# We've forgotten how to fight back



## Kacey (May 12, 2007)

I thought about putting this in General Martial Arts Talk - but I think the issue goes well beyond the martial arts.



> We've forgotten how to fight back
> By Billie Louden
> Colorado Voices
> Article Last Updated: 05/12/2007 12:15:09 AM MDT
> ...


----------



## stickarts (May 12, 2007)

Thanks for posting. Especially having kids myself it hits home, these are important issues for me to consider.


----------



## theletch1 (May 13, 2007)

Kacey, these same thoughts have gone through my head many times since that day.  I live only a short drive north of the Tech campus and drive by the south entrance everyday during work.  One of the senior students at my dojo attends school there and had he not changed his major this past semester would have been in Norris hall that day.  At first I simply couldn't believe that no one had attempted to take the shooter down if even from behind.  The sentiment in the article that we are in major trouble if we don't come to grips with the idea that evil walks this earth is one that caused a split between my sister and I shortly after this attack.  She seems to think that the world can be cured with a great big group hug.  I understand and have seen what evil looks like.  I don't believe that everyone who commits a horrendous crime can trace their actions back to a bad child hood or any of the other stock defences that defense attorneys like to use.  Some are just plain evil.

This argument with my sister dovetailed nicely with a conversation with my wifes sister about her sons first sparring match in kenpo.  She said that he'd had the idea that hitting was wrong drilled into him for so long that he was very uncomfortable sparring another kid his age.  He lost the match and was in tears after getting hit in the face.  She realized at that moment that she'd done her son a dis-service by having an extreme view and passing it on to her child.

Violence and evil not only exist in our world they are running rampant.  Like so many other things in our society the idea of responsible moderation of a concept has been cast aside in favor of a far right/left stance.  The idea that the only way to end violence is to drill it into kids heads that there is NEVER a good reason to fight has gotten many of them killed.  We tell our children that they are never to hit another.  "But what if they hit me first?"  is met with the answer of "Run away and go tell a teacher."  We can't run the risk of a lawsuit now can we.  We can't take the time to teach our children how to defend themselves and when it is appropriate to do so.  

This hasn't been my most coherent post, I know.  This topic is one that I feel very strongly about.  Not only because the Tech massacre took place in my own back yard but because I have grown so tired of the idea that there are no bad people in this world. Yes, there are and it is the right and the duty of all good people to stand up and defend those who are not able to do so by any means available.


----------



## jks9199 (May 13, 2007)

I commented on this previously.

This was one of the first major incidents like this to hit a generation of kids that have been raised in the post-Columbine world where we teach kids in school to hunker down, and wait to be rescued.   Most of the kids involved were in elementary school during Columbine; they finished school in its aftermath.  We, as martial artists, know that you do what you practice.  So it's of little surprise to me that nobody took direct action.  While it's important to avoid hindsight bias -- the simple truth is that most of these kids were not taught a "tiger mindset" for a tragic event like this.  They were taught a "deer mindset"; they froze and fled rather than fought.

I understand the purpose of the lockdown mentality/approach, and support it, in its proper place.  But you have to teach the other side of the coin, as well; that, when the time and opportunity present themselves, you HAVE to take advantage of it and bring the fight to the aggressor.


----------



## jdinca (May 13, 2007)

This goes well beyond Virginia Tech but that incident does show in some ways where our society has gone. It's not just being able to understand that there are evil people in the world but somehow, we've come to a place in history where many people think that there will always be somebody there to take care of them, so they've never really learned how to stand on their own. I've watched this trend in my profession for many years. As an example I had a doctor calling 911 because his 2 year old son cut his lip. My first thought when I found out he was a physician was "huh?". How about calling 911 for a sprained ankle, or a cut finger? "Well, I thought you could bandage it up for me", or "I know that if I go by ambulance, I don't have to sit in the waiting room".

When someone does something stupid, quite often the first response is "well, why didn't so-and-so tell me not to stick my head out of the high speed train?". They then sue the train company because there was no sign telling them not to stick their head out the window. Yeah, this is a silly analogy but think about how many times you've heard a story where the blame and responsibility is placed on somebody else, when it's the person involved who screwed up? I mean, come on, I bought a 2 sectional staff and it had a label on it saying "warning, martial arts is an inherently dangerous sport". Helloooo.

I strongly feel that we need to teach our children to be self sufficient and self reliant. I've also told my kids that if they start a fight, there are in an incredible amount of trouble. If somebody else starts it, I tell them they better finish it and, if it turns out that they weren't responsible for the fight, I will back them no matter what the touchy feely, "let's all have a group hug" school administration has to say. 

It's nice to live in a country that has a large safety net but you can't always count on it. Look at Katrina. Why people were surprised that our government ineptly handled the largest natural disaster in our history is something I can't figure out. When has the federal governement EVER done anything quickly and efficiently? Even the mayor of New Orleans thought that it was somebody else's job to take care of his city, even though it's widely known that the responsibility starts at the local level and moves up from there. 200 school buses sat unused because his citizens "deserved something better" and then blamed everybody else because so many people were still in the city when the storm hit. Btw, 85% of those who were in the city stayed of their own accord, not because they were poor and couldn't get out. Then they turned around and complained because the government didn't show up fast enough to rescue them. Huh?

