USCMAAI

I am also glad you had a great time. You see nothing to be nervous about at all.

We just had an incident this weekend. A fellow I have known for years is now in jail for manslaughter. He was at a biker rally this weekend. Another drunk guy came up and pushed him outside of a bar. He hit the guy one time and the fellow just died! Now I have been warning Lance (the guy who hit the other biker) for years that his "take no (blank) from anyone" attitude would eventually get him into trouble. He always responded "I never start a fight I always finnish them". Now he is sitting in jail awaiting his preliminary hearing, and the claim of self-defense will not work. A man is dead, Lance killed him and for what? To prove to his buddies how tough he is? Everyone should think about this....really think about this.

John dont worry about proving anything to anyone. Your instructor has already demonstrated his faith in your abilities. Go have fun and dont worry so much about winning and loosing, just let things happen. The sparring and training you do in class will take care of itself. Learn from your wins and losses and HAVE FUN!

It is not necessarily a "weak-minded" person who tries to do things that make his/her parents happy. Obviously there will come times when we all do things that our parents will not be pleased with, and I am sure your parents are wise enough to let you make your own decisions and your own mistakes as well. Remember for the majority of us, our parents love us and only want what they think is best for us. I sense that kante may have some issues about being controlled, and seems to be rebellious, which is fine. But remember that rebellion just for the sake of it is not a good. As I suggested before, try explaining things to your parents, and invovling them into your martial arts and writting. You and your parents seem to be very devout, and this is great, maybe joining a christian martial arts association, making some contacts there and finding a christian dojo would be helpful.

I agree! I have been training for 35 years, and have suffered injuries in and outside of training that has caused me to have to take time off of the physical part of training. This doesnt mean that you have to quit training all together though. If your injuries are such that impact causes problems do your kata (even if it is at walk-through speed or even in your mind). You can always do isometric training on blocks and strikes, work your foot manuevers, etc. I practice my parries at my office desk! Your doctor knows best, and you should follow his/her advice.

This is one of the most profound experiences you can have in the martial arts. Mushin is the stepping outside of self and letting your body do what it has been trained to do. This tells you that your techniques are starting to become instinct! My sensei explains belt ranks that way. A white belt is -all instinct no thought. A black belt is- all instinct no thought. A master is instinct tempered by wisdom. Congatulations you are on the right path.

AMEN!

Good luck! But remember it is not important that you win, enjoy yourself....RELAX. Your sparring and forms competition will get better as you gain more experience. I remember (a long long long time ago) my first tourney. I didnt place in sparring, forms or self-defense. After about 3 or 4 tournaments I began to do well though. Take the time to learn from each competition. That is what they are for after all...Learning from other fighters of different schools/styles. I have learned some very useful things by being at the loosing end of a match. Now if you win that is great, but the most important things are: building friendships with your fellow competators, learning and sharing what you have learned. Again good luck and have fun!

Thanks! We had discussed this topic in a previous post about being able to kill an attacker. I thought it would be a good idea to talk about all levels of force as it pertains to self-defense.

A karate dojo is not a democracy. Students don't have a vote (basically). They are students, you are the instructor/sensei. It's no different than public school really, except that the student can quit if they don't like it. In a public school, you take a variety of classes that cover many different spectrums. The variety is already there, and there is often times opportunities to take classes that do hold your interest. It is true that you are the instructor. However, the instructor has responsibilities, just as the student does. If a student can better himself by taking a class elsewhere in a field that I don't cover, like ground fighting, then I would not hold them back from doing it just because I want him to be focused on my stuff. I don't see it as catering. I see it as branching out and exploring, making oneself a better Martial Artist. Keeping an open mind. I submitted an article that talked about this subject. You can find it here, if you would like to read it: http://www.karateforums.com/martial-arts-monogamy-vt27324-40.html I agree with both of you! A student should have enough respect for an instructor to tell him of his choice to cross train, but should be allowed to do so. The only thing I would say to everyone is the same thing I tell my students. Before cross-training in another style/system, you should at least achieve an intermediate level of ability in one. I suggest getting at least a brown belt, so that you have a solid foundation in your parent style, before moving on. It does absolutely no good to confuse your body and mind with systems that may be contradictory at times. Having a solid foundation in one allows you the ability to process the information of other systems, and fit that information into your style. I teach my students that " Your karate and my karate are the same in style, but different in form" .

