When you think of “self-defense” or “self-protection”, what do you see?
I see nothing.
Okay, maybe that’s a little too harsh, too fast.
If I try really hard to cut through the ambiguous fog of those phrases, I can almost see — at best — someone getting attacked, desperately trying to get away, maybe getting backed into a corner. Flailing like a terrified animal.
At worst I see someone curled up in a ball on the ground.
That’s what “self-defense” means to me. And that’s why I won’t teach, practice or do it.
I’m only ever interested in hurting people.
The term “self-defense” has no operational value. It does not paint a picture of me doing anything of consequence — it suggests passivity, being acted upon by someone else, moving second and hoping for the best. Rather than getting anything done.
This really hit home while I was doing some reading on combat handgunning. I grew tired of the constant, politically correct phraseology of “self-defense”, “self-protection” and “home defense”. One actually has to dig deep to find any reference to killing people with bullets. And here I always assumed that’s what guns were for — a tool to enable a person to kill another without undue effort or training.
Of course, that’s the elephant in the middle of the room that we talk around using sanitized codewords. Why can’t we just call it like it is?
Because every use of violence is a crime.
If someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night and comes after you and your family — threatening or outright harming you or others — and you shoot/stab/beat him to death, you have committed, at the very least, manslaughter.
It is then up to the district attorney to look at the circumstances surrounding the case and decide whether it was okay for you to commit that crime or not. This is where the legal definition of self-defense comes in.
Unless you’re studying for the bar, the term is meaningless. Slapping “self-defense” on physical training for combat or for firearms use is just society’s way of really, really hoping you’ll wait your turn and go second like polite, civilized folk do…
…and not go around terrorizing or hunting people.
Just to be clear: In pure legal terms, I will only use my training when my life or the lives of others are in danger, just as I would only find it necessary to shoot somebody under identical circumstances.
While this is the very definition of legal self-defense, I would not use that term to describe my practice.
When I go to the range or the countryside I practice marksmanship because that’s how you kill someone with a gun. When I hit the mats I practice hurting (and, yes, killing) people with fists, boots, sticks and knives.
“Self-defense” and it’s wishy-washy, go-second connotations do not figure into the physical execution. While it may describe the situation under which such behavior may be deemed acceptable by the legal system, it is a poor descriptor of the act itself:
…Hurting people.
“Self-defense” is a marketing term — because it’s what we’ve all been told is acceptable. Nobody searches for “how to use violence” because it’s assumed that only the “bad guys” use violence — the rest of us are stuck with self-defense.
It is far more effective for training to peel all the padding off the hard corners and make the accepted generalities specific.
Instead of a hopeful “for serious self-defense, go for the eyes” we get specific on the mechanical process of gouging an eyeball out of a skull. How to get it done, how to get it right, the resulting injury and associated disability, and how to practice to make that injury the most likely outcome.
While I would advocate that you only use the information we train in serious life-or-death situations — textbook self-defense scenarios — you should find the term itself to be insufficient to describe your actual training and practice. I don’t teach people self-defense — I teach them how to hurt people.
I’ve never met anyone in a social context who was comfortable with the idea of my profession as “teaching people how to use violence as a survival tool” — they will always try to get me to backtrack, saying “You mean you’re a self-defense instructor.”
Violence is the dirty, bad word and self-defense is the comforting term. (Serial killers, notorious for their terrible violence, are not known for self-defensing people to death.)
And therein lies our issue of contention: violence — hurting people — is precisely what the winners are famous for doing.
I want to practice winning in violent conflict, not training for second place.
Second place, as we all know, is first loser…
…and, in life-or-death violence, the losers… are usually dead.
[Read Part 2, Self-Defense Is a Sham - Further Thoughts]
–Chris Ranck-Buhr
By the way, when I go the countryside or range I am practicing combat handgunning, shotgunning etc. If I keep practicing , one day I hope to be out there practicing marksmanship.
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
But we would be foolish to disregard the term entirely. The reality is that the one who “goes-first” is the murderer; the one who goes-second stays out of jail.
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Richard, I would like you to memorize the following, and make it your mantra:
” I WOULD RATHER BE JUDGED BY 12 PEOPLE, THAN CARRIED BY 6 PEOPLE.”
You should also note, there have been plenty of court cases where a victim has “struck first” or “fired first” and still went on to prove in court that he would have died if he had waited. The verdict can still be self-defense.
Reply to comment
“The reason that the “one that goes second stays out of jail” IS BECAUSE HE IS DEAD !”
“if you wait to react you become the victim.”
Is this really true? Tell me please, when will you decide to take action? when you feel threatened? like how, a look? a body posture? of course not! You will feel threatened when you are attacked. And no matter what TFT says, this is the reality of living in civilization.
Reply to comment
I would rather be fully aware of my surroundings and follow the Color Code of Awareness. As soon as I feel that my life is in danger then I act quickly and decisively. Strike an available target with all the power my bodyweight can generate, rotae through the target to maximize the injury and move on to the next target until I feel the threat is eliminated.
As far as “self-defense” is concerned, that is what my Attorney does. He “defends” my “self” if and when I have to be defended in the legal system. That is why I pay him his retainer and he is my first call.
