Truck Guns

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a6YdNmK77k

Zombies aren’t real.  I say again, and I know this hurts some of you to hear, but it’s true: zombies aren’t real.  Why in the heck do you have an AK in your truck?  Let’s just assume for a moment you ever actually used that “sporting rifle” behind the seat of your Tacoma; what exactly are you going to tell the cops when they show up?

Look, if you are a SWAT or Military-trained sniper and you have the skill set to end a mass shooter from five hundred yards away with a “sporting rifle,” then by all means carry a truck gun.  If you aren’t that guy, when the cops show, what do you tell them?  “Well…I got out of the bank robbery, so I grabbed my AR and went back inside to put every bystander there in massive mortal damage, officer.  I thought my considerable skills honed through dozens of hours on a fifty yard range with my Bushmaster made me the perfect guy to go start rescuing hostages.  It’s a shame a dozen bystanders got killed in my firefight with the robbers.  But, it’s like the SEALs always say, `Sucks to be a hostage.’”

“Oh, were you a SEAL?”

“Um…well, not exactly, I mean, I graduated Air Force Basic and shot an M16 two whole days, so, yeah, I’m basically a SEAL.”

And, I’d be THRILLED if every idiot rolling around with an AK or AR in their truck was in fact a graduate of Air Force Basic, or a Police Academy, or even some tactical rifle course put on by veterans.  BUT, most of the people rolling around with them don’t have ANY tactical training, much less the precision skills necessary to successfully go BACK into a situation like the one described above or the ability to take out the Las Vegas Shooter from their truck beds.  I am a combat veteran of a combat Military Occupational Specialty with about a dozen firefights under my belt, and I don’t rescue hostages.  Bubba and Billy-Bob, with the AR’s in their Ford Redneck Rescue Raptor, go off guns-a-blazing in some sort of North Hollywood Shootout scenario, trying to “take out” badguys, will get innocent people killed.  And even if they miraculously DON’T get innocent people killed, is that REALLY self-defense?  Or, have they become vigilantes who make situations infinitely worse?

This is my problem with blurring the lines of what self-defense really is.  The NRA does it.  The shooting industry wants to sell you guns, so they do it, as do all of the weapons accessory companies.  The Tacticool Instructors do it.  But then when somebody shoots a guy trespassing in his field at six hundred yards away, and then claims he was “in imminent danger and fear for his life,” the prosecutors sometimes disagree with that industry definition of "self-defense."

Self-Defense is not a set of skills.  It is not a set of shooting skills.  It is not a set of fighting skills.  It is not a set of tactics for “clearing” houses or “securing” fixed positions or anything else.  Self-Defense is a LEGAL DETERMINATION—after an incident occurs—that the actions taken were justified in the eyes of the law.  Cops make that determination, prosecutors make the determination, judges make the determination, and—worst case scenario—sometimes juries make the determination that the actions a person took were justified self-defense.  When you start looking like a vigilante, it becomes exceedingly difficult to argue that the actions were in self-defense.  Willingly putting yourself BACK into a dangerous situation that you have already escaped from, isn’t self-defense.  Now, it may be “defense of others,” and there may be good reasons for such actions (going in to get your spouse out for example), but it’s not self-defense.

Don’t be George Zimmerman.  If you are one of the people who thinks George Zimmerman was an innocent victim, stop reading my blog.  George Zimmerman was a lunatic living out some Batman fantasy; he stalked and killed a kid for no other reason than he didn’t like his fashion choice.  Vigilantism is NOT self-defense.  Running back into a dangerous situation with a rifle can appear to be vigilantism if you don’t have a good reason (like a loved-one inside, or a tactical skill set capable of being effective inside).

Lastly, when the SWAT team does show up, I don’t want to be holding a rifle.  They have their own snipers.  Those snipers may not know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are.  Don’t get shot because you were trying to do something you thought was good, just because the cops can’t tell which side you’re on.

