Self Defense article

[divemedic]

This article was in the Orlando Sentinel this morning. It talks about women taking a 2 day course for self defense that costs $250. The article claims that women learn to disarm an armed attacker in order to escape. The guy claims to be a ninjitsu expert.

When I read the article, it made me think that this guy must be a mall ninja, and I pointed out that a 120 pound unarmed woman versus a 180 pound armed man is going to have a bad day, especially if she thinks that she is going to learn to disarm him in a 2 day class.

I wonder why they never recommend a firearm and some training...

My girlfriend disagrees and thinks a woman can disarm a man with the right skills.

What say ye?

ETA- Mods, if this is in the wrong forum, please move it.

[jfrey123]

Female Friend of mine is taking a Self Defense course up at the community college we're attending. Guy is a ex PD for our area, certified in all kinds of good stuff.

While I'm not sure she's going to be able to take down a masked man during an attack, she's learning a lot of good things. She learned about situational awareness and learned she needs to stop walking around in condition white. She's learned the critical attack areas should she needs to put her hands on BG, and this has overall motivated her to become more self defense oriented. The phrase, "You might get only one chance to defend yourself" really got to her.

It's a good start. This girl tried to show me the "wrist lock" maneuver today up at a lake. She showed me how she learned to pull out of a BG grasp, grab his hand and thumb, twist it backwards, and take the guy down. Half way through the move it actually hurt a lot, and I found myself reversing it on her and put her in a full nelson. Her only response was, "Guess I need more training."

[redblair]

Way back in my youth I used to teach lifeguarding. One of the small, quiet students came up to me one day and said that she would have to miss the next week's class. I asked why and she said she was going out of the country for 10 days. I again asked why and she then informed me she was on the national Tae Kwon Do team and was going to the World Championship. I, being the foolish 20 year old, 220lbs boy that I was started to tease her saying she could have the week off it she could hit me. When she touched my nose with her fist without me even starting to move I realized that she could destroy me if she wanted.

So yes with the right training it could be done. But unless you're at that level, I'd really suggest that the woman have a gun.

Just my 2,

B

[Jason607]

Depends on just how good the attacker is with his weapon. Chances are.... your going to need more than a 2 day class to learn that kind of stuff.

Let her take the class. Get an airsoft gun and see what she has learned. Hell, I'd go to the instructor that is teaching the BS and challenge him. Lets see if he can get the gun out of my hand before I pop him. No, better yet for the instructor get a nice C02 pellet gun because that will really hurt and he deserves it for selling women a false sense of security. He's probally making a good living doing this crap.

They will want the test to be done on their terms. Remind them that you are the attacker, they have to respond on your terms. Of course you'll hear "let me grab your wrist first" or "stand like this" but remind them that doesn't happen in the real world.

I took martial arts for four years. My instructor told us that if someone had a knife or blunt weapon, get away as fast as you can. If some had a gun, give them what they want and try to get away. (drop your wallet and run like hell) which is the best option. Only "fight" if you can't get away.

[Justme]

My instructor told us that if someone had a knife or blunt weapon, get away as fast as you can. If some had a gun, give them what they want and try to get away. (drop your wallet and run like hell) which is the best option. Only "fight" if you can't get away

This is what I taught back in the early eighties. I also taught that if you get a chance smashing someone's foot or knee made it harder for them to chase you. Another point is that people with weapons don't pay attention, they think a weapon gives them some sort of mystical power, a fact that can make escape possible.

But this was taught over a several weeks total with the local tae kwon do club provinding volunteers to help teach, two days seems pretty inadequate

[pax]

My girlfriend disagrees and thinks a woman can disarm a man with the right skills.

I can.

Took a one-day class based on the Lindell disarms & retentions shortly after I first learned to shoot. I had my doubts at the time, but worked to learn the material. It wasn't natural for me; I am a klutz by nature and it just seemed very confusing and complicated at first. But people I trusted said that it would work, so I worked hard to learn it.

One day of training.

The friend who took the class with me worked with me a couple times over the next few months (the blind leading the blind - he'd had only that one-day class too). Then we took the free retake of the one-day class the following year (it was actually about 8 months later). To my shock, I remembered all of the skills and could use them on demand. Hmmm.