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Funny I thought the one that goes_second is DEAD, I would rather go first and take my chances with the “jury” than end up DEAD with no chance
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Psychologically, for the person that has never experienced violence, this term will likely help him/her make the mental shift from ‘ward him off’ to ‘inflict violence’. It is more socially acceptable for the agressee to act violently toward the aggressor because he is countering violence with the only tool he can use to survive, violence.
I circle around and to repeat, counter-violence training is a better ***sanitized*** term to describe what you do. However, ‘train to inflict violence’ is a better description, if you don’t mind the elephant in the middle of the room.
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Pro-actively disarming the threat?
When anything can be a weapon, the only real defense is to disable the aggressor. Very simple to understand, but not civil in any way. That’s one of societies problems, it’s uncivil to even talk about uncivil things. Sh!t happens though, so for a person to survive, they need to be both risk averse, and capable of dealing with violence decisively.
Reply to comment
TFT trains people for better performance in the event the first behavior is asocial, the response should end it. This is of course appropriate for asocial behavior, i.e. it should be ended.
If we could live in the “world of should” then no preparation would be needed. I live in the real world and prepare for enjoying it to its fullest – messy as it is. I am loved, I return it with earnest and will always try to share it with many more, eventhough the asocial are trying to defeat my love. I will punish that and carry on, my loved ones need me, this is why I lay plans and prepare.
If you are social, or even antisocial at times you should prepare and act when need appropriate without hesitation. And the world will be a better place.
Sincerely,
God Loving, People Loving Family Guy.
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
I might be rolling around the SHOT Show. But just send us your proposal. Email is [email protected]
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
As such, it’s popular because the company doesn’t have to return products to their warehouse. It cuts down on costs.
It’s also important for people to understand that self defense is an affirmative defense. Basically you are telling the police “I plead guilty, but there were extenuating circumstances”.
It’s also a poisoned well, in that every two pint bar brawler and street thug has claimed “self defense” for a fight.
Reply to comment
1. – he attacked me, 2. I’ll sign a complaint, 3. there’s the evidence, 4. I need to talk to my lawyer, I do not consent to any search.
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
I recall waking up in Iraq with a man on my back. I immediately flipped him over my head and onto his. There was another in front of me whom I kicked straight into his ballistic plate knocking him on his back. At that point the remaining 3 started talking to me. They told me they were my comrades, that I was hurt and that they were afraid for my safety and wanted to help. I realized they were not a threat and “conditioned down” eventually handing over my rifle, pistol and grenades and getting in the ambulance. Two things kept that from becoming a catastrophe. 1- My training, a prisoner is worth 20 enemy dead, and don’t kill it if it isn’t a real threat. As you know- nobody can ever order anybody not to defend their own life, even in the military. 2- Their professionalism and genuine concern for a comrade in arms. Self Defense is reality, but as you point out when people teach it as “self defense” as watered down kick the knee happy ass crap, they lose perspective that it is survival people actually need to learn. Like the SAS puts it: “Rule number 1 is fasten your f***ing seat belt”. Self restraint can be quite the force multiplier when it comes to survival.
Reply to comment
Thanks for taking the time to post your thought-provoking comments. I’ll do what I can to clarify where we’re coming from:
“Self Defense isn’t BS, it is the line we use to say ‘you are a wolf, you are a sheep, or you are a sheepdog’ (Thanks LtCol Grossman). To deny that is to treat the world like an inmate- ‘Better tried by 12 than carried by 6′. ”
“Not understanding the moral component to the professional utilization of force can have long term ramifications, legally, physically, and mentally.
Agreed, and this is why, at the end of every seminar, we talk very seriously about the need for every client to sit down and think about what they’re willing (or not) to do to survive, based on the complex matrix of their own experience, moral considerations and the expectations of society. We also encourage them to seek out information along those lines from those who put their efforts into puzzling through and clarifying those problems.
The term only has value to describe the decision process that goes into choosing whether or not to hurt people — it’s useless for describing the physical act of violence itself. The problem is that the popular understanding of the term smears the two into a single, muddy mass.
I admit to monkeying around with semantics here — but that’s only because the use of the term to describe physical action degrades performance.
As I noted in my original post, I have thought long and hard about this for myself and will only use what I know when I feel there is no other alternative and that grievous bodily harm or death may be the result of inaction — the very legal and moral definitions of self-defense — but I find the term to be at odds with actual physical practice.
“Shrink your perspective and it will be easier to point your moral compass: If we were in a group of 8, and we wake up in the morning and the barracks is covered with blood, one member is dead and one has a bloody blade, do you think self defense is BS? Or do you want to know if he (with the blade) is a threat to you? Or will you simply and instantly decide to sweep him to the deck and skull stomp him until you strike CSF?”
What we teach is not useful beyond hurting people. It’s for when all other options are denied you — like communication or escape. It’s for when if you had a gun you’d feel comfortable emptying it into his center of mass, but don’t happen to have one available.
In your example above the obvious starting point is to talk to the man with the knife, as you note, to figure out if he’s a threat.
