Should survival preparation include self-defense training and gear?

If so, what kind?

Thoughts?

Thanks.

I think survival preparation needs to be more fitness oriented than attack/defense. Having the cardiovascular ability to walk home 15 miles seems more important than a proper arm bar. Having some muscularity to protect your body from an impact more than having a tight shot group at 25 yards.

Though writing this I wonder if my chances of some drunk challenging me might be greater than the chances a natural disaster or grid reducing event.

I think I still believe the mind and body be prepared before we add gear or technique.

I'd say resoundingly, yes. It doesn't have to come to the end of the world for bad stuff to happen. Some people, by nature, prey on other people. Having proper mindset, training, and tools at your disposal plays a huge role in how a bad situation turns out for you.

Someone wanting to rob you or cause you harm isn't going to schedule an appointment to do so. Several times in my life, I've found myself in a position to have to make snap decisions. Do I draw my CCW weapon? Do I fire? I've had to draw several times, but never fired. Make no mistake though, once the decision was made to draw, I was 100% ready to use it if the threat didn't dissipate.

One thing I swear by is simple situational awareness. Paying close attention to your surroundings can keep you out of a lot of bad situations. I've never done any research on it, but I'd bet a lot of people you see walking around oblivious with a lot of jewelry, nice car or clothes, staring at their feet or listening to their Ipod - those ore probably the people singled out as easy targets.

I urge anyone to spend some time browsing through the no nonsense web page. A very condensed version would be what the above posters said above: Situation awareness and avoidance.

Some other tips to be learned: Muggers don't pick their location and targets at random, try to spot them BEFORE you are cornered. Recognize a threat display for what it is (see how dangerous I am? Back of NOW or else...!), then de-fuse (leave) instead of participating. The "show no fear" (don't let them see I'm afraid) attitude will probably get you in a lot of trouble, stuff it somewhere safe along with your ego and back off. If you are afraid of a person, you probably have good reasons - gut reactions don't lie (although anxiety can cloud judgment and perception).


I am all for training, learning flashy moves and techniques and so forth, (including firearms if you consider that appropriate), but I urge everyone to learn the limitations and under what circumstances such response can be warranted. What makes me mad is thinking about all kinds of self defense and material arts courses and training that a) does not address situation awareness, b) does not teach you the limitation of the techniques (when to apply, when NOT to apply). I think most of what is learned in such classes will be ineffective against a determined aggressor (he's been doing this kind of stuff on a regular basis since 12, and you what - took some evening classes??? Get real!). And if your attacker is not in that category, almost any use of force is excessive which can and will cause all kind of legal problems.


An old joke: Using your self defense/martial arts training will only give you trouble in these two limited set of circumstances:
1) When it doesn't work.
2) When it works.

All these guys make a good point. I think, however, that situational awareness is probably the number one thing. For example, over my life I've lived in LA, Philly, and Detroit. I've been mugged once, and pretty much argued with the guy when he told me to go turn the corner and into a dark neighborhood, rather than stay in a well traveled street. Funny thing is, I knew it was going to happen about 10 seconds before it did.

My point is, in all that time, I've never had any sort of bar fight, street fight, escalating argument... even if I had a CCW, I've never in my life had a chance to use it. I truly believe that even when I was mugged, if push come to shove, I would have used my hands before drawing (since he was within a foot of me). With respect to RedTJ, I have to wonder if carrying a firearm makes you 'want' to use it and thus put yourself into situations that you might have gotten out of?

Have I had self defense? Yeah, but it was 15 years ago. I remember the basics, but I doubt I'm limber enough to roundhouse kick some guy in the head. I mean, a good soccer kick to the groin and a few good punches should do the job, IF you get the drop on someone. Maybe the best part of training is learning to take a hit. Another thing- few street fights stay upright for any length of time, so I'd suggest if you do anything, judo, wrestling, or some sort of rolling-around-on-the-ground style would be the most beneficial.

I think that Self defense should be included, for two reasons that are not about self defense.

The first advantage of taking self defense on a regular basis is exercise.. This will allow you to be able to run for cover faster. Being physically fit will enable you to handle what ever rigors occur during a survival situation.

The second advantage is Confidence.. Just having the confidence to that you can handle things (whether real or imaginary.) This confidence I believe will help to dissuade attackers. People who prey upon people who are easy targets. Inner confidence can prevent a lot of issues.

Just my thoughts on the subject

Personally, I believe self-defense should be in the required curriculum of every person on the planet. Besides the obvious benefits a good martial art provides, it also gives you an entirely different way to express yourself.

Then again, I also think everyone should learn cooking, shooting, first aid, acting, debating, horse-riding and speaking as many languages as they can master...

Regardless, as far as survival goes, of course you want to be a good fighter. The reason is, you're no longer at anyone's mercy. The first thing you learn in a good fighting school (dojo? not so much) is that a black belt will friggin' kill you given the chance and to run like hell if you're ever in a fight. The second thing is, black belts are people, too. If you blind-side or otherwise trick them, they go down just like the rest of us. Well, just like the buffer, meaner versions of us. Point is, you can always fight back, even if not directly.

