What MUST be taught in a Self-Defense Course?

[Gerry Seymour]

A few items:

The difference seems to be that you are worried about their form, while I am worried about how many times they can hit and be able to escape with their life. Sure, form is important, but we can all recognize that we are not going to instruct proper form to new people in 90 minutes or 2 hours...not going to happen. They need to act...and what happens if when they are repeatedly hitting the attacker escaping with their life they sprain their wrist, or hurt their hand? That's life!! That's combat!! That's battle! That's not self defense.

Concerning what weapons to cover..l.we do not change ever what weapons we cover...we do not provide the legal advice of what to carry and use and what not to...this is about survival and each individual can make that decision...but then again, I do not know any state where a pen, flashlight, stick are illegal..or lanyard for more advanced training, or a stapler, or a pencil, or, or, or, or...you see, it is not about teaching different weapons...it is about having the mindset that everything is a weapon...

Ignoring form doesn't make it unimportant. If they don't use some workable form, the strikes can become ineffective and can even potentially harm the striker.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If you hurt yourself while defending yourself, then it really doesn't matter because defense is too late. If you hurt yourself while protecting what is personal to you, is that not better than, let's say...being raped, or killed? Would I accept a broken hand over no longer breathing? Yeah...any day of the week.

Let us not forget that we only have these people for a VERY short period of time, and they came to learn how to protect themselves...let them talk to their favorite lawyer or LEO over a cup of coffee to be told what not to do. I am going to empower them to do what they need to do to protect themselves.

Once again, there is an assumption that we say it is OK for someone to shoot a 12 year old who bumps into them...organic to the training is not only "action" but "appropriate action" and that can only be done by putting people in as real of a scenario as they can handle...and maybe a bit more...

Legality is not my issue...I am going to instruct people how to increase their chances of surviving an encounter...

That aside, I think you make assumption on the efficacy of what we do without ever having experienced it. I will state again...need to get out of the mindset of teaching technique, but rather programming people for action.

You are making fairly blatant assumptions about others' assumptions. Nothing in his statement led me to believe he assumed you were teaching anything of the sort. In fact, your statements lead me to believe you are teaching nothing of the sort, and just ignoring the fact that this risk exists.

And no, a broken wrist is not preferable to anything, because the defender breaking their wrist is unlikely to end the attack. It's likely to leave the defender more helpless than if they hadn't delivered that ineffectual strike.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I don't agree with this statement because for one the knife has to be close to me, that is where I am best at, there I can at least fight back and possibly disarm the attacker, With a gun I would have little to no chance because the person can kill me from a distance where I cannot do anything to them.

I feel like a lot of people are really undermining just how dangerous a gun is.

It has to do with how they are likely to be used. There are plenty of recorded and reported incidents of people getting "punched", only to find out later they were actually stabbed. That's less likely with a gun. Yes, if properly used, a gun is at least as dangerous (arguably moreso because of the distance advantage). But by "properly used", I mean pointing it at a target and pulling the trigger. If you watch some YouTube videos of robberies, you'll see more than a few videos of people getting way too close with a gun.

 

[Steve]

Our combined experience is the exact opposite...in fact...we provided personal protection training for a corporate client and within a few weeks, one of the attendees had to protect herself...she picked up the curling iron and used it in the exact way she used other weapons during training...90 minutes of training literally saved her.
...

Do you know her life was literally in danger? I always wonder when I hear or read statements like this. I mentioned a few days ago the self serving nature of anecdotal evidence, @gpseymour, This is a good example of what I was talking about.

 

[wingchun100]

You'll have another as soon as I remember when I am on a browser that remembers my Amazon password. Crap, now I'm over here grumbling about new-fangled passwords like an old man.

Wow, man. Thanks for the support!

 

[drop bear]

Do you know her life was literally in danger? I always wonder when I hear or read statements like this. I mentioned a few days ago the self serving nature of anecdotal evidence, @gpseymour, This is a good example of what I was talking about.

Obviously he will just have to accept the validity of the evidence presented.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Obviously he will just have to accept the validity of the evidence presented.

Anecdotes are not evidence. They're anecdotes.
Neither anecdotes nor actual evidence are proof, and are often skewed, exaggerated, or even completely fabricated.

So, no, he is not obligated to accept the anecdote as anything other than an anecdote.

 

[Balrog]

Personally, I believe in injecting a little reality check into a self-defense course. Let them know there is no way they can develop the muscle memory in such a short class. When they are attacked 2 months after their 2 hour course, they will not have the motor skills to handle it...unless they continue to train. This isn't so much for the curriculum of your course itself as it is for you to have a higher student body in the future. This is what is called an "upsell."