“I recall waking up in Iraq with a man on my back. I immediately flipped him over my head and onto his. There was another in front of me whom I kicked straight into his ballistic plate knocking him on his back. At that point the remaining 3 started talking to me. They told me they were my comrades, that I was hurt and that they were afraid for my safety and wanted to help. I realized they were not a threat and “conditioned down” eventually handing over my rifle, pistol and grenades and getting in the ambulance. Two things kept that from becoming a catastrophe. 1- My training, a prisoner is worth 20 enemy dead, and don’t kill it if it isn’t a real threat. As you know- nobody can ever order anybody not to defend their own life, even in the military. 2- Their professionalism and genuine concern for a comrade in arms. Self Defense is reality, but as you point out when people teach it as “self defense” as watered down kick the knee happy ass crap, they lose perspective that it is survival people actually need to learn. Like the SAS puts it: “Rule number 1 is fasten your f***ing seat belt”. Self restraint can be quite the force multiplier when it comes to survival.”
We have had clients use this information in situations where killing the other man would have been legally defensible (faced with deadly weapons in attempted murder, etc.), but they were able to end the situation in their favor, through serial injury, recognize that the other person was nonfunctional and choose to stop short of killing them.
This is where the real power of the training is: the ability to choose what kinds of injuries to inflict, recognize success, and stop once you’ve got it.
It’s not knee-jerk, “hair-trigger assassin” conditioning — it’s the ability to make decisions based on the situation as it develops, rather than executing conditioned responses. Our goal in training is to give the client the tools to put themselves into the position from which they can make decisions, as you did in your own experience.
Again, thanks for your comments — hopefully I’ve shed some light on our approach. We do our best to be reasonable in an unreasonable endeavor…
Reply to comment
Don’t get me wrong, from contracting to family safety I would recommend your courses. But the term Self Defense is something you ought credit as the primary cause for killing or crippling another. I fully agree that self defense is not “techniques”, because it is a moral imperative. Even a rabbit will gut a dog given the opportunity.
Reply to comment
Most martial artists spend 60 % of their time learning to “block.” How do you convince them that blocking doesn’t work, and it only insures that they will remain the victim. How do you convince someone that you shouldn’t even look at yourself as the “good guy?” How do you convince someone that pre-emptive striking is the right thing to do ?
My old karate instructor, who is now a 10 Degree Black Belt
once told the class ” the ideal way to win a fight is with only blocks. Each block will do some damage, and eventually the “bad guy” will wear himself out.” I can’t make up something that stupid, but that’s what he said !
I think that you or Tim could give someone a 1 hour private lesson and make them way more deadly then this “Grand Master” who has been involved in the martial arts for over 50 years. But there is one thing that he can do that you can’t. IF he can get the “bad guy” to stand perfectly still for about 10 seconds, and he gets to take 3 tries, he can hit the “bad guy” with a “death touch” that will make the bad guy magically drop over dead 5 days later,for no apparent reason. All his students aspire to be as good as him!
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
You haven’t met me, and I agree with you. When violence is needed, anything but being very good at doing violence is a weak substitute. It’s physically moderately easy, but psychologically very difficult to do (for most civilized people), to deliberately and systematically inflict serious harm on someone. I think it’s a useful service to teach people how to do it well when it’s needed and especially teach them how to desensitize themselves from the hesitation to use the tools of violence when they are needed.
I also agree that this is not what most people mean by “self-defense.” We should not pretend that we can train at “self-defense techniques” to become effective at violence.
I’ll add that I think there is also a legitimate and important use for scenario simulation training that teaches people how to tell more quickly and accurately _when_ violence is really needed, and training that gives a broader range of skills and strategies for situations that _don’t_ call for direct violence.
I suggest that some of what people teach as “self-defense” could easily fit into that sort of category. Personally, from my own life experience, I don’t think it’s realistic to assume either that we don’t need those other skills and strategies, that they are easy or natural to acquire, or that we will automatically know how to distinguish situations that require violence and those that don’t.
I don’t think I’m diverging too far so far with what I read in the TFT articles. Or am I?
So the point I want to add here is that if one agrees that there are situations where other strategies are called for, how does the trainee learn to distinguish them and apply the other solutions, that is, if they are exclusively learning to do violence in isolation? They may well be learning when to recognize cues for when they need to act from the training (?) Are they also learning when the need for violence is misleading and when it makes sense to de-escalate?
I’m thinking that it would be useful to combine TFT-style training with scenario drills that sometimes call for making rapid decisions between violence and other kinds of responses. Is that part of the training as well? If not, how would it be incorporated?
TFT articles so often seem to me to put the philosophy of TFT in terms of violence or nothing as part of their rhetorical focus, perhaps to understandably distinguish them from other approaches. Still, I think a lot of us would find it useful to develop a range of responses (and decision skills between them).
Thanks for providing a unique and useful service with these trainings and articles.
kind regards,
Todd
Reply to comment
Of course the best defense is a good offense. We have used the term self-offense for many years in our “Defensive Tactics” teaching. Utilizing the benefit of a preemptive strike when an assailant way threat has been presented is the only right choice. Having investigated officer involve shootings, assaults and numerous other crimes of violence as well as my own applications of force there is no reason to wait politely and allow the subject to get the upper hand.
Keep up the good work.
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
I am writing a novel about a guy that on the first write, was an expert in Karate, but then I found your concept, bought the books and DVDs, and then had to change his tactics to have him destroy the bad guys with a lot of very strong violence before they could hurt him.
In the various confrontations he breaks legs, arms and places his fingers deep into the bad guy’s eye. He also gets a chance to shoot some people. It was also nice for a local MMA teacher with unregular training to set up some of his students for a real life break down of five bad guys all at once.
