Tag: Self Defense

Half-Assed Effort is Better Than No Effort

Via Every Day, No Days Off I came across a video posted by the notorious James Yeager. In it he discusses the danger of lackluster training with a mixed martial arts (MMA) trainer:

I’m posting this video because it really strikes at one of my pet peeves in the martial arts community: people who assume their way is the only way and all other ways are dangerous. In the video the MMA instructor start off by talking about how having only minor training can be dangerous because a person who would have walked away if they lacked any training will now let their ego go to their head when presented with a potential physical altercation. He then rolled this into the common claim in the martial arts community that non-sparring arts are worthless for self-defense.

I study judo, which is a fully resistive sparring art, and a non-sparring sword art. In the past I’ve also studied karate at a school that did point sparring (a gray area that exists between the fully resistive sparring of judo, Brazilian jiu jitsu, muay thai, etc. and non-sparring arts). While I’m not an expert in fighting I feel as though I’ve learned enough about martial arts to comment on this topic.

Let me begin with fully resistive sparring arts. The two things I really like about fully resistive sparring arts is that you have empirical evidence of what works and you are constantly testing your skills against a resisting opponent. In judo, for example, I have a good idea of what throws I can execute effectively (almost none of them) and how good I am against an opponent (not very). Since I still suck at judo I know that my chances in an actual fight aren’t stellar. This means even with some training my ego is in check and I’m not likely to stand and fight instead of fleeing (not that I would be more willing to stand and fight even if I were skilled since you never know if an aggressor is more skilled or armed). If you only have some training in a fully resistive sparring art it’s damn near impossible for you not to know your skill level first hand.

Does that mean training in an art that doesn’t have fully resistive sparring is worthless? Not at all. Non-sparring arts still teach you techniques that can be useful in a fight. Take karate for example. With the exception of a few styles, such as kyokushin, karate is a non-sparring or point sparring art. Your skills are determined by instructor criticism instead of performance against a fully resistive opponent. Instructor criticism, assuming you have a knowledgeable instructor, will tell you if your technique is correct. During my time in karate I might now have tested my skills against a fully resisting opponent but I did learn how to properly throw punches and kicks. Those skills aren’t worthless in a fight. Being able to throw an effective punch or kick puts you ahead of a person who can’t. Since a majority of people in the United States aren’t trained in any fighting art even some training, such as effective technique, will increase your odds. Hell, simply learning how to break fall will increase your odds since you’ll be less likely to take severe damage if you get knock over.

Even skills that seem entirely unrelated to fighting can be of great help in self-defense. An art like tai chi, which is usually considered to be entirely ineffective for self-defense, can help you learn how to control your ego, which will probably do more to help you defend yourself than any fighting skill. The sword art I study relies a great deal on posture. This is, in part, because proper posture helps you maintain your balance and being able to maintain your balance will help keep you from getting put on the ground. In addition to proper posture I’ve also become more adapt at maintaining relaxed awareness (a component of zanshin) and we all know awareness is one of the, if not the, most critical skill for self-defense.

At the end of the video the MMA instructor says that the phrase “Some training is better than no training” should be amended to say “Some good training is better than no training.” That I agree with. As I noted above non-sparring or point sparring arts can still teach you proper techniques assuming you have a knowledgeable instructor. If you have an instructor who doesn’t know how to perform an effective punch or kick then they’re not going to be able to teach you how to do them. I think the most important thing that has to be kept in mind is that the art itself isn’t the biggest factor, the instruction in the art is. So long as you have a good instructor you can learn skills that can help you in self-defense even if those skills are as simple as maintaining calm in a potential fight.

Martial arts, like anything else, gives you what you’re willing to take from it. While I do agree that some arts are more effective for self-defense than others I don’t agree that non-sparring arts are dangerous. You can still take away skills that will make you more effective at defending yourself.

Dealing with Riots

The Baltimore Police Department has managed to protect the community by causing a great deal of civil unrest. This is the perfect opportunity to discuss the most effective strategies for surviving riots. Being a gun blog you’re probably expecting me to tell people in Baltimore to buy a gun. Buying a gun for self-defense is a good idea but when we’re dealing with riots there is a more effective strategy:

Riots are not good situations to be caught up in. There are no factions with definable goals that can be satisfied to convince everybody to go home. If you’re caught up in a riot you risk being injured or killed by rioters or police officers who aren’t interested in figuring out who is a rioter and who is merely caught up in the mess. Protecting yourself in a riot is a situation you have to treat as yourself (which includes your family and friends) against everybody else. Any honest self-defense instructor will tell you that your odds of survival go down as the number of opponents goes up.

