|
|
By Bradley J. Steiner, American Combato
It is amazing how often individuals who are students of what they believe to be “self-defense” recoil from what we have to say or to write about defending against violent criminal attack being essentially the same thing as engaging in combat with an enemy during the course of a war.
Yet, we insist and maintain without hesitation or the slightest doubt that the comparison with combat in wartime is valid. In fact, we can argue that defending against a violent criminal predator can in many instances be more dangerous than confronting a uniformed adversary on the battlefield.
After all, one’s enemy in wartime is most generally someone who, in private life, is simply a normal, decent individual—often a responsible family man—who in effect is one’s opposite number in the country against whom one’s own government is waging war. The violent criminal is simply society’s scum… the worthless and dangerous refuse that unfortunately chose predation rather than civilized living as his lifestyle.
These vermin rape, murder, torture, rob, destroy because they enjoy it.
Violent offenders, against whom one should be enthusiastically training to cope in any true self-defense program, deserve no more consideration than disease germs. They need to meet destruction when they attempt to ply their trade—the swifter the better.
We can only conclude one of two things when we encounter disagreement with our doctrine from supposed martial arts students:
- They are not interested in close combat and personal defense, but instead train for competitive sport or for “art’s sake”—and regard the training in which they participate as recreational gamesmanship, or as an esthetically satisfying discipline and exercise, or
- They have been led to believe bullshit, and think very unrealistically about self-defense in the real world, because the training they are following is unsuitable for actual combatives preparation.
While there are certainly some excellent teachers and schools out there, there is also a preponderance of fantasy classes in which utterly impractical thinking and training takes place. In many instances the teachers themselves simply are not familiar with the nature of the actual threat that violent criminal attack poses.
Recently a friend of ours showed us an advertisement for a new “self defense” gimmick: A gun that fires pepperballs. Hailed as a breakthrough non-lethal weapon, we wouldn’t be surprised if the silly thing sold millions!
We simply cannot understand this asinine concern for non-lethality when the need arises to save one’s life! Violent offenders don’t give a damn if they maim or kill their victims, so what malady exists in the heads of those potential victims that enjoins them to exercise benevolence when selecting tools by which they will defend themselves? People tend to be more realistic when they hire exterminators for household rodents or roaches. If the exterminator suggested (which he wouldn’t) that the customer merely “stun” or scare the varmints, the customer would—properly—go elsewhere for the service.
But when it comes to truly dangerous, thinking, experienced, violent, determined and often armed predators who attack them personally and willfully and deliberately, these same people disdain the employment of weapons that DO THE JOB.
We speak, naturally, of firearms, and edged weapons, mainly. Why anyone would waste a second wondering or doubting if such could be justified when being forced to save his life, is beyond our comprehension. Can you imagine sending U.S. marines or soldiers into combat armed with pepperball-firing “guns”; or perhaps real guns—loaded with blanks or rubber bullets?
No?
Well that’s our point. Violent offenders kill their victims just as dead as enemy soldiers in battle kill their opponents when they can, so there is only one way to deal with such adversaries—in war or in peacetime civilian life—and that is with a realistically suitable degree of force.
If one is relegated to the use of one’s bare hands in an attack then unarmed combat as befits the combat marine or infantry soldier is called for! Forget about such nonsense as control grips, submission holds, restraining methods, and “arrest” techniques.
The very few instances when such actions are appropriate occur with police officers and others who are employed as security people and peace keepers. The private citizen who is confronted by dangerous, determined, clear and obvious harm from one or more unarmed or armed predators has no use for such foolishness. The only thing that such an intended victim should concern himself with is stopping the attacker—by any efficient, damaging, ruthless and savage means; because that is what works best and most reliably. Precisely as it does in a declared war.
If by any chance, until now, you have been hesitant about adopting the attitude and technical approach that we espouse, consider how your hesitancy reflects upon your basic self-respect.
Just what the hell have you been brainwashed into thinking?
That an attacker is owed consideration? That you have no right to place your life above the attacker’s when you are attacked? That you have some kind of “responsibility” to measure and weigh carefully the punishment you dish out to someone who couldn’t care less if he killed you?
Come on, friend! Wake the hell up.
If you’ve sufficient sense to at least allow for the possible truth of that which we are offering you, then there’s hope. If you recoil from and resent our position, oh well… go your own way and do as you please. You’re not our concern and we—obviously—have nothing to offer you.
In the past there have been some otherwise excellent teachers (like the late Bruce Tegnér, who was a brilliant purveyor of practical self-defense, and who was ahead of his time) who took strong issue with that which we advocate. In Tegnér’s case he simply didn’t believe that the techniques taught for military men in war were appropriate for “ordinary” self-defense (whatever that is).
We, on the other hand, believe strongly that war-proven combatives is the FINEST type of technical repertoire to acquire for real world self-defense. We respectfully disagree with Tegnér here, as we do in regard for his disdain for firearms and fighting knives for self-defense.
We suspect that two things are in large part responsible for Bruce Tegnér’s position: First, his halcyon teaching years were the most violence free and crime free and peaceful in American history (i.e the late 1940’s through to the mid-1960’s), and second, Tegnér was in fact a very decent, nonaggressive person who, although expert in judo and jiu-jitsu, did not see violence in a favorable light, and always took every opportunity to urge against it. (Note: This is sheer conjecture of course, but we believe that, were Tegnér alive today, and were we able to meet him and share ideas and notes, his position in regard to what kinds of techniques are suitable for self defense, and the role of weaponry for modern self-defense, might in fact be radically different from what it was, following WWII. But we have no way of proving this.)
Our mission is to train and educate the trainable and the educable who possess intelligence and honesty, and who are concerned for their and for their loved ones’ protection and safety in a dangerous world, in THAT WHICH WORKS. We have learned and studied long and hard “that which works”, and we pass it on to those with brains enough to recognize it when they see it, and to appreciate it when they hear it (in the case of tactical and mental conditioning doctrine).
Bottom line: Self Defense is war in microcosm. Believe it. Train with that in mind and God-willing, when and if it ever comes to you, you will be ready, willing, and able to manage your crisis!