As for the course itself, you obviously don't want any complicated techniques or counters. Teach them to strike for vulnerable parts of an attacker's body while using not-so-vulnerable parts of theirs. Another biggie would be situational awareness: don't walk around zoned out on your cell phone, so you can notice the guy who has been following you for one block too many. Being able to spot danger before it gets physical is huge.

Heh. My favorite line when I teach the women's SHARP course is to tell them: "I've only got you for 4 hours. You ain't gonna be Xena, Warrior Princess when you walk out."

Big agreement on situational awareness. In addition, I explain why the defenses are built around an immediate counterstrike - they absolutely have to change the attacker's mindset and make him stop thinking about attacking you and make him start thinking about "OWWWWWW!"

 

[Steve]

Anecdotes are not evidence. They're anecdotes.
Neither anecdotes nor actual evidence are proof, and are often skewed, exaggerated, or even completely fabricated.

So, no, he is not obligated to accept the anecdote as anything other than an anecdote.

He was being ironic, I think, because we are often told that when a guy like Chris parker says it, it must be true because he says it and he's an expert because he says so.

 

[Juany118]

Anecdotes are not evidence. They're anecdotes.
Neither anecdotes nor actual evidence are proof, and are often skewed, exaggerated, or even completely fabricated.

So, no, he is not obligated to accept the anecdote as anything other than an anecdote.

Well, just on a technical point, anecdotal evidence does exist. Example if you have a witness or victim testify to something that doesn't have other evidence like photographs, finger prints etc. You may have this in harassment and stalking cases and the way you verify their testimony is often via corroboration from other witnesses who testimony is equally anecdotal.

 

[Headhunter]

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.

Any idiot can fire a gun those idiots also take risks because they don't really know what they're
doing what if I got attacked ad I had a gun and I tried to fire but my aim was crap and I missed and the bullet just hit you in the foot sure it'd hurt but might stop a guy off his head on drink and drugs then you could get disarmed then your screwed. I heard of a case recently where someone tried to use a gun to defend himself and his wife but he got into a tussle with a guy and the gun went off and shot his wife so.

You do seem to be quite ignorant and dismissive to things you don't understand like I said previously anyone can throw a punch 3 year olds can do it but does that mean they can punch hard enough and well enough to defend themselves of course not same goes for a gun

 

[Juany118]

Any idiot can fire a gun those idiots also take risks because they don't really know what they're
doing what if I got attacked ad I had a gun and I tried to fire but my aim was crap and I missed and the bullet just hit you in the foot sure it'd hurt but might stop a guy off his head on drink and drugs then you could get disarmed then your screwed. I heard of a case recently where someone tried to use a gun to defend himself and his wife but he got into a tussle with a guy and the gun went off and shot his wife so.

You do seem to be quite ignorant and dismissive to things you don't understand like I said previously anyone can throw a punch 3 year olds can do it but does that mean they can punch hard enough and well enough to defend themselves of course not same goes for a gun

He seems to not understand that discharging a weapon is considered fine motor function. Proper grip, sight picture and trigger pull all quickly go out the window without adequate training under stress.

You can be around guns all your life putting holes in paper and blowing apart electronic scraps and still know very little about what dynamics occur in an actual "fight or flight" situation.

The gang shootings he referred to, they are spray and pray. I have responded to the scenes of shootouts where we are collecting scores of shell casings and no one got hit. I had one shooting a couple months ago where the shooter was 5 feet away from his target, popped off 3 rounds, 1 hit the target, in the left forearm.

 

[Ironbear24]

doing what if I got attacked ad I had a gun and I tried to fire but my aim was crap and I missed and the bullet just hit you in the foot

Were you spun around 20 times before firing? If i am close to you then you should be able to hit me center mass, even If I am shot in the foot as you said could you fight well with a bullet wound in your foot? Even in the case of drugs or alcohol what is to stop you from taking another shot and another shot? I understand accidents happen but there will always be anecdotal evidence for either side.

 

[Headhunter]

He seems to not understand that discharging a weapon is considered fine motor function. Proper grip, sight picture and trigger pull all quickly go out the window without adequate training under stress.

You can be around guns all your life putting holes in paper and blowing apart electronic scraps and still know very little about what dynamics occur in an actual "fight or flight" situation.

The gang shootings he referred to, they are spray and pray. I have responded to the scenes of shootouts where we are collecting scores of shell casings and no one got hit. I had one shooting a couple months ago where the shooter was 5 feet away from his target, popped off 3 rounds, 1 hit the target, in the left forearm.