It is tough to write, but once I get the words together it makes sense. And it is really fun.
Thanks for your technique.
Roger D
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
doing it, in order to accomplish it successfully. Keep in mind the end result you want … to incapacitate via injury. In the courtroom… why … in order to defend my life or anothers life!
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
For our purposes and training we’re only interested in the personal scale.
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
In Colorado and in other states with Make My Day laws, no criminal or civil penalty can attach if you reasonably believe that someone has entered your home to commit a felony and intends to use violence to further that aim, and you use even lethal violence in response.
Likewise, there is no rule that self-defense means that you must strike second. The universal rule is that you can use necessary force to defend yourself against a credible threat of imminent serious bodily harm or death to yourself or someone around you. Once you face something that a reasonable person would regard as a serious threat, you may strike first if you wish. There are miscellaneous state-by-state variations on the rule such as whether you must first try to escape or retreat if such escape/retreat is feasible, but the basic rule applies everywhere.
You can call it what you want, but you teach self defense. You teach how to *respond* to the threat of imminent violence. You’ve never publicly advocated using these skills to respond to less than asocial violence, and you’ve never advocated using them to respond to violence that you anticipate happening next month or other situations in which violence is not imminent. By “respond”, I do not mean that you strike second; clearly, you teach people to respond to the threat rather than to an act and inflict the first injury. However, you are not teaching people to initiate aggression but rather how to defend against aggression that others bring. That’s defending oneself; that’s self defense.
I understand why you’re not crazy about describing what you do as self-defense because you don’t want to be in with the weaker elements of that crowd. But you do what you do. You teach people how to defend themselves against threats of violence. You do not teach them to act in the absence of threat, and, although the things that you do can be used that way, you don’t teach them to go out and create a threat where none existed before. You teach self defense.
Reply to comment
On the operational side:
What I teach is technical information on how to hurt people.
When people might find the motivation or necessity to use that information — and whether or not that use will be seen as appropriate and excusable by society — is separate from the technical information itself. That is the purview of the law, morality and societal norms.
Why a bullet was fired and whether or not it was the “right” thing to do has no bearing on marksmanship, the mechanical workings of the gun, how the bullet will interact with human tissue and the physical results of that work.
I always assumed (stupidly, yes) that sane and social people would have an innate understanding of when this information would be appropriate and and when it would not — that there would be a natural disinclination toward indiscriminate use in situations where such things make no sense (gouging an eye over a parking space, say). Of course, I was wrong and the majority of the questions we receive are all about when to pull the trigger and the possible social effects down the line. So we end up talking about that a lot.
My biggest issue with the term “self-defense” is what it does operationally. If you take two people and tell one to “defend himself” and the other to “hurt the man” they will move and behave differently based on the language used to describe the act.
The “defender” will try to keep distance, move hesitantly, and be preoccupied with what the other guy is doing.
The one told to “hurt the man” will close distance and get to work.
The bottom line is that “self-defense” is only useful in the social realm — for legal, moral and marketing issues. It’s useless, and even detrimental, in the operational realm.
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
“Attacking is a winners attitude.”
That’s it in a nutshell — you got it. Glad to see the training made a difference for you!
“And besides, I love the sound of falling bodies.”
Beats the hell out of the alternative, and is it’s own reward. It becomes a positive feedback loop in training — replace the attitude of dread & “What’s he going to do to me?” with relish and the attitude of “Here’s what I’m doing to him.” and everything works better, increasing your confidence which increases your ability to function operationally… and so on in an upward spiral.
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
When one is faced with such compelling logic, what can anyone say? except: Thank you very much! as usual.
With best regards and wishes
Reply to comment
And it seems [to me] such a challenge [marketing, copywriting, and otherwise] to put these terms, positions, and succinct differences all in ‘language’ where people ‘get it.’
This seems to be the overriding feeling I get each time you so eloquently and accurately post your thoughts here. For me it hits home immediately, and is so simple to understand. I hope it is for others in 2011 who are not already involved with TFT…
Stay safe and Blessed in 2011, TFT warriors!
Reply to comment
Your posts raise some very serious issues that are food for thought. Keep it up.
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
This is a wonderful article! I really enjoy the work that you guys do at TFT. Keep sharing the wisdom brother.
Thanks and God Bless…
Reply to comment
To my mind, TFT really isn’t even combat science or art. The science and the art of TFT is with the TFT Master Instructors and those who create TFT knowledge products and conduct live training courses and so on. These great guys are the ones who put it all together in the lab for us. By the time those experiments get to me, the user, the consumer, if you will, it is a full-blown technology. TFT provides the technology needed for producing a non-functional person(s) with your bare hands. That is the end goal of everything in violence. Injury. That lump of chemicals that used to be a functioning person lying on the ground, no longer able to function. That is what you’ll need to be successful in violence. Nothing else will do. If you need to take a screw out of the wall, you get some screwdriver technology to get that job done. If you need to pound a nail, you get some hammer technology to get that job done. If you want to play tiddlywinks and get some repetetive conditioning done, get some martial arts technology under your belt; but if you need to produce a man with a missing eyeball, who is writhing on the ground begging you not to kill him after he just snuck up on you, put a gun to your face and told you, “Get in the car”… why, you’ll want to get some Target-Focus Training technology to get that job done. TFT is a tool that actually works right now, right out of the box. All you will need do is open the box and absorb the information in order to make it work for you. It’s not something everyone is hoping might get where it’s going someday – rather it’s already here. Sure, training methodology and the science and art of TFT will become even more refined and simpler to learn as the technologists advance in the coming years, but you don’t have to wait for any of that. It’s simple and easy enough to learn just as it is. TFT is the past, present and future of violence technology. It works and it is without perceivable limits. Take it. It’s yours. It’s that simple.
