I'm surprised you didn't mention it, but all your comments about mobs apply 10-fold when travelling, especially outside the United States.
As you say, retreat isn't cowardice. Cowardice and courage are not opposites: one virtue, one vice. Virtues are a mean (a center point) between 2 vices: you can fail with too little or too much. Aristotle's relevant line for courage is: cowardice <----- courage -----> recklessness. Standing your ground against an armed shooter isn't courage; it's reckless. (There are times to be reckless, but likely only in protection of your own family.)
For practical, street-legal, weapons, in my view, nothing beats a walking cane. As a medical device it can be taken anywhere; even questioning it is against ADA. It's both a reach extender and a force multiplier. Used in self-defense, it's almost never lethal. A small amount of practice can keep you current. (Yes, you do need training -- find a dojo to learn.) The Darby style, particularly with a metal head, allows the most scalable force options: straight punch with a duck-bill cane... nasty; vertical snap strike between the legs with a metal tip... indefensible and incapacitating. Lots of options, which is what you want.
I love the social commentary, Max, but commentary's everywhere. It's great when you get back to your roots of preparation and awareness. (And you're even starting to trim the length... my scrollbar was a little bigger this time.)
I often criticize how American and Western society in general encourages cowardice and incentivizes recklessness. I also criticize the courage lacking in Western men, but the fact is, if society doesn't encourage nor incentivize it, people will lack in courage. I hold in contempt feminists who decry masculinity, while also expecting men to be courageous and retain all the virtuous aspects of masculinity.
The thing about a cane is that it's not practical unless you need a walking aid. If you don't need a walking aid, it just gets in the way. If you don't need a walking aid, physical fitness and just being able to run fast is the best defense. Also, I can imagine an intrepid DA managing to file charges against someone who uses a walking cane in self-defense who had no medical need for it.
I love talking about preparedness and awareness, but it just doesn't draw the same kind of interest. They're easier to write about, though. And while you'll never run out of topics to write about with either, there are times where you just run out of useful things to say.
I'm really putting in an effort into shortening the length of the essays. Looking at my old essays, including ones from last year, I'm struck by how long some of them really were. I don't blame anyone for losing interest in my writing.
The problem of "Martial Arts Sport vs. Self-Defense Martial Arts" has been around for at least 142 years since Jigoro Kano created the martial sport of Judo from ancient Samurai Jujutsu.
Any competent Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Academy will teach you the difference on your first day of training. Most BJJ Academies will not.
Only a clueless newb would think the medieval sport of Tournament Jousting is the same thing as a Knight using his lance from horseback to kill enemies in combat.
The good thing about doing martial arts, as Nathaniel Cho points out, is that it tends to humble people. When exposed to violence, even in a controlled, safe environment, you realize your limits, you realize how easily you can get hurt, so this tells you to not seek out violent encounters. The people who tend to be more reckless are those who think being in schoolyard scraps makes them competent in the ways of violence. It's for this reason I recommend martial arts to all, men and women, alike. It's not about making sure they're capable of beating their attackers. It's about teaching them to be able to create space for themselves to escape attack and also instill in them a mindset of avoidance.
I have been a firearms instructor for over 40 years so of course I will defend the carrying and use of firearms. But all your points are well taken. The notion of "not being there" seems so fundamental that is astonishes me how often people disregard it.
Just don't be there is pretty good advice. But for some reason a lot of people space on this. Either they cling to their "right" to be there or they want to witness something and somehow think they have a bubble of safety around them. But, let's face it sometimes you just have no choice. The trouble finds YOU.
At that point you should have prepared BEFORE it happens to whatever your skill level and the law allow. If you can leave you should. If you cannot you should be equipped. Of course most bad things can be avoided by JUST PAYING ATTENTION. And people just do not.
After years of observing this I have concluded that some people simply don't have the gene for looking for anything off their baseline.
Finally, while you are right that "going to the ground" is a bad strategy, it seems like more and more one of the first things you are likely to face when attacked is someone trying to take you to the ground. And when you are down there it would not hurt to have a few tricks up your sleeve.
The problem is that the only way a person ends up on the ground without provocation is if they get tackled. Unless engaging in provocation yourself, the only way this happens is by surprise. I'm not against learning BJJ or any ground fighting technique, but it shouldn't be the main method of self-defense.
Could not agree more. I used to work the door in a hard hat bar in Brooklyn. I am not a big dude. My favorite form of self defense was my mouth. I never had a problem unless I was getting "help" at the door.
Going back to BJJ, I think its appeal comes from the fact that even people who aren't big or strong can excel in it, and it's a submission-based art. The fact that you don't need to strike someone to "win" gives the impression that it's more legally permissible, and feeds the impression that all you need is good technique and you can defeat anyone. Finally, the feeling of forcing someone to cry uncle is empowering. If you knock someone out, it instills fear and loathing. If you force someone to submit, you not only avoid doing serious harm, but you also come off as completely owning your opponent to the extent they basically concede that you're their better.
None of which should be considerations when it comes to self-defense, of course.
Kenny Rogers, 1979, Coward of the County - "Pro-mise me son not to do the things I've done, walk away from trouble when you can..."
