Ever notice how no one expects to have to defend themselves?
There’s that old saying: Shit happens.
Well, during the latter part of my night hunt experience, there was potential for shit to happen. If you care about self-defense, read on.
self defense
Constitutional right to self-defense
Eugene Volokh examines if we have a constitutional right to self-defense.
Thus, a rule that one can only use deadly force to defend oneself against threats of death, serious bodily injury, rape, kidnapping, and a few other very serious threats would likely be constitutional (even though many states also allow use of deadly force to defend against robbery and in some situations burglary). Likewise, the “duty to retreat,” which is to say the principle that deadly force can only be used in self-defense if it’s genuinely necessary, in that no safe avenue of retreat is available, is likely to be constitutional, too, because it has long been recognized in at least a substantial minority of states. There may be other examples as well. My point is that a federal constitutional right to self-defense likely exists, especially in the wake of Heller. But it is not unlimited, and is likely to be strongest precisely where there’s a broad and deep common-law and statutory tradition of recognizing such a right.
Simple rules for staying safe
Through the joys of the Internet, I was exposed to two similarly themed articles in the past couple days. I figure they’re worth putting together and sharing.
They are two articles with simple advice for how to stay safe and avoid trouble.
Tom, as a LEO, gives us his “magic self-defense formula”.
Tam gives us a short treatise on how not to get killed.
(Tom? Tam? coincidence?) 🙂
Short answer: don’t be involved in criminal activity, directly (e.g. dealing drugs) or indirectly (e.g. being out at 3 AM in a neighborhood known for drug dealing).
Give them both a read. They’re short and to the point.
Satisfying ego or satisfying results?
I just finished reading this letter over at Tony Blauer’s website. To be fair, the letter reads like a mix of a testimonial and an ad/promotion for Blauer’s approach. That said, the article still brings up an important point.
The letter recounts Tom Arcuri’s journey in studying and ultimately teaching martial arts. As Mr. Arcuri developed his own style, he recognized why students come to him: not necessarily to learn some style of art, but to learn how to fight or defend themselves. Recognizing a need to satisfy this goal, he set out to meet it. Unfortunately and admittedly he chose the wrong measuring stick for progress: variety. In class situations he could see all sorts of variety and teach it, but once the students got into pressure situations, the variety went out the door. Why?
The answer came to Mr. Arcuri one summer. He came to learn that when one gets into pressure situations, one reverts to gross concepts and skills. Thus variety for the sake of variety goes out the door. Consequently, he changed how he evaluates from “variety” to “results”. I think that’s a good change. Does it necessarily matter how you defend yourself so long as you defend yourself successfully?
Mr. Arcuri writes:
As a group we tend to be control freaks, ego centric, and a bit insecure regarding our skills. This is ironic since we emphasize self-confidence and constant devotion to self-improvement to our students. We spend an inordinate amount of time arguing to be right even in the face of evidence to the contrary. Knowing forty or four hundred techniques gives us control and feeds our egos, but does it enhance our student’s survivability in a “real street fight”? Remember, it’s women and children that are more likely to have to defend themselves in our society.
I touched on this recently. Some arts make a big deal out of how much they have in their curriculum and how much they can teach you. The reality? Not so much. Kuk Sool may tout 3608 techniques, but I’ve long wondered just how they arrive at that total. If you look at what Kuk Sool terms “techniques” (the joint locks, throws, sweeps, etc… Ki Bohn Soo, Sohn Mohk Soo, etc.), then to earn 1st degree black belt you must learn 226 techniques; to earn 2nd degree, 143 techniques (369 total); to earn 3rd degree, 40 techniques (409 total); to earn 4th, 25 techniques (434 total); to earn 5th, 30 techniques (464 total). Now this isn’t to say the official Kuk Sool curriculum doesn’t have other things involved, but the point is that by the time you become a “Master rank” in Kuk Sool, you’ve been taught 464 techniques: only about 13% of the claimed knowledge in the system. Wow. So where are all those other techniques? Super-secret for only the blessed and privileged to know, I guess. Or maybe creative counting; I’ve wondered if by 3608 techniques they mean just the strictly defined techniques or if they also count kicks (front kick, 1; low front kick, 2; middle front kick, 3; high front kick, 4; etc.), punches, and every other little thing, since I know in other arts they will label that sort of stuff “techniques”. But however things are labeled and counted, the point still remains the same: aiming to collect a big number of stuff.
