? 

Also, you appear to be a thoughtful, even keeled guy.  I have no doubt that you, your wife and the people you know are very responsible.  But I'm not sure I've seen any evidence that responsible owners, like you, are typical of all or even most owners.  We have little regulation in this country, and so there is a tendency on both sides of this discussion to guesstimate.  What we do know is that there are some responsible owners and some irresponsible owners.  More of one than the other?  Who knows for sure.  Add to this that there is a third group of owners: those who are irresponsible, but just haven't had an accident or incident yet.  Thing about these hidden irresponsible owners is that they often self-identify and are considered by most as being responsible, until an accident or incident occurs, and then it's like, "well, I guess we were wrong... but still... MOST are like me...."

This is a topic, like most contentious subjects, where there is a lot of cognitive bias.  In the words of Donald Rumsfeld, "There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 7, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Number of mass shooters stopped by bystanders with a concealed weapon: 0


yeah about that lol
12 Times Mass Shootings Were Stopped by Good Guys With Guns


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 7, 2015)

Steve said:


> .  But I'm not sure I've seen any evidence that responsible owners, like you, are typical of all or even most owners.  We have little regulation in this country, and so there is a tendency on both sides of this discussion to guesstimate.  What we do know is that there are some responsible owners and some irresponsible owners.  More of one than the other?  Who knows for sure.


300,000,000 million guns and over a trillion rounds of ammo in civilian hands  in this country if the majority were irresponsible we would know


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 7, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Would you prefer this article?
> 
> Pros And Cons Of Owning A Gun In The Home: Gun Safety and Security
> 
> It says the same thing, as does numerous other studies. In short, you're far more likely to shoot yourself or someone you know than an intruder.


and yet Obama's own sponsored study shows HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of positive self defense uses of guns per year. 




> That the majority of women aren't walking around the country with guns at their hip in a holster? Yeah, I'm willing to bet that that's true.


No some wear them in their bra or in a corset or purse.  




> That's unfortunate.


They have their own laws to deal with Im focused on mine 




> Everyone isn't a cop.
> 
> Again, everyone isn't a cop.


even you canlearn not to miss from 6 inches and flick a safety button its not hard 



> The part where people simply aren't capable of carrying a firearm everywhere they go.


yet many people do just that 


> Further, I'm not sure most people would want to in the first place, since people openly carrying firearms can have a significant psychological impact on society.


psychological impact lol ok Like I said just because your afraid of guns doesnt mean every is


> That said, I never dismissed guns as an effective self defense tool, I dismissed it as something someone should rely on to defend themselves with, since so much can go wrong in their uses.


yet hundreds of thousands of times they go right


> Not everyone can mentally recover from killing someone, especially if they killed that person accidentally.


So dont drive a car either you have a far better chance you might accidentally kill someone


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 7, 2015)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*
MartialTalk is not the forum to debate gun ownership. If you wish to discuss how a gun may be used in a self defense situation, that is fine. 
Continued debate about gun control will result in thread closure, and/or penalty points being issued.

Mark A. Cochran
Dirty Dog
MT Senior Moderator


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 7, 2015)

Lol


----------



## oftheherd1 (Dec 7, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> ...
> 
> There's the case in Cleveland where cops shot the 12 year old, and lied about what happened. Video proved otherwise. There's the case in South Carolina where the cop shot the black gentleman in the back and said that he fought over his taser. Video proved that untrue. There's the case in Baltimore where the guy was placed in the back of a cruiser and got his spine snapped. Then there's the case in Minnesota where the guy was shot while he was handcuffed. Then there's the aforementioned Chicago situation.
> 
> ...



OK, in Cleveland, the enhanced video has yet to be validated or accepted in court.  I watched it and am not yet convinced I saw what the person who enhanced the video told me to see.

