What MUST be taught in a Self-Defense Course?

[Gerry Seymour]

But do you agree that most people are there to learn that and ONLY that, or do you agree they are expecting to learn some kind of PHYSICAL self-defense techniques too?

The point I'm getting at is that some people act like they are morally superior when someone says, "I'm teaching a self-defense class. What techniques should I show them?" More often than not, "technique" in this context means something you have to do with your body, like repel an attack by hitting someone in the throat. While de-escalation and situational awareness are all good, there is nothing wrong with teaching the techniques you would have to use when running and/or talking an aggressor down are no longer an option.

It depends how the class is advertised. When I advertise mine, I mention both. If someone brings me in to teach a self-defense class and advertises it to their group as being physical self-defense, I minimize the non-physical. If they advertise it as something like how to avoid being a victim, I spend more time on the non-physical.

Frankly, if I advertised a class as "How to Avoid Being a Victim" and clearly advertised that it would include how to avoid dangerous situations, how to recognize threats, etc., then I would expect no problems if I did zero physical work with them. That's why I asked the OP what the expectation was. In a 2-hour timeframe, if no prior expectation had been set, I'd spend at least most of the time on non-physical work. I might show them one or two simple things they could do without much practice, but that's it. If it has been advertised as physical defense, then I'd probably teach at most 4 or 5 easy techniques in that span, building one on the others.

 

[wingchun100]

It depends how the class is advertised. When I advertise mine, I mention both. If someone brings me in to teach a self-defense class and advertises it to their group as being physical self-defense, I minimize the non-physical. If they advertise it as something like how to avoid being a victim, I spend more time on the non-physical.

Frankly, if I advertised a class as "How to Avoid Being a Victim" and clearly advertised that it would include how to avoid dangerous situations, how to recognize threats, etc., then I would expect no problems if I did zero physical work with them. That's why I asked the OP what the expectation was. In a 2-hour timeframe, if no prior expectation had been set, I'd spend at least most of the time on non-physical work. I might show them one or two simple things they could do without much practice, but that's it. If it has been advertised as physical defense, then I'd probably teach at most 4 or 5 easy techniques in that span, building one on the others.

I agree with everything you said there.

 

[oftheherd1]

But do you agree that most people are there to learn that and ONLY that, or do you agree they are expecting to learn some kind of PHYSICAL self-defense techniques too?

The point I'm getting at is that some people act like they are morally superior when someone says, "I'm teaching a self-defense class. What techniques should I show them?" More often than not, "technique" in this context means something you have to do with your body, like repel an attack by hitting someone in the throat. While de-escalation and situational awareness are all good, there is nothing wrong with teaching the techniques you would have to use when running and/or talking an aggressor down are no longer an option.

But if those who attend a self defense class come in expecting to be Johnny BA after two hours, do you have no obligation to teach them non-violent was to avoid a violent confrontation in the first place?

 

[Ironbear24]

As to two hours, that is what the OP said he had; not two hours several days a week. Isn't being able to summon help part of self defense? Would you like to let them know if they panic their response may not be what they think they would like it to be, and some ways to overcome that?

Maybe after that, then teaching physical self defense would be a worthwhile endeavor.

I would personally tell them to find a place to continue their training, because 2 hours only and nothing after it will give you nothing.

So a group comes to you and they say they have all been robbed more than once, both by strong arm and by knife wielding robbers. They are tired of it and want you to teach them how to use their guns to kill the next person who tries to strong arm them or threatens them with a knife. What are your obligations?

Do you tell them to meet you at your indoor range where you will teach them specifically how to kill their next strong arm or knife wielding assailants by shooting them? Will you agree to only teach them other ways of defending themselves rather than putting themselves at risk of jail, knowing they may walk out on you since you aren't teaching them how to kill their next assailants?

Why the hell does someone need training on how to shoot someone? It is not complex, you point and pull the trigger. I understand where you are coming from here but honestly I am not a law guy, especially since in my country these very situations can all lead to very different verdicts. In my state shooting an unarmed person to death is rarely ever justifiable while in other states you can literally pick a fight with someone then shoot them and claim self defense.

In this situation I would tell them they could into some serious legal trouble and send them somewhere else. I would never teach people how to shoot people because that is not in my martial arts curriculum or any martial arts curriculum that I have seen, it is simply something so basic it should not need instruction.