You are correct Mantis, unfortunately there are people out there who do think (and teach) that disarming a knife or gun weilding attacker is just a matter of practice. They inform their students that this becomes easier with time and their particular way of training. I am not a particularly talented knife fighter (unlike the dog brothers), but have some experience with fighting with the blade for real, and I have only been disarmed twice when going up against "master" martial artists (one was my sensei, and the other was a master sgt. at Ft. Bragg). Like I said I know the basics of knife fighting, but know the tactics of combat and so far this is the difference between "killing" my target and getting disarmed. This is one of the reasons I prescribe to the "neutralization" Theory of weapon defense. By the way I apologize again for my rather long winded posts. Once I start a thought, I tend to want to over explain things. It is truly one of my greatest failings (being long winded). Thank you all for being so paitent with me.

In order to develop, or teach effective self-defense it is important that we understand use of force. In Law Enforcement this would be covered in Continuum of Force Training. That training teaches Leo’s (Law Enforcement Officers) and Military Police to respond to a threats/assaults with the appropriate amount of force. In Corrections the majority of institutions have adopted a resistance/control continuum. I feel that training your students in the continuum of force is important in view of today's litigation oriented society. I will attempt to explain each type of aggression as we teach in Special Operations Combat Karate, and the corresponding level of response that is taught. Of course I should state in the beginning, that I am not an attorney and base what I teach off the Continuum of Force taught in Law Enforcement and the Laws of my state. Before you try to implement this type of training into your class structure, I would suggest that you do some research and or contact the Law Enforcement Agency in your local for information on self-defense laws/ and even ask for a copy of their Use of Force policy. Generally speaking there are two philosophies when talking about Continuum of Force. The first is the most common called the "One plus One theory (O.P.O)". This theory advocates that you can use one level of force higher than what is being used against you. For example a passive attack (like grabbing your wrist) could be responded to by using a break away, if not successful you could escalate to the next level to a joint lock and then so on. The problem with this theory it doesn’t take into account variables such as: size/ sex/ number of the attackers, environmental conditions, the circumstances in which the assault occurs, and the amount of time you had to react to the assault. The second philosophy is called " Threat elimination theory (T.E.T.)". This theory advocates using the minimal force needed to eliminate the threat of injury to the defender. This theory takes into account the variables listed above. This theory is what Grandmaster Kemp based his concepts of the Three-blow rule and Three rules of self-defense on. This theory works on the premise that there are no absolutes in self-defense. Therefore a continuum of force theory cannot possibly have hard and fast rules on levels of assault and response. As opposed to OPO, TET takes into account things like number/size of attackers, environmental conditions, distance that the initial attacks begin, physical condition of the defender, etc. These conditions all have an effect on how you can reasonably expected to respond to an attack. Because I am a product of my training (Grandmaster Kemp, Military, and Law Enforcement), I will use the Threat Elimination theory as the base for discussing the continuum of force. The first level of assault is Psychological Intimidation: The use of verbal threats or non-verbal threats of potential or actual violence to intimidate or force a victim into complying with your wishes. This level does not have a physical assault aspect, but is often a precursor to a more serious physical assault. Often an assailant will “talk himself into an assault”. There are several possible ways to deal with this type of aggression, some are effective, and some are not. All have their risks. 1. Disengage: “ A good run is better than a bad stand.” Sometimes it is just better leave a potentially hostile situation before it gets worse. Of course this only works if the aggressor is interested in letting you retreat, or you are really fast, and you don’t have to worry about other people (it is really hard to run if you have your wife/girlfriend and or children with you). A disadvantage of this way of thinking is that it reinforces the aggressor’s behavior. I would rather walk away in most situations, but sometimes that is not an option! 