What to study? So far I've gone through Ninjutsu (scam), Karate (lol) and Krav Maga (ouch). From my limited experience, I'd recommend Muay Thai sprinkled with some sort of wrestling, be it Judo, Jiu-Jitsu or anything that teaches you to stay alive in a horizontal position. That's the mix I'm most afraid of, anyway.

Kung Fu practitioners can be pretty damn imposing, but I suspect it has more to do with the insane amount of training and conditioning they go through than actual technique.

Finally, weapons. Locking knives are illegal in Israel, so I've got nothing of substance to contribute. My personal impression is that a one-handed opening knife might be a life-saver if concealed properly, but it has little stopping power. Guns are illegal as well, so it's a moot point. I suppose I'd want to be a decent shot in a Zombocalypse, but doubt I'll get the chance to use this particular skill otherwise.

I am sort of mixed when it comes to learning self-defense. Martial arts are usually just that-arts. self defense is a little different-it USUALLY requires you to disable your aggressor long enough to retreat. I studied martial arts of varying disciplines for the vast majority of my life-and, I would say that they have VERY limited use in real world scenarios. One major flaw of martial arts is that your attacker rarely, if ever, is standing still, waiting for you to do something. Another is what has been referred to as pigeon-holing; you get used to the mindset of "if this happens, I do this"-this rarely works out. One thing I took away from years of it WERE the binding and groundfighting skills. When it comes to jointlocks, a lot of them dont work on people-which is scary if you are trying to use only one lock on someone, and it fails. Smooth transitioning is usually the way to go-but I digress.
When we were in Cuba, we had the opportunity to work with some Israeli guy who taught us Hagganah (I likely spelled it wrong). The concept was simple; disable your attacker through extreme violence, and block out your own pain. Sure, we learned a lot of cool techniques-painful disabling blows, strikes, and pressure points. Most was designed to cause permanent, serious damage (mind you, this was in the Army, and if the attacker is dead, he cant get up to hit you again!!). It was also focused on pain management-almost every neat little strike we learned, we did on each other (a little gentler, but enough to inflict pain), so that you understand how effective it is. The 3 weeks or so I spent in that course, I learned more than in 10+ years in martial arts. There wasnt any fancy moves, or yelling, or anything; it was simply "shrug off the punch to the face, get hold of your aggressor, and incapacitate him as quick as possible".
Now, it isnt for everyone, and I am aware of that. It certainly isnt self defense, nor was it marketed like that to us. It was a fast way to end a confrontation-if it lasted more than 10 seconds, you were doing it wrong. It also had a lot to do with setting your mind on your task; dealing with the pain, not getting tunnel vision, and working through exhaustion (we would normally do a couple mile's running, with various mind exercises on the way, before our class). The whole course was enlightening, to say gthe least-but, again, not for everyone. There is a very real chance you will kill someone-thats what it was designed for. Not to aid in your retreat, not to allow you time to call for help-to incapacitate your attacker so he simply cannot get up to hurt you.

No. First of all, let's see what we mean by survival preparation. Then let's see how much we want to cram in to the course. Survival means too much to have much meaning.

Do you mean urban survival after the big earthquake here in the Bay Area? That's different from urban survival in New Orleans after the big hurricane. Do you mean survival after becoming lost in the woods in your local state park? After becoming lost in Yosemite? Alaska? All the preparations for those are different. How to find or make shelter. How to find or make fire. How to be warm and dry.

Do you mean first aid? Again, urban first aid while waiting for the ambulance? Urban first aid in New Orleans after Katrina when there won't be an ambulance? Wilderness first aid when you've got to get the patient or yourself back to where contact can be made to ask for help?

I've taken my share of first aid courses, and I've taken self-defense courses. But each was geared to a specific end. Mushing all that stuff up together just gets all the supposed lessons confused and watered down. There are too many different levels of attendees and too many different expectations. When I take a course, I have a specific goal in mind, and I pick a course that takes that goal into account and teaches it.

If you want self-defense training, take the courses. In my very humble opinion, self-defense is a day to day thing that has nothing to do with survival preparation. You see too many fights among drunks at sporting events to think of atomic bombs on DC or whatever the latest movie is and how everyone is going to turn into, uh, drunks at football games and attack each other.

Don't confuse self-defense with survival. We've had decades of experience with hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes, and I'm not remembering any battles between survivors nor even among the people trying to evacuate. Generally, people pull together in big emergencies. It's the day to day crap in life where you'll need self-defense training. I'm not going to break a guy's knee then put a splint on it.

Less so, actually. You are much more inclined to be aware, identify a risky situation, and then avoid it when you are armed. BTW, I'm talking "legally armed" of course.

