Reasonable vs "Crash Out"

[isshinryuronin]

One thing I've noticed. Most people who have a weapon completely forget about their other limbs

I think that's true. They put their attention and trust onto the weapon. While a weapon is good, the opponent can guess with high probability that is where the attack will be coming from. If the attacker realizes this, a feint with the weapon will be very effective as it will draw all the defender's attention.

Another thing, when someone is grabbed by the arm, they forget they have 3 other limbs available. And when an attacker grabs your wrist, his grabbing hand is also immobilized to a good extent. The advantage goes to the one who capitalizes on it first. This is where an offensive mindset comes in handy. Every attack presents an opportunity to counter.

These self-defeating reactions to a grabbing attack are human nature, but with practice can be easily overcome. Just add a little sugar and turn lemons into lemonade.

 

[Mallic]

I think that's true. They put their attention and trust onto the weapon. While a weapon is good, the opponent can guess with high probability that is where the attack will be coming from. If the attacker realizes this, a feint with the weapon will be very effective as it will draw all the defender's attention.

Another thing, when someone is grabbed by the arm, they forget they have 3 other limbs available. And when an attacker grabs your wrist, his grabbing hand is also immobilized to a good extent. The advantage goes to the one who capitalizes on it first. This is where an offensive mindset comes in handy. Every attack presents an opportunity to counter.

These self-defeating reactions to a grabbing attack are human nature, but with practice can be easily overcome. Just add a little sugar and turn lemons into lemonade.

Thats another good observation, only a fool trusts his life to a weapon after all.

 

[Buka]

It is one of the most effective techniques with restraint, put to sleep, or lethal capabilities, plus, low risk of hand injury. Yet, punching seems so much more satisfying.

Oh, yeah, a punch so much is.
It’s almost religious.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

And knowing the difference is critical.

That’s the whole thing really. I’ve been involved in a lot of violence when I was younger. It was not always avoidable.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

You're certainly a master of the obvious.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

I think there is this idea that you get in this serious fight and are striking vital targets and snapping limbs

I have never had time. Or had a bunch of better stuff to do. Like holding on to that arm with the knife.

It’s never been that way for me, it’s always like an oh **** moment. It’s never some glorious movie moment. It’s always chaotic and unpredictable and then over. It’s not as easy to make good decisions and fine motor skills deteriorate immediately.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Thats another good observation, only a fool trusts his life to a weapon after all.

There a lot of fools with weapons. That’s obvious too.

 

[Steve]

I agree.

Most of the time (90%) in normal day to day life situations, we CAN as in Mallic's quote above. It's really the only way we can live, even though sometimes we get burned.

BUT, when it comes to our safety/life, or those of loved ones, Wing Woo Gar's statement is the position we must take. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise. A one in ten chance of dying/serious injury is too high odds for me to take.

1 in 10? If that's realistic, then perhaps... but is it actually 1 in 10? Or is it more like 1 in 100, or 1 in 1000, or 1 in 10,000? Context matters, for sure, but you raise the question... when would the odds of death or serious injury be so unlikely that it becomes irresponsible to take the position Wing Woo Gar proposes?

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Thats another good observation, only a fool trusts his life to a weapon after all.

The most effective weapon is the one that remains hidden. People who brandish a weapon typically do it out of fear. It’s often easier to deescalate people who are afraid but feel as though they have the dominant position.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

1 in 10? If that's realistic, then perhaps... but is it actually 1 in 10? Or is it more like 1 in 100, or 1 in 1000, or 1 in 10,000? Context matters, for sure, but you raise the question... when would the odds of death or serious injury be so unlikely that it becomes irresponsible to take the position Wing Woo Gar proposes?

I don’t consider odds and gambling a good way to make decisions about attackers potentially injuring or killing me or my wife. I have said this over and over again, the only circumstances where I’m going to take action is where my wife is endangered or I’m trapped by an assailant I cannot avoid. Since these situations are exceedingly rare, it’s not likely to be anything I will ever encounter. I only speak to my commitment to protect my loved ones, beyond that I do anything in my power to avoid such nonsense. My position is simple, I can’t imagine that anyone here would just allow themselves or their loved ones to be assaulted or murdered without taking whatever action was needed to protect them. Am I so off base here? Does that really make me an animal? I just don’t think so.

 

[isshinryuronin]

1 in 10? If that's realistic, then perhaps... but is it actually 1 in 10? Or is it more like 1 in 100, or 1 in 1000, or 1 in 10,000?

I think since I'm not only talking about physical attacks but "day to day living," a 10% chance of some bonehead on the highway cutting you off, or somebody trying to scam you, or some other instance we come across where we are put at risk by others, by intent or stupidity, I think 10% is more likely than 1%.

when would the odds of death or serious injury be so unlikely that it becomes irresponsible to take the position Wing Woo Gar proposes?

Risk is a fact of life and we should take reasonable measures to mitigate it. Part of that is not completely putting our faith in our fellow man. This distrust can be taken too far and paralyze us or drive us to extreme action. But the better we are equipped to handle danger the less we need to worry about it.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

I was specifying that my comments were actively not referring to muggers/people looking to commit some sort of crime for the getgo. But like o'malley said, you can't rely on any assumption.

