In making the distinction between competition and destruction, between an agreed-upon contest and killing, I've found that some people are still having a hard time seeing the stark differences between the two.

A common comment I hear from competitors (whether in boxing, karate or mixed martial arts) is that they do indeed 'step into the ring to destroy their opponent.'

While I do not doubt their drive or sincerity in that matter, I do think we're suffering from a semantic miscommunication here: they are using the word 'destroy' metaphorically, not literally.

To literally destroy a human being, you kill them. To metaphorically destroy a human being you beat them, best them, dominate them in such a way that the contest appears embarrassingly one-sided.

This metaphoric/literal confusion arises from the idea that killing is just 'competition without rules'. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Let's be clear about something: when someone is busy trying to murder you, your best bet for survival is to kill a murderer. If that sounds harsh because all the glittery sugar-coating and padding has been stripped off of it, then so be it. That's what we're really up to when we stop pussy-footing around the issue.

We're not talking about 'self-defense' or even 'fighting'--we're talking about situations where the untrained would wish for a gun so they could empty the clip into the other guy. At the end of the day what we do is our damnedest to give you the next best thing to a loaded gun.

Killing is no more just 'competition without rules' than competition is just 'killing with rules'.

On the surface they can appear similar--a punch is a punch, after all--but the motivations, goals and end results couldn't be further apart.

Digging a man's eye out of his thrashing, screaming skull is a very different thing from trying to knock someone out. Crushing a throat is not the same as scoring points. Tearing out a knee is not the same as an agonizing submission hold.

I do not intend this to disparage competitors--believe me when I say I would not like to end up in the ring with you as I lack both the skills and conditioning required to compete--but rather the goal here is to get your head focused on what matters in violence.

If you compete with a murderer and he 'wins', you die. If your life is at stake you literally cannot afford to compete. You only ever want to compete with other competitors, in the ring. In violence you have to literally destroy--rupture the eyeball, crush the throat, tear out the knee--so he can't function normally.

You deny him the opportunity to compete with you when you cause the first real injury.

Just as no sane person would dream of killing in competition, in violence you maximize your chances for survival by keeping the competition out of the killing.

Chris Ranck-Buhr