Nighthiker, the point I was trying to make is that, although self defense courses are designed to render the threat neutral, it rarely works out that way. I agree with you 100% in regards to being prepared-locking doors, wearing seatbelts, etc. I think the point I was trying to make, in my rambling, round about way, was that relying o self defense courses isnt your best course of action, IMHO. There isnt enough full contact, or realistic training, in the average self defense course. Yes, its good to familiarize yourself with some basics, but for 99% of us, leaving is ALWAYS your best option, regardless of your training. Even well trained individuals can get one-punched-I've seen it happen. And, to be honest, if you've never been in a real fight in your life, the WORST time to try out your training is when you are fighting FOR your life.
Now, if it were to come down to that, all rules are off. After all, the winner is the one who is still breathing-anything that you can do to ensure YOU are that person will only benefit you-hairpulling, biting, hitting sensitive areas, throwing dirt, spitting, yelling-these are the things that are vital in a fight for your life-to become someone hellbent on staying alive.

I think that this is a very good thread-one that we dont often consider. Firearms, yes; preparedness, yes. Self defense, primarily open hand, maybe something we dont give enough thought to.

I say yes, for several reasons.

An antisocial event is as likely to have a singficant impact in your life as a large scale disaster. Being ready for everything from a flat tire to a big rock falling means nothing if a 3rd grade dropout puts you in a wheelchair for the ten bucks in your wallet.

Most forms of hand to hand training, armed or unarmed, are good cardio, while improving speed, flexibility and balance. And it probably puts less wear and tear on the knees than jogging.

It reaches responsability, particularly when combined with basic medical traning. I started learning first aid when I was able to see over the top of the table, and before I started learning to shoot, fight and fence. Throwing a kick, swinging a staff, or pulling a trigger, whatever happens with that tool is on my head and on my honor, so you use those tools as best you can.

It builds confidence. Not false confidence, just like having basic wilderness survival skills and a psk shouldn't make you think you have everything you'll ever need at all times. But if you can defend yourself and those around you, you are in greater control of your own fate than if your only other option is curl up in a ball and hope the cops get there before your head gets stomped in.



As for what to learn, always unarmed. Which one is up to you, there are good and bad schools for all hundred or so different formal styles. I suggest something eventually adds stick/sword, staff and knife techniques, because those are always going to around. Fireams as well.

Should everyone go through hand-to-hand and/or weapons based self defense training? I'm reluctant to say yes. Some people just don't have the physical or mental well being necessary for that. Nor are many willing to provide the level of dedication that it requires.

It's sort of like buying a firearm. Some people just can't handle it, for one reason or another, and therefore shouldn't be forced into it.

However, should everyone at least attempt to be in reasonably good physical condition? That, I will most definitely say yes to. I'm not saying everyone should be a perfect specimen of muscle and stamina, but I know people who can barely make it up and down their stairs.

Basically, unless you're in your 80's or have some major medical issues, walking up and down a flight of stairs without getting winded should not be a problem. At the very least, getting into some shape, other than round, will help to improve your quality of life. At most, it might end up saving your life one day.

When it comes down to it, survival is mostly about luck and attitude. By doing certain things you can improve your chances against specific threats, but you can't prepare for everything. Personally, I'd rather see someone concentrate on issues that are most likely to effect them, than to spend money and time training in self defense when that effort might be better applied somewhere else. I mean, sure, knowing how to take down an opponent is all well and good, but the likeliness of needing that skill is low compared to a lot of other more likely situations. Some people would be better served putting that couple extra dollars a month into their car, house, BOB, ect so they're prepared for the next tornado/winter storm/IRS Audit/whatever.

I don't understand someone indicating that self-defense isn't survival. All the preps in the world aren't worth much if you can't make some kind of response to assault.

In Cody Lundin's latest book "When All Hell Breaks Loose", he talks about American Combato as being the most useful real-world self defense system. It's a way to learn to defend yourself that isn't from one of the 'recognized' clubs of self defense. I didn't know that was it's name, but it has long been the system that I subscribe to.

Here's their website, but Lundin's interview was very descriptive and enlightening. http://www.americancombato.com/index.cfm

Sue

I agree with several of the comments here. Physical endurance is necessary when humping it with everything you need on your back. Also, there is nothing at all wrong with being able to defend yourself, whether it be the martial art of your choice (there are very few bad forms out there), or knowing how to properly use a firearm-or both. I have been a gun toater by trade for over 11 years. My wife was raised that guns were evil, dangerous, etc. and had no experience with them. I took her, trained her in safety and marksmanship. Now, she is completely autonomous, is one heck of a good shot, and has her own CCL license.

Anyone can learn martial arts or firearms acuity. What the person does with it has a lot to do with their character like any other aspect of life. There are those that are responsible, there are those that are reckless. The reckless one's usually end up wearing handcuffs when it comes to the two above mentioned issues.

I don't intentionally put myself in harm's way just because I'm carrying. My current line of work has put me in a bad area a few times, as did my previous one. When your job is to go to a call in a high-crime neighborhood, in the middle of the night, and work on something, you're crazy if you go unarmed - in my personal opinion.

I've survived several attempted muggings and one attempted carjacking without a scratch. The main reason is that I was aware of my surroundings and saw what was happening in enough time to react. The second reason is that once I saw what was going down, I had the necessary tools to meet force with opposite and greater force.