Aside: after a while you’ll find the techniques you’re learning are the same or almost the same. The body only bends so many ways, so if you claim thousands of ways to bend the body, eventually you’re going to repeat yourself in some fashion. Certainly I saw a lot of such repetition in the Kuk Sool curriculum. That’s not all bad because it helps to demonstrate different entries and approaches. But make sure you take those numbers for what they are.
So what’s the point of all of this? IMHO, ego satisfaction. You can strut around qualitatively stating “look at all that I know.” Then it’s easy to get into dick-measuring contests (e.g. Hwa Rang Do, a Kuk Sool contemporary, one-ups with their 4000+ techniques; see my previous article). But will a big ego keep you from getting your ass kicked? Maybe, but I doubt it.
As I’ve often said, what ultimately matters are the personal goals that you have for yourself. If your personal goal is to just acquire a large library of knowledge, then that’s fine. If your personal goal is to inflate your ego, that’s fine too. I know it sounds like I’m down on that, and I personally am because it’s not my goal and I don’t see much true point in that goal. But truly if that’s what you want and you feel it makes your life better, who am I to tell you no? I do hope you have perspective on that goal, but otherwise go for it. Me, my goal these days is combat effectiveness. I’d rather have one technique that I could execute solidly and well and that could truly save my life, than a thousand techniques that I half-assed know and don’t practically do much for me. This is why Filipino martial arts hold so much appeal for me.
As an engineer (with an engineer’s mindset) and given how much Taoism resonates with me, that’s likely why Bruce Lee’s philosophies resonate with me. He speaks of emptying your cup so it can be filled, of keeping what is useful and discarding the rest, of achieving a true simplicity in combat. Note that for these things to happen, first you must acquire. While learning nothing vs. learning something then discarding it, might appear in the end to achieve the same results, they really don’t. Antoine de Saint ExupĂ©ry wrote:
Il semble que la perfection soit atteinte non quand il n’y a plus rien Ă ajouter, mais quand il n’y a plus rien Ă retrancher.
(It would seem that perfection is attained not when no more can be added, but when no more can be removed.)
To strive for perfection, strive for simplicity. If it is not useful, discard it; but that does imply you must first have acquired it so you could determine if it was useful or not. How to determine if it’s useful? Does it help you satisfy your goals? If your goal is to satisfy your ego, then fine. If your goal is to get satisfying results, well… to me, satisfying results satisfies ego. 🙂
Why do you want my gun?
So a liberal asks: why do you want my gun? (h/t to SayUncle)
After reading his story it reminded me of a “joke”:
Q: What do you call a Democrat?
A: A Republican that’s never been mugged (yet).
So what do you do?
Caleb recounts how he just went to a concert and had to disarm himself. I’ve run into this same situation.
This is why we cannot be one-trick ponies, relying upon guns alone. To carry other weaponry such as a knife, collapsable baton, pepper spray (women will likely be able to get away with this more than men can) — a layered approach. But of course, even those may not be permissible given the venue. Thus all you are left with are your wits and your hands.
This is why it’s good to know how to use your empty hands.
But this is why it’s even better to know how to use your brain, keep your wits about you, be aware, and follow that first rule of self-defense: ABC — Always Be Cool. That seems to hold even moreso in a context like a concert, where cool is so much what it’s about.
Do children need guns?
Howard Nemerov examines the question of children having access to guns.
He recounts a recent story where a 10-year old boy had access to his mother’s gun and used it to save the lives of himself and his 8-year old sister. This isn’t the first story I’ve heard where a minor had access to a gun and used it to protect themselves and their family members.
Nevertheless, out of the woodwork come those that decry that a loaded gun was accessible to the children. That children should even know how to use a firearm. That “what if the gun had been taken away and used against them”. And all the usual foul cries.
In his usual style, Howard sets aside the emotion and looks at the hard facts:
After compiling data from the FBI’s Supplemental Homicide master files for 2000 through 2002, it turns out that children shooting children is a rare occurrence.