In conclusion, we have enough people who hate the gun-owning public without shooting ourselves in the feet looking like the caricatures that the liberals paint of the NRA.  All the 5.11 gear, the fishing vests, the operator hats and rail accessories attached to your AR or AK are not helping the cause of getting everybody in America comfortable, confident and CARRYING a gun with them at all time.  What it’s doing is making people think we’re nutty George Zimmerman types out looking to play Batman.  Other than combat and Zombies, I cannot imagine a scenario in which I would need a rifle with a thirty-round magazine in my truck for anything that would be construed—AFTER THE INCIDENT—as justifiable self-defense in modern American daily life.  Now, I will caveat this by saying, yes, after a natural disaster, or during an on-going terrorist attack, or massive civil unrest, a sport rifle may well be desirable.  After Hurricane Katrina, when civil order disintegrated and a state of anarchy took hold of New Orleans for a brief time, I absolutely would want a rifle.  During the Paris Terrorist Attacks, which were geographically spread throughout the city and carried-out by chickenshit half-men armed with AK-47s, I would absolutely want a rifle to protect my home and family.  But, I believe the right answer in those situations is to secure your home and your loved ones, with an arsenal, at home.  Then, if you need to retreat to a safer place, that is when you get fully equipped and Move Out with the truck gun.  But, that scenario is A LOT closer to a combat zone than it is to a self-protection situation that you would have to justify before a judge as reasonable “self-defense.”  Don't make your defense any harder in a criminal proceeding by how you're equipped.  Zombies ain't real, folks!

If you agree, please like AND share!

Soule

www.Easy6training.com

New Zealand

I wanted to write a bit about the Mosque shootings in New Zealand this week, but I don't want to get into the absurd gun control arguments.  Really, what I want to talk about is threat.  In the military, that is a noun.  What is the threat?  Meaning, what are the capabilities an enemy has, and what are the probabilities he will use them effectively against us?  This is what Intelligence Officers and Soldiers do in the Army; the evaluate threat.

I have a Masters Degree in Public Administration with a concentration in Homeland Defense.  I am a combat veteran with three tours in Iraq.  If I am not an expert, I am at least a credentialed novice in evaluating the threat in our society.  That is why I write these, and why I train the tiny minority of Americans who actually open their eyes to the realities of the Post-9/11 world.

I don't know if I've said this recently, but the difference between the Post-9/11 world and the pre-9/11 world was that acts of war used to be the exclusive domain of nations.  That changed on 9/11.  Twenty guys with box cutters and pepper spray turned four tools of modern transportation into weapons of mass destruction.  We can all start to understand that--we can probably never fully understand lunatics--but we can understand the effects (as in, battlefield effects) that can be achieved by non-nation states with modern technology.

What very few of us understand is the opposite side of the coin.  In a world where warfare can be conducted by non-state actors, that means defense of the nation states becomes the problem of the citizen, not the government.  There were no government assets onboard any of the four planes hijacked on 9/11.  But on the last one, United Flight 93, there were ordinary citizens who recognized the THREAT of terrorism in a new world, violently birthed that morning.  Led by my hero and inspiration, Todd Beamer, ordinary citizens took the awe-inspiring actions to defend the homeland by resisting the terrorists.

The threat we get.  The response, we still don't understand.  Why weren't there armed security guards at the Mosques in New Zealand?  Terrorists look for soft targets.  They don't attack hardened, impregnable fortresses.  They shoot up a concert from a hotel room, they hijack planes and turn them into missiles, they shoot up places of worship, or our insanely unsecured schools.  They don't confront our aircraft carriers or armored divisions, because they will always lose those fights.  The fights they usually win are against our soft targets.

In the Post-9/11 world, we can't afford to have soft targets.  But, the government can't be everywhere, all the time, protecting every movie theater, supermarket, church or school.  But the threat is real to all of those places.  You know what my education in Homeland Defense taught me?  That WE THE PEOPLE have to become the defenders of the homeland.  New Zealand failed to recognize that, just as we have done so many time since the heroes of United Flight 93 showed us how we are going to have to live in the age of terrorist caliphates and simplistically armed fanatics causing mass casualty events with their evil creativity. 

Every time the lunatics succeed in one of these attacks, more are emboldened.  The only thing that defeats terror is COURAGE.  We The People have to develop COURAGE and recognize that since that fateful Tuesday morning that we swore to Never Forget, it is OUR responsibility individually to stand up to these nut jobs.  It is our responsibility as individuals to be prepared to fight back when one of these lunatics shows up in our town.  Prepared with our equipment, prepared with our training, but most of all, prepared with the mindset that We The People ARE Homeland Defense.  There's a famous story from World War Two as the Germans were advancing during the Battle of the Bulge; a young American paratrooper stopped, started digging a foxhole as all these other units were retreating in a disorganized rout.  He said to the tank commander, "I'm the 82nd Airborne, and this is as far as the bastards are going!"