Virginia Tech was a true national tragedy but one has to wonder if this prevalent mindset didn't at least play a small part in the scale of the incident. It goes beyond just not remembering how to fight back. On 911, passengers fought the hijackers and died because by God, those terrorists aren't going fly this plane into another building full of innocent people. Have we forgotten that lesson already?


----------



## morph4me (May 13, 2007)

theletch1 said:


> This argument with my sister dovetailed nicely with a conversation with my wifes sister about her sons first sparring match in kenpo. She said that he'd had the idea that hitting was wrong drilled into him for so long that he was very uncomfortable sparring another kid his age. He lost the match and was in tears after getting hit in the face. She realized at that moment that she'd done her son a dis-service by having an extreme view and passing it on to her child.
> 
> Violence and evil not only exist in our world they are running rampant. Like so many other things in our society the idea of responsible moderation of a concept has been cast aside in favor of a far right/left stance. The idea that the only way to end violence is to drill it into kids heads that there is NEVER a good reason to fight has gotten many of them killed. We tell our children that they are never to hit another. "But what if they hit me first?" is met with the answer of "Run away and go tell a teacher." We can't run the risk of a lawsuit now can we. We can't take the time to teach our children how to defend themselves and when it is appropriate to do so.
> 
> This hasn't been my most coherent post, I know. This topic is one that I feel very strongly about. Not only because the Tech massacre took place in my own back yard but because I have grown so tired of the idea that there are no bad people in this world. Yes, there are and it is the right and the duty of all good people to stand up and defend those who are not able to do so by any means available.


 
I think it was very coherent, to the point of eloquent. When my kids were younger the rules were simple, if they were not allowed to hit another kid first or they were in serious trouble, but if someone hit them they were allowed, and expected, to fight back, and I would back them up with whatever authorities had a problem with it.  The only problem I ever had was trying to explain to my son after an incident that when the kid started running away, he wasn't allowed to chase them and finish defending himself. 

It's always preferable to handle things without violence, but some people mistake the reluctance to take physical action as weakness. There is a time to fight, and we've failed to teach that to our children.


----------



## MA-Caver (May 13, 2007)

This post will probably be as coherent as letch's maybe less so... :idunno: but it's what I'm thinking/feeling right about now... 


I grew up fighting... kids in my school/grade were teasing and picking on me almost incessantly. I got in to a lot of trouble because I fought back. I rarely saw my antagonists get in trouble. This confused me for a while... someone messes with me and I fight back... *I* get in trouble. This continued into high-school as well. 

In college, one evening someone kept screwing with me... I hauled off, decked him and kept punching him til he cowered enough to make me stop. Luckily nobody saw this and we were able to come to an mutual agreement about what was the problem.  

On the streets any fighting I did was purely survival and thusly justified. 

But I've noticed a trend. It's subtle it's almost "not-there". The don't fight mentality. The "I'll sue you for your kid beating up my kid" mentality. The pacification of the children who are deemed too hyper and too "difficult to control" by the use of Ritalin and anti-depressants. Had I been a kid in this day and age I'd probably be prescribed these drugs. 
The ever increasing (anti) gun-laws and how (almost) all weaponry is registered so that they know what you SHOULD have in your personal arsenal.
Homeland security; more rights for them to make sure you're not a threat to this country.  
Someone made a neat comment to me "...I think it says a lot that our last several presidents are basically ones that dodged their Vietnam duty..." 
But these guys were/are in control of the country right now... makes you wonder... 
That we got potential time bombs walking around in almost every town, city village, burb, shows that a few are going to fall through the cracks now and again, but it's helpful to let that happen... makes us all the more afraid and wanting someone to help us... to (as mentioned) rescue us instead of fighting back on our own. Why? So that they'll be no resistance when something larger comes along? 
But! We're taught that this mentality is paranoia, not worth even mentioning... yet why is it there? Why is it that more and more of the ability and desire to not fight back is being eroded on a national scale? Why is it becoming more and more *not ok* to ask these questions? 
To fight back is to risk harm to yourself...you don't want to get hurt do you? 
Well... seems to me we're gonna get hurt sooner or later anyway ... if we fight back or not. 
Oh well but that kind of thinking is just stupid! Well maybe it is... but chances are a lot _less_ people might not get hurt. 
But it's wrong to hurt people.  Well of course it is... but why is it so wrong to hurt the ones hurting us? Why do we need to wait for those who have the "authority" (LEO's) to show up to hurt (stop by any means necessary) the one hurting us? Why is it not okay to resist? The ones hurting us? 
Why are we? Why?


----------



## Ping898 (May 13, 2007)

I also wonder what is teaches kids these days when a fight occurs and someone defends themself, they are also punished along with the instigator....


----------



## jdinca (May 13, 2007)

Ping898 said:


> I also wonder what is teaches kids these days when a fight occurs and someone defends themself, they are also punished along with the instigator....


 
It teaches them to be passive, don't fight back, run away and find a teacher. Guess what they expect you to do the next time the same kid starts beating you up?


----------



## jks9199 (May 13, 2007)

MA-Caver said:


> This post will probably be as coherent as letch's maybe less so... :idunno: but it's what I'm thinking/feeling right about now...


 
It was fine.