A lot of people will advise you to hole up in your home, which is certainly better than roaming around on the streets. But you really have to ask yourself if your home and the things in it are worth the risk of sticking around. Stuff, in my opinion, isn’t worth the risks of hanging around during a riot (after all, that’s what I have insurance for). I believe the most effective way of protecting yourself during a riot is to run away.

Running away is actually the most effective means of self-defense in most scenarios. Any physical altercation, no matter how great the advantage you think you hold is, can result in serious injury or death. It’s best to avoid a fight if at all possible. In the case of riots this may involved leaving town, getting a hotel, and waiting for things to cool down. True, your house may be a burned out shell when you return but you’ll almost certainly be alive, which is the primary goal of self-defense.

That’s not to say you shouldn’t buy a gun. A gun is a tool you can resort to if avoidance isn’t an option. For example, if you have a small child with you you may not be able to run from an aggressor. In the case of a riot you may encounter an aggressor or several as you’re leaving town. Having a gun is a good idea but it should be treated as your last resort. Avoidance should be your first tactic.

Calling the Police is Dangerous

Most situations can only be made worse by involving the police. For example, if somebody breaks into your home and you shoot them the situations has concluded. Unless the police show up. Then they might gun you down:

Huntsville police spokesman Lt. Darryl Lawson tells AL.com the woman’s estranged husband came into the house she shared with her mother armed with a gun Sunday afternoon. The woman opened fire with a shotgun, wounding him.

Her mother called 911 and when police arrived, they heard gunshots and saw the woman in the garage holding the shotgun. They demanded she drop the weapon and when she turned toward them with the gun in her hand, at least one officer fired.

Officers say the estranged husband’s injuries are life threatening. The woman is expected to survive.

I’m sure some will put the blame on the woman for “turning towards the police” but we need to remember that that claim is from the officers who are most likely trying to cover their asses. Either way the woman would have been better off shooting her estranged husband, leaving the house, and then calling the police so she wouldn’t be around when one of those trigger happy fucks decides to get his rocks off by blasting an innocent bystander.

Never call the police unless not doing so could hold terrible legal liability. In those cases make sure you’re away from the immediate area so the police won’t assume you’re a bad guy who they can shoot at will.

How Not to Defend Yourself

Contrary to what many opponents to legalized self-defense claim there are many instances of individuals successfully defending themselves every day. From the aware individual who managed to avoid a violent situation by crossing a street at the right time to the individual who regretfully had to draw their concealed firearm and shoot their attacker successful incidents of self-defense are all around us. But there are people who mistake self-defense for vengeance. This story that happened in St. Paul is an example of vengeance:

Last night around 5:30 p.m. two armed robbers approached a man near the Hmongtown Marketplace at Como and Pennsylvania Avenues in St. Paul’s North End.

He pulled out a gun and exchanged shots with the would-be robbers.

Everything up to this point qualified as self-defense. Two armed robbers certainly make for a case where their target can reasonably assume that their life is in immediate jeopardy and lethal force is therefore justified. However the defender wasn’t satisfied with stopping there:

Then, when the robbers jumped in their car and tried to escape, he hopped in his car and chased them for more than a mile down Thomas Avenue.

Self-defense ends with the threat does. Once your attackers flee you can no longer claim self-defense if you continue responding aggressively. In this case the defender became the attacker when he chased down the fleeing robbers and engaged in a second gunfight with them.

I encourage everybody to learn skills that make them more able to defend themselves. Knowledge is one of those skills. You need to know the laws regarding self-defense otherwise you may end in a cage.

Why Military and Police Credentials Don’t Impress Me in Self-Defense Instructors

How many self-defense instructors brag bout their military of police credentials? Based on what I’ve seen the number is pretty high. And for good reason. A lot of regular old jerk offs seem to view military and police credentials as the thing to look for when deciding on a self-defense course. The more research I do in the field of self-defense the more I’m convinced the military and police credentials are pretty useless from a civilian standpoint.

On the surface seeking military and police credentials makes sense. When it comes to violence those are the two professions that are most likely to be familiar with it. But those professions also exist in a realm that is entirely separate from what use regular jerk offs exist in.