 

[oftheherd1]

I would personally tell them to find a place to continue their training, because 2 hours only and nothing after it will give you nothing.




Why the hell does someone need training on how to shoot someone? It is not complex, you point and pull the trigger. I understand where you are coming from here but honestly I am not a law guy, especially since in my country these very situations can all lead to very different verdicts. In my state shooting an unarmed person to death is rarely ever justifiable while in other states you can literally pick a fight with someone then shoot them and claim self defense.

In this situation I would tell them they could into some serious legal trouble and send them somewhere else. I would never teach people how to shoot people because that is not in my martial arts curriculum or any martial arts curriculum that I have seen, it is simply something so basic it should not need instruction.

If your two hours will give them nothing, it would not seem right to take their money and spend their time.

Bolded: How little you know.

 

[Ironbear24]

If your two hours will give them nothing, it would not seem right to take their money and spend their time.

Bolded: How little you know.

Behold how little I care, I am not a martial arts instructor, you asked me something so I answered it, any training of actual value will take more than one two hour lesson. If people could learn enough in one two hour session to protect themselves then martial arts dojo's would be in big trouble, no returning members would be a bad thing.

I guess the majority of us just waste our time since we all have spent much more than 2 hours training.

 

[Headhunter]

I would personally tell them to find a place to continue their training, because 2 hours only and nothing after it will give you nothing.




Why the hell does someone need training on how to shoot someone? It is not complex, you point and pull the trigger. I understand where you are coming from here but honestly I am not a law guy, especially since in my country these very situations can all lead to very different verdicts. In my state shooting an unarmed person to death is rarely ever justifiable while in other states you can literally pick a fight with someone then shoot them and claim self defense.

In this situation I would tell them they could into some serious legal trouble and send them somewhere else. I would never teach people how to shoot people because that is not in my martial arts curriculum or any martial arts curriculum that I have seen, it is simply something so basic it should not need instruction.

Completely disagree now I'm not a weapons guy I've never used a weapon in my life and never even held a gun let alone fired one and I have no interest in doing so but it is not something basic. If it was do you think the military would spend ages training people how to shoot same with police. Do you reckon you can shoot just as well as a world champion shooter of course you can't. People can say fighting is so basic and anyone can fight and yes anyone can fight but doesn't mean the fight well.

Now I disagree with the whole using a gun for self defence I'm not a fan of guns at all but saying its basic and doesn't take skill is silly and ignorant

 

[Kickboxer101]

Behold how little I care, I am not a martial arts instructor, you asked me something so I answered it, any training of actual value will take more than one two hour lesson. If people could learn enough in one two hour session to protect themselves then martial arts dojo's would be in big trouble, no returning members would be a bad thing.

I guess the majority of us just waste our time since we all have spent much more than 2 hours training.

Not everyone trains just for self defence I started training because I was bored and overweight and now I do it because its fun I know I can defend myself but its not a major priority to me and I'm sure it's the same for plenty of others

 

[Ironbear24]

Completely disagree now I'm not a weapons guy I've never used a weapon in my life and never even held a gun let alone fired one and I have no interest in doing so but it is not something basic. If it was do you think the military would spend ages training people how to shoot same with police. Do you reckon you can shoot just as well as a world champion shooter of course you can't.

There is a big difference between a common shotgun and handgun compared to a fully automatic rifle or sniper rifle which is what the military uses most of the time. You also don't need to be a world champion marksman to defend yourself, you are getting a sport mixed up with self defense.

When someone attacks you odds are they are going to be at point blank range, it does not a lot of skill to shoot someone point blank while shooting a target several yards away takes lots of skill. It is similar to how you don't need to be a world championship boxer or Judoka to defend yourself against the common thug.

 

[Ironbear24]

Not everyone trains just for self defence

Nobody said they did, but the question here is what should be taught in self defense, so of course self defense is in the equation here as the people who signed up for the class would be expecting that instruction.

 

[Kickboxer101]

Nobody said they did, but the question here is what should be taught in self defense, so of course self defense is in the equation here as the people who signed up for the class would be expecting that instruction.