> But I've noticed a trend. It's subtle it's almost "not-there". The don't fight mentality. The "I'll sue you for your kid beating up my kid" mentality. The pacification of the children who are deemed too hyper and too "difficult to control" by the use of Ritalin and anti-depressants. Had I been a kid in this day and age I'd probably be prescribed these drugs.
> The ever increasing (anti) gun-laws and how (almost) all weaponry is registered so that they know what you SHOULD have in your personal arsenal.
> Homeland security; more rights for them to make sure you're not a threat to this country.
> Someone made a neat comment to me "...I think it says a lot that our last several presidents are basically ones that dodged their Vietnam duty..."
> ...


 
Simple fact.  Law enforcement is primarily a REACTIVE organization.  Even "proactive law enforcement" is a reaction to a problem area; we don't send fleets of cruisers or guys in tac-ninja body armor out into areas that aren't having some sort of problem -- and I doubt most communities would tolerate it if we did!

We have developed *responses* that are very aggressive to active shooter and similar scenarios -- but we still are RESPONDING to the problem.  We (under US law) cannot go grabbing folks up because they MIGHT become a spree shooter or serial killer or anything else.

Each and every one of us has a personal responsibility to be able to protect ourselves and our loved ones, at least until law enforcement can respond.  The extent of our individual capability to do so will vary based on our own moral beliefs as well as our own physical and intellectual abilities; we may have to substitute awareness and avoidance or even waiting for the right moment based on the situation or our own beliefs  but that does not absolve us of the individual responsibilty for safety.  I can't make a driver obey the law, so drive defensively and avoid the nutjobs that drive like maniacs.  I can't make people not rob, steal or beat you; don't invite them and don't meekly, unthinkingly submit to them.  I HATE taking reports that read like "complainant left their car running while they entered the store" or "complainant reports that all doors were left unlocked prior to the burglary."  

Again -- I'm not suggesting that automatic, active resistance is the only solution.  Instead, I'm saying that you have to be aware of the options available, considering the total situation, and when the time is right -- take the right action.  For elementary school students in a lockdown for an unknown situation, that means sitting still and obeying the teacher's direction.  For a high school or college jock who sees a guy having to pause and reload during his shooting spree -- it may well mean taking a stand and tackling the monster.  For an off-duty officer pushing his kid around in a stroller who sees a bank robbery -- maybe it's time to call 911, and take cover.  That same officer, alone...  Maybe he can take action.  The appropriate action is situational; there are times to wait for help, just as there are times to jump in immediately.

Instead, we seem to be teaching learned helplessness more and more...

I'd really like to hear from military basic training instructors and others who might be able to tell whether they're having trouble instilling a "warrior mentality" in recruits.  I know we've seen more people in police academies who are shocked to discover that people actually fight the cops!


----------



## Kacey (May 13, 2007)

Some years ago, there was a student at my middle school who was severely affected by cerebral palsy; most of her muscle movements were outside of her conscious control - and when she was stressed, her involuntary movements would get stronger, and when truly stressed, her muscles would lock.  Like all students with mobility issues, she had a safety plan, a predetermined plan to get her out of the building in case of emergency, as she could not use the stairs.  The building I work in is built into the side of a hill, so there are exits on both levels; however, at one point, one of the exits from the upper level was unavailable due to construction, and there was concern that the other exit would be blocked in case of a fire, so we had to rewrite her safety plan to accommodate that.  We, as a special education department, decided that any department member on the upper floor who was not with children when an alarm occurred would meet at the room she was in and would take her to the stairs closest to the classroom, where we would remove her from her chair and carry her down the stairs, an exercise which required at least 3 people - and 4 would be better; she was 5'9", and strong - best practice called for one person on each limb, to help control her involuntary movements and to avoid dropping her when she contorted.  We also determined to leave her at the top of the stairs, with an adult, during drills, rather than risk injury in a non-emergency situation.

The safety plan was submitted to the district through the occupational therapist who worked in our building.  When she brought it back, we were told it had been rejected, because if we carried her down the stairs in a real emergency and dropped her, causing injury, we would be liable and _might_ be sued by her parents... and therefore, we were to leave her at the top of the stairs, in front of a large window, and wait for emergency personnel to come in and remove her on a stretcher _even if the building was on fire_.  After a brief discussion, which included our very low opinion of this district policy, we determined that we would follow the above plan, as we would rather violate district policy and save her life - and risk a lawsuit _if_ she were injured and _if_ her parents chose to sue - than leave her at the top of the stairs and risk her death... not to mention the truly nasty lawsuit leaving her in a burning building could have led to.  Luckily for us all, it never came up - but it was quite a slap in the face that our district administration would rather we followed their directives and be sued for wrongful death, than risk a _possible_ lawsuit for _potential_ injury.  This is, I think, representative of the issue addressed in the article I posted, and I find it idiotic in the extreme.

The question is - as we all seem to agree with the columnist - is, what do we do about it?  Both as martial artists and private citizens, what can we do to change this attitude?


----------



## michaeledward (May 13, 2007)

I would like to add a couple of thoughts ... 

First, I am not sure that the people at Virginia Tech did not fight back in some shape or form. I have not followed the story closely, but, I understand that there was some measure resistance. I seem to recall seeing that someone managed to shut a door, and hold a door shut with their feet, preventing the shooter from gaining access to the room. I seem to recall hearing that some of the teachers were killed during acts of resistance.

