Is Self Defense a Myth?

[Syn7]

It is not even about moral high ground. Its about safety. There are consequences to your actions. You want to risk escalating the fight to a more dangerous level, you want to risk yourself being in trouble for causing damage? Fights happen all the time, and most of the time they are just little punch ups. Of course we need to use judgement to assess how dangerous a situation is, and any violent situation is potentially deadly whether deliberately or accidentally. But if you only have this attitude of 'hit 'em hard and fast' I am confident it will cause more trouble for you than a more cautious approach. I am also confident that when a situation arises you will suddenly question your approach, and that is dangerous. If you go into a fight knowing you are going to be defensive and resolute in your method you will be much stronger than if your mind is saying: 'Hmm should I be aggressive?'.

Trying to be aggressive when you are confused is a mistake and sudden situations are confusing.

It has served me well so far. What do you think I meant? Just kill anyone who gets rough? Using common sense is a given, no? What I'm saying is that the opponents state after the fight is of no concern to me during the fight. You do what you have to do to end it as soon as possible. Whether that means going to extremes or simply putting them on their ass entirely depends on the who what when where and why's. Thinking about legal consequences and trying to mitigate damage during the actual conflict... now that's the stuff that gets you hurt. There is no confusion about it. It's actually quite simple and makes it so confusion is significantly less likely. You make that snap decision and you just do it. And like I said, I have a code and I live by that code, I couldn't care less about the law. It just so happens that my code falls in line with the criminal code in many ways. Besides, 99.9999% of what keeps you safe is how you avoid danger altogether.

Anyone who thinks drilling will make it so they don't have to make that snap decision is delusional and has never been in a real situation where the unknowns are great enough that serious injury or death is a possibility.

[Jimbo]

The best bet is to avoid all trouble to the best of your ability. That would literally be self-defense. But 'the art of self-defense' is a phrase referring to fighting methods such as boxing, fencing/cane work, jujutsu, etc., that's been in use in the West at least since the 1800s.

That said, adopting an overly cautious approach for those SHTF situations that absolutely cannot be avoided is suicidal, IMO. Because, if you're overly concerned about the safety and welfare of your attacker, you are already two steps behind. You are putting mental restraints on yourself, while he's completely free of restraints. It assumes that because of your training you are so superior to him that you can toy with him and do with him as you wish. It is also assuming that he has no ace up his sleeve ready for those times when his initial attack doesn't work. It assumes he hasn't garnered (possibly) years of actual ambushing/fight experience, whether formally trained or self-taught through experience.

Of course, as already mentioned, it depends entirely on the situation. You would not deal with a frail, senile, unarmed 90-something year-old running amok in the same way as a drunken collegiate wrestler, or an experienced thug. I don't think anybody said to be on kill mode at all times. A 'semi-friendly punchup' does not warrant the same response as an unprovoked street assault or home invasion.

[Alex Córdoba]

I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the term "self defense."

I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the term "Myth".

One day the word itself will be a Myth.

[lkfmdc]

in a word, YES

- training a day, a week, a few months can never prepare you for what would happen if you were really attacked in the real world

- "military" blah blah bullcrap is a joke because real military planning isn't about teaching you some fool proof deadly CQC system, real military planning is that a certain percentage die immediately, another percentage die in progress and as long as the battle is won that's all that matters

CIA, KGB, Israeli secret service, Viking fighting, etc, too foolish to even discuss with a straight face

Traditional martial arts, so much of it is not at all about "fighting" and much of what WAS about fighting is no longer relevant

[YouKnowWho]

Whether you want to use fancy term or non-fancy term, the meaning are still the same:

- "borrow" vs. "steal",
- "self defense" vs. "fight",
- "help someone to go to heaven" vs. "kill".
- ...

[Kellen Bassette]

If you do decide to hit back then why don't you hit back earlier? If you hit back earlier then can you still call it self defense?