Or you can keep fiddling around with the latest martial arts gimmick or the latest self-defense thing and see where that takes you. But why bother? TFT has taken all the mystery out of violence technology, swept up the mats for proper training and are devoted to getting the tool to those who need it most—YOU and YOUR LOVED ONES. The rest is up to you.
TFT violence technology is also eraser technology. It can be used not only to effectively erase those who are trying to kill you, but it also erases any doubt in your mind about whether or not you can effectively handle violence. And that, my friend, is the real killer. Not some big goon who wants to do you in, but YOU and your doubt, or self-doubt, to be more precise. The first bully you saw or dealt with on the playground as a child may have left you doubting yourself and helpless in the face of violence since that day. You don’t need to carry that doubt with you anymore. Get some TFT and erase it—and feel good about that for a change! Yes, it’s that simple.
Reply to comment
Interesting reading, however, I do not share your view of the term “self-defense” to mean actions which are “wishy-washy”, a “marketing term”, or does the term “self-defense” imply that anyone needs to apologize for having to respond to an attack by a perpetrator.
In any conflict, there will always be an instigator, or challenger, and a victim (defender) — those having to react. This is obviously depicted in the various sports known the world over, meaning, there is a tradeoff between offensive and defensive postures — often called by their very roles such as “offensive end” and “defensive end” or “offensive lineman” and “defensive lineman”, in boxing, “offensive strikes and “defensive maneuvers”, etc.
There are many words, terms, and expressions in the English language which offer multiple meanings and have various intended definitions even though the exact words are not precise. “Self-defense” is commonly used to describe protecting oneself or others at a time when some outside force or perpetrator is showing, or has shown, intent to threaten or inflict bodily harm to others. “Self-defense” commonly refers to actions of people who have become victims by the very fact they are not the perpetrators or attackers. Just because someone is attacked should never imply that they are “a loser” or any less respectable just because they are going about their lives without threatening others. True, however, is the reality that any victim is at the mercy of a perpetrator’s timing, which, unfortunately, will remain a universal truism. “Terrorism” is one such example of action causing reaction.
Please know I greatly appreciate your intended honesty of expression as well as to be ready to respond in an immediate and appropriate manner as to gain advantage of any precarious situation. For this reason, it is not my intent to express any disrespect for your reflections concerning the term, “self-defense”, by your own interpretation. I would hope, however, that we all keep a balanced perspective when using the intended meanings as not to suggest that the term “self-defense” should ever become a substitute description for the perpetrator rather than the victim, or the actions, thereof. If we, as “practitioners of self-defense” become known as “practitioners of aggression”, we will have lost our battles far before ever having the chance to win them.
With all due respect, thank you for the opportunity to voice my commentary.
Reply to comment
When I think of “protecting myself” I see blocking, backing, and maybe getting a shot in.
When I think of using the tool of violence when it’s the only answer I see bones breaking and bodies hitting the ground.
I choose violence over self-defense.
Reply to comment
Violence, Michael, by nature of its term, does not suggest any planned response, but rather suggests acts of uncontrolled anger, panic, a mob-like “free-for-all” mentality, — as you say, “blocking, backing,” etc… Mr. Larkin’s intent, as I understand it, is for us all to have plans of action in mind (the reason for his coursework) necessary to stop and remove any threat concerning our adversary, violent action as being one of our tools. Please note, however, his report was entitled “Self Defense Report #6″, not “Violent Report #6″.
From what little I’ve read about Mr. Larkin’s training, I’m willing to bet he would advocate using persuasion as one of the mind’s tools of self-defense if it suited the circumstances. In his “Self Defense Report #6″, he refers to the fact that it is necessary to instinctively choose the type of action that is suitable – which is the very purpose of his training!
I would hope, Michael, that you may want to reconsider your view since there are many times that lives have been saved by out-thinking an adversary using brain skills and communication as a means of defense to save lives in all sorts of conflicts, not to mention wars.
One last point, the term “violence”, as you say, is your choice of action, but it neither refers to an offensive or defensive posture. If you are substituting mere violence over all means of self-defense, are you suggesting that you don’t care if you are the perpetrator or the defender? Ever wonder why our country has a “Department of Defense” and not a “Department of Violence”?
General Patton said in his famous address to his troops that “Americans love to fight”. It is written “Those who live by the sword, die by the sword.” If you have a passion for violence, Michael, it is likely none of what I’m saying will make any difference to you. Amazingly, martial arts philosophy is to study so we don’t have to fight, but when necessary, a plan of action is always used for the defense of life, not for the purpose of utilizing or promoting violence. From what I’ve read from Mr. Larkin, he does not envision violence as his goal, but rather his ability to return home safely.
Reply to comment
Thanks for your considered thoughts.