2. Appeasement: This could be considered a form of disengagement, but I contend that this goes a bit further. Appeasement gives the aggressor exactly what he wants in the hopes that giving in will cease any potential violent action. The problem with this is that once you do this, it is likely that the aggressor will continue to try to get more from you. An example of this was Europe during the 1930’s. Hitler was aggressive and invaded Austria. Chamberlin (British Prime minister) didn’t want war, and so he and other European leaders appeased Hitler, allowing him to become more aggressive. 3. Verbal de-escalation/Negotiation: This is probably what most of us would like to do. It consists of talking with the aggressor, but not necessarily "giving in” to demands. Trying to reach a peaceful agreement with the antagonist, that is mutually satisfying. If you and the aggressor are both willing to settle matters without violence, this method is likely to work. However, if either party wants to escalate the situation, or you are unable to come to an arrangement that is win/win, then this probably will not work. Now sometimes the win/win is that you don’t fight and each party is allowed to “save face”. In many cultures “saving face” is very important, and has been the cause of assaults and even murder. 4. Confrontation: This method is one used by people who are aggressive in nature. Some people who use this method usually have the belief that if you meet aggression with aggression, that you can force your antagonist to back down. They “call the bluff” of the antagonist in hopes of ending the situation without appearing “weak”. Some people use this method, because not only are they aggressive, but they also don’t mind physical confrontation. This type of person is just as likely to be on the antagonistic side of a situation as not. The advantage of this is that often you can call the “bluff” of a bully, and back them down. The problems with this method are: 1) You may just get the fight you are trying to escalate (maybe even more of a fight than you anticipated). 2) In a legal sense it makes the claim of self-defense less believable. If you are seen “nose to nose” with someone and then a fight starts, it could (and probably should) be considered a fight of “mutual consent”. Which means that you both can be charged. Being a “ naturally assertive” person myself, I understand how difficult it is to remain calm when confronted by an aggressive person. Over the years Grandmaster Kemp taught me that a confident person can be firm in their beliefs, and still maintain a passive demeanor. He says that you should be “ as gentle as possible, until it is time to be violent, then you should use controlled violence, overwhelming the would be aggressor.” This philosophy has served me well over the years, although that assertive streak has shown itself at times. Having this type of demeanor acts like camouflage, as most of us (combat martial artists) have confidence in our abilities, which can be seen in our mannerisms. This (our mannerisms) belies our soft-spoken, gentle appearance, which can have a confusing effect on an aggressor. I stress that no matter what approach you take when dealing with psychological intimidation, you should be prepared for your antagonist escalating his assault to a physical level. The second level of assault is called Inactive/Passive Aggression: This type of aggression is done as a form of intimidation as well. An example of this is the guy standing in the doorway, preventing you from leaving. Of course our "friend" is not really hurting you, however by using his body to prevent you from leaving he is effectively holding you hostage. Dealing with this type of assault (I call it an assault because you are being kept from exiting) can be a little touchy. I teach my students that they must make it known their intention is to leave. Then in a loud and clear voice ask for “our friend” to excuse you. If after doing this he still persist in blocking your exit (and there are no alternative exits that are safely available), use body checks (hips, and shoulders) as a way of dealing with this. S.O.C.K. also uses Touch Reference as a way of teaching students to move or move around such aggressive people. These techniques are not really damaging, and you must be prepared to escalate your response quickly if our “friend” decides to attack you. In this situation strikes, kicks, weapons, etc may be used depending on the environmental variables of: 1. Number of possible attackers 2. Weapons involved 3. Size and sex of the aggressor 4. Size and sex of the defender 5. Any other environmental conditions that would lead you to believe that your safety is in jeopardy. The third level of assault is Control/Manipulating Aggression and is more dangerous. This assault involves the use of grabs, holds, pushing and or pulling techniques. While you are not being struck (at least not yet!), this aggression is much more dangerous than the previous levels and must be dealt with immediately. Allowing a hold, lock, grab, etc to be placed on you could result in you being effectively neutralized before you realize it! Now because the threat elimination theory states that you use the minimum force needed to neutralize or affect your escape from a threat, my school focuses on the use of a limited number of control techniques. It is my experience that most