[…]
This means that of the truly unfortunate circumstances where a child finds a gun and kills another kid, there are an average of 10 per year for entire country. Obviously, that is 10 too many. But considering that 633 babies under age 2 (211 per year) were beaten to death during this same time period, some perspective needs to be maintained. There are already laws against beating babies to death, just as there are laws against killing children with firearms.
Texas is one such state with “child access” laws. My wife and I have had discussions on this very matter. The law says I cannot leave a “readily dischargeable firearm” in a way such that a child could have access to it. That means that my children — who know how to safely and responsibly operate firearms — cannot use a firearm to defend themselves. Given that firearms are an equalizer, why shouldn’t my children be allowed means and mechanisms to level the field against larger and stronger invaders/attackers? I grant the intentions of the law, but I also see the perils the same law creates.
So Howard provides much-needed perspective:
Of these 31 incidents, 15 of them occurred in the 18 states (about 1 per state) that had child access laws on the books at the time. That means the remaining 16 incidents occurred in the 32 states without these laws (0.5 incidents per state), not the best testimony for child access laws!
Ten of these incidents involved shooters age 10 or less, about 3 per year. Four of these occurred in states with child access laws, still near that 50/50, coin-flip percentage that indicates failure for child access laws.
So based strictly upon percentages, this 10-year-old is a hero.
How can you label that 10-year old boy any other way?
What to do?
Basically, petty crime occurring (someone grabs someone else’s duffel bag and runs off, victim shouts for help). A citizen with a concealed carry permit pulls over to help out, draws his gun on the criminal and says “Stop, Police.” and works to detail the thief. However, a second armed citizen sees what’s happening and thinks that is a crime going down so he too stops to intervene. Eventually the police show up and things get sorted out.
The intentions of both citizens are good. Frankly, having more people that are willing to be helpful and not stand for criminal behavior? That’s a good thing. But the first guy to identify himself as police? That’s not good. My hope there is the guy either gets let off or only lightly punished because he did not have criminal intent in what he was doing; it’s certainly not worthy of a felony charge.
It does demonstrate a real issue however: that things may not always be what they seem. There’s stories of a bad guy coming out of the store he just robbed and complaining to the by-standers in a manner to make those by-standers think he was the victim and thus they help the bad guy get away. Things aren’t always what they seem, and we have to be careful. I do have thoughts about what would happen if I was in a self-defense situation with many others around, and there were other “sheepdogs” in the mix as well. What could happen? Could signals get crossed? Could the chaos of the situation lead to unintended things happening? It’s a situation that I don’t have an answer to, but have wondered if there is something that could be done and thus taught in schools as a part of “training and tactics” to aid in such situations. I don’t know.
But me personally? I don’t think I would have gotten involved in such a situation. To me the question to answer is “is this worth dying for?”. Petty theft? I don’t think it’s worth dying for. Actually I should check that. I may have gotten involved (all depends upon the specifics of the situation), but to pull one’s gun… that has to answer affirmatively the “worth dying for” question.
My Story
I think about what happened to me just this past Saturday evening. The family and I had gone out to dinner, then over to the bookstore. We left the bookstore, heading across the parking lot to our car. I noticed a man and a woman walking through the parking lot on a path that would eventually intersect with us. They appeared to be having some sort of a fight, a little physical, a little heated verbal exchange, and they kept walking in our direction. They appeared intoxicated, and by their appearance possibly homeless. Wife saw them too and became concerned, I just looked at her and said to get herself and the kids to the car. I was certainly in code orange, but didn’t think this would be a problem… they appeared to just be a drunk couple having their own spat, but with that level of irrationality going on who knows. Better safe than sorry. I kept my eye on things while Wife got the kids and herself into the car. As I was going to get into the car, the woman crossed behind our car and shouted to me “Want to buy some DVD’s? Brand new!” I just gave a firm “no thank you”. She kept walking; in fact, she never stopped. My guess is the fight was over the DVD’s, or at least her saying that to us was no true offer of sale… just something to piss off her male companion. As we pulled out, we saw the man had sat himself down on the curb and looked sad and upset whereas the woman had kept on walking.
