What We Have Been Needing

[.38 Special]

Off topic.

Yeah, well, tell it to the guy who brought it up.

Regardless, I'm done. I'm arguing with a guy who claims that revolvers are poor choices for defense, who refuses to consider unarmed defense training, who has told people to never use a cell phone in public, but who believes he can fracture an attackers skull with his. I can scarcely imagine a bigger waste of time.

 

[Kleanbore]

I'm arguing with a guy who claims that revolvers are poor choices for defense, who refuses to consider unarmed defense training, who has told people to never use a cell phone in public, but who believes he can fracture an attackers skull with his.

[Moderator's hat off]I suggest that you stop mischaracterizing what others have said. It does not help your credibility.

For the record, I prefer more capacity than I can get in a readily concealable revolver, but I do carry one when elbow issues prevent my racking a slide; I am no longer sufficiently fit for unarmed defense training; I said that I rarely use a cell phone in public, and I will also suggest that concentrating on a cellphone can hinder situational awareness and result in one's being victimized. I have said that facial bones are relatively fragile, and that Rob Pincus mentioned the possibility of striking the temple, the eye socket, and the nose, as examples.

Again, the idea of striking with a cell phone whan the necessity presents itself had never occurred to me, but I cannot argue with it.

That discussion was a very, very minor part of a really good course.

 

[fastbolt]

Actually, I do discount things like finger strikes to the eyes, with a few exceptions. The problem is that they're a lot more difficult than it would seem, and carry significant - near certain, in some cases - risk to your hands. Get out your BOB dummy and see if you can actually stick your finger into his eye with both speed and accuracy. Then add in some force and see how long it takes for your fingers to approach the level of injury. Now imagine you're suffering under the effects of an adrenalin dump, and that your opponent is actually capable of movement. It's just not very realistic. (The same, in my experience, goes for any technique requiring significant precision and/or fine motor control. It might seem cool in the dojo, with a compliant training partner, but inject enough stress and reality and it turns into a joke.)

Beyond that, it is not enough to just do your opponent mild or moderate damage. In a lethal struggle, it's possible if not likely that such injuries will have no impact. In a real fight, you can only count on winning through major structural damage, or significant impact on the CNS. Teaching people that they can just whack somebody with a phone - or a deck of cards - and then go home safe... It may indeed happen just that way, but I wouldn't count on it.

Beyond that, I think I'm done here. This all strikes me as perilously close to "Destroy your opponent with this one secret trick" business and I'm not sure why I've spent so much time debating it.

Yes, even in my early training I was required to learn how to demonstrate speed and accuracy in striking vulnerable anatomical spots (did I only/specifically say eyes?), and it was done having to train on moving targets, as well as training on the usual materials to toughen fingers and hands (beans, sand, sisal rope-wrapped wood, shaped wooden surfaces, etc).

Another critical part of the training was learning how to control the force used that reached to/into the target/attacker, meaning attempting not to cause more injury than was necessary to defend yourself. (And not striking wrong so that you injured yourself.) Training & practice, training & practice ... then more training & practice. Sure, most people have neither the interest, time, money or access to training to achieve that sort of long term goal.

Also, obviously (you'd hope it was obvious) not every application of defensive force has to be 'devastating', 'lethal, 'deadly', etc. Reasonably adequate and sufficient to the circumstances, yes ... excessive, no, especially when you consider that your actions are likely eventually going to be subjected to intense and lengthy review and discussion (and nobody in their right mind wants that to involve a jury of their peers reviewing and discussing their actions because they found themselves at the wrong table in a court room ).

Back track for an example I've previously mentioned. During some later 'defend your gun against a takeaway' DT training, I was paired with a guy who was younger, taller, heavier and stronger than me. Of course. When he came at me to grab my holstered 'gun' it didn't take much force, delivered via a 'soft' finger push/strike against the base of his throat, to cause him to gag/choke and rapidly grasp his throat with both hands, and lose all immediate interest in going for my 'gun'. He didn't even know what had happened. He barely had a rapidly fading red spot on his skin, but boy did it cause his 300lbs to reverse course even faster than he'd moved forward. Granted, he was a lot easier subject to do that to, in a classroom, where I was using very minimal effort ... than the dogs against which I'd had to use my hands and fingers while defending against their attacks in real life.

Of course finger strikes create potential risk to fingers ... just like striking with a clenched fist can create the potential risk of breaking bones in the hand, or the wrist. Even training can only help mitigate some of the risk, especially in a dynamic, chaotic set of conditions. Hence, practical and controlled training done until you believe (hope) you've achieved the amount of skill you feel adequate to the task for yourself. Much easier to use an object to poke, strike or prod an anatomical spot that creates the reaction you reasonably believe necessary to defend yourself. Even the edge of a cellphone. (Wouldn't be my first choice, but it was subject mentioned ... and look around at how many people always seem to have one seemingly 'attached' to their hand nowadays. ) Especially at close range, meaning within arm's reach - or closer - when you've been unable to gain distance (get away, etc.) and you're at immediate risk of serious bodily injury or death.

