Non injurious, humane self defense?

[Archangel M]

I was trained that if you draw a gun on somebody discharge immediately. This was not security training, it was self defense training. Shoot two times in the center mass than once in the head to be sure. Again, it is this kind of "kill or be killed" mentality that I'm looking for options around. I know how to kill and maim, I don't know how to restrain.

Then you were trained wrong. There are plenty of times where you would be justified in drawing a weapon without firing it. Many citizens successfully defend themselves with a gun without firing a shot.

 

[Joab]

Try Western / Collegiate Wrestling. Since it's a sport, they work on not injuring your opponent. Yet there's plenty of pain compliance and holds to "neutralize" your opponent, all non-lethally and might not even leave a bruise.

Ask a bouncer at a club or a bar, they tend to know pain compliance holds without getting in serious trouble.


If you're drunk cousin, uncle or friend needs to be "controlled" this seems like a good alternative if you can't talk them down. Much better than finger jabs to the eyes anyway...

I used to be a bouncer, never had to bounce anyone to be honest, I was more of a deterrent. Checked a lot of ID's. I don't know any pain compliance holds. I've been told they only work with somebody who isn't resisting or after someone has been stunned by a hit or kick first.

 

[Joab]

I think one of the very best options can be a blood choke.

Done correctly, and if the attacker is in reasonably good shape, they go to sleep and wake up with no ill effects.

But it is a slippery slope: you have to be well-trained enough to target the blood flow to the brain without crushing the windpipe; to cause unconciousness without causing brain damage — to knock them out temporarily and not put them permanently to sleep!

Is that similiar to the Japanese stranglehold? If they have a bad heart it could kill them.

 

[Joab]

So would we all, but going into "combat", so to speak, with the attitude of fear of lawsuits will only help make you dead.

You may be right. I would say it depends on the situation, how competent the attacker is.

If you think you have worries, try working in LE. Cops have gotten themselves killed by not acting with enough force...out of fear of litigation.

Without a doubt, and with the advent of tasers they are constantly second guessed regarding whether or not hey should have tazed the guy or shot him.

You train in effective techniques, use them WHEN APPROPRIATE, make wise after action decisions and let the chips fall where they may.

That's what I have been trained to do, quite honestly. Merely exploring other options.

 

[Archangel M]

If you are going to wait and test your opponent to see "how competent he is" your chance of winding up dead increases.

I admire the intent behind your question but attacking/defending yourself WAS, IS and always WILL BE a violent endeavor and as such...to be successful in either..will always require "violence" of a sort which comes with the possibility of injury. The only way to avoid injury is to avoid the confrontation in the first place.

 

[Joab]

If you are going to wait and test your opponent to see "how competent he is" your chance of winding up dead increases.

It all depends. If you have some idiot throw some wide arcing, utterly telegraphed wild punch that is incrdibly easy to see coming, well, I might get hit because I was laughing initially. If the guy knows what he is doing, than yes, your right.

I admire the intent behind your question but attacking/defending yourself WAS, IS and always WILL BE a violent endeavor and as such...to be successful in either..will always require "violence" of a sort which comes with the possibility of injury. The only way to avoid injury is to avoid the confrontation in the first place.

Well, that's the way I have always been trained. They may be right you may be right. Thanks for the input.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I was trained that if you draw a gun on somebody discharge immediately. This was not security training, it was self defense training. Shoot two times in the center mass than once in the head to be sure. Again, it is this kind of "kill or be killed" mentality that I'm looking for options around. I know how to kill and maim, I don't know how to restrain.

I am a US Marine and worked in civilian Law Enforcement, we were never taught that.

What we were taught was that if you are legally justified to use deadly force, and you choose to draw your weapon, you'd better be prepared to use it to kill, because that's most likely what is going to happen.

In other words, you don't draw your weapon unless you are prepared to use and justified in doing so.

I would understand your point of view as "the gun is not a magic wand, don't wave it around and expect things to get better."

If I draw my weapon, I presume that the next thing that is going to happen is that someone is going to die and I don't want it to be me. However, if my attacker surrenders immediately - and I mean most ricky tick - then yes, I'll refrain from making them several hundred grains heavier.

 

[Archangel M]

And there are times you may be looking for someone or securing your castle, where there may be someone out there with bad intent. Its a good idea to have your weapon upholstered while you check.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Then you were trained wrong. There are plenty of times where you would be justified in drawing a weapon without firing it. Many citizens successfully defend themselves with a gun without firing a shot.

I would never draw a weapon unless I were prepared to use it.

If I can manage to avoid firing, yay me. But I would not draw a firearm I was not prepared to use to kill with. I would never point it at someone I was not prepared (and justified) to kill. If I draw my weapon, it will only by by the speed of surrender and the grace of G-d that I do not discharge it.