The premise of a 'non-confrontational attitude in America', I think needs to be looked at more closely, and a stronger foundation established to make a more coherent article.



Second, there was an interesting post by 'Doc' not that long ago about the 'do' or 'Way' systems of martial arts. I may horribly mis-remember, and mis-quote his ideas, so apologies up front. But in that post, he told us that the firearm essentially rendered martial arts as a way of life, to be dead on arrival. The gun superceeding martial skill. 

As I recall, because the gun had the ability to kill from range, the skills of hand-to-hand combat were no longer a matter of life and death. Thus the transfer of martial arts to a system of teaching about a 'way' of life. 

In Dennis Conaster's autobiography in 'The Journey', he tells us all of his martial skill has turned him into a paper tiger. I am paraphrasing here, but he will never be able to get into enough fights to justify the amount of time and energy he has put into his martial training.

Even the most trained and skilled among us will probably never have an appropriate opportunity to fight back. And even if we were presented with that opportunity - the years of training become meaningless against a firearm.



Lastly, I often have tried to tell my children that integrity takes practice. I have used many different stories to pass on the idea that doing the *right *thing when faced with small choices is important practice for doing the right thing when the choice becomes more important.

I am not convinced that the 'right' thing to do, in a situation like what happened at Virginia Tech, is to attack the person wielding a gun. 

Certianly, the right thing is to help a person who fell in front of an oncoming train, the right thing is to protect a smaller person from physical violence, the right thing is to make certain all the animals get out of the burning barn. But, running toward a person with a gun, may just be outside the tasks demand of by the integrity I describe above. 

I think, perhaps, in that situation, the right thing to do is to run away; and to take as many people with you as possible. Colloquially, we have heard the phrase, 'never take a knife to a gun fight'. 


I am pretty certain that the agenda being pushed by the author is disgusting. It seems to me that he is using the tragic events at the Virginia school to justify his predisposed position. His use of 'evil' as a noun indicates his agenda, I believe.


----------



## jdinca (May 13, 2007)

I read the full article and thought this pretty much summed it up.

_"When a twisted soul decides to carry out a heinous act, there is precious little we can do to stop it. Where there is a will, there is always a way. All we can do, if caught in their crosshairs, is try to survive." _

The question is, how? If you can run away and survive, great. But if the alternative is sitting and waiting for the slaughter, then do we wait like cattle, or do we take our chances to take out the killer before he takes us out? For me personally, I'm going to try and take him out. If I die in the attempt, at least others may have the opportunity to live. I consider it a worthwhile tradeoff.

If you teach your children to avoid conflict at all costs, and that nonviolence is the only way, how would you feel if you received a tragic phone call telling you your child is dead and that he/she died after being lined up against the wall and executed?

If you teach your children to avoid conflict at all costs, and that noviolence is the only way, how would you feel if you received a tragic phone call telling you your child is dead and that he/she died after fighting tooth and nail with a gunmen who was indiscriminantly killing people and your child's actions saved other lives? 

I can't answer that question for myself, because I would never teach that to my children. I teach them to respect others, their rights and to do what they can to avoid conflict but I also teach them that they need to defend themselves, no matter what, if attacked. Were I to receive that tragic phone call, scenario #2 would at least give me a little solace for the basic fact that my child died trying to help others. 

One of my tattoos is a WTC tribute. Although I'm not particularly religious, I do have John 15:13 as part of it.

"No man hath greater love than this, that he lay down his life for that of a brother."

I think the flip side of this is eloquently spoken by Harry Dean Stanton in the cult classic Repo Man.

"I'd rather live on my knees than die on my feet."

We're just a few martial artists trying to make sense of this tragedy and are discussing what we can do to change the mindset that we're talking about. The answer is that we can't change society but we can make sure than our own families know what's right and wrong and how important it is not to just lay down and die when there's a chance to fight for your life and live.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (May 13, 2007)

> I think, perhaps, in that situation, the right thing to do is to run away; and to take as many people with you as possible.


 
And leave the rest of the helpless suckers behind to die? When youre in a room with one exit and a gunman. Its fight or wait to be shot. We need to be raising people of courage and conviction, not cattle to the slaughter. 

When did we turn from "the greatest generation" to "every man for themselves"?


----------



## MA-Caver (May 13, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> It was fine.


Thank you :asian:



jks9199 said:


> Instead, we seem to be teaching learned helplessness more and more...


 ... and that's my question... why? 



jks9199 said:


> I'd really like to hear from military basic training instructors and others who might be able to tell whether they're having trouble instilling a "warrior mentality" in recruits.  I know we've seen more people in police academies *who are shocked to discover that people actually fight the cops!*


This I've seen/experienced first hand. Hoping not to jump too far off topic here but perhaps it is related either way. 
Years ago I volunteered for a summer-camp for deaf children (ages 7-18) and once a year the (older) kids are given a quick lesson in safety; whether it be from drugs or kidnappers or whatever dangers that children are (unknowingly) exposed to as they go through their daily lives. That year was for kidnappings, I was asked to be a kidnapper. The campers and staff were all brought out to a local small town outside of camp to have a few hours at a city park to let off some steam and whatever. One of the campers was chosen to be the victim (with his knowledge of course that it was all acting). I was to walk up to him and "entice" him to my car and take off. Immediately I would be chased by the local police (also in on the act-- with one officer who was also a highly skilled sign-language interpreter *... among other things). We drove at (sorta) high-speed around the park where another cruiser would block my way and I was to jump out and "try" to make a run for it. 
Here's the fun part, I ran (half-assed) and (pretended to) trip over something allowing the other officers to catch up to me and "arrest me". What they didn't expect was the level of resistance I gave them. After all I just kidnapped a kid, evaded the police/resisted arrest ...and you think I'm just gonna go _quietly_?    
Well do you?  
It was convincing enough that the arresting officer actually had to put some "hurt" on me which quieted me down quick enough because I knew that they could put on the "hurt" because their training says it's sometimes necessary. 