First, let’s consider tactics. Many regular jerk offs seem to believe that military and police tactics are the most effective tactics when it comes to self-defense. What they never stop to consider is that military tactics especially and police tactics to a lesser degree assuming personnel are working in teams. A lot of military and police tactics for individual personnel rely on variations of waiting for backup. As a regular jerk off we’re unlikely to have backup coming our way so that tosses out a lot of military and police tactics.

Second, liability. Military and police tactics have been developed in a realm where liability is far more limited. Both military and police personnel can get away with things that would land us regular jerk offs in a cage or, at the very least, on the receiving end of a nasty lawsuit. When a solider screws up he usually has the military ready to stand by his side, so long as he was following order. Police often receive little more than a slap on the wrist and a paid vacation when they do something egregious. Therefore their tactics have much more leeway than our own. Shock and awe work well when you’re raiding an enemy stronghold or a drug house but it’s a completely unacceptable tactic when you’re a civilian.

Third, military and personnel tactics often make assumptions about available equipment that us regular jerk offs don’t have. Consider the equipment a solider often has on his person. They usually have a rifle and a good number of space magazines, sometimes have a side arm and body armor, and often have access to greater firepower in the form of grenades and airstrikes. Police usually have a handgun, baton, pepper spray, and a Taser on their person. Oftentimes police officers will be wearing body armor and either have a rifle on hand or one very nearby. What does the average jerk off have? If they’re fortunate they live somewhere where they can legally carry a firearm, which will usually give them access to a handgun. Should have have a handgun on their person they would be smart to have at least some spare ammunition on hand. Beyond a handgun the equipment an average jerk off will have available is scant and may include pepper spray and a folding knife but will most often consist of a wallet and car keys.

There are many other reasons why I don’t see military and police credentials as important when looking for a self-defense instructor. But those are the three biggest. With all of that said, military and police credentials don’t imply an instructor is bad. It just doesn’t mean that the instructor is good.

Are You Defending Your Physical Person or Your Ego

Self-defense is a complex topic. Between skills, philosophy, and legal issues involved one could write an entire encyclopedia on the subject and not even begin to scratch the surface.

I’ve written quite a few posts talking about the idea of appropriate responses. That is how much force, if any, is proper in specific situations. But today I feel like writing about something a bit different. Consider this video. The video started off, supposedly, as one of those YouTube pranks where somebody acts like a raging asshole at random people and laughs at the response. In this case the person acting like a raging asshole slapped another person in the face with a piece of pizza. Unlike most of the YouTube pranks you see this one did not end well for the prankster since he got punched in the face.

I’m not going to lie, I rather enjoyed watching the prankster get slugged. If you play stupid games you will win stupid prizes and I’m rather tired of these YouTube pranks that more resemble assaults than fun and games.

But a worthy question to ask is whether the person who slugged the prankster was defending himself. As I obtained this link via Reddit I already read through a length debate over whether incident was self-defense or not. Assuming one considers it self-defense (I don’t but bear with me) the next question that comes to mind is, was the guy who slugged the prankster defending his physical person or his ego?

This is something to consider. Some self-defense situations seem to more accurate reflect an individual with hurt feelings retaliating against the person who hurt his feelings. Situations where one individual shoved another only to be punched in the case for doing so, in my opinion, is an example of ego defense than self-defense.

Self-defense, in my opinion, involves defending your physical self. Ego, on the other hand, has no place in a self-defense situations (again, in my opinion). My reasoning is that physical harm can lead to potentially long-term negative side-effects or death whereas a bruised ego can lead to butthurtness and whining. When you enter into a physical confrontation the risk of injury or death is always there. Therefore, in my opinion, is best to avoid physical confrontations at all costs. A hurt ego won’t lead to injury or death unless it turns into a physical confrontation. Do you really want to be the one to turn a situation that resulted in you being butthurt into one that may result in you actually getting hurt?

Warning Shots are Never a Good Idea

There is a lot of bad self-defense advice out there. One of the more frequently recycled pieces of bad self-defense advice is to fire warming shots in an attempt to scare away a threat. This advice is commonly given by individuals who don’t understand self-defense laws and vice presidents (but I repeat myself). A man is now facing the consequences of following bad self-defense advice:

Chris Harris said he was coming from church when he and his girlfriend were surrounded by nine men looking for a fight. He said men made threats and the couple was scared for their lives, but Harris explained he was the one that ended up in cuffs. And facing some pretty serious charges.

“It was one of the most scariest experiences I have ever been though,” said CC Roxby, Harris’ fiancé.