We kept practicing. Eventually I took a one-day advanced disarms/retention class which included Code Eagle guns. Since nearly everyone in the class was male, I did successfully take a gun away from a resisting male without getting shot. In fact, only one student in that class got shot, and he had noticeably telegraphed what he was about to do.

The Lindell techniques are based on leverage, not on strength or muscle power. While there are specific techniques for each type of attack, the underlying principle for all techniques is the same. Once you understand this governing principle, the techniques become very simple and intuitive -- allowing you to flow from one "technique" into another without much conscious thought. Until you understand the underlying principle, it's a confusing mess of separate, discrete "steps" that can easily be confused and befuddled.

Bottom line?

Yep, a single class is indeed enough for a woman to learn how to successfully take a gun away from a resisting male. However, it requires practice after the event or your money is wasted. And how much value you will get out of such a class depends upon your commitment to really understand what you are doing and why, and to practice afterward.

Would I try to grab a gun away from an attacker? That depends on the circumstance; it is very risky even when you know what you are doing. But I know in my guts that I am physically capable of getting the gun away if I need to and have no other viable choice.

pax

Edited to add: I would trust absolutely NO strength-based techniques, including Tae Kwon Do or any other "hard" style of martial arts, for this kind of thing. Hard styles are notsomuch for those at a size/weight/strength disadvantage. If the disarms class is based on strikes or blows, look elsewhere.

[Bud Helms]

This is probably better suited for Tactics & Training ... off we go.

[Justme]

Yep, a single class is indeed enough for a woman to learn how to successfully take a gun away from a resisting male.

With all due respect I disagree. That reminds me of something the accountants who worked for my mom used to say. They were young women in their twenties and worked in the accounting department for an Ohio prison. They would go through their orientation and actually believe they could protect themselves from career criminals. My mom got into quite an argument with the warden since she believed that a false sense of security could lead these young women into not being cautious enough and doing something stupid.

A one day class imparts just enough knowledge to give someone a mistaken sense of their own skills. Nice americans aren't used to being in violent confrontations, the BGs know this, and are used to being in violent situations.

[pax]

Justme ~

Please note all the caveats in my post above.

Obviously a single class is not going to fix a life-long mindset problem. It is, however, a start.

I read the OP's question as a physical abilities question: can a single class give a female the physical ability to get a gun away from a resisting male?

Based on my own experiences, the answer is yes -- with the above mentioned caveats of high interest and continuing practice. Knowledge of leverage-based principles can indeed enable her to get the gun out of someone else's hand.

If she chooses to be an aggressive fool once she's learned this stuff, becomes overconfident and prone to making stupid life choices, well, I guess that probably makes her about even with the oversized, aggressive, drunk males in their 20's duking it out in the college bars. Those guys are going to get hurt or killed if they act like fools, and so will she.

But if instead she takes the training as it is offered, as a method of physically defending herself when her situational awareness and commitment to avoidance has failed, understanding that there are no guarantees and that disarms are used only when she has no other viable choices and will be raped or killed if she doesn't Do Something, it's going to be a good thing she knows what to do and how to do it.

Of course, all the above goes a lot deeper than a one-day class, since it cuts into ongoing lifestyle choices and moral paradigms. But that's not what the original poster asked.

pax

PS Of course she could just shoot the guy. Unless, of course, she is both underage and lives on campus, making firearms ownership both illegal and difficult to conceal.

[evan1293]

Im very new to unarmed combatitives and disagree with me if you think Im wrong but it seems like a lot of self defense training out there is different from what really happens on the street. I see a lot of training being done that is very technical and very impressive to watch but appears to give people a false sense of security about their own skill. Real fights are more all out, in your face, tearing at your eyes/nose/mouth, getting choked. I haven't seen a whole lot of training (there is some but not a lot) that seems to train for this or fight in this fashion. I think its silly to think a 120lbs woman or man can go up against a larger opponent with 2 days of instruction and feel confident the outcome will be in their favor. When the training thats being conducted is purely memorizing technical manuevors, how can they expect from 48 hours of training to deploy these newly acquired skills in a high stress setting?