Afterwards I was put in the cruiser and "driven away" still in cuffs. As we were driving away (oddly enough I was in the front seat -- so much for realism _there_  )  the "arresting officer" radioed his thanks to the assisting officers. 
The reply back from one of them, was something like in a stunned/disbelieving voice: "....uh, yeah ... I... I just didn't ... expect it to be so *real*!" 
The "arresting officer" grinned and winked at me and said: " he's a new guy"
I was brought back to the park and the officer (since uncuffed me) introduced me as the "good-guy" that we were acting... "But! Kids, you got to ...." and on he went with his safety spiel.   

This makes me wonder if more officers are taking MA courses outside their SD/H2H training outside the academy. There probably are and it should be so. But then the average, law-abiding citizen should too. 


*yes CC it was the one and only Jack Rose :wink2:


----------



## MA-Caver (May 14, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> And leave the rest of the helpless suckers behind to die? When youre in a room with one exit and a gunman. Its fight or wait to be shot. We need to be raising people of courage and conviction, not cattle to the slaughter.
> 
> When did we turn from "the greatest generation" to "every man for themselves"?



It seems that way I'm sure, but I'll hope for the best and say no we're not, but we're being taught not to resist or not to fight back as it is for those in authority to do so, so that we "don't take the law into our own hands" so to speak. 

As for Michael's comments... 





			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> In Dennis Conaster's autobiography in 'The Journey', he tells us all of his martial skill has turned him into a paper tiger. I am paraphrasing here, but he will never be able to get into enough fights to justify the amount of time and energy he has put into his martial training.


 But this I disagree with ... there *is* justification. There is always justification to training in self-defense whether or not you ever use it at all. The fact that you're prepared and have kept your skills honed (in a manner of speaking) to the point that you'll react appropriately and timely when the opportunity arises. 



			
				jdinca said:
			
		

> If you teach your children to avoid conflict at all costs, and that nonviolence is the only way, how would you feel if you received a tragic phone call telling you your child is dead and that he/she died after being lined up against the wall and executed?
> 
> If you teach your children to avoid conflict at all costs, and that noviolence is the only way, how would you feel if you received a tragic phone call telling you your child is dead and that he/she died after fighting tooth and nail with a gunmen who was indiscriminately killing people and your child's actions saved other lives?
> 
> I can't answer that question for myself, because I would never teach that to my children. I teach them to respect others, their rights and to do what they can to avoid conflict but I also teach them that they need to defend themselves, no matter what, if attacked. Were I to receive that tragic phone call, scenario #2 would at least give me a little solace for the basic fact that my child died trying to help others.


My father, who upon hearing of the Va. Tech tragedy also felt for the parents of the slain and told me that he would be heart-broken if I were among them. But I know him well enough to know that like you, jdinca, he would prefer the phone call resultant of scenario #2. But of course like any parent he would *prefer not* to get the call at all ... or at least a phone call from me saying "I'm okay, I wasn't in any danger because I didn't have any classes that time/day..." But he would've appreciated and found solace (and pride) in that I fought back and tried to stop the monster so that others would be spared... parent and student alike. 

I am very aware of John 15:13 and keep it in my heart because I believe it is _one of _the truest statements ever made.


----------



## michaeledward (May 14, 2007)

jdinca said:


> If you teach your children to avoid conflict at all costs, and that nonviolence is the only way, how would you feel if you received a tragic phone call telling you your child is dead and that he/she died after being lined up against the wall and executed?
> 
> If you teach your children to avoid conflict at all costs, and that noviolence is the only way, how would you feel if you received a tragic phone call telling you your child is dead and that he/she died after fighting tooth and nail with a gunmen who was indiscriminantly killing people and your child's actions saved other lives?
> 
> I can't answer that question for myself, because I would never teach that to my children. I teach them to respect others, their rights and to do what they can to avoid conflict but I also teach them that they need to defend themselves, no matter what, if attacked. Were I to receive that tragic phone call, scenario #2 would at least give me a little solace for the basic fact that my child died trying to help others.


 
This is the unfounded premise I am talking about. It is an awfully big sweeping generalization to say that all of society is being taught to "avoid conflict at all costs". I just don't think that is true.

And most of the people posting on this thread seem to be saying, 'yeah, it's horrible, that everybody else in our country is going all Ghandi'. 

And, I am thinking back to this thread ... http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=665724&postcount=1 ... where a student, showing a bit of resistance was greated with the opposite idea; that fighting back is unAmerican, and the student got what he deserved. 


