Self-defense options for ladies

[Inspector]

I also resent the fact that you even suggest the I'm being subjective and unconcerned with facts. I'm cautioning you against further such insults to me or anyone else on here.

Let's look at your original quote:

I think this is an issue we will probably remain in disagreement on. I'll let the lady decide whether martial arts is a viable option for her rather than telling her she's weak and it's pointless.

The way I read that is that you were setting up a choice, where you put an emotional weight on one side of that choice. You set it up so that in order for a woman to accept my argument, she would have to be saying "oh, I'm weak and it's pointless." You were putting an emotional temptation on your side of the argument.

If you didn't want to end this discussion by getting a "jab" in at me and by setting up an emotional weight to your side of the argument, then you could have omitted that part of your sentence. You could have simply said, "I'll let the lady decide whether martial arts is a viable option for her."

As you can see, I initially just ended the discussion on an agreement to disagree. But the more I read your statement and considered its implications, the more I couldn't let it stand.

I chose to hold you responsible for selecting that statement, along with its implications, and deciding to include it.

I didn't accuse you of being subjective or unconcerned with the facts, just that you had chosen to argue with the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion (i.e. use an emotional weight in your closing statement).

Yes, it is a fact that my position is that women are much weaker than men in terms of physical strength, and that purposefully choosing to defend themselves physically with only martial arts and no weapon would be very unwise. To say, in another context, that my position is "you are weak and it is pointless" might be accurate. But in the particular context and in the way you chose to put that statement, it is an ad populum.

So I don't think I did anything wrong by pointing that out.

Other than that, as I said, I am perfectly willing to agree to disagree.

[edit: I will be willing to admit that, given our amicable history, I should have chosen to put that in a more constructive way. I should have simply laid out the full implications of your statement as I did here. For that, you have my sincere apologies.]

Edited July 9, 2006 by Inspector

[RationalBiker]

Let's look at your original quote:

That quote does not require nor does it have "emotional weight" from me. Your position, quite factually represented by your words throughtout this thread, is that women are weaker than men and it's dangerous for them to even think about fighting back except as a last resort (which they would probably lose anyway) because the signifcant disparity of their relative strengths cannot be overcome even with martial arts training; they can't fight back or as you put it "kick butt" (99.999% as you cite so it's quite reasonable for me to assume that you include Liro in that percentage) so forget martial arts as an effective means for fighting back (pointless).

That IS your argument against martial arts for women, no "might" be, no ad populum, so you can't legitimately suggest that I'm trying to put any "emotional weight" in my "jab". According to you, the best she could possible hope for is to gain some momentary advantage so that she can run away and it's "dangerous", "foolhardy" or "delusional" for her to think any other way. You say this without factual evidence as to her potential or ability to learn martial arts and without any knowledge as to the potential relative strength and/or ability of possible male assailants. In short, "you're a woman therefore you're weak therefore you can't overcome a male assailant even with martial arts."

I chose to hold you responsible for selecting that statement, along with its implications, and deciding to include it.

Good, because I am responsible for it and I stand by what it says, not any misrepresented "implications".

I didn't accuse you of being subjective or unconcerned with the facts, just that you had chosen to argue with the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion (i.e. use an emotional weight in your closing statement).

Except for the fact that I did not "appeal to emotion". And it was unnecessary for you to make the statement "facts are facts" unless you were implying that someone was ignoring them or didn't already realize that. Since your response was to me, it's quite reasonable for me to assume that your "facts are facts" statement was for my benefit. What I did was succinctly (albeit somewhat sarcastically) restate your position. If that is not in fact your position, now would be a good time to clarify it.

In addition, do you admit that you quite clearly could be wrong about the applicability of martial arts as an effective defense method for Liro (since she is the "particular context" under discussion as she is the one asking for suggestions) because you do not have all the facts necessary to predict her ability or potential nor the potential ability (or inability) of any given male attacker that may place her in a position in which she might have to use martial arts?

Yes, we do have had an amicable past, which was why I would not have thought you would play strawman with my positions. And if we are going to play "who started it", remember your strawman about the "10th level master" preceeded (and pretty much prompted) my "jab". It misrepresented the argument I made, and consequently presented a weaker argument to refute. I find such liberties with my arguments to be offensive and so I responded the way I did. However, I'll admit that playing tit for tat won't garner constructive conversation.