assault don't happen one-on-one, and so while locks and holds can be effective they may not be practical. As for ground fighting, these techniques are effective in a one-on-one situations (with no weapon involved), but in situations where there is more than one attacker, or weapons are involved these techniques are not as effective (when dealing with multiple attackers or someone using a knife, the last place I would like to be is on the ground). Of course the level of response to this type of assault (as with any other physical assault) is dependent upon various elements. T.E.T. (Threat Elimination Theory) demands that you consider: size /sex and number of your attackers, weapons involved, environmental factors, distance when assault begins. These variables can cause dramatic changes in the response level. At a minimum if some one touches you without your permission that it is battery, and can be responded to with physical force. I add that whatever your response is to an assault that it must do one or more of the following: 1) Cause your attacker(s) enough damage to end all possible threat. 2) Create a sufficient distraction so as to facilitate your escape. 3) Cause your attacker(s) to re-think the risk/cost of an attack on you, and disengage. The fourth level of assault is Active Aggression: In this type of aggression your antagonist(s) use more aggressive techniques (punches, kicks, etc) to put you in a submissive position. Although I feel that any physical assault can be potentially life threatening, Active Aggression is closer to Deadly Assault than most people (including many martial arts instructors) think! How many times have of you heard of someone being beat to death? I personally know someone who killed a man in a bar fight with nothing more than one well placed punch to the head! T.E.T. states that you use the "minimum force" necessary to end a particular threat. This can be a difficult thing for an instructor to teach, mainly because each situation is different, and you can't "write in stone" which response to an attack should be used. I prefer to teach an environmentally aware approach (taking all variables into consideration, as you formulate your response) to self-defense. This gives you at least the ability to explain your actions. If you follow this model, and you are logical about what you teach (basing your approach on what a reasonable person would consider excessive), you are likely to be able to not only teach successful defense, but also build a legally defensible system. The fifth and final level of assault is Deadly Force Assault: This type of assault, the aggressor intends to kill, maim, or do serious bodily injury. Many people believe (and quite correctly) that assaults involving weapons are deadly force assaults. Now some of you say that some armed assaults may not fit into this category. I would say that depends on several factors! I recently had a fellow martial artists inform me that if he sprayed me with mace or pepper spray, that could not be considered deadly force assault. I suggested that legally it would not be considered deadly force if he were the aggressor, but because he was doing it to incapacitate me, and a reasonable person could be persuaded that he may do more serious damage to me, once I could not fight back, I would be justified in responding to his attack at an accelerated level. I know that some would consider this excessive, but keep in mind that “pepper spray” is readily available and works on “good guys” just as well as “bad guys” and that once incapacitated you really can’t defend yourself very well! Weapon assaults are not the only type of deadly assaults there are. As stated earlier, an unarmed assault can be considered deadly if the conditions warrant. Chokes, strangles, etc are all deadly assaults. Any attack that has the reasonable potential to cause serious/permanent bodily injury or death is Deadly Assault. I use reasonable potential as a basis, because almost any technique can be made lethal. Reasonable potential applies to the use at the time. A knife hand strike to the jaw is damaging, but not necessarily lethal. That same strike to the temple or throat is potentially lethal. I teach that your reaction to assault should be swift and devastating, but always appropriate to the type of assault you encounter. I am always amused by those who say " I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6", if you understand the continuum of force, you won’t have to worry about either. Take it from me; none of us really want to go to prison for assault or murder! In conclusion I reiterate, study your local self-defense laws, along with what your local, county and state law enforcement official's use of force policies. Then develop your self-defense formulation based on these principles. That may not give you total protection, but will be valuable in a situation if you find yourself or one of your students in court for excessive force or assault. Remember that you must strike a balance between what is “justifiable force” in a self-defense situation, and effective technique that protects the defender from injury.