I mean no disrespect when I speak of winners and losers in violence — the fact of the matter is that we need to look past empathy, social norms, and our own personal desires in order to see the reality of what works, and what doesn’t, in violence.
It should sicken us, we should feel for the victim, but those are social considerations that have nothing to do with success or failure of the act.
I have lost a loved one to violence and so don’t take any of this lightly.
While the term is useful for declarations of intent “I will only hurt people in self-defense” and for the legal system to sort it all out after the fact, it’s insufficient for the needs of actual training and execution.
An upcoming post should (hopefully) clarify my position.
Thanks again for your comment.
Reply to comment
You accuse me of equating the term Department of Defense with our foreign policies of warfare overseas. I’m quite confused by this since I don’t make foreign policy, but according to my knowledge, U.S. response that you describe was initiated as a result of a declaration of war (jihad) against the U.S., perpetrated, in large part, by the attack of 9/11. Please rest assured that I was only making a comparison of the use of thread terminology regarding the use of “defense” and “self-defense”, not U.S. policy.
As you say, the Department of Defense was formerly the War Department. Any idea why they changed the name? Could it be the word “defense” has a less hostile connotation that is more socially acceptable to the world, thus, helps eliminate fear of the U.S. by other peaceful nations who might interpret such a department to be responsible for initiating violence, oops, I mean, war?
Chris, after reading the entire thread regarding this issue, I have a better grasp of your intent by your title. I agree, wholeheartedly with you, that there are those in our free enterprise system who continue to try to capitalize on the ignorance of consumers by offering them devices and techniques in the name of self-defense. Also we agree on the danger of this practice as consumers falsely assume the product(s) or techniques they purchase will offer them solution, yet, they ignorantly choose to maintain an illusionary peace of mind rather than envision realities of cause and effect.
Many of us continue to be appalled by the practice of duping the public regarding “self-defense” and I believe it is certainly grounds for resentment toward the many sleazy profiteers who are disgracing the image of those who are dedicated to helping others stay alive during life-threatening situations. In truth, I applaud your disdain and outspokenness on this issue.
“Self-defense”, however, is a term which may encompass possible forms of violent reaction, yet the term violence does not necessarily correlate with self-defensive action. I remain opposed to any preconceived motivations toward creating violence for fear of vigilante justice or motivating “hair-triggers” out of people who voice their automated responses in fear. I cannot blame anyone for wanting to defend themselves at all cost when necessary, as would I, but to automatically set the sentence prior to an incident is not what I consider prudent judgement. As I have said in this writing, each situation has its own set of circumstances which calls for its own unique responses.
Our nation has gone through phases of vigilante justice where many men have been executed without sufficient legal process. Again, each situation calls for its own solution. I totally agree with Mr. Larkin’s assessment of declaring our brain to be our chief weapon. The brain is also the mechanism that will help determine if, and how, we are to be at rest and peace with ourselves and others during our lifetimes.
My closing relates to the example of Christ, who taught us all to love our enemies. “And be not afraid of them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Mt 10:28) “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but give place unto wrath: for it is written, vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” (Romans 12:19) Again, thank you for allowing and considering my responses.
Reply to comment
Dynimite. This is my dilema. I have studied various ‘techniques’ over the years and was fortunate to discover TFT a couple of years ago. I bought the DVD’s(which were very helpful) read your blogs,and constantly visualized various scenarios. In September,I finally was able to participate in a two day training session in Boston. Needless to say,I feel preety good about my predatory abilities. The problem…I work as a Correctional Officer. As a unit,we are very well trained to respond to and extinguish any violent situation that may arise. We are mandated to use only “minimal force necessary to prevent the inmate from harming himself,another inmate,or another Officer.” Overwhelmingly,this works out just fine. However,our Facility is a “direct supervision” operation which means that myself,or any Officer can be alone on a housing unit with up to 95 inmates. No weapons of any kind,just a radio. There are countless scenarios where an Officer is greatly outnumbered by inmates. Any indication of violence has us calling an emergency code,and following set procedures until the calvary arrives. We are told that if we are physically assaulted,then we can use whatever means available to stay alive. The pebble in the shoe here is that we need to have a “wait and assess” mentality instead of an attack mentality. I find myself walking around a housing unit,surrounded by inmates,It’s second nature for me now to assess targets as I interact with the inmates. My fear is that,given our mandate of minimal response to prevent..insted of attacking to destroy,may leave me a bloody mess one day. thoughts?
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
I became interested in TFT because of your willingness to use direct language about injury and violence.
I have taken many paper pencil psycho-diagnostic inventories. I test off the charts in areas of sociopathy – that means I think like a sociopath -I do everything in my power to not act like one and I am successful. I have a conscience and I am a highly socially responsible adult raising three young children.
That said, I often find my mind wandering, with pleasure into a variety of sociopathic fantasies. I am fascinated by serial killers and I am thankful to my parents and God every day that I had a good family so I have no meaningful desire to live this sadism out on others.
Once I tapped into my inner “serial killer” I know that “self-defense” is likely useless when it comes to encounters with sociopaths or psychopaths.
We also know that when a high level fight or flight response kicks in a level of shock renders most higher level thinking process inaccessible. That’s why soldiers and police and firefighters train, and re-train and train again. It is so that these warriors do not have to think about the mechanics of taking care of life and death processes, but to engage a well grooved pattern of rehearsed behaviors to accomplish their missions.