[Inspector]

Your position, quite factually represented by your words throughtout this thread, is that women are weaker than men and it's dangerous for them to even think about fighting back except as a last resort (which they would probably lose anyway) because the signifcant disparity of their relative strengths cannot be overcome even with martial arts training; they can't fight back or as you put it "kick butt" (99.999% as you cite so it's quite reasonable for me to assume that you include Liro in that percentage) so forget martial arts as an effective means for fighting back (pointless).

...According to you, the best she could possible hope for is to gain some momentary advantage so that she can run away and it's "dangerous", "foolhardy" or "delusional" for her to think any other way.

This is accurate, except for the "pointless" part. Of course having it is better than not having it, and that momentary advantage used to run away could be the difference between life and death. But I advocate the use of a ranged weapon first and foremost. I do think that a woman who chooses to pursue martial arts to the exclusion of carrying a ranged weapon is indeed being foolhardy.

That IS your argument against martial arts for women, no "might" be, no ad populum, so you can't legitimately suggest that I'm trying to put any "emotional weight" in my "jab".

It is! But... the place you put it and the way you put it just didn't sit right. And the way I read it, you were putting emotions into it.

You say this without factual evidence as to her potential or ability to learn martial arts and without any knowledge as to the potential relative strength and/or ability of possible male assailants.

She did give her height and weight, but I was speaking under the assumption that she had no extraordinary world-beating latent talent for martial arts. You are correct that my statements are assuming that.

What I did was succinctly (albeit somewhat sarcastically) restate your position.

It's that sarcastically part that I picked up on and found unacceptable. What you intended as sarcasm, I read as an attempt to smear my position by appealing to the reader's emotion. Allow me to explain:

"she's weak and it's pointless"

By phrasing it in those terms, you're characterizing my position as requiring women to degrade and belittle themselves. The double entendre with "weak" was not lost on me.

There's a difference between that ("you're weak and it's pointless") and accepting a disparity in upper body strength for what it is. I think that fact (strength disparity) should properly be evaluated without bringing issues of emotional self-worth into it... and that's why I said "facts are facts." I was saying, "let's keep this discussion on point and not complicate it by implying that I'm degrading women... thereby making women who are considering my position either accept a bitter pill of self-denigration... or choose RationalCop's position which requires no 'pill.'"

Of course, maybe we're both being silly and macho and most women have no emotional barrier at all to accepting the phrase "I, being a woman, am weaker than most men."

Again, maybe you didn't mean to imply any of that, but you have admitted you were up to no good.

In addition, do you admit that you quite clearly could be wrong about the applicability of martial arts as an effective defense method for Liro (since she is the "particular context" under discussion as she is the one asking for suggestions) because you do not have all the facts necessary to predict her ability or potential nor the potential ability (or inability) of any given male attacker that may place her in a position in which she might have to use martial arts?

Yes, I admit that. I think that possibility is small enough that I'm not particularly worried about it. Especially with the added context she gave that there are gangs of n'er-do-wells about in her locality. (On that point, I'd like to re-emphasize my advice to move away)

And if we are going to play "who started it", remember your strawman about the "10th level master" preceeded (and pretty much prompted) my "jab".

I see. That makes a bit of sense, then. I'll have to take the blame for that, then, although I did not intend to strawman you like that. I had read both your post and aequalsa's (in which he did mention a judo master), and was addressing them both while writing my post with a quote only from you. That was certainly my fault, and sloppy of me. Sorry.

[Alfa]

I have had two male friends who were here about four years ago, walking together at night near campus, and attacked by a gang with wooden boards for their wallets. In that type of situation I fail to see how anything but a gun could put one at an advantage.

I doubt that even a gun would help in that situation. First you need to draw it before you get smacked in the head by a wooden board. The knife defense video clearly showed how hard that can be. If you then manage to get the gun out you have the problem of hitting what you aim at. I dont know much about guns, but I think that could be easier said than done. Then it´s not only one or two persons, but a whole gang. Say you put a couple of them down, there´s still enough left to beat you with thoose wooden boards. And they wont be happy with you shooting their friends, which makes the situation even worse for you. If you´re lucky you will scare the off with your gun, but I would not take my chances and rely on luck. I would rather throw my wallet on the ground and run as fast as I can.