Again, I wasn't there. I haven't followed the story very closely. I have heard of snippets of resistance. I have heard of students jumping out windows. I have not heard of students lining up along a wall to await their execution. I think the author may be projecting a bit of "Bill O'Reilly facts" to his argument. 

The last fact for now is, life has many random occurances that can impact our lives, no matter what our choice is; be it the oncoming bus, a plane whose final destination is a building or field, or a crazed gunman in our engineering class. There are things outside our control.


----------



## michaeledward (May 14, 2007)

I just saw this article ..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070513/faked-attack



> MURFREESBORO, Tenn.  Staff members of an elementary school staged a fictitious gun attack on students during a class trip, telling them it was not a drill as the children cried and hid under tables.
> 
> 
> The mock attack Thursday night was intended as a learning experience and lasted five minutes during the weeklong trip to a state park, said Scales Elementary School Assistant Principal Don Bartch, who led the trip.


 
Elementary School Students? I am not certain I can find language that describes how abhorent I find this. To me, it qualifies as 'terrorism'.


----------



## Shaderon (May 14, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I just saw this article ..
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070513/faked-attack
> 
> ...


 

That's disgusting, I do agree with fighting back and we should teach out kids not to be targets and to not take pacifism to an extreme but this is not even fighting back, it's traumatising kids!

If they were going to have a drill, ALL the people in the building should have been warned, including the kids and the parents of the kids so they could choose not to have thier kids involved. Doing something like that to a group of children could have just as bad long term affects as the real thing, it's not training for it because the kids won't remember the things they were told, they'll just remember how scared they were. To properly train for something like this you have to remove the danger or any threat and train in an environment which is good for positive reinforcement learning, and a threatening environment like that isn't.


----------



## jks9199 (May 14, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> And, I am thinking back to this thread ... http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=665724&postcount=1 ... where a student, showing a bit of resistance was greated with the opposite idea; that fighting back is unAmerican, and the student got what he deserved.


 
I don't think that's quite a comparable case.  You're referring to an incident where a student refused to comply with lawful demands, created a disturbance, and got tazed.  That student was fighting against the rules -- not acting against a violent, unlawful attack.


----------



## jdinca (May 14, 2007)

Shaderon said:


> That's disgusting, I do agree with fighting back and we should teach out kids not to be targets and to not take pacifism to an extreme but this is not even fighting back, it's traumatising kids!
> 
> If they were going to have a drill, ALL the people in the building should have been warned, including the kids and the parents of the kids so they could choose not to have thier kids involved. Doing something like that to a group of children could have just as bad long term affects as the real thing, it's not training for it because the kids won't remember the things they were told, they'll just remember how scared they were. To properly train for something like this you have to remove the danger or any threat and train in an environment which is good for positive reinforcement learning, and a threatening environment like that isn't.


 
Intelligence and common sense are two different things. Obviously, these teachers are not aware what that latter is. I hope disciplinary action follows, as well as the school district picking up the cost for whatever counseling those kids may have to go through. What a stupid thing to do.


----------



## MA-Caver (May 14, 2007)

jdinca said:


> Intelligence and common sense are two different things. Obviously, these teachers are not aware what that latter is. I hope disciplinary action follows, as well as the school district picking up the cost for whatever counseling those kids may have to go through. What a stupid thing to do.



Agreed! While I can semi-comprehend the mind set that having an un-announced drill conducted to convey the sense of realism for children of the elementary school age this is uncalled for and a traumatizing event. If it were high-school students or college then yeah they are a bit more emotionally equipt to handle the stress. They have the capacity to have a moments doubt that says to themselves "hey, wait a second... mebbe this is some kind of drill..." At least it reduces the fear factor. The same thoughts probably went through some of the minds of the VA tech students but the reality of the dead and dying and wounded removed such doubts. But *everyone* should be notified that a drill is being conducted regardless. 
I wouldn't think it'd be funny that a student not knowing better has a warrior (or wcs a reckless attitude) and attacks the would be attackers and then gets in trouble for it.

Grade School Teachers should have the mind-set of being willing to fight to the death for the lives of their charges... especially elementary school aged children, if escape isn't possible. Barricading the door to their room or getting the kids out the window (if single story) asap and telling them to run to the parking lot or to where-ever a pre-determined spot may be. 
If the gunman enters the teacher should be prepared to start throwing books, desks, chairs whatever they can at the gunman to buy time. Little ones cowering under their desks is about as brilliant an idea as the old "duck and cover" scenario of a nuclear attack in the 60's.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (May 14, 2007)

If we are going to compare a knucklehead student resisting the lawful orders of law enforcement to students fighting a mass murderer, then we have nothing to talk about here because your out there in the twilight zone.


----------



## michaeledward (May 14, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> If we are going to compare a knucklehead student resisting the lawful orders of law enforcement to students fighting a mass murderer, then we have nothing to talk about here because your out there in the twilight zone.


 
Edit - Never mind - Add to Ignore list - End Edit


----------



## jdinca (May 14, 2007)

MA-Caver said:


> I wouldn't think it'd be funny that a student not knowing better has a warrior (or wcs a reckless attitude) and attacks the would be attackers and then gets in trouble for it.


 
I've got this visual of a 6th grader just beating the holy crap out of one the "attackers". It brings a smile to my face.  If he got in trouble, i.e. suspended, we'd take that time and go to Disneyland.


