Archive for December 2012

Why Train to Fight vs Mass Murderers?

December 21, 2012

Response to various topics found at the post here and the comments.

“And criminals try to start first – that is their raison d’etre.”-Dan D

That’s one of those mental blocks. People start first because their intent was purer and more efficient, or they were just faster on the up take. It’s similar to the various timings Miyamoto Musashi wrote about. You can be half a beat faster than the opponent, and just launch pre-emptive attacks they can’t respond to. But if they are faster and respond just as fast, then you should adopt a half beat slower timing in order to get them when they aren’t prepared. And if you are really slow, you should adopt a 1 beat or 2 beat slower timing, so you can defend and then attack. The progression is from easiest, simplest to use, most common to counter vs skilled enemies, to more complicated stuff that usually only works if the simple stuff has failed. If at all possible, the goal is to use the simplest, most energy efficient methods. If a pre-emptive attack can do the job, it’s better than waiting to defend, then attack. I call that adding unnecessary friction in warfare, and it gets people killed.

As one example, a teacher was hiding under something when one of the Kindergarten shooters came around. He came, he didn’t see a target, he left, and the person hiding saw the legs of the shooter right in front of em, before the killer left to go kill more kids. Now what made the shooter go first, wasn’t because he had a better plan than the person hiding. The shooter attacked first and killed first, because he had A plan. Everyone else had No Plan. They had no plan because society and people on the internet keep telling them the only thing they can do against murderers and psychopaths is to hide, defend themselves, and run away. While that can certainly work, because hiding saved that person’s life, it is not what I would call optimal for society or community.

The single greatest blocking point for civilians is their lack of aggression, aka their inability to throw off social conditioning and acquire killing (not defending or non harmful) intent. Withou that intent, it doesn’t matter if their bodies are trained better. Because their mind and spirit are not in harmony. A conflict between two equally armed individuals, the one with the higher intent wins. To win a conflict against an armed individual when you aren’t armed with an equal weapon or skill, requires at least equal intent, if not greater. It’s like people who think carrying a weapon gives them power, when they lack the mental focus to even look at the target when they swing the weapon. They’re looking “off to the side” because they lack the actual intent to do harm. So they miss, because that’s what they intended to do all along.

As the ancient martial artists noticed, even if the enemy is way faster than you are, you can easily wait for an opportunity and kill them. In 1 vs 1 deathmatches involving weapons and hands, this requires you to avoid, evade, distract, absorb, deflect, or block attacks to stay alive. In modern life, that’s not necessary. All you need to do is to watch someone with 1. intent and 2. resources that are used to kill civilians. You see one of those, you can act, both morally, ethically, and legally with justification. At worst, he kills a bunch of people, giving you time to jump him when he isn’t looking. If he stabs you, then if you can attack, do so. If you can’t, you don’t need to worry about it, cause you’re kind of dead. There’s no such thing as 1v1 duels in modern day mass casualty scenarios. Neither sword fights, knife fights, gun fights, or unarmed fights last as long as people think, when both sides have equal lethal intent, at the same high level. A lot of the defense skills are unnecessary for the greatest threat scenarios in existence, yet require an inordinate amount of time to train for actual use and the only time they get used a lot is for the lowest threat scenarios. IT’s far worse than Taiji Chuan’s saying about 10-30 years in the training hall before one can use it for real outside.

Generally speaking, most people train against diluted foes. So their techniques become diluted. A lot of martial artists talk about “real resistance” or “live training”, but even their standards for the highest threat scenario is manifestly far below the mass casualty, serial killer, psychopath, sociopath, drug induced berserker killer, scenarios that people should be training first for. Most of the problem is the inability to imagine what a serial killer and psychopath even is, let alone how they operate, and simulate conditions for that kind of training scenario. That problem is also why people fall prey to serial killers so much, even though technically they had the reflexes, youth, speed, and strength to defeat such weak physical specimens. It’s also because serial killers know how to pick weak prey too, there’s credit for that too.

“How it can creep in, seemingly unnoticed, into various “reality-based” systems is beyond me.”

When one trains for offense, one must discard defense, at least initially. What becomes more important is how to recognize the right timing to attack, and what attack to use, at when. The quality of the training is based upon the individuals in question and their results, which you can check for yourself. Videos are nice, but I wouldn’t use them as the final judgment of anything really.