However, if the situation got real nasty a gun could atleast even out the odds a little bit. That´s when youre out of options and simply have to fight to survive. My point is though, that the reality of the situation is that you are almost powerless(regardless of gender or who you are). I don´t think even the toughest guys could fight an armed gang of thugs.

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

However, if the situation got real nasty a gun could atleast even out the odds a little bit. That´s when youre out of options and simply have to fight to survive. My point is though, that the reality of the situation is that you are almost powerless(regardless of gender or who you are). I don´t think even the toughest guys could fight an armed gang of thugs.

Exactly. While certainly not amonst the worst of the violent crime rates provided by Ed from OC, Syracuse (where I live) is about 4/5 as dangerous as Detroit. Sheesh! I do want to clarify that I have never actually been attacked, just approached by strange men who linger or follow, usually younger and thuggish looking, asking for money, cigarettes, and/or rides. Still, that is bad enough.

Anyway, my next door neighbor just got a pit bull to add to her german shepherd mix. Maybe I need to follow suit!

Thanks for all the information, everyone. I am going to add another post here that I received as an email. Purportedly, this list was composed by a cop, although I cannot say for sure. But some of the advice seems logical.

[RationalBiker]

I do think that a woman who chooses to pursue martial arts to the exclusion of carrying a ranged weapon is indeed being foolhardy.

Speaking for my position, I have never suggested that she do any one thing to the exclusion of other measures. I have suggested more of a total approach to be prepared for whatever level of attack she may be forced into having to respond to despite her best laid plans to avoid the conflict to begin with.

But, our primary disagreement is apparently how effective training, conditioning and technique (not to mention a survival mentality) can be in closing the disparity of strength that may exist between any given female victim (but in this case Liro) and any given male attacker. You see, I don't think you are considering the variety of contexts in which she might face attackers, singly, in groups, some strong, some weak, some more committed, some less committed, etc. etc. Some martial arts training can help in some of those situations and not in others.

It is! But... the place you put it and the way you put it just didn't sit right. And the way I read it, you were putting emotions into it.

Well, I have explained why there are no "emotions" in it (other than sarcasm), so I'm not responsible for whatever else you read into it.

She did give her height and weight, but I was speaking under the assumption that she had no extraordinary world-beating latent talent for martial arts. You are correct that my statements are assuming that.

Okay, but she wouldn't need such an extreme level of talent for her efforts to be fruitful. And if you think it is to that level of talent that she must have before she could reasonably fight back and overcome any given male opponent, it merely reinforces the point on which we disagree.

Again, maybe you didn't mean to imply any of that, but you have admitted you were up to no good.

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by the characterization that I was "up to no good", so I'm not agreeing that that is what I "admitted to".

I had read both your post and aequalsa's (in which he did mention a judo master), and was addressing them both while writing my post with a quote only from you.

Okay, understood.

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

http://www.indianchild.com/womens_crime_protection_guide.htm

I also heard that if someone manages to get in your car and try to force you to drive somewhere, that you should simply drive into another object at about 5-10 mph in plain view of lots of people - not enough to cause damage to yourself, but enough to startle the attacker and make him simply leave the car and run. Seems logical.

[Inspector]

(not to mention [the importance of] a survival mentality)

That much we agree upon.

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by the characterization that I was "up to no good", so I'm not agreeing that that is what I "admitted to".

I meant the sarcasm. (knew I should have clarified that)

I do want to clarify that I have never actually been attacked, just approached by strange men who linger or follow, usually younger and thuggish looking, asking for money, cigarettes, and/or rides. Still, that is bad enough.

Check out that link Ex-Banana Eater gave, if you find the time. It shows how that is classic pre-attack behavior.

[aequalsa]

I had read both your post and aequalsa's (in which he did mention a judo master), and was addressing them both while writing my post with a quote only from you. That was certainly my fault, and sloppy of me. Sorry.

Hi inspector. I was wondering if you could point to where I was talking about a judo master as i can't seem to find it and do not remember the context.