All of these posts have been very interesting! I would have to disagree with any hard and fast rule against killing. If saving the life of my children meant killing the attacker. HE IS DEAD! No if ands or buts about it. I am generally a peace loving man, and am opposed to violence for violecne sake. But if my life or the lives of my love ones are at stake and the only option available is the taking of someones life. So be it. As I have said, I have had to take lives before, and did not enjoy this one bit, but felt justified and although I have some remorse for those actions, I have found that over the years this pain has gotten less as well.

I attended a demonstration of "knife defense" several years ago. The instructor who was doing the defense was very impressive with the responses to attacks which were trained for. After the demonstration (did't want to make a fool of him in public) I asked him how he would deal with a "prison type" of attack. He asked me to attack him that way, and so I did. I took the knife in my rear hand and charged him throwing palm heels jabs with my left until I had him backed up against the wall, then I began "jabbing" the knife (plastic) into several of his body parts. He was very surprised! He asked me to attack him again, and this time I plcaed the knife in my lead hand and used quick cuts to his hands and arms, dancing away from him as he tried to move in. After about 5 mins he stopped and said it would be a draw. I pointed out that I had yet to be damaged, and that had we been using a real blade, blood loss would slow him down to the point where he would become eaiser to damage/kill. He stopped smiling. I talked to this fellow a few days ago, and he has changed his opinion and training methods as regards to knife defense.

Tall/short doesnt matter. Skill,Heart, and the ability to act is what matters. Bruce Lee was short, but his speed, realative strength, skill (including his intelligence) and above all heart is what made him such a great fighter. The old saying "it aint the size of the dog in the fight, its the size of the fight in the dog" is really true.

My young friend, look at it from your parents point of view. They may be concerned that you are spending too much time on the computer, because it is an isolated activity. They may also be concerned because there are so many dangerous people online (predators and weirdos) that it is impossible for them to protect you all the time. As far as your training and wanting to fight. This could be a concern as well. No parent wants to raise a bully. Not that you are, but this maybe a concern. Surely you can see how they could see it this way. My suggestion is for you to sit down and explain to your parents how you feel about writting, and that you would like to do this as a profession (assuming you do), and then maybe tell them about the other benifits you receive from your martial arts training other than fighting. As a father of 3 teenagers (who all love the martial arts), and who's son (16) wants to be a writer (and is always on the computer), I understand where your parents are comming from. Try talking to them (not arguing), and maybe they will understand. I assume that they bought your computer and are paying for your martial arts training, so they can't be overly opposed to what you are doing. It may also be a good idea to ease up on all the fight stuff (don't watch it all the time, pass on some of the tourney, etc). Let them see that you are trying to meet them half way. As I said before, your parents are worried about you, and until you are a parent yourself, you will never know true love,concern, fear, saddness, pride, and happiness as you will when you have a child.

Looks like we have similar views here. I agree with both of you on this. I say a fight is a contest were there is a "winner" and a "loser". Self-defense is a individualized war, you survive or you die. Fights are generally by mutual consent (which by the way eliminates all claims of justifiable force from a leagal stand point), and self-defense is "defending" against victimization. however, if you snap someone's neck instead of just knocking him out or breaking a limb, it would be considered excesive force. you defend yourself but you end up in jail. even if only for a year. if it was an accident on the other hand... like someone falling over, or traffic getting in the way, MAYBE you could get out of it. Agreed! That is why it is very important that self-defense instructors teach a use of force continuum in their ciriculum. In my school I teach levels of threats and levels of response. I have used lethal force in a self-defense situation, and because of the way we train it stood up in court. I have also had students who have been aquitted based on our use of force training, and have also won 3 civil suits as well. Knowing the self-defense laws in your area and training with those in mind are absolutely necessary! The people who say "I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6" probably wouldn't need to make such remarks if they trained properly, and I would bet most of them have not spent anytime as an inmate in a prison (not much fun).