There are times when bad stuff is going to happen whether you are careful about where you go or not. There's no magical "safe" place where crime isn't allowed, where criminals can't go. All the situational awareness in the world isn't going to mean that nothing bad can happen to you, it just lessens the odds. This whole forum is devoted to handling situations that rarely happen to your average person.

If carrying a gun and knowing how to use it didn't deter crime, the cops would show up with a puppy and maybe some balloons instead of guns.

Exactly. If I behave stupidly with my CCW, I lose the right to carry it. A person who has gone to the trouble of getting a CCW permit knows this above all else.

I'll go with learning a martial art (or several) is generally a good thing. You will learn how to move with balance, breathe properly, develop some confidence (if you have a good instructor) and sweat a lot . If you want unarmed self defense (or sticks, knives, swords etc.) be sure to pick an instructor/school who includes that in the mix and not just training for competition.

Drilling on techniques, Forms or Kata (practice routines), sparring (practice fights), and set piece drills all have their place in mastering the skills. This is very similar to firearms and/or military training. It is very difficult to reasonably safely practice skills that harm others. So you put the basics together in different ways to develop the skills and reflexes. A good instructor will also point out the very real difference between practice and defense application. In practice bouts if is usually a bad idea to kick an opponents knee or attack other weak points, in a defense situation - it could be great idea.

If you want to get good at it be prepared to put time and effort in. It can take years to earn a Black Belt and in many martial arts a Black Belt is considered the starting point for serious study and training. Having a Black Belt does not mean you have the attitude or aptitude for hurting others, even in self defense.

I have studied Tae Kwon Do, Hapkido and Karate. Learned something useful in all of them, liked Tae Kwon Do the best and think Hapkido was the most practical for self defense. Actually, I think High School Track was the most practical for self defense - Running is always the first option.

- Eric

I agree with the majority of the posters; get some sort of self defense training. Find the one suited to your temperament and abilities. I like Ironraven's suggestion about the stick/knife training. I would add staff (just a really long stick) training to that. The techniques are basically the same. I also agree with the point about getting some close-in training. But, I think the best thing to remember is what my sensei said: "the best fight is the one that never happens". He always recommended running away; use and improve your situational awareness. Do not walk, look, or act like a victim. If you have to fight, make the other guy cry for mommy!

Now, a lot of this easy for me because I am 6'1", 235lbs and I have had very good training. I am not a typical target. My preference is to run. If not, then get in close and make life very miserable for the guy. I'm not a kicking guy. Knees, a la muay thai, yes.

My $.02

YMMV

Nope, your spelling is fine. It literally means "defense".



Martial arts involving sword/stick training tend to be a bit... artsy. That is, if you find a good Kendo or Escrima school, more power to you, but it's just so hard to find a self-defense class that actually teaches you valuable skills, I'd say weapons training is secondary.

This is coming from someone who had to shop for a staff and bokken while still a white-belt. I switched dojos just before the Shuriken group buy...

It seems as though different people have different ideas about what "survival" encompasses. Go figure.

Mr. Ritter lists a Glock 22 among his "Don't Leave Home Without It" gear for "Leaving the house to travel in the local area".

http://www.equipped.org/onyrown.htm

self defense should absolutely be part of your preps. like most of what we do here, it's one of those "better to have it and not need it" kind of things.
being able to defend yourself unarmed is, to me anyway, greatly preferable to "upping the ante," if for no other reason than pulling a weapon automatically makes the law harder to deal with, and there's always that possibility that your assailant will take your weapon.

in addition, MA training can easily be applied to armed combat.

and the icing on the cake: MA training won't set off the metal detector at the airport.

I just read Cody Lundins chapter on self defense in his book; the combato system sounds exactly like what I was speaking to above....I may actually see if they offer that locally!!

Combato looks to be some form of Fairbairn/Applegate , probably decent stuff although martial artists like Robert W. Smith are not keen on Fairbairn and Applegate.

My advice is to get into some kind of mixed martial arts, Brazilian jiu-jitsu/wrestling/judo and add to it Muay Thai or regular boxing.

My view is the important thing is to get into unrehearsed matches whether that is in the ring or on the mats where your opponent is going out at full strength.

Just realize that in a real confrontation with your adrenaline pumping it will be a different story.

Most martial artists don't understand what the military combatives systems are all about. It's exactly like Oldsoldier pointed out in his first post. The Fairbairn-Sykes-Applegate (FAS) system was originally called "silent killing", and that's just what it is. A way to kill to with bare hands, blade, club or improvised weapon either when you don't have a firearm or cannot use one. It sure as heck isn't for everyone. It takes a specific attitude and you'd better be in good shape but technically, it's simple. Hurting a human being really isn't (and shouldn't be) technically complicated. Crushing the bad guy's face with a rock or the old knee to the groin will always work better than a roundhouse kick to the head that you probably won't ever be able to pull off in a real confrontation even after 10 years or training.