The problem with citizens solving problems by drawing weapons without using them is that it often works, so people get the idea that a gun is a magic wand - wave it around, everything gets better.

In my limited experience, nothing ever gets better once a gun comes into play, and your life will become a lot more complicated for a very long time if you have to fire it, whether you are right, wrong, or indifferent.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

And there are times you may be looking for someone or securing your castle, where there may be someone out there with bad intent. Its a good idea to have your weapon upholstered while you check.

Damned right. And if you have drawn it and do not intend to use it, it's a stick. Plus, the BG is going to take it away and kill you with it.

Draw a weapon only if you are prepared to kill with it. If you can't do that, don't draw it. It's a drawback at that point.

 

[Archangel M]

I would never draw a weapon unless I were prepared to use it.

If I can manage to avoid firing, yay me. But I would not draw a firearm I was not prepared to use to kill with. I would never point it at someone I was not prepared (and justified) to kill. If I draw my weapon, it will only by by the speed of surrender and the grace of G-d that I do not discharge it.

The problem with citizens solving problems by drawing weapons without using them is that it often works, so people get the idea that a gun is a magic wand - wave it around, everything gets better.

In my limited experience, nothing ever gets better once a gun comes into play, and your life will become a lot more complicated for a very long time if you have to fire it, whether you are right, wrong, or indifferent.

Absolutely, but IMO there is a big difference between "If I draw I am prepared to use it" and "I will only draw if I am ready to fire". If you are waiting till its "trigger time" you are going to be way behind the engagement curve.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Absolutely, but IMO there is a big difference between "If I draw I am prepared to use it" and "I will only draw if I am ready to fire". If you are waiting till its "trigger time" you are going to be way behind the engagement curve.

I think we're saying the same thing here. I am saying "If I draw I am prepared to use the weapon to kill."

I do not advocate waiting to draw the weapon until I am about to send rounds downrange. I am saying that drawing in the context of not intending to use the weapon as designed is not conducive to your long-term good health. I am sure this does not apply to you, but too many people think the gun is a magic wand to be waved at problems.

Your example of a prowler in your house - if I go hunting in the middle of the night, I will be armed, and the weapon will be out. But I'll also be prepared to use the weapon. If one thinks to hold an intruder at bay with the gun whilst dialing 911, think again. Yes, it might happen that way, but don't count on it. If you can't pull the trigger, you should not have a gun in your hand. That's all.

 

[Archangel M]

I think we're saying the same thing here. I am saying "If I draw I am prepared to use the weapon to kill."

I do not advocate waiting to draw the weapon until I am about to send rounds downrange. I am saying that drawing in the context of not intending to use the weapon as designed is not conducive to your long-term good health. I am sure this does not apply to you, but too many people think the gun is a magic wand to be waved at problems.

Your example of a prowler in your house - if I go hunting in the middle of the night, I will be armed, and the weapon will be out. But I'll also be prepared to use the weapon. If one thinks to hold an intruder at bay with the gun whilst dialing 911, think again. Yes, it might happen that way, but don't count on it. If you can't pull the trigger, you should not have a gun in your hand. That's all.

Yes, we are in agreement.

 

[still learning]

Hello, Ever watch those "high speed" police chases? ....They always draw there guns pointing to the person in the car that get stop..

Yes a few times they had to fire back....Most time NO shootings!!

Pointing a gun ....will cause the aggressor to think about it and hopefully comply!

...the point is this? .....what can we use that will stop an aggressor....?
sometimes it may mean using weapons...a knife...a baseball bat...guns..
IF it works? ....to stop the person(s)....Good!

If we have to use it? ....than NOT consider a humane self-defense tool...cross this off that list- (humane self-defense list)

Aloha,

NO simple answers....just good techniques!

 

[MJS]

Any art eh? Well, the ones I have taken don't have a lot of that in their repertoire. Heck, all four taught me to kick out a knee to begin with. I know how to do it many different ways. These include tae-kwon-do, wing chun, krav maga and one that doesn't like to be included in forums like this.

Guess you didn't read my post too well. Lets look at it again. I said:

This is, IMHO, one of the goals of the martial arts. We should reach a point, when we can control what we do, how we do it, etc. I mean think about it.....this is why I cringe when I hear people talking about the supposed "one shot one kill, deadly techniques, like biting and eye gouging" Sure those are all fine and good and they do work, but IMO, if thats what the person needs to do to always win, then that person needs to re-evaluate their training.

So yes, to answer your question, any art out there can do this, but it all depends on the person doing the art.

Notice the key words there? I've been doing Kenpo for over 20yrs now. One heck of a brutal art, seeing that pretty much every technique involves kicking the groin, a break of some sort, elbowing the face, etc. Its up to us, the students of the art, to control what we do. Again, if WE, as students, can't control what WE do, when WE are doing a technique, then WE need to sit down and figure out what WE are doing wrong.