[9mmHP]

If its so effective then let's disarm the police and just teach them unarmed martial arts.

[Musketeer]

No.

I would contest that even many of the ladies who think they are "trained" are not prepared for a true violent encounter. I know the young ladies at my 5 year old's Tae Kwon Do school who have black belts look fit and can kick a board above my head but they also do not carry themselves with the assertiveness or instill in me the confidence that if they were confronted in an all out violent encounter that they would prevail.

50+ pounds of muscle, an ability to accept pain and no compunction about inflicting it makes a world of difference in a violent encounter. Ask those women if they would willingly gouge out an eye (to let alone know how to do so properly in a fight and not like some three stooges skit), would they be willing to break an opponents neck, would they if left no choice bite a chunk out of an attacker's face? Many criminals have aboslutely no problem inflicting life long debilitating injuries on you in a fight. Most honest citizens cannot imagine ever needing to let alone having the will to do so.

Remember The Shootist with John Wayne talking about being "willing" when it came to shooting a man. Most men weren't and would hessitate, he wouldn't hessitate. True street fighting is the same thing but much more personal that a gunshot at even arm's reach distance.

Even if a woman were to get that nifty disabling thumblock to work how long is she going to hold it for? There is no official yelling "STOP!" to call off the action. In an empty parking garage or alley there may be no help coming. Is that woman who managed that lock now going to truely disable her foe by breaking or dislocating something? Again, most will hessistate and then they will pay for it.

The assumption most people should when facing any determined attacker, especially one larger than them, is that they are in mortal peril and need to get away FAST. Fight with every bit of ruthelessness they can muster, inflict as much agony and cause as grievous a wound as possible. Do so and get out fast.

One day's training is not going to give any man or woman a real advantage over the professional street criminal unless it stresses the true brutality of the situation and the consequences of loosing. Most training does not do that and most people are ill equipped to comprehend it because of their civilized natures. If training is given that stresses the brutality of the situation though it might give enough edge to the defender to surprise the attacker and escape. Never think though that a course at the Y has equipped you to deal with criminals on equal terms.

[Justme]

Well said musketeer. I come from a large family of hillbilly redneck brawlers, and although I have 25 years of martial arts training and not a few violent encounters on my resume', I wouldn't take on one of my cousins or uncles for any amount of anything. When I went to college it amazed me how ignorant and naive most suburban kids are. They get in a "friendly" shoving match at a college bar and think they are "tuff". When you have watched from up close and personal while a 250 lb hillbilly headbutts a guy in the nose and then kicks him in that same nose at about the same time he hits the ground, you get a whole new appreciation for how "violent" violence is.

[pax]

The assumption most people should when facing any determined attacker, especially one larger than them, is that they are in mortal peril and need to get away FAST. Fight with every bit of ruthelessness they can muster, inflict as much agony and cause as grievous a wound as possible. Do so and get out fast.

Umm. That is the premise of the article that started this thread: that a woman faced with a violent attacker needs to get away as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

How do you suggest she does that, without first learning to do it?

pax

[pax]

If its so effective then let's disarm the police and just teach them unarmed martial arts.

The disarms and gun-retention techniques I learned were developed for the police, and are taught to thousands of police officers in academy training every day. It's not something you learn instead of carrying a gun. It is something you learn with the understanding that you may be attacked without having the time or ability to draw your own gun.

pax

[Musketeer]

My girlfriend disagrees and thinks a woman can disarm a man with the right skills.

What say ye?

That was what I was answerring and why I said no. If we are discussing a simple class given over 1 or 2 days to people who are really not in the mindset of "live or die" and do not have the brutality of such an encounter laid out to them then I stand by that answer.

I am not saying things about awareness and such are not worth learnign in a simple class if it is used. 95% of the people taking such courses are going to get more out of awareness training than in how to fight and disarm an attacker. I just think it folly to believe you can teach kittens to fight mountain lions.

[9mmHP]

Re: Pax

Then they (these women) should be taught that, instead of that they can use these techniques instead of a gun.