IME the most valuable lesson of the FAS system and all the other methods like it is that actual hand-to-hand fighting is always going to be largely mental first (attitude), then physical (strength, endurance). Whether you can execute a technique perfectly doesn't matter as long as it works. A swing with a baseball bat is going to look primitive to any formal martial artist but as long as it connects, it's what gets the job done. What Fairbairn taught is basically the same thing experienced street thugs have been doing since the dawn of time. Blindside the other guy, distract him then destroy him when he doesn't expect it or is too scared to do anything.



Having done both MMA and boxing I would agree, there are plenty of useful things to be learned there and you'll get in great shape. But again, it's not for everyone and at the end of the day, there's a HUGE difference between the ring and the street. Far more than most combat athletes realize.

Thing thing about combative type systems, is, as has been talked about, they are PRACTICAL. They strip down all of the showy stuff-the things I were taught were brutally simple; essence on brutal. The concept is simple; when attacked, be the aggressor. You fight with everything you have, because your life literally depends on it. One thing to do is keep the guy talking-then strike when he is in mid sentence. Keep on hitting, kicking, whatever, until he is on the ground, not getting up.
Again, it is a brutally effective system, designed for fighting and incapacitating. The idea is that, once down, he doesnt get back up again. You have to have that mindset though; I am potentially going to kill this person. But, he may be wanting to kill you too, so it comes down to who is more aggressive.
Granted, thes situations are EXTREMELY rare in our every day world. But, that one time you need it, hopefully you have it.
Not taking anything away from the martial arts, as I have studied them myself; but, they are largely ineffective in a real fight. Kicking anywhere above the waist is largely a waste of time, unless you get lucky. Particularly to the head. You have to get the distance right. And, if the guy has ANY idea what he is doing, he is JUST outside that range. Besides, once you've taken your stance, you've given yourself away. best to not let someone know you are going to unleash on them-surprise & violence of action should pull you through!

Philip makes some good points.

To deal with the day-to-day, it is prudent for everyone to have some knowledge of self-defense. Outside of this forum, I spend far less time and energy worrying about natural or man-made mass disasters than I do over whether I can walk anywhere after dark without being attacked by a mugger. And in the event I am attacked, what am I willing to hand over without a fuss (i.e. don't carry much cash or other valuables and don't carry them all in one place, such as a purse).

That's daily life in the big inner-city.

I have been attacked twice in the past decade. Walking home from work at 7:00p (winter darkness), paying careful attention to the landscape before me and the pedestrians walking toward me, but oblivious to the guy who was stalking me from his vantage point in the street and behind. When I turned the next corner onto a relatively quiet block, he commenced his charge. The rapidly approaching footsteps suspiciously did not sound like a jogger (of which there are many around here) so I turned around enough to see a 6-foot male wearing a ski mask running at me.

Training from an NRA "Refuse to be a Victim" course I'd taken several years before kicked in. What saved me was the instruction to yell "FIRE!" "FIRE!" "FIRE!" when seeking help in such an attack situation. Don't merely scream.

Another lesson from that course that aided me was having gotten in the habit of walking with my purse or bag next to a fence or wall. Makes it harder for purse-snatchers.

In this instance, the attacker was delayed in trying to get my purse and in that time several people came to my aid -- running out of houses and, in one case, a pedestrian who I had passed and who had been suspicious that I was being stalked had already started back toward me and came running when he saw the guy come down the block after me and after I started yelling. The perp ran off and was not caught and was presumed to be attempting a smash-and-grab. Fortunately for me, he did not threaten with a weapon.

These perps are predators. I've had several friends over the years who have been walking down the sidewalk, usually after dark, when a car stops and one or two guys hustles over to them and puts a gun in their face. You're out of luck in that situation -- especially in a city so extremely intolerant of self-defense with firearms.

As important as self-defense training is, getting training in how to avoid being in such a situation to begin with is at least as critical. Toward that end, I highly recommend taking the National Rifle Association's Refuse to be a Victim course. They instruct in auto security, personal security, home security, etc. By the way, the course has nothing whatsoever to do with guns. And it has nothing to do with armageddon scenarios. I arranged for multiple Refuse to be a Victim seminars to be conducted in and for my entire office building.

http://www.nrahq.org/RTBAV/

Improve your personal safety strategies with NRA's Refuse To Be A Victim® Program.

Experts agree that the single most important step toward ensuring your personal safety is making the decision to refuse to be a victim. That means that you must have an overall personal safety strategy in place before you need it.

Through a three to four hour seminar (shorter presentations are available) called Refuse To Be A Victim®, you can learn the personal safety tips and techniques you need to avoid dangerous situations and avoid becoming a victim. Hundreds of federal, state, and local law enforcement officials across the country have implemented Refuse To Be A Victim® into their crime prevention and community policing initiatives.