----------



## Phoenix44 (May 17, 2007)

Have we forgotten how to fight back, or does something odd happen to people in these situations?  

In 1993, a guy walked through a train car on the Long Island Railroad randomly shooting people.  It was an evening rush hour train, with probably over a hundred people on it.  He'd shot more than 20 people and killed 6 before some guys took him down while he re-loaded. 

We're all looking at this through the eyes of martial artists, but how many years did we all have to train to instantly and reflexively fight back?


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 17, 2007)

Phoenix44 said:


> We're all looking at this through the eyes of martial artists, but how many years did we all have to train to instantly and reflexively fight back?


 
I agree with you and the guy that use to be my Wing Chun Sifu and I had a similar discussion back in 2001. 

But there are occasions when we (the collective we) fought back - We should not forget flight 93


----------



## michaeledward (May 17, 2007)

Flight 93 is, perhaps, not a good example ... 

Passengers on that plane were aware that other hi-jacked planes had flown into buildings. They had a greater awareness of consequences than can usually be assumed. 

Passengers on that plane had some time to organize a resistance. I don't know the time line for individuals at Virginia tech, but we do know that the 33 passengers and the flight crew had approximately 30 minutes to communicate with the outside world and plan their response. 

Now, if you could use American Flight 11, as an example . . . 


I tell my children, that making the right choice on the small issues in very important, because when it comes time to make a choice on a big issue, they will have had lots of practice making that right choice. To a certain extent, I think this mirrors Phoenix44's suggestion of our training allows us to see this differently. 

And, I don't think we should neglect 3 or 4 million years of 'fight or flight' in our genetic code.


----------



## MA-Caver (May 17, 2007)

Phoenix44 said:


> Have we forgotten how to fight back, or does something odd happen to people in these situations?
> 
> In 1993, a guy walked through a train car on the Long Island Railroad randomly shooting people.  It was an evening rush hour train, with probably over a hundred people on it.  He'd shot more than 20 people and killed 6 before some guys took him down while he re-loaded.
> 
> We're all looking at this through the eyes of martial artists, but how many years did we all have to train to instantly and reflexively fight back?


I think it's a little of that in everyone. The shock of sudden and fatalistic violence puts pause in a majority of people... majority being those who are not exposed to it on a day to day basis... LEO's and active duty military personnel serving (or having recently served) in a combat zone. 
However in some cases (as in the '93 episode) people got over the shock value and manage to move in and stop the attacker before he killed/wounded any others. But then again waiting until the killer stops to reload isn't a bad idea either ... just got to hope you weren't in his sights during the first round. 

We ARE all looking at this discussion through the eyes of MA-ists, it's our common ground here. But as far as to how many years we had to train to get the instincts/reflexes to fight back... that answer is gonna be as varied as the types of MA listed on this board. 
Each of us here have taken a MA because we've felt the warrior spirit within and answered it's call. We can apply whatever face to it, SD reasons, Fitness reasons, The Desire To Kick Butt reasons...whatever! But we are a select few. 



			
				Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> I agree with you and the guy that use to be my Wing Chun Sifu and I had a similar discussion back in 2001.
> But there are occasions when we (the collective we) fought back - We should not forget flight 93
> 
> 
> ...


 Actually Michael, Xue is right using Flight 93 as an example... just as you are correct using Flight 11... both have shown the results of action vs inaction. But... we don't know what totally happened on Flight 11 do we? We know what happened on 93 because people using cell phones were "reporting it" as it happened... and largely it's all hypothesized, they said they were going to rush the hijackers and as a result the plane crashed in a field out in PA instead of it's intended target ... or did the plane crash for other reasons? 
We can hypothesize that the passengers of Flight 11 were all sheep and just sat dumbly there until the plane crashed into the first of two towers. But how many did the hijackers kill on board in order to maintain control of the plane long enough to do that? If I understand it there were more hijackers on that flight and fewer passengers as compared to the reverse of flight 93... 
Regardless... that one group of people took action to fight for their lives and another did not is part of the focus of this discussion... that some will and some won't. The VT tragedy and 9/11 are good examples of what we're talking about here. Same with the Amish tragedy and Columbine could be used as well. 
It boils down to fear, shock, mental preparedness (think of that 11 yr. old girl who thwarted her would be kidnapper a few days-threads ago). The old Soviet Military's elite force had "shock-troops" to instantly immobilize any potential resistance before it got started. Because they KNEW that there are "sheep-dogs" among the sheep and that it's nearly impossible to tell them apart until they act.

The why's of it all, who will fight and who will cower in fear and possibly die, again will vary upon the individual. How they were raised, their personal values, the value they place on their lives compared to the lives of others, their individual ability to control their fears and so many other factors. 
It's what I've said before though... no-one person knows *exactly* what they're capable of doing at any given moment at any given time until they do it.


----------



## Ping898 (May 17, 2007)

Phoenix44 said:


> Have we forgotten how to fight back, or does something odd happen to people in these situations?
> 
> In 1993, a guy walked through a train car on the Long Island Railroad randomly shooting people. It was an evening rush hour train, with probably over a hundred people on it. He'd shot more than 20 people and killed 6 before some guys took him down while he re-loaded.
> 
> We're all looking at this through the eyes of martial artists, but how many years did we all have to train to instantly and reflexively fight back?