Well to be fair neither do I I have no clue about guns no idea what it's like and I don't want to know but I'm not dumb enough to say its some easy chore like I said if it was easy why would they bother training soldiers how to shoot they'd just throw them a gun and say there you go get shooting

 

[Juany118]

Well to be fair neither do I I have no clue about guns no idea what it's like and I don't want to know but I'm not dumb enough to say its some easy chore like I said if it was easy why would they bother training soldiers how to shoot they'd just throw them a gun and say there you go get shooting

Now admittedly at the close range Iron is speaking about sight picture shouldn't be an issue but trigger pull is. Especially when suddenly drawing, when not used to stress shooting, people will often start pulling the trigger as soon as they clear leather. In such circumstances it's not unusual for people to actually shoot themselves, that's on top of incidents like the close range shooting I noted, people missing even then because they are simply blindly pulling the trigger.

That call was actually funny. We responded for shots fired. I see three guys walking down the side walk and as I say "hey do you guys hear something that sounded like gunshots" my brain is registering the blood on the guys arm and he says "yeah I'm the one who got shot."

 

[drop bear]

Anecdotes are not evidence. They're anecdotes.
Neither anecdotes nor actual evidence are proof, and are often skewed, exaggerated, or even completely fabricated.

So, no, he is not obligated to accept the anecdote as anything other than an anecdote.

Since I teach for self-defense, for use in the real world, I fail to see why real-world experience is not evidence. That's just being willfully blind to evidence that exists, because it's not the evidence you want to be the ONLY evidence.

 

[Juany118]

Since I teach for self-defense, for use in the real world, I fail to see why real-world experience is not evidence. That's just being willfully blind to evidence that exists, because it's not the evidence you want to be the ONLY evidence.

I think he was more referring to the source of it. It stated when someone claiming they were told a person they taught used what they learned to successfully defend themselves with no actual context as to how/why etc. So you had heresay (not even their experience) with no context. That is sketchy.

 

[Dirty Dog]

He was being ironic, I think, because we are often told that when a guy like Chris parker says it, it must be true because he says it and he's an expert because he says so.

There are gradations. Whether you like Chris or not, he has a great depth of knowledge about his particular arts and their history. Like Buka (a former federal agent) talking about law enforcement or Kirk talking about early boxing, the words of people who are known to have expertise on a subject are going to carry more weight than context-less "I knew a guy who told me he heard about a woman who..." statements.

Well, just on a technical point, anecdotal evidence does exist. Example if you have a witness or victim testify to something that doesn't have other evidence like photographs, finger prints etc. You may have this in harassment and stalking cases and the way you verify their testimony is often via corroboration from other witnesses who testimony is equally anecdotal.

Multiple witnesses repeating the same story is quite different.

Were you spun around 20 times before firing? If i am close to you then you should be able to hit me center mass, even If I am shot in the foot as you said could you fight well with a bullet wound in your foot? Even in the case of drugs or alcohol what is to stop you from taking another shot and another shot? I understand accidents happen but there will always be anecdotal evidence for either side.

A bullet in the foot is very unlikely to stop someone from fighting.

Since I teach for self-defense, for use in the real world, I fail to see why real-world experience is not evidence. That's just being willfully blind to evidence that exists, because it's not the evidence you want to be the ONLY evidence.

I think he was more referring to the source of it. It stated when someone claiming they were told a person they taught used what they learned to successfully defend themselves with no actual context as to how/why etc. So you had heresay (not even their experience) with no context. That is sketchy.

This.

 

[Ironbear24]

Dirty Dog just went dad mode on all of us, I'll shut up now.

 

[Juany118]

There are gradations. Whether you like Chris or not, he has a great depth of knowledge about his particular arts and their history. Like Buka (a former federal agent) talking about law enforcement or Kirk talking about early boxing, the words of people who are known to have expertise on a subject are going to carry more weight than context-less "I knew a guy who told me he heard about a woman who..." statements.

This is very true.

A bullet in the foot is very unlikely to stop someone from fighting.

Absolutely. If your fight or flight hasn't kicked in before the gun shots it WILL kick in once the shots start and you know they are shooting at you. Like I said there was that kid who was shot in the forearm, he didn't fight but managed to zig zag around cars to avoid other shots. I arrived on scene maybe 90 seconds after the call went out and found him walking normally to the point only the blood on his arm was an indication of a gun shot wound and the inside of his arm must have been interesting. He was released from the Trauma Center 2 hours later. "Why" some may ask (but not you, if I recall right you work in an ER?)? The X-Ray revealed the bullet (small caliber .32 or smaller) had hit one of the bones in the forearm and fragmented. They would have done more damage going in and removing the fragments so they said "here are your follow up instructions, good luck they are a souvenir."