In the Post-9/11 world, We The People must all try to live-up to the worlds of Paratrooper Martin of the 82nd Airborne.  When these coward-ass nut jobs show up in our towns, churches, mosques or synagogues, We The People must be prepared, as the heroes of United Flight 93 were, to say, "I'm an AMERICAN, and this is as far as the bastards are going!"

That is the new truth in the Post-9/11 world.  The threat is not massed tanks or nuclear missiles.  The threat is fanatical individuals hell bent on killing, fueled by hatred, desiring only to terrorize.  The only way to defeat terror is with COURAGE, and we must all be prepared to stand-up.  New Zealand, I feel for you, but like us, you have to come to the realization that you need your people to be hard, so that there are no soft targets for the lunatics to exploit.  We have to be harder than the fanatics who seek to destroy us.  We must be prepared to defend the homeland when it is attacked in our presence.  Above all, we must have the only weapon that defeats terror: COURAGE.

Remember the fallen!

Soule
Easy6

Carrying in the winter versus carrying in the summer

It's not just what you wear to conceal a gun, it's also what they wear to stop your bullets!

How much energy will this vest dissipate from a slow-moving hollow-point?

I have been reading again about concealing full sized handguns fashionably.  I read a couple of blog posts and message board questions about how to conceal full-sized M1911’s.  The answers were varied, most of them violate my principle that being armed is more important than concealing a gun, but they made me think about the questions differently.  One blogger wrote about the weather in Arizona, which determines how he carries Inside the Waist Band (IWB); another talked about being able to carry bigger pistols in the winter under heavier jackets.  This is looking at things from the wrong perspective, again.  This is looking at it from the conceal-ability factor instead of the gunfight-ability factor, but that was not the biggest insight I gleaned from reading their “concealment at all costs” arguments.  The eye opening moment for me was the fact that people are wearing heavier, baggier and more concealing clothing in winter—and I have to shoot through that to heavy clothing to eliminate them as threats.

Instead of looking at it as what we can conceal, we need to look at it from the effects we want to place onto an enemy’s body.  If I am in a legally-justifiable self-protection shooting, then my goal is always to eliminate a bad-guy’s ability to do me harm, as rapidly as possible.  In colder climates, putting those physiological effects onto a bad-guy, will be harder to achieve through heavy winter clothing.  That is the variable that should dictate what you carry in the winter; it’s not YOUR clothing that makes a difference, it’s the enemy’s.  Shooting lower caliber rounds that mushroom more (like .380 ACP hollow points or any kind of frangible ammo) at a guy in a heavy leather coat, over a puffy vest, over a heavy sweater, over a shirt…that may not be as successful as firing a larger caliber, less expansive, and higher-velocity round (like a 10mm or a .357 magnum).

The point is that the conceal-ability of a firearm is not the only factor to consider when dressing for the climate.  How people dress for the climate is also a factor in choosing a firearm.  You have to do enough Damage with a firearm to be effective at ending a threat to your person from a violent criminal.  That means you have to have a higher velocity gun in the winter than in the summer.  Remember, always dress for the gunfight, and then conceal the gun.  Don’t dress to conceal the gun, and then get into a gunfight.  Read why, here!

Just something to think about!

Like and Share!!!!!

Soule (Easy 6)

www.easy6training.com

Speed Kills

I was listening to some friends debate the “effectiveness” of various handgun calibers last night.  One of them wanted to buy a Walther PPK and the other thought it was a bad idea because a .380 ACP caliber is “ineffective.”  Then a third friend interjected that a really “effective” caliber was a .44 Magnum.  Then they asked my opinion.