“They surrounded me saying some pretty vulgar things like they were going to rape my wife in front of me, cut me,” Harris said.

Roxby said she called 911, but one man continued to be aggressive.

“The kid kept advancing on me, saying it wasn’t a real gun, and I would much rather shoot a shot into the air to prevent them from attacking me rather than them attacking me and me shooting someone,” Harris said.

“The cruisers were coming down the street at that point and the young men ran away,” Roxby said. “Instead of them following the gang, the officers arrested Chris for firing a shot into the air.”

Some people are probably asking what the living fuck is going on here. Let me explain. Warning shots are a bad idea both defensively and legally. Defensively a warming shot is a loose round, which means where it lands is anybody’s guess. That’s a major risk to innocent bystanders.

Legally speaking warning shots take away your claim of being in immediate fear of death or great bodily harm. By firing warning shots you legally admit that you believed the situation could be resolves with something less than lethal force in that moment so employing a lethal weapon was not warranted. In other words, legally speaking, if you use a firearm you damn well better believe that lethal force is the only option left to you to preserve your life.

Based on the description of the situation, nine aggressive opponents against two individuals, I would argue that lethal force was certainly warranted. But firing a warning shot was not because of the potential risk it put innocent bystanders in.

Two Different Ways of Responding to Threats

I’ve been talking about threat models lately and how people respond to them. Most recently I discussed Sarkeesian canceling her event at Utah State University because the police were unwilling to prohibit individuals with valid carry permits from carrying at the event.

Looking at threat models and responses at a very high level there seems to be two types of reactions. The first, which Sarkeesia demonstrated, is a reaction that attempts to control the threat while the second reaction type is an attempt to harden the threat’s target.

Let’s consider a threat model commonly discussed here, individuals facing the potential of being murdered. Gun control advocates look at the model and identify the threat and focus on controlling that threat. In their eyes the threat is an armed aggressor and their reaction is to attempt to restrict their access to arms. A gun rights advocates look at the model and identify the threat and focus on hardening the target. For them the threat is an armed or unarmed aggressor and their reaction is to attempt to ensure that the target is equipped with a means to defend against the aggressor.

Obviously I’m of the thought that an appropriate response to an aggressor is to harden the target. The reason I subscribe to this school of thought is that the target is the factor in the model that you can control whereas the threat is not controllable. If somebody threatens to kill me I can take measures that make carrying through with that threat difficult. Some of the actions I can take is to train in martial arts (which, in my opinion, includes firearm training), carry a weapon to defend myself with, wear body armor to make certain types of attacks less effective, randomize the routes I take to go from home to work, install audible alarms on my doors and windows, carry a bright flashlight that can be used to blind an aggressor, etc. These are all things that I can do.

But what can I do to control the threat? Truthfully there really isn’t anything I can do in that respect. Laws are ineffective against the unlawful. Since committing murder is already illegal it seems unlikely that the threat will abide by any laws that attempt to restrict his or her access to arms. Furthermore weapons are simple things to construct so even if the laws decrease the amount of available weapons the threat can craft his or her own. There is also no reliable way for me to control when the threat will attack me. This is an interesting point in regards to Sarkeesia’s situation. While the threat that was issued said that the attack would occur at the campus there is no way to know that the issued threat wasn’t disinformation meant to throw the target off. The threat could very well attack when Sarkeesia made her way from the airport or hotel she was likely starting at to the campus or after she left the campus.

I would argue that any threat model response that relies on controlling the threat will be ineffective. Short of killing the threat there is no way to absolutely control his or her actions. But even killing them requires that you can first identify them, which is often not possible until the threat makes a move against you. This is why any competent security team focuses on protecting the target. Whether you’re talking body guards, building security, or computer security the focus is always to harden the target.

Stand Your Ground Should Apply to the Home

South Carolina passed a law that removed people’s duty to retreat when attack in a place they have a right to be at. This law, common referred to as stand your ground, is usually seen as a companion to the law that says you do not have to retreat from your home if somebody breaks in, which is usually referred to as castle doctrine. Whitlee Jones, a woman residing in South Carolina, recently made the news because she stabbed her abusive boyfriend and was eventually charged with murder. Her lawyer attempted to use the stand your ground law to argue that her actions were self-defense:

Whitlee Jones screamed for help as her boyfriend pulled her down the street by her hair. Her weave fell from her head and onto the pavement.

A neighbor heard Jones’ cries and dialed 911 on that night in November 2012.