The disease of our society is the battle that goes on inside of mankind – Auto Immune Deficiency Syndrome – not just as a result of sexual behaviors but of emotional ones too. Our society suffers from the inability to name the enemy, and take proper measures to make the enemy understand in terms the enemy will respond. We suffer from the a weakened defense system – from our military, to our police, to our discipline in our major institutions from schools to courts.
That makes TFT all the more imperative – because our ruthless enemies see that intimidation works- which makes us all more susceptible.
Thanks for the honest blog.
Reply to comment
Offense is to stay
If self cannot leave then it’s all offense.
The word “offense” by definition:noun-the action of attacking an enemy.
Reply to comment
WHEN IT COMES TO A LIFE OR DEATH SITUATION THE MILITARY HAS IT RIGHT, ATTACK UNTIL THE TARGET IS GONE (DEAD)
MOST SO CALLED MARTIAL ARTS SCHOOLS ARE WATERED DOWN EXCERSISE FACILITIES THAT HAVE NO IDEA WHAT MARTIAL ARTS REALLY MEANS. TRUE MARTIAL ARTS TEACHES THE MILITARY WAY OF KILLING AND OR MAIMING THE ATTACKER, BE IT KARATE, JU-JITSU, GUNG-FU, ECT.. OR GUNS AND KNIFES
Reply to comment
p.s. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed (trained) lamb contesting the vote.-Ben Franklin
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
When I teach classes where I train (The Nackord Karate System in Devon, PA) I emphasis to people from white belt to black belt that if someone is going to attack you with violence and inflicting pain then you must be prepared mentally and emotionally go past the pain and answer it with equal or greater vigor against the attacker. I love to see the “light” go on when people get it when learning something that I know works.
I also insist those who are working with another student to not “pull the punch” or underemphasis the grab, kick or whatever the attack is when being the “dummy”…of course there are always exceptions especially for the ones just starting out as they just aren’t all that sure in what they are doing.
So true we are for the most part a polite society…for me to read this makes sense as I’ve lived it but for the beginner they don’t know what to expect sometimes even when training. You can’t be hard core with every new student.
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
I think that in a real ASOCIAL event you’ve not the possibility neither to prevent nor to understand what happened, probably you only find yourself on the ground with a part of your body broken or bleeding. Then you can ACT or you can DIE.
Only AFTER the problem is over you have the time to categorize it as a “self defence” issue or not or whatever you want to call it, but this means only on thing : YOU ACTED. That’s it.
So to everybody, try to learn from people like Chris and Tim how to act properly and let chats on the blogs.
Reply to comment
First of all, I’m a big fan of TFT. I can see you are teaching people how to defend themselves instead of putting their lives in danger like all those idiotic “self-defense classes” that bombard people with complicated, fancy moves that they forget an hour later.
I understand how ‘self-defense’ can be a misleading term. Of course, whenever I use the term ‘self-defense’ I think of “a strong offense is the best defense.”
In the past few decades, traditional martial arts have been warped into a ridiculous theory-based concept of fighting. I could easily say that at least 80% of people who practice martial arts are not martial artists.
People forget that martial arts have been battlefield tested, and are built on reality. Nowadays, Martial Arts are all about the black belt, the fancy moves, the kind-of-neat-but-totally-disregarded-philosophy. And then you have things lie mma, and all those stupid “reality based” fighting styles that are all about strength and making sure to look as uncoordinated as possible so that people will think it’s “real”.
Anyway, sorry for the rant, I just wanted to let you know that there are still traditional martial artists out there who ‘get it’
I practice ‘self-defense’ and my form of ‘self-defense’ is beating the crap out of my attacker until he cannot attack me anymore. Nothing more or less.
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
If I get my gun out, you are dead or at the least, seriously wounded.
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
he is legally correct. As a retired correctional sergeant, we have drilled into us the term “excessive force” if we give the intruder one little scratch that cannot be justified aspreventing his hurting us or ours, we have used excessive force,ad are liable. God bless…
Reply to comment
There is never a time, when somebody randomly attacks you that your life is not in danger. To prove this point, go back a few blog posts to the one called,(if memory serves me right) “Are you willing to shut him up forever”. On that blog there are two videos. One video shows two guys arguing and they end up in a physical confrontation, no blocks, no counters, one guy starts the other guy finishes and stomps the shit out of the guy. He lived. The second video two guys are arguing and one guy decides to knock somebody into forever, and hits him once and kills him. You think either one of those guys thought somebody was going to die? Probably not. But it still happened.
Now that doesn’t mean that you have to kill everyone that tries to stomp the life out of you, far from it, but to say that your life is not in peril, is a fallacy. All it takes is one punch delivered just right or just wrong(depending on your point of view) and one of you could be going to the morgue. Once you decide there is no other options left, you can’t screw around, you gotta hurt the guy, and do so in away that is not going to give him the opportunity to maybe pull out a knife, or a gun or to hurt you.