Here are just a few of the topics presented in the Refuse To Be A Victim® seminar:

Home Security
Personal Security
Automobile Security
Workplace Security
Technological Security


P.S. the second time I was attacked I was in the back of my Honda Element at 10:00p on a Sunday night getting the last of the camping gear out after a weekend trip. A side window exploded in my face. Across the street were a dozen gang-bangers, displaced by police blockades that weekend in their usual territory. I reacted imprudently, losing my temper and storming out of the car to stand in the middle of the street and unleash an extended R-rated tirade that I would not have thought I was capable of. If I'd had a gun, you'd have all been reading about my arrest and trial. I'd have outdone Bernard Goetz. As it was, the youths - a dozen males - stood speechless as I verbally unloaded on them. I think they were startled by the crazy witch in the middle of the street and wondered if I might just fire back.

Foolish, perhaps. But somewhat therapeutic.

That's good information and darn funny to boot Dagny. Very glad to hear that you escaped none the worse for wear.

To me this just reinforces why responisble, law abiding citizens should not be denied the right to own, possess, and carry firearms for self-defense. That being said, if you do own one, don't rely on passing the qualification on the CCW or CCL courses. Compared to LEO courses they are pretty under par, and it is important to practice safety and marksmanship with your firearm. It is also important to understand and be able to effectively and quickly use the holstering system you choose that works for you.

If you own just one firearm, understand it intimately. What are it's capabilities? What type of ammunition are you using, FMJ's (Full metal jacekts) tend to have overpenetration issues in urban settings than JHP's (jacketed hollow points) for instance. Know how to load and unload it safely. Know how to disassemble and clean it for reliability.

The Second Amendment is a right for all citizens. Proper use of that firearm is a responsibility.

You said a mouthful. I wonder what percentage of CCW holders have never even fired their CCW. I go shooting all the time, at least every other weekend. I know exactly what my carry ammo (.45acp 230-grain jacketed hollowpoints) will and won't penetrate. I know exactly what kind of damage they will cause.

And I can pretty much break down my .45 with my eyes closed. Another thing that most people don't think about is this: if you've never fired it, how do you know if the sights are correctly aimed, or how much kick to expect?

A person who's never fired their gun may be expecting to follow through with an instantaneous second shot after their first shot. Not knowing how much recoil to expect can cause a big problem in that scenario.

Also, make sure to test your carry ammo when shooting. If you always practice with FMJ's, then carry JHP's every day, you might be in for a surprise if your gun chooses not to feed the particular brand of JHP's you've chosen. When you're faced with an attacker is NOT the time to find this out. My .45 will not feed Winchester Bonded PDX1 ammo, which was the first ammo I tried out. But it feeds Remington Golden Saber's flawlessly, every time. It seems to be caused by the shape of the bullet's nose and the feed ramp angle.

You said a mouthful. I wonder what percentage of CCW holders have never even fired their CCW. I go shooting all the time, at least every other weekend.
Also, make sure to test your carry ammo when shooting. If you always practice with FMJ's, then carry JHP's every day, you might be in for a surprise if your gun chooses not to feed the particular brand of JHP's you've chosen. When you're faced with an attacker is NOT the time to find this out. But it feeds Remington Golden Saber's flawlessly, every time. It seems to be caused by the shape of the bullet's nose and the feed ramp angle. [/quote]
I also have two .45's both XD's. A his and hers. I like the .45 for the kinetic energy and knock down potential. I trained my wife on how to shoot and now she has her own CCL. Every chance we get to ourselves with the kids put up we go shoot and she enjoys it. I shoot more than she does, but then again, I have to qualify regularly for my line of work. It's good to test your weapon with JHP's but for practice that can get expensive. Once you know your pistol can reliably feed JHP's, it is much cheapter to fire FMJ's, plus you get more range time being able to purchase more ammo-when you can find it anymore, that is.

"In a crisis situation you will not rise to the occasion, but default to your level of training." anon

Keep your level of training high (whatever that may be) and employ situational awareness at all times.

Well, to point #1, sounds like you're into repo's or something I know what you mean. When I used to work EMS, we were stuck in parking lots and street corners at all hours of the day. But, even in Long Beach or Compton, I never carried. I mean, it's just causing more trouble. We just found something nice and open, so we could see trouble coming. Never had a problem with local thugs, though I've heard enough storied about it.

Point #2... the Brit police seem to do fairly well without firearms. Something to ponder, despite how most of us feel about their "no firearm" laws. And if nothing else, there's bound to be a few folks allergic to dogs

Yeah, that's what I meant. If I could afford to always shoot JHP's, I could afford my own SWAT team to follow me around. I run through an entire box (20 or 25, depends on brand) every now and then of different JHP's just to try them out and see what the Taurus Millenium Pro likes or doesn't like. Then I tear up maybe 100 or so FMJ's. Then I get out my Ruger 10/22 and shoot as much as I feel like, since it's dirt cheap.



No, I'm actually an alarm technician. But, in my opinion, EMS and fire personnel are considered more on the neutral side (from talking to friends in those lines of work). Whereas we aren't, we are considered on the same terms as police, we're the bad guys in the eyes of the thugs. So, I've been drawn down on and even fired at in my line of work.