Fact is some people don't have the time or the money to spend years training so these courses are just to learn a few basics its better than nothing I agree you can't become an expert but its still better than sitting on the couch doing nothing

 

[TSDTexan]

In answer to the OP spend ten minutes on the oral presentation.
Then split into two groups. Drill the simplest standing RNC defense that you know how to teach (hint: thumb into eyesocket). Group A defends, while group B applies the RNC. Three RNCs/defends, and rotate partners (every attacker rotate one person to the right.) After 45 minutes, group B becomes the defender, learning the escape same deal. 3 times, rotate.

10 + 45 + 45 = 100 of your allotted 120 minutes.

Resume oral presentation.
Issue handouts and have them agree to practice it every day with friends or concerns workers.

 

[MI_martialist]

I don't think we need to ask what weapons because in 2 hours you will not be able to show enough. Now if you did only one weapon and showed one use for it, or if you picked several weapons that were similar and could be used in the same way, THEN you might have something there.

Ahh...now you might have something there!

 

[MI_martialist]

Perhaps it would help my understanding if you told me (and others) what basics you are referring to. You keep saying basics, but I don't recall you ever defining what they are in the context of this thread.

I never said anything about basics...I said that there are people on here who do not think basic enough.

 

[oftheherd1]

There is a big difference between a common shotgun and handgun compared to a fully automatic rifle or sniper rifle which is what the military uses most of the time. You also don't need to be a world champion marksman to defend yourself, you are getting a sport mixed up with self defense.

When someone attacks you odds are they are going to be at point blank range, it does not a lot of skill to shoot someone point blank while shooting a target several yards away takes lots of skill. It is similar to how you don't need to be a world championship boxer or Judoka to defend yourself against the common thug.

Just a suggestion: When you don't know anything about a subject, don't talk as if you did. You just make yourself look silly. You certainly don't know anything about the US military, and apparently nothing about firearms either. Good grief!

 

[Gerry Seymour]

There is a big difference between a common shotgun and handgun compared to a fully automatic rifle or sniper rifle which is what the military uses most of the time. You also don't need to be a world champion marksman to defend yourself, you are getting a sport mixed up with self defense.

When someone attacks you odds are they are going to be at point blank range, it does not a lot of skill to shoot someone point blank while shooting a target several yards away takes lots of skill. It is similar to how you don't need to be a world championship boxer or Judoka to defend yourself against the common thug.

It actually takes a fair bit of skill for some to pull the trigger at the right time under that kind of stress. Even at relatively close range (not point-blank - point-blank range use of a gun without retention training is highly problematic) people miss if they make the common mistakes - which are exaggerated by the decrease in motor control.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I never said anything about basics...I said that there are people on here who do not think basic enough.

Yes, and you never clarified that condescending remark by providing any sort of framework to support your assertion that it could be feasibly accomplished. That omission leaves me with no evidence besides my own experience, which tells me trying to teach even a single weapon in an hour to a group with no foundation training is destined for failure. And let's be clear, with introductions and questions folks will have, you're going to have little more than an hour for the actual physical training.

 

[Ironbear24]

Just a suggestion: When you don't know anything about a subject, don't talk as if you did. You just make yourself look silly. You certainly don't know anything about the US military, and apparently nothing about firearms either. Good grief!

I know plenty about the firearms I have used and been around. Just because someone says something you don't want to hear doesn't mean they are totally ignorant on the subject. I have never used fully automatic weapons though because I have no reason to and no desire too. So as far as those go I have no experience with.

 

[Ironbear24]

It actually takes a fair bit of skill for some to pull the trigger at the right time under that kind of stress. Even at relatively close range (not point-blank - point-blank range use of a gun without retention training is highly problematic) people miss if they make the common mistakes - which are exaggerated by the decrease in motor control.

So you are telling me that it is difficult to shoot someone that close? I think many people here are arguing simply to argue, people shoot people close range all of the time. More than often without any kind of formal training, I recall a case in Florida where a woman shot her abusive husband, I doubt she spent any time at the shooting range.

How about all the gangs who shoot eachother on an almost weekly basis? Are they all training too? One of the very reasons a gun is such a powerful weapon is because possession of one can turn the weakest person into a large threat.

 

[KenpoMaster805]

You don't need to be hard on your self just teach them the basic self defense class and that would be good for 2 hours and they can learn already or do you wanna teach them take down stuff or throw down or even self defense agains a weapon you can