As far as deescalation goes. Guys, truthfully if you haven’t learned how to talk your way out of trouble, you probably haven’t either a)lived very long or b)gotten out of moms basement much. You know, when talking isn’t going to work. If you don’t there is something wrong with you. As adults we should know, (and yes everyone makes mistakes), when it is appropriate to use force. If you haven’t learned it by the time your 25 you probably never will. On another note if learning something like TFT makes you want to go out and start trouble or end everything with violence then guess what…you probably already know how to use violence and didn’t go to the seminar anyways, because it’s all stuff you already knew anyways, from your time spent in prison. Right?
Several of you are on the prove Chris wrong kick, and the reality is nothing that he has said is wrong. Matter of fact he’s spot on, on just about everything that he’s talking about. I would imagine that most of you guys that are saying “Chris your wrong about the self-defense it’s not a sham” are probably self-defense instructors. Who are probably still teaching the counter to the counter to the counter, and on the fifth counter-counter……get over it. If your in a physical confrontation, and you must use violence the only thing that will work, is hurting the other guy. Those of you that think that your going to grab a guys arm that is traveling at 90 mph, are in a for a rude awakening when you try it on the street. It works in the movies. Not in real life. Your not going to get the joint manipulation unless you have caused an injury of some kind or are very, very lucky.
Anyways I digress, my rant has gone on long enough. But think about this. While your shooting your mouth off trying to talk your way out of a physical confrontation, and your gut is telling you that it’s not working what’s that other guy thinking who ain’t talking?
Reply to comment
“The protection of one’s person or property against some injury attempted by another”.
There is a big difference between attempt and attack. Attack is to late. Before the individual even makes any attempt to harm you is an assault, and I would probably end up helping them.
Reply to comment
So do I personally feel the need to add threats of violence to my list of things that require self-defense…eh NO. A man tries or does put his hands on me….well that is a different story, and one for another time. Social encounters require social skills. When they no longer require social skills to solve that problem, they become something else. You deal with each accordingly to your comfort level.
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
It’s funny how we are tought some fundementals of life like learning how to swim so we dont drown, learning how to talk so that we may be able to communicate verbaly with others, learning how to read and write so that we can function in our society, learning how to hunt so that we may survive. But somewhere in there we lost track on how to fight and injure another so that we may protect ourselves and others we love.
What you wrote hit that right on the nail my friend and I agree with you completely.
Good job man
Marty
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
I don’t use the words self defense, I/we typically use the words, “Counter Attack.”
Keep up the good work!!!
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Self defense is taught to civilians often times as the equivalent of intentionally letting the attacker have the initiative and OODA loop advantage. The attacker, thus, gets inside the defender’s OODA loop and thus determines the outcome of the incident.
Chris RB teaches to get inside the attacker’s OODA and prevent them from getting to the point of “Decide-Act”.
If you are using military analogies and incidents in this subject, that is the proper venue to apply them to. Self defense courses taught to civilians, don’t have much to do with what the military is doing in Iraq.
A more proper analogy would be the “self defense” courses taught to women in the Army as anti-rape prevention policies. They, in fact, are often times more horrible than the civilian variants.
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Rather than not using the phrase “self defense” you shoud help people understand that self defense is using whatever means necessary to remove a threat.
Self defense training is a serious matter, playing word games is not a part of self defense.
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
JF
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Sorry, but if someone sticks a gun in your face you are already in 2nd place. There is simply no way around this — you either wait for the threat or you are the violent criminal.
Be careful!
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
The “shock and awe” component of this posting is first rate — “I’m only ever interested in hurting people”; great shock value.
The problem is that is confuses the action with the cause, the response with the provocation, the offensive reaction with the offending action.
Don’t misunderstand: when/if threatened, truly threatened, then to temper your response is to put yourself or your family at risk. At the same time, to invent a threat before it is present is to run up legal bills.
Again, fine maketing, flawed message.
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
…and where did you ever get the impression TFT is about “inventing” a threat? (How did you get that impression from the blog post?) The entire context of everything they teach is surviving a violent situation…a situation where you already know someone wants to seriously injure you.
It’s simple…if you find yourself in fear for your life, either leave or (if not possible/practical) injure whomever is making you in fear for your life until they are no longer a threat. Then tell the police you were in fear for your life and “defended” yourself, how hard is that?
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
I thank you for your forthrightness and courage to say it as it is. It is the UN-sugar coated TRUTH that WILL save lives, maybe mine or one of my loved ones.
I am greartful for the work you do.
Reply to comment
That said what you do is ATTACK!
Once you perceive there is the threat of grave bodily harm to you or your loved ones you KILL! and you do not stop until the threat is DEAD! Then you make sure that every one of the threat’s accomplices (because they never are alone) are also DEAD!
It just so happens that a firearm kills better than most other things you can use to attack and kill with, however you use anything and everything at hand until there is no longer a threat.
“Self-defense” has it’s place, and that place is keeping you out of jail so you can continue to protect yourself and your loved ones to the best of your abilities.
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Thanks
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Instead my left hand shot out in search of a weapon and found a pair of sizzors which I proceded to shove into his neckwith as much force as possible. Needless to say this action on my part imediately stopped this guys attack!
I ended up with a couple bruises but that was all, this guy was REALLY lucky that I had misplaced my hand gun earlier and I didn`t have it within my reach.
I am in agreement with you about self-defense being a sham, for sure. When your life is on the line ALL civilness is out the window. In my case, at the time of the above desribed attack, my ONLY thought was: “How to KILL this guy”
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment