Swedish Firesteel*
Submitted by MostlyGenius on Tue, 11/13/2007 - 10:12
This is a very reliable way to get a fire quickly. One of these should be part of every survival kit.
Martial Arts vs. Active Shooters
Submitted by MostlyGenius on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 09:26
Reading this bit: Leave it to the professionals I am left with the impression that the author doesn't understand the complexities involved.
It is fine to say that you will martial-arts your way out of a problem. It is certainly a different thing to do it. I have had the pleasure of training extensively with some very accomplished martial artists that also have impeccable shooting credentials. I can safely say that none of them would choose to solve an active shooter problem unarmed.
When the six foot, 200 pound, Green Beret that holds senior black belts in two martial arts, earned over the course of 30 years tells me that he carries a handgun, a reload, a knife and a flashlight for self-defense I have a really hard time believing that guns aren't at least part of the answer for self-defense.
It is one thing to disarm a dummy gun in robbery scenario in the dojo. As soon as you replace the go signal of "give me your wallet" with a gun shot the whole equation changes.
Recommended Blog:
Words Twice
Submitted by MostlyGenius on Mon, 05/26/2008 - 05:08
Wordstwice is one of my earliest readers, and by far the most frequent commenter. His blog covers a lot of the same ground that mine does (only with more cussing.) Of all of the blogs I read WordsTwice is one I am most consistently in agreement with.
Link
Comments
Reading this, I'm left with the impression that the author misses the point entirely.
The post isn't about solving ANY problem with a specific solution. In fact the point of the post is that when we train (in life) to only know one response to a situation, and that situation is slightly changes, then you're left helpless. You put all your eggs in the basket of having a gun, and when you find yourself in a situation where you might use it but left it at home, or it misfires, or you get disarmed, then frankly, you're screwed.
If you instead train to be able to find the best response in any situation, you're always prepared. You can still get hurt, you can still make a wrong decision, but you're not helpless.
As soon as you replace the go signal of "give me your wallet" with a gun shot the whole equation changes.
Which is kinda the point. The part you don't understand though is that having a gun isn't really that different.
And by the way (just as an aside), any dojo that trains you to only respond to "go signals" isn't a school worth training at. The hombu I train at rather explicitly makes it a point to throw the unexpected at you on a regular basis (whether on the mat or in life). If you can't find a better understanding of any problem you face, in the moment, then you haven't learned a martial art, you've just learned some technique.
I am the last one to say that firearms are THE solution for all problems.
The original idea I believe was that armed students/teachers were the optimum solution to the active shooter problem. To come up with corner cases about disarms and misfires points to simple ignorance. It is clear to me that you are not a shooter.
Disarms must to occur at contact distance. Given a distraction or a covert approach it is feasible to say one might be able to effect a disarm. I would also say that effecting a disarm is non-trivial, especially if the subject knows what they are doing. If I have enough combative ability to defeat an active shooter then should I have enough to prevent a disarm? I never said that these skills were mutually exclusive.
Misfires can occur, but you will find that they are not very common in modern firearms and when they do occur they don't tend to happen on the first shot. So if the stars are aligned against me and my firearm doesn't work - I am reduced to a contingency plan - the plan you are advocating staring at.
Finally how many students possess a "mastery" of the martial arts. Remember that I have trained with some very high level practitioners who would probably make the most of whatever was at hand, but none of them would make the argument that facing an active shooter unarmed is anything but the very last resort.
In response to your aside, if you don't have a 'go signal' then you aren't defending yourself - you are attacking. The go signal might be subtle, a targeting glance, a hand that you can't see, or an aggressive movement but there has to be a stimulus to initiate. It might not be as obvious as a drawn gun or verbal command but it has to be there.
To come up with corner cases
I'm assuming here you intended to say "counter cases" otherwise, I'm not sure what you mean by a "corner case."
If you're talking about counter cases or counter arguments about specifics you're still missing the point entirely. I really couldn't possibly care any less about specifics with regards to the topic of my post.
My post refers to any topic you want to bring up, so let's talk about dinner. My point is that just because you don't eat macaroni and cheese, doesn't mean you don't eat. If you get so fixated on dinner HAVING TO BE macaroni and cheese, then when you check the pantry and find you're out of macaroni and cheese, then you starve. My point is that you're much better off learning to read a cookbook. That way you can make mac and cheese if it's available but (more importantly) you'll be able to identify multiple options for dinner and choose whichever one best fits the items you have in your pantry at that particular moment.
I used guns as in example to illustrate that larger point only in response to the assertion that self-defense without a gun was impossible.
And in response to your response to my aside. If that is how you're defining "go signal," then no, I don't think there is a difference between "give me your wallet" and a gun shot to a real martial artist.
Corner Case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_case
I never said that self-defense without a gun was impossible. I would say self-defense against deadly force threat without a gun is non-trivial. I would say that it gets a lot more difficult while you are getting shot.
In regards to your silly dinner analogy you are still arguing that all solutions are equal - this is not the case.
I never said that self-defense without a gun was impossible.
No, you didn't. But the person my post was a response to did. You can't say my point is wrong because it's arguing against a position you don't hold. It was never intended to argue against you (or anyone who doesn't hold the position I was arguing against) in the first place. I didn't even know you existed when I wrote the post so how exactly is it supposed to be an argument against you?
The point I was arguing against was simply that if you don't have a gun, you are completely helpless. Nothing more, nothing less.
In regards to your silly dinner analogy you are still arguing that all solutions are equal
NO, NO, NO. That is NOT what I'm arguing and I never have argued that. What I'm arguing is that not all solutions (good, bad, or in between) are available to us in every situation (and the solution that is not available in the moment is never the best solution). We're better off training to recognize all the possible solutions in the moment so we have options and can make a decision instead of putting all our eggs in one basket. It's not smart to say "ok, I can only respond if every condition is exactly as I preplanned it to be," because the reality is, you'll never be in a position that is exactly like you've preplanned for.
Yes - more, feasible, solution are better. The most feasible solution to active shooters is allowing the potential victims to defend themselves with the most effective means available.
There is a huge, giant, massive, disparity between being armed and being unarmed when the shooter is not standing around shouting demands but rather actively aligning the sights and pulling the trigger.
Yeah, that doesn't pass the common sense test.