As far as that goes, though, I do not think that being a 'master'(still not sure what one of those is, excatly) is necessary to derive practical self defense value from martial art's. As was mentioned, krav maga is a great system for self defense, especially when you can only find a few weeks to invest in study.

A note about that, my use of the term "martial arts" was meant to include self-defense systems as well as the sport and more artistic systems. It is generally used in english as the catch-all phrase, and I meant it in that manner. I tried as much as possible in this space to outline the different sorts of systems you might encounter as well as what to look for if you were interested in studying for self-defense reasons.

Something I have found in fighting is that the more I learn and understand, the less necessary strength becomes. It is primarily helpful in making up for mistakes you have made in technique. So because I fully agree that men have a clear physical advantage over women in this regard, it is all the more important that they understand how to utilize what they have. The disadvantage that I see most often in women which has a greater negative impact then the difference in strength, is the victim mentality and lack of confidence. When someone decides they will loose ahead of time it becomes almost a metaphysical absolute. Training will at least yield some confidence that with effort they possess half a chance.

Another thing that I have noticed with women in martial arts is that they tend to be immediately much more adept at using their hips and lower torso where the majority of power is actually generated. Men, because of their greatly increased upper body strength, tend to rely on it and have a great deal more difficulty in connecting strikes and grappling to their lower halves. With a bit of technique and good use of hips a woman has a significant chance of being able to outbalance an opponent, at least momentarily. And moments in a fight make huge changes in the outcome.

Generally, I agree that avoidence and then running is better, for women as well as men. No matter how good of a scrapper you are, there is always someone better as well as someone just having a better day. Not to mention that in an attack, you will very likely be surprised, while they are prepared for the encounter. And very few things are worth risking your life over, which I agree, happens anytime you engage in a situation like this. But running puts most women at a disadvantage in the same sense that fighting does. They are slower after all and being able to toss someone down or trip them might yield a 5 second headstart or time to get out a can of pepperspray or firearm to even the odds more significantly.

For the record, I did not mean to imply in any way that one ought to rely on martial arts while excluding mace or firearms. Just that possessing those items does not necessarily mean that you will have the oppurtunity to use them whereas having good balance, awareness and some ability to navigate during a physical attack will likely increase your odds of being able to utilize those other things and/or escape the situation entirely. In other words, if you possess fighting skills of some kind you will most certainly use them since they can't be made illegal or disconnected from you in anyway by the attacker or circumstance. Your mental state and ability to move are the primary elements that you possess in these circumstances.(think Mcgyver here) Anything you add to that weapon-wise is a bonus. And, later in the fight, to use those weapons well requires the same sort of coordination that self-defense teaches anyways. The first and best weapon we have is our minds. Anything else we use requires our bodies. Using our minds, bodies, and weapons in a properly integrated fashion is the ideal and what a good self defense system teaches. How close to this ideal you ought to get is context dependent. How much time and money an individual thinks it is worth crossed with what level of danger they believe they are in. Martial arts lessons, purchasing waepons, training and practice in the use of them,etc is all contextual.

[Inspector]

Aequalsa,

This is what I was referring to:

An even better example, Helio gracie weighed in at 120 lbs and took down all manner of huge guys when he was competing in the UFC.

What you've said in your post just now, I don't disagree with that.

[aequalsa]

Aequalsa,

This is what I was referring to:

What you've said in your post just now, I don't disagree with that.

I see. Regarding Helio Gracie, it is important to note that he was fighting other professional fighters, and not the random thug from the street. His level of skill is not necessary to fight off most people. I didn't mean to make the correlation that if every women would spend 20+ years studying they could succeed. Just that at any level, size can be overcome by superior techniques. In fairness if attacked by a well trained thug who weighed more then you and had equal training, you would probably loose. Fortunately the nature of thuggery is such that they don't study real hard

[Inspector]

On the subject of big attackers, it has been my (albeit extremely limited) experience that an attacker with 50-100 lb advantage of lean body mass and 100-250lb advantage of total body mass would enjoy a host of advantages in a fight.

Someone with a big frame, big muscles, and a lot of body fat simply doesn't have a lot in the way of vulnerable spots. Hit him in the gut, chest, legs, arms... he doesn't care. He's got a lot of meat there to absorb the punishment and he won't even feel it.