What I told them was that no pistol caliber is “effective.”  Then I asked what they meant by “effective.”  Some said one-shot stops, some said lethality.  This is mythology, a lot of it is Hollywood brainwashing about the effects of guns.  I explained to them a startling statistic: about 80% of gunshot victims in America survive, regardless of caliber.  I also explained that there is no statistical difference in lethality or “effectiveness” of any standard carry pistol caliber with modern ammunition: this includes pistols from .380 ACP up to .44 Magnum.  To my friend that encouraged carrying the .44 Magnum, I explained that people survive being shot with those as well.  Dirty Harry is a myth, a .44 Magnum will not “blow your head clean off.”  The fact is pistols are not as good at killing people as rifles.  So then, what is an “effective” pistol?

I had two answers.  The first answer: “High calibers don’t make pistols more ‘effective;’ high capacities do.”  My example was this: is it worse to be shot with five .38 Specials from a snub nose revolver or to be shot with ten .22 LRs from a target pistol with a ten round magazine?  My argument is that the ten .22 caliber bullets into a torso cause more trauma than five .38 caliber bullets do.  More bullets is better than less bullets.

The second answer is an extension of the first: Speed Kills, not accuracy.  In his book On Combat, LTC David Grossman tells the story of an LAPD officer who got shot through the heart with a .357 Magnum but still managed to kill her attackers, crawl to her porch, call 911 and survive by force of will until the ambulance came and saved her life.  One perfectly placed shot in the heart does not create the same trauma as five randomly placed, fast-paced shots to the rib cage.  Two perfectly placed shots that are touching and go in the same hole fired in two seconds do far less Damage than six to ten shots fired in the same two seconds all over a person’s chest.  Putting lots of holes into a Bad Guy’s body is what eliminates him as a threat because it creates massive trauma (what I call Damage).

I define “effective” like that.  Some people call it Incapacitating, but it’s a lot more than that.  Incapacitating someone can be done with a stun-gun.  But that effect wears off, and they are then a threat again.  So, is that really “effective?”  I don’t think so; I think “effective” means a specific outcome on the Bad Guy’s body caused by rapidly inflicting trauma to it.  Recognizing 80% of gunshot victims in America survive, then the specific outcome I want on a Bad Guy’s body is Shock—in the medical sense of the word—which is overwhelming trauma to one or more systems of the human body.  That to me is “effective” self-protection shooting; it has nothing to do with the caliber of the gun, very little to do with the accuracy of the shooter, a lot to do with the capacity of the gun, and mostly to do with the speed at which the shooter can empty that capacity into a Bad Guy’s rib cage.  Remember, the goal is to cause Damage (trauma), not pain; shooting a guy in the leg will hurt but it will not cause significant Damage.  Inflicting shots to multiple organs in the rib cage (heart, lungs, spleen, liver, kidneys), or the spine, or the primary blood vessels coming into and out of the heart and lungs, or the diaphragm muscle controlling breathing, or the trachea feeding the lungs oxygen, or…(the list goes on) will put a Bad Guy into shock, quickly!  Trauma to multiple such targets shuts down systems of the body, and that is what prevents a Bad Guy from functioning effectively to hurt you.  So, what’s an “effective” handgun?  The most effective handgun is the one with a high capacity, which you can fire rapidly without losing control, placing every round into a Bad Guy’s rib cage.  It’s not the caliber of a pistol that kills.  SPEED KILLS!

Please Like and Share!

Soule

www.easy6training.com

"How many guns do you need?"

Weapon of Mass (x Velocity) Destruction

Disclaimer: Not a PG-Rated Blog Entry This Time

I was watching gun control debates last night on YouTube, and the question was raised, "How many guns do you need?  Is five hundred too many?"  How much square footage does your house need per person?  Does a person need a Ferrari?  Does Oprah need thirty mansions for a two-person family?  Do rich, liberal celebrity douche bags need private jets?

I'm a single guy with an average house, 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, about 2000 square feet.  That is WAY more space than I NEED, but I can afford it, and it's legal for me to buy it.  In a free society, governments don't get to restrict the purchase of perfectly legal items based on a lack of need.  Liberals like to (hypocritically) ask us peons "what do you NEED all those guns for?" as they drive away from the private jet terminals in their Lamborghini super cars.

"But, a super car is not a weapon that can be used to murder people," say the liberals.  That's bull crap; you get a Ferrari up to full speed on an interstate and then swerve into a school bus coming the opposite way, you've just created a highly effective terrorist weapon.  Private jets can be used as weapons also, come to think of it.  The September 11th hijackers used jets as missiles.  The guy in New York who used the delivery van to run-over all of those people on the bike path used a normal automobile as a weapon of terror.  The guy in China who took a butchers knife and stabbed over a hundred people used a kitchen tool as a weapon of terror.  Ted Kaczynski used homemade explosives mailed to his targets.  And, yes, the Las Vegas Shooter used guns.  

We do not blame the airplanes for the attacks on 9/11.  We do not blame the automobile for the attack on the bike path.  We do not blame the knife for the attack that resulted in over a hundred people stabbed.  We do not blame the Ryder Truck for the Oklahoma City bombing.  We do not blame the envelopes for the Anthrax Attacks of 2001.  We do not blame any of these incredibly deadly and dangerous devices of mass destruction.  But we blame firearms for the actions of the people holding them, which is absurd because the airplanes used as missiles on 9/11 were MASSIVELY more deadly than any firearm.

What all of these attacks have in common are not the tools used to cause violence and destruction.  What they have in common is the people who carried them out.  The attackers in all of these cases, and most random acts of violence, have one thing in common.  They were BAT-SHIT CRAZY!  I don't mean they were mentally ill; the vast majority of people with mental illness are not dangerous to other people, though admittedly a significant number are dangers to themselves.  When I use the word "Crazy," I mean it is more than just mental illness; it's violently, criminally insane.  Suicide bombers are insane fanatics brainwashed by hatred.  Mass shooters are lunatics.  Timothy McVeigh was a nutjob armed with diesel fuel and fertilizer.  Even less spectacular acts of violence are often the result of the criminally insane.  Rage is a type of insanity.  Maybe it's temporary, maybe it isn't; sometimes anger is the outward manifestation of depression.  The Columbine School Shooters were filled with so much rage by the constant bullying, that they turned their self-loathing into externally-focused hatred and violence.  Their guns and homemade bombs did not MAKE THEM attack their school and perceived nemeses; being Bat-Shit Crazy did.  Do you think the .22 caliber pistol with which John Hinckley tried to assassinate Ronald Reagan MADE HIM do it?  No, it was a Bat-Shit Crazy obsession with Jodie Foster and the psychotic idea that he would impress her enough to fall in love with him if he shot the President...but it's the target pistol's fault?

Blaming guns is easier than blaming people for two reasons.  The first is that it is more politically expedient to paint an inanimate object as somehow possessed by the devil than it is to address the staggeringly complex problem of our mental health crisis.  As messed up as that politically expedient answer seems, it is actually the one that I understand and can accept from the other side of the gun debate.  It's at least a political position.  But I don't think it is the reason MOST of the anti-gun movement blames guns instead of people for shootings.  Most liberals blame--and are afraid of--guns because they do not believe, maybe CANNOT believe, in the capacity for evil within human beings.  The modern progressive movement has grown out of the civil unrest of the 1960s, and the belief in the innate "goodness" of humankind has never changed.  It has changed in individuals, but not in the movement.  It is the same naivete the believes that under a Marxist system, a single genius with few material NEEDS, will be motivated to the peak of his ability without being compensated for it.  It is a desperate desire to make people live in peace, love and harmony; and a categorical denial of the opposite.  Such naive people do not want to accept the history of the human race, clawing its way to the top of the food chain by bloody violence, tribal conflict and millennia of war, genocide, slavery and murder.  It is easier for them to instill the evil into an idol of evil called the firearm.  That way they can continue to believe in the saintliness of humanity, and that it's just the devil inside the gun making people do evil things.

Some have a little less naivete, but they want to create a world without war, without violence, without murder.  But as I have written in the past, what causes all of this violence is the fact that we are mortal.  No revolution can change that.  Only evolution can.  As long as we are mortal, we will be subject to violent death, and as a result bad people will exploit that mortality for wealth, power or pleasure.  The hippies who have grown up to try "to make a world without sin," never understand this true root of violence.  They think the human race en masse can learn to "be good."  But, as Malcolm Reynolds says, "....they'll swing back to the belief that they can make people better.  I do not hold to that.  So no more running; I aim to misbehave!"