I don’t know what the story was, and frankly I don’t care. My concern was for the safety and well-being of my family. There was a brief moment where both Wife and I were concerned of a physical altercation as it looked like the man might have opted to hit or otherwise rough up the woman. If that had happened, I may have intervened but initially from a distance (e.g. verbal commands, getting Wife to dial 911). I couldn’t stand by to let someone get hurt like that, but on the same token I had to ensure I didn’t put myself or my wife and children in danger either. Exactly what I would have done, again, impossible to say… all depends upon the exact situation and how things would unfold. But my guiding principle is keeping my wife and children safe; all else is secondary. In the end the question remains: is it worth dying for?
An accounting, a learning experience.
Linoge has a lengthy transcript of the recent “wild west shootout” from a few days ago (labeled that because the good guy took care of the bad guy with a single-action .45 Colt revolver).
It contains a great many details about the event and the lessons one can learn from it.
Some things I picked up:
- Fight. You’re not dead until you say you’re dead, and the fight isn’t over until you give up. Fight. Fight. Fight like hell.
- Get yourself good hardware, solid, reliable. Once you have yourself a good solid gun, get lots of training, and practice.
- The training shouldn’t be just marksmanship style training, tho certainly that is necessary. A lot of the training should be things that help you with situational awareness and other tactics, things to help you avoid the fight if possible or if the fight must happen, to give you every advantage you can get.
- I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. All pistol rounds suck. Bad guy was shot multiple times, apparently a few were critical hits, but bad guy kept on fighting. First thing I said remains true: fight, because you’re not dead until you say you’re dead. Works for both the good guys and the bad guys. Make sure you work it to your advantage.
- Scumbags are scumbags. They don’t care about you or anything other than themselves. If they’re going to go to jail anyways, what’s killing a few more people along the way? Hell, to them they probably view it as a good thing towards increasing their “street cred” to be able to rattle off a big number of how many people they’ve killed. Don’t think you can beg your way out or expect any sort of mercy from them.
Go give it a read. Learn what you can from it.
Sporting purposes
Eugene Volokh discusses the notion of “sporting purposes” when it comes to firearms.
He discusses how the San Francisco, California Police Code explicitly delimits firearms based upon “sporting purposes” and denies hollow-point ammo, mentioning many established brands by name. His main point:
Rather, my point is how the ordinance seems to deliberately marginalize defensive purposes for gun ownership. Sporting purposes are labeled legitimate, and other purposes, including defensive ones, are labeled illegitimate.
This is quite true, and even from within the ranks of gun owners you can find a split along these lines.
Why isn’t self-defense a legitimate purpose? I’m not asking this rhetorically, nor am I asking this to those that consider it to be legitimate. I’m asking this specifically to those that think firearms are only legitimate for sporting purposes, or that think firearms are not legitimate under any circumstances. I honestly want to know what and why you think defensive uses of guns are not legitimate.
Furthermore, working to ban hollow point bullets demonstrates ignorance of the topic. Yes I know, they love to refer to them as “cop-killer” bullets, anything to get an emotional rise. Are hollow point bullets more effective at stopping? Yes they are, when compared to “ball” ammunition. Furthermore, hollow point bullets are safer because they are designed to stop within and not continue through. Look at these numbers. If you must defend yourself against a bad guy, you want to ensure to stop the bad guy, not that the bullet might pass through the bad guy and hit an innocent on the other side. When it comes to stopping an attacker, hollow points bullets are more effective in stopping power and safety; there’s no reason not to use them. Can a bad guy use a hollow point to kill a cop? Sure. But hollow points work quite well in the hands of us good guys against bad guys too. They don’t discriminate. 🙂
While I may enjoy sporting activities with my firearms, my primary purpose for having firearms is defensive. I may study all sorts of empty hand martial arts, even weapon-based martial arts (sticks, swords, etc.). But because I know those things, I also understand their limitations. A gun isn’t a be-all-end-all, but it serves a good purpose towards keeping me and my family safe. It goes back to the Boy Scout motto of “Be Prepared”; better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
But hey, if you don’t think defensive purposes are legitimate, then I’ve got a yard sign for you. Are you willing to post that sign?
Stuff From Hsoi 