[Musketeer]

When you have watched from up close and personal while a 250 lb hillbilly headbutts a guy in the nose and then kicks him in that same nose at about the same time he hits the ground, you get a whole new appreciation for how "violent" violence is.

Yep, I have some nut job Irish muscle in the family tree and have seen some similar instances which I have been smart enough to avoid.

The most mainstream movie example of the difference between "normal civilized" people and such brawlers was the movie Casino. DiNero's character is sitting there wonderring how to respond to the insult given to him while with zero hessitation Pesci's character grabs the pen and proceeds to stab the guy in the through and nearly beat him to death. Most of the people in this world are "DiNeros" in the sense that they can't comprehend such unexpected and unrestrained violence. These people exists out there and any training in physical defense needs to stress that. Most do not.

[pax]

9mmHP ~

I agree that in a just world, an 18-year-old woman would be able to arm herself with a handgun, keep it in her dorm room on campus, and carry it with her during the day no matter where she goes -- to class or to work, to a restaurant or to the gym.

In the real world, in most (not all) states it is illegal for an 18 year old to possess a carry permit. In most (not all) states it is against the law for her to have a gun on campus no matter whether she is "of age" or not. Most if not all colleges have "policies" against effective defense tools on campus, too, so that she will be risking expulsion and the loss of all fees if she carries a gun on campus anyway -- even if she does not get thrown in jail for it.

That's the reality.

Now, given that reality and none other (not the fantasy world we all wish were true!), what would you suggest this 18 year old going off to college do about personal defense?

1) Learn nothing at all.

2) Take a basic, reality-based class in defense skills, increase her personal awareness, practice those skills, and learn more when she is able to do so.

pax

[BikerRN]

I learned "Retention and Disarming" at the Acedemy years ago and consider it an effective tool to have in my toolbox.

It is however not my only tool. I do not depend on any one thing, be it a firearm, 911, "techniques" or tactics. You have to combine it all together and make it work as a team so to speak.

Can a woman learn how to do this in a two day course, or in Pax's case, a one day course? YES! It can be learned, but needs more time IMHO to be "internalized". You cannot be thinking about what you are going to do, you just have to DO IT!

Biker

[Samurai]

I simply cannot believe some of the 1950's-era, Leave-it-to-Beaver, male-chauvinistic garbage I'm reading here!

Is a woman strong enough to take a gun away from a man? Of COURSE she is! What kind of silly question is that?!?

Anyone who knows anything about martial arts knows that it ISN'T about strength. It's about leverage, and about putting the right amount of weight on the right places on the body. A young CHILD can be taught to find the weak points on an arm joint, the nerve points that cause the grip to relax, and the right way to lean into a grapple such that the majority of the child's body weight is focused onto a weak part of the attacker's arm. ANYBODY can learn to do this, male or female, old or young!

I come from a large family of hillbilly redneck brawlers, and although I have 25 years of martial arts training and not a few violent encounters on my resume', I wouldn't take on one of my cousins or uncles for any amount of anything.

Justme, for some reason, I'm getting a disconnect, here. You have 25 years of martial arts training, and you don't believe that a grown woman has enough body weight to pop a wrist? Come on, man! What, do you not believe that a woman can train up? Or, do they just not absorb the knowledge as fast as men do? Perhaps, are all the disarms that you know strength-dependent? What POSSIBLE justification do you have for saying that women can't learn to do this stuff?

Even if a woman were to get that nifty disabling thumblock to work how long is she going to hold it for? There is no official yelling "STOP!" to call off the action.

Wow, Musketeer. Just... WOW! So, a woman might actually be quick enough to put a "thumblock" (What-da-heck is a "thumblock"?...) on a man, but that doesn't matter, because she's not strong enough to actually disable his hand? Is that what you're saying? It sounds to me like you don't know much about human physiology. You might want to actually try attending one of these classes, before you start publicly downplaying the ability of women as a whole to perform the techniques. Just a suggestion...

Guys. Come on, here! We've GOT to do better than this! We're supposed to be authorities on the right to self-defense! A woman can't learn to disarm a man, because "it's too violent"?!?