But the scuffle ended before a North Charleston policeman arrived and asked Jones’ boyfriend what happened. Eric Lee, 29, said their argument over a cellphone had never turned physical. The officer left.

A short time later, Jones went back to the home where she lived with Lee. She planned to pack up and leave for good.

But after Jones gathered her things, Lee stepped in front of her. Though authorities later contended that Lee didn’t attack her, Jones said he shook her and blocked her way out, so she pulled a knife and stabbed him once. Lee died, and Jones was arrested for murder.

Nearly two years later, a judge found earlier this month that Jones, now 25, had a right to kill Lee under the S.C. Protection of Persons and Property Act, which allows people in certain situations to use force when faced with serious injury. But to the 9th Circuit Solicitor’s Office, Jones is not the kind of person legislators had in mind when they passed the “stand your ground” law in 2006. It does not apply to housemates in episodes of domestic violence, the prosecutors argued.

Stand your ground laws dictate that one has a right to defend themselves from aggression wherever they have a right to be. I would argue that one has a right to be in their home so understand stand your ground laws should have a right to defend themselves. Furthermore I’ve never seen a stand your ground law that made an exception if your attacker was a husband, boyfriend, or housemate. Based on her boyfriend’s earlier actions that precipitated their neighbor calling 911 I would say she had reason to believe he meant her further harm when he attempted to block her exit.

In truth self-defense shouldn’t be location or aggressor dependent. It shouldn’t matter if you’re at home, at work, or out and about and it shouldn’t matter if your attacker is a complete stranger, a neighbor, or a significant other. If you are attacked you should have a legal right to defend yourself.

A Stark Difference in Threat Model Responses

Anybody who has been following the Internet drama festival that is GamerGhazi/GamerGate knows that the Internet has been at operational level full retard for a few weeks now. One side of the debate, if you want to call it that, is trying its damnedest to preserve what it believes to be the gaming culture. The other side of the debate is trying to overturn what it believes to be deep seated misogyny within the gaming culture. There is also a third faction, the Internet trolls, that have been manipulating the other two sides like a masterful puppeteer for shits and giggles.

I find Internet drama entertaining so I’ve been watching this exchange since it first blew up. But nothing about this little debacle has really been worth writing about on this blog. Until now! Anita Sarkeesian, one of the feminists who has attracted the wrath of the GamerGhazi/GamerGate community, was schedule to speak at Utah State University. She cancelled because she found out that the laws in Utah allow individuals to carry concealed firearms on campus:

The university consulted with federal and state law enforcement and had determined it was safe to go ahead with the presentation.

But Sarkeesian pulled out after learning from university officials that concealed weapons would be permitted, as long as attendees have a valid concealed firearm permit in accordance with Utah law.

This shows a stark difference in thinking that I find rather interesting. In her opinion the combination of a death threat and permitted individuals being allowed to carry a concealed firearm to her speaking event constitutes a danger to her person. Were I in her shoes I would feel the opposite.

Permit holders by and large are more law abiding than non-permit holders. Obtaining a carry permit requires passing a background check. Passing a background check requires one not have a history of violent crime. So we know that a permit holder, statistically speaking, is more law abiding and has no history of violent crime. Permit holders are also less likely to commit murder than police officers, which is why I’d prefer being surrounded by permit holders than having police officers providing security.

Another thing to consider is the importance of response time during active shootings. In many cases active shooters end up killing themselves upon running into armed resistance. Armed resistance, in the instances where the active shooter doesn’t commit suicide, forces the shooter to focus on somebody other than innocent bystanders. When individuals are allowed to carry concealed weapons to a venue the response time to an active shooting is potentially instantaneous.

Sarkeesian obviously has a different threat model than my own. She likely sees armed individuals, in any capacity other than police (judging by her desire to have somebody perform pat downs of individuals attending her talk) , as a potential threat. Because of this she doesn’t want permit holders carrying firearms to her event. Our threat models also differ in how we treat Internet death threats. My threat model disregards Internet death threats (which I have received enough of in my life to paper a room in my dwelling if I printed them out) since they’re almost always sent by angry teenagers full of impotent rage. Her threat model obviously treats Internet death threats far more seriously.

In the end each person must create their own threat model and act accordingly. As an individual with an interest in security I find the criteria people use to develop threat models and the responses they create based on those models fascinating. I would love to know the criteria used by Sarkeesian after this GamerGhazi/GamerGate fiasco to develop her threat model and the responses she has created based on that model.