As stated several times here, drinking in moderation isn't bad. I have seen several really good martial artist get their hind ends handed to them because they were to intoxicated to actually execute a proper technique (nevermind having to good sense to leave a situation before it got out of hand).

I think we are comparing apples and oranges. The European Knights best element was on horseback, and although they knew how to fight hand to hand, a big part of that was the use of his armor. In the conditions you set out the samurai would have an advantage, but in a fluid combat situation the knight would win. I say this because the warrior culture of Europe was a rapidly evolving culture (use of gunpowder, seige engines, etc) where as Japanese warrior culture was very resistant to change.

Looks like we have similar views here. I agree with both of you on this. I say a fight is a contest were there is a "winner" and a "loser". Self-defense is a individualized war, you survive or you die. Fights are generally by mutual consent (which by the way eliminates all claims of justifiable force from a leagal stand point), and self-defense is "defending" against victimization.

I have been studing the martial arts for 36years in August. I am currently 40 years old (41 in August). I can say that in the beginning I was a reluctant student, but have grown to love it!

Thanks Bushidoman! I will definately look into Mr. Silver's work! I wish I could take credit for all these principles, but my sensei is the real genius behind all this stuff. He has been pounding (literally and figuratively) these concepts into me since I was a wee little karateka!

Congratulations!