The case in Baltimore involved a man who appeared to me to have been injured before being placed in a transport van.  But he should have been seat belted in, and apparently was not.  He should have been transported for medical attention and was not.  The coroner testified he died from a scull fracture from impacting a bolt inside the van, not from a broken back in the back of a police cruiser.  But as I mentioned, I thought when I saw the first video he had a neck or back injury before being placed in the van.

The case in South Carolina with no further information doesn't ring a bell, nor does what you mentioned from Minnesota.  Makes no difference though.  Your facts in the two incidents I have some familiarity with are skewed.  But did you notice in those two, and in Chicago, The local police departments have or are investigating?  In Baltimore, the trials have been split and the first one (of six) is ongoing.  It may be a rampant ongoing problem, but considering the number of police departments, the number of police in them, and the number of incidents/arrests, your few don't constitute rampantness to me.

So, I will let this go myself.  It is going nowhere.  You have you views and I have mine.  Let it end there.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 7, 2015)

Concealed Permit Holder Stops Attempted Mass Shooting in Chicago

or

this one even has video of a gun used in self defense
Girlfriend Of The Year Scares Off Armed Robbers By Opening Fire On Them During A Home Invasion


----------



## RTKDCMB (Dec 8, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> True enough for a number of reasons. women are often told not to fight back and it would be easier for them, however they are also told to fight back because without bruises etc they won't be believed, a no win situation for women basically because whatever advice they follow it could end badly.



You have to determine when to comply and when to fight back:


----------



## GiYu - Todd (Dec 8, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> The same way people in other countries where firearms are banned do it.


 
Except we already have millions of them around. It's hard to put the genie back in the bottle. So, how do you then disarm law-abiding citizens without them just becoming helpless victims of the criminals who wouldn't turn them in?



Hanzou said:


> So she carries a loaded firearm one while jogging, shopping, eating, working, etc.?


 
She is handicapped, and unable to jog or run, or to fight off a criminal by hand.  But she carries almost everyplace except her work (there are armed guards there).  And having one gives her the power to resist a larger and/or armed attacker. 

This time....[/QUOTE]

Had they completed their attack and killed me, I wouldn't be here now.  I am well trained and practice regularly in tactical training classes.

If you don't personnally feel competent to handle a certain class of weapon, be it a projectile weapon or a blade or a stick, by all means please don't carry them.  I do not believe everyone should carry a gun.  Just as I believe there are people driving (I almost got hit by one on the way to work today) who should not be allowed to operate a car.  They may have the right, but they are failing to live up to their responsibility.  But taking rights from people who are responsible victimizes them even more than criminals do.


----------



## GiYu - Todd (Dec 8, 2015)

Steve said:


> But from a purely "self defense" perspective, the passage above stands out. GiYu - Todd, do you think that hitting the ATM at night, alone is a good idea? That seems like avoidable, risky behavior. You mention that you've been back to that ATM, even gone back that same night and dozens of times since. Doesn't that seem like a willful disregard for self defense 101? That's right up there with, don't go to the strip club with large amounts of cash and a low tolerance for alcohol.


 
It's in a relatively low-crime area, well lit, and I always drive a lap around the building after hours to scan for people who may be lurking.  My attackers drove up from about 150 yards away and jumped out.  I typically don't go there at night, but my wife ordered me to since we had to leave early the next morning and couldn't stop on the way out.  I agree it wasn't 100% safe, but nothing is. 



Steve said:


> What we do know is that there are some responsible owners and some irresponsible owners. More of one than the other? Who knows for sure. Add to this that there is a third group of owners: those who are irresponsible, but just haven't had an accident or incident yet.


 
Same argument with police...  We can all find examples of reckless cops... but statistically they are a small minority.  Similiarly, there are more CCW holders than police walking the street armed, yet there are very few stories of irresponisble use.  If good people carrying were such a huge risk, there should be dozens or even hundreds of new stories per day.  Yet what you hear are warmed over retellings of the same few cases... mostly done to reinforce a political viewpoint by scaring people.  Yes, those few cases are sad, but they are less prevalent than real crimes happening. 