You know the old training maxim that if all you have is a gun, then every problem starts to look like the gun is the only 'answer'? That does seem to have some merit in the larger picture, and it's not like there's been a particular shortage of otherwise intelligent, honest law-abiding folks who resorted to going to their gun to quickly, and then finding themselves on the wrong side of the law. Hell, it's been happening to cops at an increasing rate in recent years. Who wants to start seeing nails everywhere because all they have at their disposal is a hammer.

Now, I no longer subject my hands to that sort of toughening regimen. Age, and the desire to prolong dexterity and the pain-free use of my hands, makes that a priority. I'm not as fast as I was as a younger man, either. (Who is?) I still continue to practice the training, albeit without the brutal impacts to my hands & fingers (and other tired and well-worn connective tissues and joints), or that the coordination and reflexes have rusted away to nothing.

Even so, if I happen to have a cellphone (or pen, or one of my cane/walking stick collection, etc) in hand when/if trouble comes calling, at unavoidable close entanglement distance, I'd be much more inclined to use whatever was easily and immediately at hand, in the most appropriate manner. If that allows me to gain a little distance and time to grab my retirement gun, should it be needed? Okay. If poking/striking with a cellphone (or whatever expedient thing is at hand) resolves the threat? Okay. It doesn't have to look cool, tactical or worthy of being a vision of someone's fantasy inspired by a JW movie. It just has to work and be sufficient for the moment (reasonable, necessary, etc).

Do we really disagree? I didn't think so.

 

[Kleanbore]

Much easier to use an object to poke, strike or prod an anatomical spot that creates the reaction you reasonably believe necessary to defend yourself. Even the edge of a cellphone. (Wouldn't be my first choice, but it was subject mentioned ... and look around at how many people always seem to have one seemingly 'attached' to their hand nowadays. ) Especially at close range, meaning within arm's reach - or closer - when you've been unable to gain distance (get away, etc.) and you're at immediate risk of serious bodily injury or death.....I happen to have a cellphone (or pen, or one of my cane/walking stick collection, etc) in hand when/if trouble comes calling, at unavoidable close entanglement distance, I'd be much more inclined to use whatever was easily and immediately at hand, in the most appropriate manner. If that allows me to gain a little distance and time to grab my retirement gun, should it be needed? Okay. If poking/striking with a cellphone (or whatever expedient thing is at hand) resolves the threat? ...It just has to work and be sufficient for the moment (reasonable, necessary, etc).

Yes. The purpose is to buy time when necessary, and it just may resolve the threat.

Rob mentions a pen, and asserts that a plastic one will do. I choose metal.

I now need a walking stick or a walker to get around safely. The stick should be useful for defense, and it appears to have a deterrent effect. We are told that the use of a walker can attract predators.

OC spray is mentioned. Rob quotes Claude Werner as having said that carrying a gun without having a less lethal option constitutes negligence, and he mentions that Andrew Branca carries a gun and pepper spray. After taking the course, I moved my wallet, and I now carry a Kimber Pepper blaster in my back weak-hand pocket.

 

[fastbolt]

...

Rob mentions a pen, and asserts that a plastic one will do. I choose metal.

I now need a walking stick or a walker to get around safely. The stick should be useful for defense, and it appears to have a deterrent effect. We are told that the use of a walker can attract predators. ...

While a plastic pen body is strong enough to accomplish surprising things, the metal barrels do offer some alternative capabilities. For example, if held one way with the hand, a plastic pen body might break if held against the palm while the hand is used to deflect/block an incoming blow, while a metal barrel body would be less likely to break (although a 2-piece pen might fail at the threaded attachment point). On the other hand (pun intended ), I'm not sure how many people who teach ad hoc weapons for self defense might (know) incorporate that sort of technique, anyway, as it requires more advanced training and skill.

Funny thing about canes and walking sticks. I started collecting them as a young martial artist, and continued to do so over the years. It wasn't until I had to walk outside for exercise during 6 months of chemo that I suddenly discovered I needed to use a cane because of my diminished energy and strength. That incident notwithstanding, there came a time as the inevitable pre/post-retirement injuries started to accrue, and some older injuries of my youth started to demand attention, that I realized I'd have occasional use for my collection of canes and walking sticks, after all.

 

[The Night Rider]

You're free to do what you want. There is no right and wrong way. What works for me and kept me alive may not work for anyone else. All of our minds work somewhat differently. The color codes are simply a way of explaining a concept. It's not mathematics.

I finally figured out the proper response to this post.

Jeff White and I may be using the same words but we're not speaking the same language.

I took a class on effective communication once, one of the concepts that they stressed was you're not communicating unless the other person comprehends what you're trying to say. that's where the communication break down occurs