Inanimate objects do not have any intent, much less murderous intent, so stop ascribing such characteristics to them.  Guns are not possessed by demons, they do not have mentalities, emotions, psychological characteristics or willpower.  Humans have all of those.  And when those mentalities, emotions, psychological traits and intent turn to murder, the tools such Crazy people use to take life are abundant and plentiful.  The absence of any one of them is irrelevant for dedicated madmen.  We saw that on 9/11; in the absence of guns, the hijackers used utility knives and non-lethal pepper spray to turn airliners into missiles that killed three thousand people in under three hours.  What I am trying to teach good people, with the W.I.D.T.H.6. Principles, is this lesson that bad people know already: it is our intentions that make us dangerous, not the tools.  Once a person becomes the Weapon, and they understand that almost anything can be used as a tool of self-protection, then they become truly dangerous and able to protect themselves.  The same hammer they use to build a house, they can use as an amazingly effective tool of violence.  The glass they drink out of can become a deadly tool of violence very easily, once they understand being the Weapon.  Once they understand Initiative, how to gain and keep it, the way the Columbine Shooters did, then they understand how to win in any self-protection situation, by taking it away from the Bat-Shit Crazy person.  Once they understand how to cause Damage to the human body's critical systems, then they know how to use any tool to end a self-protection situation in two or three seconds.  Bad Guys understand all of this stuff either intuitively or through training in the correctional systems; delusional cowards worried about the "demonic possession" imbuing inanimate objects with murderous intent, or failed hippies desperately trying to change human nature, do not understand violence.  They don't understand the causes of violence.  They don't understand the utility of violence in self-protection.  They don't understand the irrelevance of banning certain things when trying to get bad people to stop behaving badly.  They absolutely do not understand the massive mental health crisis facing America.  They do not understand that people who are Bat-Shit Crazy, who want to hurt innocent people, always WILL unless they are stopped by equally violent people.  But we can't all be presidents with Secret Service Agents to step in front of the bullets when a John Hinckley nutjob shows up, so we have to get prepared to protect ourselves.

Like and Share!

Soule

Easy6

www.easy6training.com

W.I.D.T.H.6.

Weapon

Initiative

Damage

Torque

Head/Neck

Sixuational Awareness (Check your 6)

Also, please check out Colion Noir's debates with the anti-gun movement which inspired this blog.  Sorry about the language!

More on "Self-Defense Mindset"

So, after last week's blog and my facebook post about martial arts, I got some questions regarding what I meant by "self-defense mindset."  As always, I give credit to Tim Larkin and his amazing book When Violence is the Answer, in which he defines "self-defense" not as any actions we might do against another person, but as the legal determination from a criminal justice authority after the incident about whether it was justified or not.  By that definition, "self-defense" is the justified use of force against another person as determined by a cop, a prosecutor, a judge or a jury.  So, understanding what "self-defense" is and is not, then we have to understand that the things martial arts instructors and shooting instructors teach--the actions we train students to perform--are not self-defense, they are what many of us call "self-protection."

Now, last post when I was talking about the marketeers in the personal protection training business referring to the "self-defense mindset," I was really highlighting how many people misuse the term "self-defense."  The confusion I got was from people who still think this is about fighting.  I had a debate with my dad over the holiday about this very topic and if a bar fight can ever really be "self-defense."  My assertion is that nothing in a bar is worth fighting over, and if you can deescalate a situation by leaving, that is always the best option.  So, for me the "self-defense mindset" is not the same as it is for fighters, brawlers and martial artists.

Fighters, whether they be professionals, martial artists or just good brawlers, think of "self-defense" situations as any instance where somebody tries to put a hand on you.  That is their mindset.  I had a martial arts instructor tell me one time that he believes in teaching people lessons and if somebody touched him, they "earned a trip to a hospital."  He was an outstanding practitioner of his art and could easily snap people's limbs at will.  That's the problem.  A guy pushing you in a bar, or spilling a drink on you, or grabbing you because you spilled his drink (all three of which have happened to me at various times in my bar-going lifetime), does not constitute a "self-defense" situation to me, using Tim Larkin's definition of "self-defense," because drunk idiots are not Bad Guys.  Bad Guys is capitalized because it's a compound proper noun, not an adjective describing a noun.