I also wouldn't necessarily call them cowards. They could be, they could also be desperate for money and this is the last option, or they could be under the influence of a substance and looking for more.

I think since I'm not only talking about physical attacks but "day to day living," a 10% chance of some bonehead on the highway cutting you off, or somebody trying to scam you, or some other instance we come across where we are put at risk by others, by intent or stupidity, I think 10% is more likely than 1%.

Risk is a fact of life and we should take reasonable measures to mitigate it. Part of that is not completely putting our faith in our fellow man. This distrust can be taken too far and paralyze us or drive us to extreme action. But the better we are equipped to handle danger the less we need to worry about it.

I was only discussing a scenario where I or my loved ones are physically assaulted and in danger of injury or death. I don’t road rage, and I don’t start altercations.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I was only discussing a scenario where I or my loved ones are physically assaulted and in danger of injury or death. I don’t road rage, and I don’t start altercations.

I'm not sure if adding me in the reply was accidental, but I wasn't replying to you there, and I wasn't in any assumptions that you're going out starting fights.

 

[HighKick]

Don't be smart with me. Someone who does not care about their own life is wildly unpredictable is what I am trying to say. I know in your mind just gunning them down with no mercy is the obvious answer but that's not the point I'm trying to make. Plus there's also the whole thing about assuming they are in such a state without knowing for sure.

That's why I go by the "Everyone gets one" mentality. One chance to back off, see how they react. Course a lot of self defence types think that one warning is more of a courtesy then such sub human filth deserve.

I'm assuming you fall under that category?

I don't think anyone is saying 'gun them down' without due process. This would be the absolute last choice if the situation allows for it.

 

[Steve]

I think since I'm not only talking about physical attacks but "day to day living," a 10% chance of some bonehead on the highway cutting you off, or somebody trying to scam you, or some other instance we come across where we are put at risk by others, by intent or stupidity, I think 10% is more likely than 1%.

I don't know what the stats really look like on a macro level. Anecdotally, based on my experience, the odds are miniscule. Or maybe it's just the way we evaluate situations. For example, what you call "some bonehead on the highway cutting you off" I might just call a lane change. Seattle has more than our share of bad drivers. And yet, I can't recall the last time I was cut off by a bonehead.

The point is, we all play a role in creating situations. Eg. If I don't leave room for folks to change lanes, I'm inviting conflict.

But even then... how often does that escalate to road rage? Certainly not daily or even monthly... some people go their entire lives without being directly impacted by road rage. And even then... how often does road rage escalate to a degree where there is a real chance of harm? Sometimes. But I’d say not 10%.

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just not sure I agree that 10% is a reasonable guesstimate. And while if 10% would make it unreasonable to react, it suggests there is a break point where it would become unreasonable. Where is that point?

I don't think anyone is saying 'gun them down' without due process. This would be the absolute last choice if the situation allows for it.

I’ve never heard due process used in that way before.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

I'm not sure if adding me in the reply was accidental, but I wasn't replying to you there, and I wasn't in any assumptions that you're going out starting fights.

It was accidental. I didn’t take any of it with hard feelings but I wanted to be clear that I’m really not some merciless animal lying in wait. I think my comments may have been misunderstood, although I thought I was clear in my statements.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

I don't think anyone is saying 'gun them down' without due process. This would be the absolute last choice if the situation allows for it.

Nobody said anything remotely close to gunning people down without mercy. Nobody referred to anyone as less than human or filth either. We can re read the thread and see that.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

I don't know what the stats really look like on a macro level. Anecdotally, based on my experience, the odds are miniscule. Or maybe it's just the way we evaluate situations. For example, what you call "some bonehead on the highway cutting you off" I might just call a lane change. Seattle has more than our share of bad drivers. And yet, I can't recall the last time I was cut off by a bonehead.

The point is, we all play a role in creating situations. Eg. If I don't leave room for folks to change lanes, I'm inviting conflict.

But even then... how often does that escalate to road rage? Certainly not daily or even monthly... some people go their entire lives without being directly impacted by road rage. And even then... how often does road rage escalate to a degree where there is a real chance of harm? Sometimes. But I’d say not 10%.

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just not sure I agree that 10% is a reasonable guesstimate. And while if 10% would make it unreasonable to react, it suggests there is a break point where it would become unreasonable. Where is that point?



I’ve never heard due process used in that way before.

I would think having road rage or reacting to it is unreasonable 100% of the time.

 

[Steve]

I would think having road rage or reacting to it is unreasonable 100% of the time.

I’m having an Anchorman moment here. 60% of the time it works every time.

But being serious, I’m guessing you mean reacting to road rage is reasonable 100% of the time. If so, one could say the same thing about man eating lions. Reacting to man eating lions is reasonable 100% of the time. But out of how many times? 100% of zero is zero times.

Again, my only point here is I’m skeptical of basing a self defense approach to any kind of odds. That’s a tenuous road to travel and I suspect not grounded in any actual, reliable statistics.

 

[Steve]

It was accidental. I didn’t take any of it with hard feelings but I wanted to be clear that I’m really not some merciless animal lying in wait. I think my comments may have been misunderstood, although I thought I was clear in my statements.

For what it’s worth, I didn’t think that or get that impression from anyone else.