How about his face or neck? Good luck reaching them. He's quite a bit taller, and his neck is blocked by his chin because he's already looking down at you.

Now, what about those arms? He can hold you by the neck or arms and you can't even reach him to retaliate. He can punch you from a range where you can't hit back. And if you try to get in close, his weight is an even bigger advantage.

He doesn't need to use a lot of skill or finesse in attacking you, however. The sheer size of such an attacker is quite overwhelming. Someone like that can simply push you around with a force that can lift you literally off your feet or knock the wind out of you with a single blow.

It's like fighting a tank. You won't do any damage at all except for a few vulnerable spots, which are all protected and hard to reach. If he gets in even one hit or grapple, you're done for.

What I'm describing is a high school bully I knew way back when. He was 6'3 and around 300 lbs. I was, at the time 5'10 and maybe 125-135 lbs. The average female isn't going to be much stronger than I was back then, and it's not too farfetched that an attacker might be similar to this bully in size. Heck, next to the 'roid-pumping beasts I see at the gym every time I go, this guy would be small potatoes.

The vast majority of women are going to be genetically limited in size and strength. My wife worked out with me for a while and probably doubled her strength, maybe tripled it. It's still less than half of my strength and I'm not a big guy at all. She's got great genes for strength, and I have terrible ones, but she's still female and so she won't come close to me with anything short of steroid abuse.

I say this to illustrate just what kind of advantages in size and strength a male might have. It's not simply a question of being stronger or having more upper body strength; there's a lot more to it.

Now, I'm not saying that someone with superior training can't defeat such an opponent. What I'm saying is that such an opponent enjoys significant advantages and it's going to take an equally significant disparity in fighting skill to overcome them.

Of course, put a .45 caliber hollow point in such an attacker and all of his size and strength suddenly doesn't mean squat.

Now I fully plan on getting martial arts training for both myself and my wife in the future (Krav Maga sound up my alley). It has its place. I can't carry my gun everywhere, and there's always a chance I might not reach it in time. But I thought I'd provide some food for thought.

[aequalsa]

On the subject of big attackers, it has been my (albeit extremely limited) experience that an attacker with 50-100 lb advantage of lean body mass and 100-250lb advantage of total body mass would enjoy a host of advantages in a fight.

I don't disagree for the most part. Fortunately, though, most people don't weigh 350. And if they do, you'd probably have a good chance of outrunning them.

The advantages you list certainly all exist but they are really just one aspect of fighting. Timing, balance, speed, flow, flexibility and body mechanics are huge, and in training, bigger guys typically have a more difficult time(read-are slower) in getting hold of these other concepts because their strength allows them to force techniques to work that otherwise would not. Additionally a lack of speed and flexibility are problems that usually come packaged with bigger size.

Something else I have found interesting is that it's not just big or small that has an impact on the match up. Individual body types all convey certain advantages and disadvantages. For me personally, for example, I hate having to go against shorter, thick, barrel chested guys. They have this ultra low center of gravity and are usually kinda dense and difficult to move around without having the bigger guys' loss of speed. I am 6'0" and about 200lbs and I would take a 6'8" 350lb monster over a 5'4" 180 lb ball of meanness any day of the week.

As far as being effective against those big guys, it is difficult but not impossible. There is a good deal more involved, though then striking pressure points. Speed is typically going to be the biggest advantage with switching between hard and soft movements and body posture a close second.

[Inspector]

As far as being effective against those big guys, it is difficult but not impossible. There is a good deal more involved, though then striking pressure points. Speed is typically going to be the biggest advantage with switching between hard and soft movements and body posture a close second.

It sounds like what you're talking about is in the context of advanced martial arts. How long would you say someone would have to train to be able to fight on the level you describe?

[FeatherFall]

Big guys who have lots of body fat often have knee problems. Even juiced guys sometimes have chicken legs. Kick-step into the side of their knee and improve your chances of outrunning them even more.

[Inspector]

Big guys who have lots of body fat often have knee problems. Even juiced guys sometimes have chicken legs. Kick-step into the side of their knee and improve your chances of outrunning them even more.

Hmmm, this thread seems to have taken on a "How to take down big fat guys" angle.