And that is the fundamental difference between my concept of a "self-defense mindset" and the idea that some drunk idiot in a bar deserves a trip to a hospital because he took a handful of lapel and wrinkled your shirt.  My concept of "self-defense mindset" is killer instinct.  I don't mean that hyperbolically either, I mean literally killing people.  Now, when is that justified?  When would a criminal justice authority determine that gouging out somebody's eyes and snapping their neck would be an appropriate self-protection response?  The answer is when it really is a Bad Guy.  When the opponent is actually trying to do you grievous harm.  I can't justify blinding, paralyzing or killing a man who takes a wild-ass, drunken, hay-maker swing at me in a bar because I accidentally spilled his drink.  No criminal justice authority is going to say that was a justified use of force.

In my philosophy of violence, the "self-defense mindset" is the same whether you are armed with a Bradley Fighting Vehicle or your bare hands.  The tools are irrelevant because it is a life or death situation.  Which means, as I have written in the past, unarmed combat is still a struggle for life and death, it's just really uncomfortable combat.  The conclusion I draw from this philosophy, therefore, is as old as repeating firearms: Don't take a knife to a gunfight.  And, always take a gun to a knife fight!  Because there is no such thing as "cheating" in a real "self-defense" situation, where you are legally justified in killing a Bad Guy who is trying to rape, kill or maim you.  That is a combat situation, and in combat, whether it's between armies on a battlefield, fighter planes in the sky, or a rapist and a victim in an alley, cheating is winning!  In a real "self-defense" situation, where a Bad Guy is trying to do you serious harm, you would be perfectly justified in using a knife or a gun if you had it on you.  If you would not be justified in shooting or stabbing the other person, then that is not a real "self-defense" situation.  That is the difference between the "self-defense mindset" that a lot of martial arts schools teach and what I teach.

Which means, in answer to my student a few weeks ago, that unless we are talking about law school, there is no such thing as a "self-defense class."  There is all kinds of training that can teach self-protection skills.  This includes unarmed combat skills (like martial arts or boxing) and armed self-protection skills (like knife fighting and shooting and flying a fighter plane), but these are not "self-defense classes," because it's not about the stuff we do to the other person, it's about what a criminal justice authority says regarding the things we did to the other person after the fact.  If you're not justified in shooting or stabbing the guy, it's probably not clear-cut "self-defense."  And if it's ambiguous, like the drunk asshole in the bar, you can lose a lot of money in legal fees trying to prove that he was a Bad Guy and not just a guy acting badly.  So, I will tell you the exact opposite of what my old martial arts instructor said: Walk Away!  Tim Larkin says that if you can walk away, then it's not a real self-defense situation.  Guys behaving badly are not the same as Bad Guys.  Just because a drunk asshole pushes you in a bar, doesn't mean he deserves a trip to a hospital.  But a Bad Guy, pushing a woman into a dark alley to do terrible things to her, deserves a trip to the morgue instead of the hospital.  See the difference?  Which begs the question, then, why not just shoot him?  Don't worry about whether Technique 1 or Technique 27 would be better in that situation, just pull the trigger until you hear click.  Which is not to say you should not take unarmed combat training; I think everybody needs to have enough unarmed combat skills to get to their tools: "Fight to the gun and fight for the gun in order to fight with the gun!" But it's the tools that finish the job, and if you're not justified in using the tools, then you're just in a bar fight and that isn't a real "Self-Defense Situation" where the first officer on the scene will shake your hand and tell you, "good job" instead of arresting you.  

"Kicking a guys ass," is a fighting mentality.  That's how you should judge so-called "self-defense" training; are they teaching you to "kick a guy's ass," or kill a violent predator using whatever tools you have?  Good schools teach the second one as the "Self-Defense Mindset;" harnessing the survival instinct required to kill a Bad Guy and get back to your loved ones, regardless of whether you are armed with a gun, your bare hands or a rock.  The problem is that many of those schools teach their students to use good, lethal methods of self-protection against guys behaving badly instead of actual Bad Guys, and that mistake can land you in prison very quickly.  Just remember, if you wouldn't be justified in shooting the guy or stabbing him if you had a knife, then it's probably not a real "self-defense" situation.  That's just a fight, and whether you can "kick his ass," or he "kicks your ass," none of it is worth it if you can WALK AWAY.

Like and Share!