I expected a little more from this group.:barf:

[Justme]

Samurai, I was answering the question as posed. I don't believe a 250lb man could learn enough to be effective at disarming someone in such a situation either.

Some things I have learned over the years:
1. - Training and practice can go a long way toward addressing the imbalance between larger and smaller people, but size is still a disadvantage

2. - All other things being equal a bigger person, whether male or female, has an advantage. (I have aunts I wouldn't want to tangle with either) It's not about the sex of the person involved, it's about muscle mass and strength.

3. - Nothing ever happens as predicted or planned.

4. - 90+% of the time the person who strikes the first clean blow wins the brawl. I taught young women how to land a headbutt to the nose or a spike heel to the top of the foot, both of which can be effective fight stoppers. I also taught that the most effective defense against a firearm is prayer.

5. - Martial arts are overrated by most people. I have seen boxers win tae kwon do tourneys after a couple of weeks of training. My own instructer had a boxing bronze medal from the olympics. I would put the average semi-pro boxer up against the average suburban black belt any day.

6. - People who have never been in a street fight or bar brawl have no clue just how violent and sudden they really are. It's not like TV or movies, if you can last more than 3 or 4 seconds you are lucky.

Finally, interpersonal communication is under-rated by most people. A young woman used to being assertive and verbal should try to keep the conflict in that realm, a realm where she may well have more experience than the BG. As soon as she entires the BG's world she loses.,

[Musketeer]

Samurai, sorry you disagree but I stand by my assertion, the average woman (or man for that matter) is completely ill equipped with regards to skill and determination let alone physiology to deal with the average physically violent criminal. No one or two day course is going to change that. Unarmed fight training is not going to change that unless it is intensive and carried on for years. If someone with such dedication takes courses in how to disarm a criminal targetted at those with a "profesional" interest then they can certainly benifit. The benifit to the casual person interested in self protection and simply taking a course at a local Y or gym though is next to nil and the time far better spent on teaching awareness techniques.

The criminal is almost always going to pick on someone who is at a physical disadvantage. This is often a woman, because on average they are smaller than men, but could also be a smaller man (I am only 5'4" and a prime target for a strongarm type criminal). Physically you are going to be outclassed because the criminal will almost always target someone they think they can take. Rather than going hand to hand with such a criminal something like pepperspray or a gun should be used. If nothing is available to you respond as brutally and explosively as possible and use any opportunity to escape because the longer it goes the worse you will fare.

I am not going to say the training is useless. If it helps one person it is better than nothing. Teaching disarmiong techniques to casual folks who are not really going to practice this intensely and repeatedly does very little good and if you look at the lost opportunity to give them real training in an effective defense it is a less effective use of their time. The training mentioned in the OP though should have included the use of a firearm in personal defense. Most people who get a simple day or two training and think they can now disarm their attacker are going to suffer for it.

So, a woman might actually be quick enough to put a "thumblock" (What-da-heck is a "thumblock"?...) on a man, but that doesn't matter, because she's not strong enough to actually disable his hand? Is that what you're saying?

No, I am not saying it is because she is not strong enough. I am saying it is because she is not brutal enough. Most civilized people will hessitate before kicking in a persons genitals or face when they are down, gouging eyes, dislocating joints or breaking limbs. Criminals won't.

[Deaf Smith]

I've been in the martial arts for something like 30 plus years. Taught quite a few people. Most people that come to learn self defense think one or two hours is gonna make a difference.

It will as for knowlege of techniques, but as for ingraining the skills so they can use them later... no. That takes time and lots of practice, both at the place of training and at home.

It's nice they actually get out to learn some, but it really needs to be learned in High School, like a PE class, and you have a full semester of training (but we know the liberals would never do that.)

[Lurper]

Generally, I think the value of such classes is questionable at best. To think that one or two classes of technique and practice would enable anyone (woman or man) to effectively disarm someone in a real life situation is fantasy.

Pax is the exception to the rule, because she is smart enough to realize that to reach proficiency, you must not only know the technique but practice it on a regular basis. Most students don't.


I don't see anything sexist or unrealistic about the statement that taking a "Self Defense" class won't give a woman the ability to disarm an attacker. It won't without diligence and discipline on the part of the student.