I can deal with that.

[aequalsa]

It sounds like what you're talking about is in the context of advanced martial arts. How long would you say someone would have to train to be able to fight on the level you describe?

It would depend on the amount of time per week, the instructor and the individual to a great extent, but 1-2 years would probably be a good average amount of time that would give you a pretty good chance of making up for significant size disadvantages. Especially if the system allows some free form fighting along with the teaching of technique. That being said, I would not discount the 3-4 week krav maga courses and things of that nature. They give you a quick and dirty(so to speak) way of dealing with the most common types of attacks.

[Inspector]

Is there any accredation for Krav Maga or some other means you'd recommend for finding a good instructor?

[miseleigh]

I think that most women have a severe disadvantage in any sort of hand to hand combat that cannot be overcome even with training. The size and strength simply aren't there. Holding up the example of the 10th level master woman who can kick butt is simply unrealistic. What percentage of women have the potential to become that? And for the other 99.999%, isn't talking about that just filling their heads with unrealistic overconfidence?

Currently, without any training except informal wrestling matches (and a two-hour wrist-grip-breaking technique class), I can consistently take down one of my male friends and at least put up a good fight for a few others. I haven't been able to take down those others because one is a 350 lb football player, and another is a 200 lb 5'7" 'ball of meanness' with the determination to start to pass out before tapping out, and we follow rules in these matches like no striking, scratching, ball-twisting, eye-poking, or anything else that I would use if necessary. Yet another sparring partner is probably 225 or so, and it takes him a good 5 or 6 minutes of hard work to pin me. He'd certainly be in no shape to rape me after finally managing to pin me, and I'm often less tired than he is at that point. This is without doing any kind of working out or even being in shape, whereas most of the guys work out a few times a week. I am also fairly average (5'8" 140lbs). I highly resent the (repeated) insinuations that I should be unable to do things that I already can do just because I'm an average woman. Granted, the men I spar with don't intend to actually hurt me, but with some working out and some actual training, I'm fairly confident that I would be able to do a good deal of damage to any men matching my friends' physiques if I needed to (except a 350lb guy, there's just no way to put a dent in him, but I could certainly outrun him). I also have another female friend who I am sure would beat me in a sparring match fairly quickly. My younger sister also has some nasty little tricks up her sleeve (like extreme flexibility to get out of any kind of hold, and quite a bit more upper-body strength than I have) due to her gymnast past. None of us are 10th-level masters at anything, but I do not fear for my sister's life when she walks alone at night, nor do I fear for my friend's or mine. (Another friend of mine is quite handy with her pepper spray, and very adept at climbing to tree branches that wouldn't hold an average male, or even an average female. She might not be very strong, but I don't need to worry about her either.)

I've lived in Worcester, MA for two years, and haven't had a problem with men trying to harm me. Perhaps it's because I avoid walking alone at night; perhaps it's because I do have an air of confidence about me; perhaps it's because when the rare occasion happens that I am forced to walk alone at night and a sketchy guy hits on me, I smile at him and apologize for the fact that I can't stay because [insert somebody useful- parents, brother] is expecting me and I'm already late. It's certainly not because of a lack of danger in that particular city, even on campus. However, since I'll be transferring to a school in Boston in the fall, and probably living in a more dangerous area, I intend to get some formal martial arts training ASAP, and will certainly be in better (sprinting & fighting) shape before I get there.

The only things I worry about are guns, knives, and drugs. Oh, and those rare guys who are both a good deal larger & stronger than I am and yet also able to run faster. They could be a problem. However, there's not much anybody can do about those situations - male or female - aside from carrying the bigger weapon, which I hesitate to try from the fear that anyone would have an easier time using my knife against me than taking me down otherwise, and knife against knife would probably have me with the smaller (legal!) blade. I like the idea of carrying a gun around even less, and if the other guy's got one too I probably wouldn't be able to get mine out anyways.

Any thoughts on carrying a knife? I'm not sure if my reasoning on that is sound; maybe it would be better to have one, especially with some courses on how to use it properly.

[FeatherFall]

Be sure to keep in mind that an attack is not a wrestling match. It probably will not resemble any sport, including UFC and Pride-fighting, with the possible exception of elbows to fragile parts of the face.