Soule

Easy 6

www.easy6training.com

Thoughts on "Self-Defense Classes"

I had a student ask for a recommendation for “self-defense classes” recently during my pistol class.  I didn’t know how to answer the request.  For one thing, she was learning armed self-protection, which is far more useful than unarmed self-protection.  Secondly, as I have said repeatedly, the only purpose of any unarmed system of self-protection should be to get armed.  And lastly, she was looking for a recommendation for martial arts; martial arts are not very good at teaching self-protection.  Some are good at teaching some physical skills that are somewhat useful in self-protection, but almost none of them teach the mentality necessary for effective self-protection. 

Having said that, I felt bad that I did not have a good answer for her.  I have said repeatedly that I think traditional martial arts are good for teaching young people kinesthetic sense, specifically how to use their bodies more fully in a self-protection scenario.  That should be the goal of studying martial arts, to learn how to use your various hard body parts, like knees, elbows, fists, heels, et cetera, as weapons.  There’s also utility in learning about Torque through some of the grappling arts, how to do throws, breaks, et cetera.  Be cautious with learning the “self-defense techniques” many martial arts teach.  A few are good, most are bad, some are patently idiotic. 

So, if the primary goal is to learn to use the hard parts of your body as weapons, the most useful art I would recommend is kickboxing.  Real kickboxing does not incorporate any “self-defense” techniques into its curriculum.  All it teaches is punching, kicking, knees and elbows.  That is a great foundation for learning the kinesthetic sense needed to use those parts of the body as weapons.  The problem with kickboxing is that it teaches "fighting," not self-protection.  But, having the flexibility, balance and physical intelligence to fight can easily be adapted into self-protection. 

The secondary goal of learning unarmed systems of combat is to develop skills inflicting what I call “Torque.” Torque is applying circular motion and utilizing gravity for throwing and breaking bones, which is best learned through grappling arts.  Without getting into the debate about whether Brazilian or Japanese Jujitsu is better, I would recommend either for learning throws and grappling, or even Aikido to learn throws!  I know a great deal of MMA practitioners are totally anti-Aikido as lacking practicality.  They aren’t wrong, but the holy grail of MMA, Brazilian Jujitsu, also lacks practicality in an actual self-defense situation.  All martial arts do.  However, any of the Jujitsu disciplines, or Aikido’s throwing techniques, can teach some important lessons in body mechanics that can be applied to actual self-protection.  Avoid martial arts that incorporate “self-defense techniques” into their grappling training (like Hapkido and Kempo/Kenpo, or “Ninjutsu”) as they train “bar room self-defense,” at best the techniques are effective and they get people arrested for hurting, maiming or killing drunk guys who are not actual threats, or more frequently, they train completely useless crap that gets the practitioners hurt, maimed or killed. 

So, if you can only study one, study kickboxing to learn how to strike with a variety of anatomical tools.  Once you feel comfortable with the striking, then incorporate a grappling art that teaches throws and breaks—from the standing position—and maybe some ground-escape techniques.  Once you have one or both sets of skills that martial arts can teach you, then you must learn what marketing people in my line of work call “the self-defense mindset.”  Good martial arts teach that mindset, but then they teach you to use it at the absolute wrong time, such as a bar-fight.  Bad martial arts don’t teach the mindset at all, they teach sports, competition or even just a useless art.  None of those are inherently bad, they just have nothing to do with defending yourself from a violent predator trying to maim, rape or kill you. 

So, what is “the self-defense mindset?”  Basically, it means that if you had a gun, you would use it, or use a knife.  It means you must mentally be willing to use your unarmed body as a tool of lethal force, just as if you had a gun or a knife.  It is not a bar fight, therefore, nor is it a competition ring where there are rules and trophies.  Which means that everything I have written above in this blog is pointless if you are smart, because unarmed combat is dumbass combat!  The first rule of unarmed combat is, always has been and always will be: DON’T GET INTO IT!  Arm yourself with something, and almost anything can be used as a weapon.  To me, the only valid purpose of unarmed combat is to fight to a point where you can arm yourself and get into armed combat.  Any martial art that teaches that mentality, is probably a pretty good one.  Just like shooting, which is, to me, the most important martial art, because it means I finish self-defense situations with just my trigger finger instead of my fists and feet.

Soule (Easy 6)

www.Easy6training.com