The development of realistic/combat effective self-defense techniques is one of the most important features of any combat martial art. This is especially true for unarmed weapons defense. If the instructor(s) of a system are not honest with themselves about the realistic effectiveness of these techniques, it is possible that they could get someone hurt, maimed or killed! Over the years, I have disarmed /incapacitated several armed opponents (I have worked as a bouncer, police officer and currently work in a maximum security prison). I have also been stabbed, cut, shot and clubbed. Although I survived all these encounters, each one (successful defense as well as failed defense) has either reinforced or discredited some of the things I had been taught about unarmed weapons defense! It always amazes me when I hear instructors say how easy it is beat someone who has a weapon. I don’t think these so called “experts” realize that most people who pick up a weapon, do it to give themselves an advantage, and are motivated to do serious bodily harm to their targets. If defeating an armed assailant was so easy, most criminals would not go around armed, and you would not have to train so hard to accomplish this! I usually ask instructors who say that defeating an armed attacker is easy, if they have ever really had to protect themselves from a seriously committed armed attack? Or more importantly, has anyone they ever trained in their system ever had to protect him or herself from an armed attack? Most will answer “no, but we train realistically in class”. Now I am all for doing reality training in class, and we train as realistically as possible in my school too, but that still does not completely prepare you for actual combat! Factors like intent to do damage, adrenaline dump, emotional state (fear, desperation, or rage) and physical damage (continuing to fight after serious injury) all make a difference and are very hard to duplicate in the training hall. No! The only way to know if something works, is to have used it when it counts. Now earlier I told you that I have had several encounters against armed opponents, and that I have been stabbed, shot, clubbed, etc. I did not tell you this to impress you on how tough I am (because I am not), but to impress upon you that unarmed weapons defense is never easy. No matter how skilled, you are at risk of being injured. Any one who tells you that weapons defense is easy is either crazy, stupid, or a fraud. I am going to go over what I consider the principles of unarmed weapons defense. Before getting to those principles I would like to cover a few things: There are basically 5 types of weapons you are likely to encounter on the streets. These are: Short slashing/stabbing weapons (knives, broken bottles, Ice picks) Long slashing/stabbing weapons (Long bladed weapons, broken broom stick, spear like weapons) Short impact weapons (hammer, tire iron, beer bottle, clubs) Long impact weapons (cane, pool stick, long chains) Range weapons (fire arms, thrown objects, knives) Most all weapons (traditional and nontraditional) fit into one or more of these categories. When dealing with an armed opponent, you are at a disadvantage no matter what weapon he has or even to some extent his skill level. The best way to deal with these attacks is to not be where these attacks occur (in other words if you can get away safely do!) If you can’t get away then having a weapon of your own could possibly equalize things or give you the advantage (depending on the weapon and your skill with it). I know that many people think that this sounds like I condone carrying weapons, well in a way I do. I feel that there are many things that we use, carry, or have around us everyday that can be used as weapons (most of us guys wear belts, which can be used as a weapon). Training to use these items (i.e. environmental weapons) is a great idea.I also feel that if you have been properly trained and can get a permit to carry a firearm, this may be an option. There are less lethal means of protection (pepper spray, stun guns, blackjacks, etc). When considering arming yourself, remember rule #1 of self-defense (always assume that your opponent knows as much or more about fighting than you do). Lastly if you are attacked with a weapon, and have no way of leaving or getting a weapon of your own, unarmed defense is your last resort. There are basically two philosophies in unarmed weapon defense. Disarming Neutralizing Disarming places emphasis on taking the weapon away from the attacker, as the attacker is trying to use that weapon on you. Disarms are very difficult because they take precise distance and timing to successfully execute. The primary objective of disarming is: Block the attack and secure the weapon. Stun the attacker Disarm the attacker Neutralizing places emphasis on securing the weapon (putting it in a position which it can’t injure you) and then incapacitating the attacker. This philosophy states that a weapon is useless if the person using it is out of commission. Neutralization does not disregard disarming an attacker, but does not make disarming an attacker it’s primary goal. In this philosophy disarming an attacker can be done, if the opportunity is presented, but the primary objectives are: Avoid being struck and secure the weapon if possible. Disable/ Disarm the attacker. (My sensei use to say: “ If the bad guy is dead, then his knife or gun can’t hurt you”). Secure the weapon (if possible) and deal with any other threats The primary difference is in disarming you must make contact with the attacker and his weapon. In neutralization you can “neutralize” the attacker without ever making contact with the weapon. As you can tell I prescribe to the “neutralization” school of thought and will be giving you the principles of weapon neutralization below. Principles of Weapon Neutralization Environmental Factors: As with all defense techniques your environment and how you use it will play a major role in deciding if you survive an encounter with a weapon. Environmental Awareness, Knowledge and Control are all vital aspects of spontaneous weapons defense. Being aware of your surroundings (type and number of exits, lighting and weather conditions. Possible areas of cover or items that could be used for a weapon) could be the difference between surviving an armed assault and being the victim of an armed assault. Distance: There are two factors involved with this principle. Reactionary Distance (Reactionary Gap): This is the minimum amount of space needed between you and your opponent in order to give you time to react to his attack. The closer an attack is to you when it begins, the more difficult it is to respond. This is one of the reasons that unarmed weapons