 

I think you also have to consider the timing of some of these things too, if you look at a group of people like on that train that would not have a reflexive response, it is evening, I don't know about anyone else, but by the time I leave work I am usually mentally and physically drained and my response time is considerably slowed until I get home and have a half hour or so to decrompress and can focus again...it is not like these attacks happen at 10 am after everyone has had a cup of coffee and is at their peak to be able to mentally and physically combat the situation....


----------



## WCman1976 (May 28, 2012)

Ping898 said:


> I also wonder what is teaches kids these days when a fight occurs and someone defends themself, they are also punished along with the instigator....



I don't normally play the "one up" game, but I got you beat on this one: in my school, someone came up and started a fight with one of my friends. He didn't bother fighting back because he figured if he didn't swing, then he wouldn't get suspended. WRONG! So he said to me afterward, "Great...now I am out of school and going to catch hell from my parents. I should have pummeled the bastard!" And I agree. 

In the area where I grew up, there really was an anti-martial art sentiment in the air. People would ask me what my hobbies were...I would say "martial arts" or "self-defense" and they would get turned off from even talking to me. The rumor I heard going around school about me was that I was "scary" because I was into that "violent kung fu stuff." Never mind the fact that, for years before that, most people in school ALSO knew I was a bully magnet! So it's okay if the bullies are the violent ones...but if the person who GETS bullied decides to learn how to defend themselves, they are creepy? Never made any sense to me.


----------



## oftheherd1 (May 31, 2012)

WCman1976 said:


> I don't normally play the "one up" game, but I got you beat on this one: in my school, someone came up and started a fight with one of my friends. He didn't bother fighting back because he figured if he didn't swing, then he wouldn't get suspended. WRONG! So he said to me afterward, "Great...now I am out of school and going to catch hell from my parents. I should have pummeled the bastard!" And I agree.
> 
> In the area where I grew up, there really was an anti-martial art sentiment in the air. People would ask me what my hobbies were...I would say "martial arts" or "self-defense" and they would get turned off from even talking to me. The rumor I heard going around school about me was that I was "scary" because I was into that "violent kung fu stuff." Never mind the fact that, for years before that, most people in school ALSO knew I was a bully magnet! So it's okay if the bullies are the violent ones...but if the person who GETS bullied decides to learn how to defend themselves, they are creepy? *Never made any sense to me*.



It's called Zero Tolerance.  It's a wonderful concept and application.  You don't have to try and figure out who is the agressor, and risk a lawsult from parents when you send that kid home.  You just send them both home based on your Zero Tolerance policy.

This thread started commenting on the Virginia Tech shootings.  Based on placement of the bodies, a bandsman in the Tech Corps of Cadets was thought to have tried to get to the gunman, Song.  He was buried in a local cemetary, with full military honors.  The entire Corps of Cadets escorted his body on foot to the cemetary.

As to the thrust of the thread, I think it is to most of us, a shame people aren't taught to, and allowed to, defend themselves.  But perhaps we are biased?


----------



## WC_lun (May 31, 2012)

I think this issue is a two sided coin.  Yes, kids in school are taught that violence, for any reason, is unacceptable.  Not a good thing when it comes to knowing when to step up for yourself.  However, modern media teaches kids that violence is an acceptable answer for most situations.  Also not good for obvious reasons.  There needs to be a middle ground and that is where parents and family come in.  Parents and close family MUST be the voice of reason and teach that sometimes violence is neccesary, but only in limited situations.  If this does not happen, kids go one way or another depending upon which extreme they already identify with.

As far as the Virgina Tech thing, I think it unfair to critisize anyone in that situation for not defending themselves.  There are many variables in a situation like that.  Fear, confusion, adrenaline surge, the fact they were unarmed against a gunmen, etc.  Saying you would have done this or that is not thinking in terms of reality, unless you have been in a very similiar situation and know how you have already acted.  The thing is, NO ONE knows how they will react to life threatening situations, especially involving violence, until it happens.  So to critisize others for not taking action is not really fair.


----------



## oftheherd1 (May 31, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> I think this issue is a two sided coin.  Yes, kids in school are taught that violence, for any reason, is unacceptable.  Not a good thing when it comes to knowing when to step up for yourself.  However, modern media teaches kids that violence is an acceptable answer for most situations.  Also not good for obvious reasons.  There needs to be a middle ground and that is where parents and family come in.  Parents and close family MUST be the voice of reason and teach that sometimes violence is neccesary, but only in limited situations.  If this does not happen, kids go one way or another depending upon which extreme they already identify with.
> 
> As far as the Virgina Tech thing, I think it unfair to critisize anyone in that situation for not defending themselves.  There are many variables in a situation like that.  Fear, confusion, adrenaline surge, the fact they were unarmed against a gunmen, etc.  Saying you would have done this or that is not thinking in terms of reality, unless you have been in a very similiar situation and know how you have already acted.  The thing is, NO ONE knows how they will react to life threatening situations, especially involving violence, until it happens.  So to critisize others for not taking action is not really fair.



All true.  The problem seems to be too many of today's parents didn't get that same guidance when they were young.  And I also agree one doesn't know what one will do until in a situation.  Even if we have been in a similar situation, we may react differently for many different reasons.


----------