I'm surprised you didn't mention it, but all your comments about mobs apply 10-fold when travelling, especially outside the United States.
As you say, retreat isn't cowardice. Cowardice and courage are not opposites: one virtue, one vice. Virtues are a mean (a center point) between 2 vices: you can fail with too little or too much. Aristotle's relevant line for courage is: cowardice <----- courage -----> recklessness. Standing your ground against an armed shooter isn't courage; it's reckless. (There are times to be reckless, but likely only in protection of your own family.)
For practical, street-legal, weapons, in my view, nothing beats a walking cane. As a medical device it can be taken anywhere; even questioning it is against ADA. It's both a reach extender and a force multiplier. Used in self-defense, it's almost never lethal. A small amount of practice can keep you current. (Yes, you do need training -- find a dojo to learn.) The Darby style, particularly with a metal head, allows the most scalable force options: straight punch with a duck-bill cane... nasty; vertical snap strike between the legs with a metal tip... indefensible and incapacitating. Lots of options, which is what you want.
I love the social commentary, Max, but commentary's everywhere. It's great when you get back to your roots of preparation and awareness. (And you're even starting to trim the length... my scrollbar was a little bigger this time.)
I often criticize how American and Western society in general encourages cowardice and incentivizes recklessness. I also criticize the courage lacking in Western men, but the fact is, if society doesn't encourage nor incentivize it, people will lack in courage. I hold in contempt feminists who decry masculinity, while also expecting men to be courageous and retain all the virtuous aspects of masculinity.
The thing about a cane is that it's not practical unless you need a walking aid. If you don't need a walking aid, it just gets in the way. If you don't need a walking aid, physical fitness and just being able to run fast is the best defense. Also, I can imagine an intrepid DA managing to file charges against someone who uses a walking cane in self-defense who had no medical need for it.
I love talking about preparedness and awareness, but it just doesn't draw the same kind of interest. They're easier to write about, though. And while you'll never run out of topics to write about with either, there are times where you just run out of useful things to say.
I'm really putting in an effort into shortening the length of the essays. Looking at my old essays, including ones from last year, I'm struck by how long some of them really were. I don't blame anyone for losing interest in my writing.
The problem of "Martial Arts Sport vs. Self-Defense Martial Arts" has been around for at least 142 years since Jigoro Kano created the martial sport of Judo from ancient Samurai Jujutsu.
Any competent Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Academy will teach you the difference on your first day of training. Most BJJ Academies will not.
Only a clueless newb would think the medieval sport of Tournament Jousting is the same thing as a Knight using his lance from horseback to kill enemies in combat.
The good thing about doing martial arts, as Nathaniel Cho points out, is that it tends to humble people. When exposed to violence, even in a controlled, safe environment, you realize your limits, you realize how easily you can get hurt, so this tells you to not seek out violent encounters. The people who tend to be more reckless are those who think being in schoolyard scraps makes them competent in the ways of violence. It's for this reason I recommend martial arts to all, men and women, alike. It's not about making sure they're capable of beating their attackers. It's about teaching them to be able to create space for themselves to escape attack and also instill in them a mindset of avoidance.
I have been a firearms instructor for over 40 years so of course I will defend the carrying and use of firearms. But all your points are well taken. The notion of "not being there" seems so fundamental that is astonishes me how often people disregard it.
Just don't be there is pretty good advice. But for some reason a lot of people space on this. Either they cling to their "right" to be there or they want to witness something and somehow think they have a bubble of safety around them. But, let's face it sometimes you just have no choice. The trouble finds YOU.
At that point you should have prepared BEFORE it happens to whatever your skill level and the law allow. If you can leave you should. If you cannot you should be equipped. Of course most bad things can be avoided by JUST PAYING ATTENTION. And people just do not.
After years of observing this I have concluded that some people simply don't have the gene for looking for anything off their baseline.
Finally, while you are right that "going to the ground" is a bad strategy, it seems like more and more one of the first things you are likely to face when attacked is someone trying to take you to the ground. And when you are down there it would not hurt to have a few tricks up your sleeve.
The problem is that the only way a person ends up on the ground without provocation is if they get tackled. Unless engaging in provocation yourself, the only way this happens is by surprise. I'm not against learning BJJ or any ground fighting technique, but it shouldn't be the main method of self-defense.
Could not agree more. I used to work the door in a hard hat bar in Brooklyn. I am not a big dude. My favorite form of self defense was my mouth. I never had a problem unless I was getting "help" at the door.
Going back to BJJ, I think its appeal comes from the fact that even people who aren't big or strong can excel in it, and it's a submission-based art. The fact that you don't need to strike someone to "win" gives the impression that it's more legally permissible, and feeds the impression that all you need is good technique and you can defeat anyone. Finally, the feeling of forcing someone to cry uncle is empowering. If you knock someone out, it instills fear and loathing. If you force someone to submit, you not only avoid doing serious harm, but you also come off as completely owning your opponent to the extent they basically concede that you're their better.
None of which should be considerations when it comes to self-defense, of course.
True. In personal combat, a Victim usually doesn't get to decide whether or not the fight goes to the ground. The larger, stronger Attacker does.
Being clueless about how to fight on the ground is as negligent as being clueless about how to use a firearm.