defense is never easy. I would almost bet that most weapons defense you have seen (especially disarming) start at least at a 6ft gap, with the defender facing the attacker. That is because most systems prescribe to the belief that you need 6ft plus the length of the weapon, in order to have enough time to deal with the attack. In my system we start most weapon attacks at the 3 to 4 foot range (and honestly this is shortened at advanced levels to 1 to 2 foot range), this gives the student an opportunity to train to react quickly to an attack. Your students learn to react to weapons as soon as they come into their field of vision. Relative Distance: This is the distance created between you and your target when moving while executing a block, parry, evasion, or strike. This distance will affect your ability to engage or disengage from the attack. There are several ways to engage and disengage from an attack: Direct engagement involves using blocks, parries, and strikes while moving into close quarters with your target via a straight line. This method can work if you are committed to your defense, and your timing is accurate. Indirect engagement advocates using blocks, parries, evasions, strikes, and environmental objects while moving to a Zone of Sanctuary. This sanctuary can either be away from the attacker (or his weapon), or to the sides of the attacker (or his weapon), thereby facilitating your follow up response. This gives you a window of opportunity for counter attacking. An example of this would be swinging a chair at a knife attacker, as you evade his attack, and move in to counter attack. Active Disengagement is using blocks, parries, evasions and environmental objects to help facilitate your escape. An example of this would be moving a chair between you and someone trying to cut you, allowing you to run out the door. Passive Disengagement is simply turning and running away. This is passive because there is no covering action taken by the defender. Distractionary Opportunities. These are Distractionary Windows and Distractionary Techniques. Distractionary Window is the use of environmental distractions to create an opening for defensive responses to threats. An example of this is responding to an attempted hold up when the attacker turns his head to look in the direction of a noise. Distractionary Techniques cause the initial mental/physical breakdown of an attacker. This causes the attacker to loose mental and physical control of the encounter. Distraction is not generally taught in self-defense courses, but should be. Most criminals are nervous when committing crimes like robbery, and rape (crimes which you likely to be held at gun or knife point). Therefore the use of distraction to facilitate your being able to engage or disengage is an excellent idea! Absolute Commitment in Neutralization is the fourth principle that should be considered. It doesn’t matter what you are doing (fighting or running away) you must do it with total commitment. Hesitation in the defense against a weapon attack will get you hurt or killed! This doesn’t mean that you blindly go into the attack or retreat. You must use your tactical knowledge (knowledge of when, where, why and how to apply specific responses to various situations.). Once you decide upon a course of action, you must put 100% effort into it. Many martial artists talk about having an “indomitable spirit”; well this is what I mean, if you decide to fight, you fight until you can’t fight anymore. No matter if you are shot, stabbed, clubbed or cut, you continue to fight! Weapon Neutralization Procedures is the fifth and final principle that should be considered in unarmed defense against weapons. These are the meat and potatoes of defense as it simply is: Evade, Block, and Parry the weapon. The first priority is not to be struck, cut, shot or stabbed. Of course sometimes this will happen no matter how well we execute your techniques (This is when principle #4 comes into play!). The use of your blocks and parries along with your evasions will help you enter and engage hand-to-hand weapons. Against ranged weapons it depends on the type of ranged weapon being used and how far you are away from the attacker. No matter what you have to keep in mind relative distance (what are you going to do after the initial attack misses? and how much room you need to do it?) Stun the attacker and Neutralize the weapon: this should occur generally at the same time. Neutralizing the weapon could be disarming, pinning, trapping the weapon, or just moving to a zone of sanctuary where the weapon can’t be used on you. The stun should be done with enough force as to mentally and physically interrupt the attacker’s thought and action process. The problem I have seen with some “self-defense” systems is that they stop after this phase. Always remember that just because your opponent has lost his weapon, does not mean that he is done attacking. What if he is high on meth, or coke and is attacking you cause he thinks you are a demon? Taking his weapon will not always deter his assault. Finnish the attacker: Techniques that are designed to put the attacker down and keep them down. At this point if you don’t have absolute control of the weapon, then take control of the weapon. Now not every finishing technique must be lethal, but when dealing with deadly force, or multiple attackers that your techniques must be devastating enough to keep anyone you hit from being part of the encounter again. It does you absolutely no good to take a weapon away from someone, and then have to fight him and 2 or 3 of his buddies (remember the THREE RULES OF SELF-DEFENSE?) These procedures are what is called in my system an Aggressive Defense: one in which you either cause damage to the attacker, or place the attacker in a position in which they can no longer effectively attack, and are vulnerable to your attack. This means that as a defender you must be aware of the weapon, but don’t gets so focused on taking it away that you forget that the attacker is there! Hopefully this has given you some insight into weapons defense. As I always say, I don’t claim to know everything or have all the right answers. The above principles and procedures have worked for several of my students and I in real life encounters with weapons. Train with these principles in mind, and if you find yourself up against a weapon your chances for survival will be increased.

Actually it is from my experience and the teachings of my sensei (Grandmaster Kemp). I have masters degrees in Psychology and Criminal Justice, and try to apply those aspects of my education and experience (I am a couselor in a prison) to the martial arts. Ahh I see, it figures. You write very well. Thank you for your kind words!