When you do "self defense", it's the same as you "help someone to go to heaven". It may only look pretty outside.

I agree with this.

[Kellen Bassette]

It is not even about moral high ground. Its about safety. There are consequences to your actions. You want to risk escalating the fight to a more dangerous level, you want to risk yourself being in trouble for causing damage?

I agree. If your not willing to escalate the level of danger you should not engage in the fight. You should run. More often than not, this is the wiser choice. Why not train running instead? Where does self defense come into play? It's not the same as attacking your aggressor, that is fighting.

[Kellen Bassette]

I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the term "Myth".

One day the word itself will be a Myth.

Me too really, lol...the myth busting thing has gotten out of hand and here I am adding to the problem...

[Kellen Bassette]

- "military" blah blah bullcrap is a joke because real military planning isn't about teaching you some fool proof deadly CQC system, real military planning is that a certain percentage die immediately, another percentage die in progress and as long as the battle is won that's all that matters

That's what I mean by the military tradition...it's very different then how it's often presented. You train, harden and desensitize troops...you understand there will be losses and are prepared to accept it. The individual understands there is a very real possibility of serious injury or death, the mindset is different...this has nothing to do with the Western ideology of "self defense."

[Syn7]

The first step in any real potentially violent situation is to avoid engagement. But once that threshold has been crossed... You do what you have to do. Sometimes recognizing that line is your greatest asset. When to put you hands up and back down vs when you take aggression to whatever level you have to in order to feel safe. So obviously you don't viciously stomp somebody once their out of commission. But if they are getting back up? Do what you have to. If they are winning a fist fight, you shouldn't have to ask yourself why you are fist fighting and when it's appropriate to start tearing off body parts. Know what I mean? And all that is assuming you are even able, which of course is why we always start with rule one. Cause you don't know, it's just that simple. But once that attack starts, you have to assume it can get deadly. It's about survival of the fittest, pure and simple. Whether you use your mind, your hands, a weapon, any combination of these things... you do what you have to do. I honestly think worrying about legal or moral consequences is a potentially fatal mistake. We aren't talking about school yard fist fights here. I am assuming that we are all peaceful and not looking for trouble, and if that's the case... well, you know what I'm sayin.

[lkfmdc]

"if you aren't prepared to die, better to not go to war today"
Old Japanese saying

[Jimbo]

I agree. If your not willing to escalate the level of danger you should not engage in the fight. You should run. More often than not, this is the wiser choice. Why not train running instead? Where does self defense come into play? It's not the same as attacking your aggressor, that is fighting.

Some people cannot physically run, or at least outrun most (young) attackers. Meaning those with chronic issues, etc. But I agree that the best 'defense' is to simply not be where the trouble is, or doing your best to avoid it. Problem is, that isn't always possible.

[MightyB]

Nobody says "hey, get ready 'cuz I'm going to attack you!", that's why teaching SD is mostly a joke.

Thing is, there's three types of people based on how you deal with a real threat and they are Flight, Fight or Freeze. You don't have much in a choice in what you are, but unless you can really address and find out what you really are fer realz - then there's no way that you can learn a defense.

[Kellen Bassette]

Consider the example of nature. Alpha dog asserts dominance over Beta dog. Beta dog does not engage Alpha dog. He rolls over on his back and pees on himself. If Alpha attacks Beta, Beta cowers, retreats, may defend, but without conviction, tail is between his legs, he looks for an opportunity for retreat. This is self defense mindset.

Alpha dog confronts Alpha dog. If one attacks, the other does not defend. (Not in the sense of Beta dog.) He attacks his attacker. One or both will probably be injured.

I do not believe these two scenarios are the same, or can be prepared for in the same way.

[Kellen Bassette]

Thing is, there's three types of people based on how you deal with a real threat and they are Flight, Fight or Freeze. You don't have much in a choice in what you are, but unless you can really address and find out what you really are fer realz - then there's no way that you can learn a defense.

Yes.......