I've asked several British people I talk to on the net about their take on the no firearm laws. I've yet to hear a favorable response. As a wise man once said "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king". If there's no firearms, and no knives, then the bad guy with the sharp stick or baseball bat is in charge. I believe strongly in peace through superior firepower, training, and readiness.

Old Soldier, Tom L, this is the reference for Robert W. Smith that I was referring to previously

Martial Musings

Smith lists some techniques in the Fairbairn syllabus that he thinks just won't work, they may not be in the system that was linked previously

1) a one armed choke...a two handed straight choke is almost useless, I can't see a one handed choke having any effectivness

2) The back breaker, lifting an opponent up an breaking his back over the knee, unless you are an Olympic class power lifter I can't see that working

3) Match box versus gun...a soldier is held at gun point, he grabs a matchbox clenches his fist around it and slams the enemy in the head. Fairbairn claims a two to one probability of knocking your opponent out. I think you will break your hand and then be shot if you try this one

4) an odd hip throw where by standing face to face with an opponent you step behind him and throw him over your hip...Smith is correct, this is an ineffective technique, you would be better off using the judo throw o-soto-gari, it would be faster and take a lot less strength.

I have to add , I just think these techniques are ineffective, a friend of mine teaches WW2 combatives and has appeared on documentaries on Camp X, a lot of it is good stuff.

Thanks for your post, Hookpunch!. This is in fact exactly what I was talking about - people look at Fairbairn and focus on the specific techniques but fail to grasp the wide picture.

Fairbairn's two WWII-era booklets were already criticized for some of their shortcomings at the time they were published. Some, including Fairbairn's colleague Sykes (who was in no small part responsible to creating the British silent killing syllabus at the time) felt that the books were rushed into print and did not contain the best overall selection of techniques. Applegate's Kill or Get Killed is generally thought to be more comprehensive and better balanced in that regard.

It's important to note that Fairbairn was a highly experienced judoka and therefore partial to techniques found in old-school "combat" judo at the time, which still included strikes unlike the sport judo practiced today. But if you read the actual WWII training syllabus, the trainees were taught to use any techniques they were familiar with, even boxing punches as long as they could throw them correctly. Check out Melson's book Close Combat Files of Rex Applegate for more info, it's a good read.

The bottom line is, the techniques depicted in Fairbairn's books are what he personally thought were the moves that offered the most bang for the buck for someone not trained in combatives already. Pretty much all Fairbairn taught was however tried and tested in practice (with a number of sources and reports to back it up should you wish to research the operative history of his system). So I'd be hesitant to call any of his techniques useless. Getting them right may be another story because there are very few people these days who still practice old-school judo.

But again, Fairbairn's combatives are about the concept, not techniques. A lot of folks don't understand that and hence miss the forest for the trees. As always, YMMV.

Hey Tom L, didn't mean to give the impression that I thought Fairbairn's system is useless, to be truthfull there are some judo techniques that are in the Kodokan syllabus that no one in their right mind would try in either competition or in combat.

The tai-otoshi where you drop to your knee, I know more that one judoka who has injured his knee trying that just in practice never mind competition.

Hookpunch, I would also agree that some of those techniques are marginal, at best. Choking someone with two hands is ineffective-if you arent on top of them, there is simply too much give (in most cases. Some folks are gigantic, and can pull it off, but most regular sized people simply cannot leverage it). Besides, breaking a two handed front choke is too simple-same as a one handed choke.
I had a cop continually try to put me in a one handed choke (I didnt know he was a cop until later-lets leave it at he & his buddies started a fight I tried to break up), I simply kept swatting his hand away. Its one of the most ineffective ways to try & subdue someone, and leaves fingers wide open for breaking.
The Hagganah system, and, from what I've read, the Combato system, are designed around effective, quick techniques-I am not sure about Combato, but there werent any advanced throws in Hagganah-some simple trips, that was about it. I am familiar with throws, but situations simply never allow one to use a judo throw-things simply happen too fast, and situations are too fluid. Better to let weakened joints & gravity do the work

Hmm, all this talk about chokes makes me wonder... I have some experience with the Fairbairn system and I don't recall any chokes being taught. It's been a while since I've last done any serious combatives practice but I just looked at Get Tough! and All-In Fighting again.

Fairbairn in fact does not use any chokes in his system. Only two techniques, No. 6 and 6A, show escapes from either a one-handed or two-handed choke. Both very basic, foolproof moves. Also, there is a rear strangle hold/neck break but I don't think this is what Mr. Smith had in mind.

So I'm not quite sure where this idea about chokes comes from. Looks like Mr. Smith either failed to study Fairbairn's system thoroughly or perhaps there is some misunderstanding.

Could be, I don't have the original materials but Smith cites Defendu, Scientific Self Defence, Get Tough: Hands Off, Self Defence for Women and All-In Fighting as books he has owned at one point or another and also studying the famous film OSS Training Group for his view of Fairbairn's work.

I think I have seen excerpts from the film on Camp X documentaries.

As far as chokes, well can't say about self-defence but the rear naked choke is my preferred grappling submission.