In my case, I get the privelege of celebrating my youngest child's 5th birthday today, because I was responsible with my weapon in a situation where my MA skills were insufficient to deal with multiple armed attackers.  Even the attackers are able to be home with their families because I didn't start blazing away like I'm told most CCW holders would do.  I hope the experience changed their choice of vocation... hard to say.


----------



## Steve (Dec 8, 2015)

Thanks, Todd.  On a phone so quick comments.  First, I agree re reckless cops and I would encourage relying more on data than on the media for reliable info


Second, there are plenty of stats to suggest that many gun owners are irresponsible.   Whether is quelifies as a lot or not is subjective.  But the stats exist to show accidental deaths by firearms.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 8, 2015)

Steve said:


> Second, there are plenty of stats to suggest that many gun owners are irresponsible.   Whether is quelifies as a lot or not is subjective.  But the stats exist to show accidental deaths by firearms.


Many gun owners are irresponsible huh?  Nonsense Steve.  Irresponsible gun owners are by far the minority


----------



## Steve (Dec 8, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> Many gun owners are irresponsible huh?  Nonsense Steve.  Irresponsible gun owners are by far the minority


LOL.  Say it three times and it must be true!


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 8, 2015)

Steve said:


> LOL.  Say it three times and it must be true!


prove it then.  50 million plus gun owners out there.  So the word "many" per the dictionary means the majority of people.  So according to you millions of gun owners are irresponsible.  Surely with that many you have proof to back it up


----------



## Steve (Dec 8, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> prove it then.  50 million plus gun owners out there.  So the word "many" per the dictionary means the majority of people.  So according to you millions of gun owners are irresponsible.  Surely with that many you have proof to back it up


Prove what?  Where did I say any of this, ballen?  You're getting very emotional.  But, what would help is if you could share where this 50 million plus number comes from.  I'm pretty sure that our country doesn't keep very good numbers on this.  But if your source is credible, that would be a great starting point for a rational discussion.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 8, 2015)

Steve said:


> Prove what?


You said the stat show MANY gun owners are irresponsible. so prove it?


> Where did I say any of this, ballen?


you typed it


> You're getting very emotional.


Why because I asked you to back up your silly claim?


> But, what would help is if you could share where this 50 million plus number comes from.  I'm pretty sure that our country doesn't keep very good numbers on this.  But if your source is credible, that would be a great starting point for a rational discussion.


Actually 50 million was the smallest number I could find.  Many studies say its over 100 million +.  I went on the low end.  Even on the low end your claiming millions of gun owners are irresponsible


----------



## drop bear (Dec 8, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> prove it then.  50 million plus gun owners out there.  So the word "many" per the dictionary means the majority of people.  So according to you millions of gun owners are irresponsible.  Surely with that many you have proof to back it up



It would be everybody who committed a fire arms offence from a murder to an unintentional discharge. And then you would have to consider not everybody gets caught.

One of the definitions of many was a majority one wasn't and the one you went for seems to be in different context.

_determiner, pronoun, & adjective_

*1*.
a large number of.
"many people agreed with her"
synonyms: numerous, a great/good deal of, a lot of, a large/great number of, great quantities of, plenty of, countless,innumerable, scores of, crowds of, droves of, an army of, a horde of, a multitude of, a multiplicity of,multitudinous, numberless, multiple, untold;More

_noun_

*1*.
the majority of people.
"music for the many"
synonyms: the people, the common people, the masses, the multitude, the majority, the populace, the public, the rank and file, the crowd, the commonalty, the commonality;
Let's suggest even 1% of fifty million can be defined as many. 

And to try and keep this subject on track. Let's also suggest that people are not automatically proficient and responsible with a gun and that if you were to use one in self defence it would be better t work at becoming proficient and responsible.