Do I need to break someones arm every time they do a lapel grab on me? Of course not. I should be able to adapt what I do, meaning, remove the threat by means of a joint lock, a throw/takedown or going all the way to a break.

So I'll say it again...any art can offer this, but its up to us to figure it out.

Mike

 

[sgtmac_46]

Many self defense teachers would agree with you, like all of my former teachers. They may be right, you may be right.

The reality is that a lot of folks in the martial arts are trying to find a way around violence.....which is great in theory, but not always so hot in practice. Sometimes the more effective path is more effective and efficient violence, properly applied.

 

[kaizasosei]

I agree with the ideas of jointlocks and controlled chokes...jujutsu, aikido.

Thing is with aikido, that it comes on slowly, exponentially. For example, you setup and get the guys hand or arm in a certain position seting up for further techniques but the attacker doesn't see what is going on(if done perfectly), and by the time he's figured it out, it's too late. Same with bjj, how many times now(a couple at least) have i been on top trying to work something and then out of nowhere-triangle choke. Techniques can be so very deceptive. From a strategic point of view once an attacker exposes a certain vulnerable area, he's game. Be it striking or locks, one still need to have at least certain amount of strength and precision.

By exponential i mean that in certain aikido moves, the moves are done in steps. The final step is when the attacker is fixed on the floor, before that there may be still up to 5 or more steps. So to get to the first few steps, the attacker does not think he is yet in any danger. But when he reacts accordingly to step 2 or 3, it may start to become clear that he is going down. That is why, one must not think of the last step and try for it. It just has to come on its own. Of course if an attacker has martial arts experience, then it could also put a spin on things. But many are oblivious to the inner workings of the many techniques and the principles thereof and can be easily tricked and manipulated without harming them much. It's way cooler and more efficient taking someone down without harming them much, if possible, aside from the whole moral aspect. If two are the same strength, skill and similar strategic position, i think it can get pretty ugly unless one manages to work a technique or lock.

I think that the post by Stilllearning really summed up the most realistic approaches.

I think that it is not so black and white, do nothing or smash the larynx or break a nose...there are many shades or grey and most confrontations don't turn physical. But if there is a physical confrontation one must weigh things out very carefully and whatever you do, do it smoothly. Run away, play chicken or let loose with some serious physical violence from which the attacker will not walk away from unscathed.

I would only worry about the attacker once i am sure that i am safe. Love your enemy; a truly noble maxime. But i think that when it comes to fighting, it is better to think of safety first. Sometimes, it's hit or be hit, kill or be killed- in that situation, a moment of hesitation can mean death- on the other hand-one moment to soon and you become a vicious criminal dishing out uncalled for violence.

First you must be prepared to do anything otherwise, you are in no position to be selective.

j

j

 

[sgtmac_46]

In order to operate effectively, we must lean to injure to degree.......IF we can protect ourselves, others, accomplish the mission/goal/job, etc, safely to ourselves, using a lessor level of force, then that is what we should.

Where the danger comes in is the belief that with the right combination of Hapo-kwon-do-ju-fu, we can be smaller, weaker and more out of shape than our attacker, and still effortless control him, without injury. I don't know that reality anywhere supports that notion......what's more, that belief is reinforced when systems avoid heavy sparring as proofing, and thereby convince themselves that their techniques that work on cooperative partners, now automatically works the same on someone intent to take their head off.

 

[joeygil]

I used to be a bouncer, never had to bounce anyone to be honest, I was more of a deterrent. Checked a lot of ID's. I don't know any pain compliance holds. I've been told they only work with somebody who isn't resisting or after someone has been stunned by a hit or kick first.

Interesting. I guess I had the wrong idea. Anyway, I still think western wrestling would be a good way to go.

 

[blackxpress]

Regarding the mention of a gun:

My understanding is that you should NEVER draw a gun thinking that showing the aggressor a gun will end the conflict.

Nor should you ever "shoot to wound."

If you produce a firearm for self defense, you must only do so with the knowledge that, by shooting center body mass to stop the threat, you very well may end up shooting the aggressor dead.

Drawing a gun to wave like a Magic Wand of Don't Attack Me is a BAD idea.

Amen, brother. One of the first rules of firearms safety is never point a gun at something you don't intend to shoot. I don't believe a person should even carry a gun unless he has made up his mind ahead of time that he will shoot to kill if the situation warrants it. If you're not willing to pull the trigger, don't carry a gun. Period.

As for "non-injurious" SD tactics, I have little interest in such things. Maybe I'm just a barbarian but if anybody attacks me, my goal is to injure them as badly as I can as quickly as I can and get the hell out of there before his buddies have time to react. I'll deal with the cops later.