The Web site that was linked to earlier, nononsenseselfdefense, has a section devoted to knife combat. It explains that you should be wary of knife fighting courses because they often teach dueling, not combat. (edit) I don't speak from a position of authority, but I wouldn't be afraid of someone else using your knife on you - if you know how to use it, and are using it to kill. If you start trying to injure them instead, you have more to worry about. (end edit)

I wonder, why do you prefer a knife to a gun? If you end up having to use either, you should be using it to kill. (edit) You will have to justify the use of either to the law. (end edit)

As far as tools are concerned, a hammer may make a better improvised weapon.

Edited July 10, 2006 by FeatherFall

[RationalBiker]

I wonder, why do you prefer a knife to a gun? If you end up having to use either, you should be using it to kill. (edit) You will have to justify the use of either to the law. (end edit)

You may have a difficult time justifying in court your intent to kill the attacker. Typically, in self defense, as in policing, the "proper" intent is to stop the threat of the attack. If that results in killing the suspect, so be it. But admitting to could be misconstrued as a pre-meditated intent to kill the suspect can raise legal problems for you. "Pre-meditated" can happen rather quickly.

[Inspector]

Be sure to keep in mind that an attack is not a wrestling match. It probably will not resemble any sport, including UFC and Pride-fighting, with the possible exception of elbows to fragile parts of the face.

Yes, precisely. From what I can tell, Miseleigh, your attitude looks like overconfidence. Have you ever been punched by a guy the size of your friends? I don't mean a sparring punch, but a real one. (actually, that would be awful if you had and I certainly don't mean to pry, but what I mean to say is: are you sure you know what a fellow of that size is capable of?)

Also, why is a knife harder to draw than a gun?

Edited July 11, 2006 by Inspector

[aequalsa]

Is there any accredation for Krav Maga or some other means you'd recommend for finding a good instructor?

Well, not really. I haven't had(or made rather) the oppurtunity to study krav maga but from what I have seen of it inpeople I have trained with I recommend it.

I would recommend sticking with the original source of the system if available in your area.

I understand that they offer 3 week courses that are supposed to be good. They'd give you a good intro to see if you liked it. Otherwise, most schools will let you try them out for a day to a week.

http://www.kravmaga.com/

In general, I would look for a school which teaches a combination of street fighting techniques as well as some sparring-the more realistic the better so long as it is not likely to result in actually being damaged during practice. It is all well and good to say, just kick the balls and gouge the eyes, but to actually accomplish those things while someone is trying to stop you is an entirely different thing the practicing on a pad or in the air. Even wrestling, while certainly very limited will give some indication of what kind of modifications are required when dealing with resistence.

Also avoid mystical types of course. A good question to rule them out is to ask them what they think about ki/chi. If they call it "a good visualization technique" then they are probably ok.

Best regards,

Gordon

[aequalsa]

Any thoughts on carrying a knife? I'm not sure if my reasoning on that is sound; maybe it would be better to have one, especially with some courses on how to use it properly.

I recommend not fighting with a knife, ever unless you are well trained with them, and even then, don't. If a knife enters a fight, it is almost guaranteed that both members will be cut and bleeding even if only one has a knife. To test this theory, get two white t-shirts you don't mind wrecking and a magic marker. Have a friend of approximately equal fighting ability or better, try to attack you in some scenario while you attempt to get the pen("knife") out of your pocket and use it to defend yourself. After then inevitable grappling when someone "wins" count the number of black marks on each of your shirts and then for fun, estimate how much blood would be lost through those wounds. A stick would be a far better weapon. Seriously. I find philipino stick fighting to be ideal for weapon use in self defense. 2-2' bamboo sticks are legal, "nonlethal", effective, and impressive to watch to the point of being intimidating, Easy to control, and not likely to hurt you by accident like a bladed weapon. Incidentally, if knifes really are your thing, the stick fighting techniques are almost identical to good use of knives for fighting.

[aequalsa]

Also, why is a knife harder to draw than a gun?

It's really not. I think it is just more likely to be a legal option in most places. And if it is turned on you the effects might not be quite as devastating as a firearm. You at least can't be stabbed as easily while making your getaway.