----------



## Steve (Dec 8, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> You said the stat show MANY gun owners are irresponsible. so prove it?
> 
> you typed it
> 
> ...


First, ballen, I get your point.  As I understand you, you believe that this is a matter of scope.  It all hinges on whether we have enough irresponsible owners (relative to the number of owners overall) to consider this to be a problem.  It's all very subjective, as most topics like this tend to be.  I get where you're coming from.  I can point to examples on both sides of this, where on one hand we have a very small number of issues relative to the population, but it's a VERY big deal.  And on the other, where we have a lot of issues relative to the population, but it's not a big  deal at all.  So, al of that to say, I get why you think you've got a point, but I left it intentionally vague in order to avoid precisely the emotional track you're determined to drive this down.   Can we agree that it's subjective and largely driven by which side of a discussion you find yourself agreeing with?

All of that said, if you're determined to have the numbers, I would point you to the statistics that I have already posted so many times in the past.  I know they're there because I recently saw a meme online advocating that we regulate guns as we do automobiles, which you may recall I introduced as an idea here as far back as 2010.  I thought, "Boy, isn't that a great idea?" and then wondered exactly how long it took for the interwebs to catch on.  In that conversation and several since, I've posted any number of actual statistics in an effort to keep these discussions from being emotional messes.

Second, can you share some of those studies?  Are they credible?  As I said, I've not seen anything more than guess work when it comes to estimating households with firearms.  We know we have a lot.  If we can get a reliable number of American households, that would be a terrific place to start a discussion about whether or not we actually have a problem with irresponsible owners.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 8, 2015)

There have been several studies I've read.  Off the top of my head (im,not at a computer for accuracy) the NRA puts the number around 80 million gun owners, another pew research I believe has it at 38%of US households have a gun 2014 census numbers say we have around 114000000 households so that's around 50million homes with most homes having more then 1 resident so more then 1 gun owner.  There are other studies available all are in the same range.

As you said there is no specific numbers because it's impossible to track which is a good thing in my opinion.  So even on the ultra low end of 40 to 50 million a few thousand cases of accidents are a drop in the bucket.   Are there irresponsible gun owners? 100% yes.   are there "many" no as I said the stats would show it's a minority


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 8, 2015)

drop bear said:


> It would be everybody who committed a fire arms offence from a murder to an unintentional discharge. And then you would have to consider not everybody gets caught.
> 
> One of the definitions of many was a majority one wasn't and the one you went for seems to be in different context.
> 
> ...


someone committing a firearms offense on purpose isn't irresponsible they are a criminal.  They do it on purpose.


----------



## Steve (Dec 8, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> There have been several studies I've read.  Off the top of my head (im,not at a computer for accuracy) the NRA puts the number around 80 million gun owners, another pew research I believe has it at 38%of US households have a gun 2014 census numbers say we have around 114000000 households so that's around 50million homes with most homes having more then 1 resident so more then 1 gun owner.  There are other studies available all are in the same range.
> 
> As you said there is no specific numbers because it's impossible to track which is a good thing in my opinion.  So even on the ultra low end of 40 to 50 million a few thousand cases of accidents are a drop in the bucket.   Are there irresponsible gun owners? 100% yes.   are there "many" no as I said the stats would show it's a minority


Makes it hard to have a concrete discussion on the topic. 



ballen0351 said:


> someone committing a firearms offense on purpose isn't irresponsible they are a criminal.  They do it on purpose.


Well, wait a minute here.  I'd agree with you that someone who steals a gun and commits crimes would maybe skew things a little.  But where someone purchases a gun legally and uses it in a criminal act, that is a clear subset under "irresponsible gun owner."


----------



## drop bear (Dec 8, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> someone committing a firearms offense on purpose isn't irresponsible they are a criminal.  They do it on purpose.



A criminal act is generally considered irresponsible. Confusing with reckless?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 8, 2015)

Thread locked pending staff review.


----------