A thousand years ago, I trained briefly with some Green Beret types for college ROTC. They taught a small variety of what they called "two-second-kill" techniques, some for bare hand but most with knives, and preached that if you were still fighting after three seconds you endangered yourself and your companions.

I remember only a little of that training - except the initial fear I felt trying to learn it - and cannot imagine those techniques legally defensible in most situations or appropriate for mass consumption.

My couple years of judo training, however, especially the mat and grappling moves, might find appropriate defensive use in the real world. There was a lot of emphasis on safe-falling and hold-breaking.

At this point in time, I know my preparation for physical self-defense is almost non-existent and I have been thinking about changing this. Hence this thread.

I think its a great thread, and brings up alot of issues & choices. ANY self defense classes have their worth; as has been stated, if for nothing else than cardio. Even some of the advanced stuff is good; pressure points & joint locks. The downside of it is the "art" part of it, IMHO-you have to go through a lot of useless stuff to weed out what is applicable. Hence, I suggest a more combat oriented system, which can be difficult to find. They strip everything down to what works, and thats it.
To touch on the 3 second rule; one thing we had done in the past is to try punching, full force, for 1 minute. You will see how tired you get-anything less than a full on hit likely isnt going to bother your attacker. If you are fighting for more than a minute, you are either losing, or about to. Without the cardio, its tough to go toe to toe with someone for even a few mninutes. Never mind one at full power.

absolutely true, spend 3 minutes grappling with a 200 pound resisting opponent, even an unskilled one an you will be exhausted.

Hmm yes I'm familiar with all those books but I don't recall Fairbairn ever advocating front chokes. The closest I've seen in the context of WWII combatives is a neck crush where you basically strike the opponent in the neck, then transition to grabbing and twisting the Adam's apple as hard as you can. Like all strikes in combatives, it's done full-force and with forward momentum so even if the crush doesn't work you'll push the bad guy to the ground where you can follow up with knees, elbows or hand blows. Not a "sport" technique by any means, though.

Anyway, don't want to hijack the thread, just trying to offer an alternate point of view since I've played a bit with WWII combatives and I'm not that sure Mr. Smith's critique is valid on that particular point.

P.S.: If anyone is interested in those systems I'd suggest looking up Kelly McCann/ aka Jim Grover. He's the real deal, not sure if he's still teaching personally but he has done some tapes and I believe his company Crucible is still offering courses. Very good stuff, basically somewhat updated WWII combatives, hand-to-hand, firearms plus things like improvised weapons and pepper spray.

I'm going to chime in on one part of the discussion for a moment. This isn't in response to any one post, but I've seen ground fighting skills/mat work/wrestling/BJJ mentioned several times.

The usual reason for studying these skills is "most fights end up on the ground."

I think this is an inaccurate statement. It would be more accurate to say, "Most fights between untrained opponents end up in a grappling match that ends on the ground."

To me, the point of learning any grappling style, be it good old fashioned wrestling, BJJ, judo, or the grappling elements in any other art is this: To put the other guy on the ground, where he is at a severe disadvantage, and to stay off the ground yourself.

You do NOT want to take an opponent to the ground on purpose. First, if you go to the ground outside of the ring or dojo, you are going to encounter either a hard, rough surface such as the street or the sidewalk, or if you're on the grass, a surface that could be hiding any number of dangers from broken glass to a simple root sticking out of the ground. So, do a BJJ or MMA-style take down and try to submit a single opponent? Not so fun if you tear a muscle or break a bone in the process.


Secondly, if you are on the ground, you can be stomped. If you're preparing to defend yourself, it's not from anyone who has a playground sense of ethics where one on one is the accepted norm. In most cases, if you're faced with an unarmed opponent (the only case where unarmed skills should be employed -- if they show a weapon, they need to be shot immediately, and if you can't you need to high tail it), you will be faced with multiple opponents. If it's simply a sandbox brawl with a drunken friend, it's not self defense.

So, IMO, train to stay off the ground. Train to put the other guy on the ground as fast as possible, and to do as much damage to him as you can in the process. Avoid BJJ/MMA schools that focus on training people for the ring.

IMO, most real street fights(attacks) are finished with the first blow. EOS and intitiative are the prime factors in who will win and who will lose. If a thug fails on the first attempt, they usually abandon the attack, especially if the opponent appears well defended, either by implementation or by posture. Rules of combat are fairly standard.

And yes, survival prep better include self defense in this day and age.

This is true. Situational awareness trumps physical prowess most of the time, IMO. I thought that was well-covered though, so was focusing on why it's a bad idea to take someone to the ground in a fight. Which as you point out, is the wrong term, it's usually a one-sided attack.

Good advice, if you are on the ground grappling with one opponent, his buddy will be over kicking you in the head.

The advantage to staying on your feet is to use run-jitsu, because taking on more than one opponent without a weapon, no matter how well trained a person is , is an almost sure lose situation.

that being said, everyone should learn to martial arts skills on the ground and standing up, as Royce Gracie and Jon Bluming have both proven , the most skilled stand up fighter is at a serious disadvantage if he doesn't know any ground work.