Many of the scenario based systems, like Rory Miller’s or even Marc MacYoung’s private sessions, analyze their criticality based upon the moment when you, the civilian defender, must attack and kill/maim/cripple/harm the other human over there. If you hesitate against killers, they will kill you first. There’s no reload or respawn. And if you don’t hesitate and kill some guy playing around with you, there’s no reload or do over on that either. Most people actually don’t understand this because they cannot comprehend what the “right timing” is. In order to load that information in, normally it would take decades of training experience and several life and death encounters. To do so in a time efficient way in modern life, sacrifices in the training must be made, and the most efficient one to sacrifice is all the defenses, counters, and counters to the counters for the other counters. Training has always been a simulation and various sacrifices have been made to fit one’s particular threat environment. To do otherwise, is to engage in risky behavior. When criminals come sporting the latest MMA counter to lock A, B, C, and counter to throw C,Y,Z, then it might be different.

Well, they also don’t understand when to act because they think they can’t kill with just their hands or think someone else can’t kill them with just their hands. Training people’s minds will always come first, as such many of the old technique based systems already assumed the person knew when to use the techniques. Modern society has become a lot more complicated since then plus those techniques have been diluted in the passing. I wouldn’t necessarily assume people’s primary problem is how to use a technique well, with the right power or whatever. Their primary problem is that they don’t even know that they are in a life and death situation. Until it’s too late. Then it’s like that school with the kids.

“Where’s the “attacker”?”

If you recall, there is actually no attacker in many of the internal forms and training methods. That’s because the methods are designed to streamline the user’s intent, get rid of muddied thinking, and directly clean out the “what if” thoughts people tend to have. What if that guy attacked over here, vs over there. What if he attacked my head vs my hands. What if this, what if that. Taiji Chuan’s single whip encompasses many elements. That single principle, which encompasses both attack and defense scenarios, without requiring the user to even think much about those scenarios, is the goal. Instead of looking to see what the attacker is punching with, and then reacting based upon that, Wing Chun advocates a direct linear attack progression, always advancing, while taking care of defense in other ways. That idea, when applied by the ancients against solely melee/H2H range opponents, resulted in what they have. In modern day, adjustments must be made, but first people have to sort of re-engineer technical knowledge.

The shooter at the kid school didn’t need to worry about attackers. Because he was the only one that was actually dangerous there. Unlike a criminal, the duty bound civilian only needs to worry about criminal attackers. Criminal attackers do all kinds of stuff, most of it is unpredictable based upon the moment, but predictal at the strategic, broader, levels. Until one is training with the intent of killing criminals, one should first integrate that legal and ethical context in before worrying about simulating the actual attacker. If you give people a human to target and kill, and have the defender do “X”, then the next time they see somebody doing “X” to them, they will react with killing techniques. Even if the person doing “X” is 6 years old. Such training is olden technique based muscle memory, applicable only to the battlefield where the rules of engagement are as simple as one can get. Not appropriate to the complexities of modern life.

The reason why many fighters normally get freaked out by beginners or people from other styles (MMA included), is because beginners and other stylists, do things you don’t expect. Thus if you trained against response A, B and C, and you see XYWER, you basically just sit there trying to process new info while you get destroyed. The MMA guys that got knocked out by that guy’s karate snap kick, had the reflexes to dodge or get out of range, but they reacted incorrectly because they thought it was that “other kick”. This is where training is actually bad, because the person really should have been thinking about it more. Preferably, before the conflict itself.

One of the first things to keep in mind about training against specific “attackers” is that it is all imagined. Somebody made up that response. It’s basically arbitrary. There’s no one application to a movement. There’s no “if you see Y, do B” thing. That’s not an art. That’s just zombie robotics. An attacker attacking them, makes beginner civilians think they are in a fight. They start thinking about counters, what ifs, etc. In order to stop them from wasting their time, certain things must be adjusted in training. Whether that is effective or not, will require a specific case to be made, not a general one. The bulk of training a civilian to utilize lethal force is not physical, but mental and spiritual. The physical part is easy once their mind leads the way. Criminals are the verifiable case that it can be done, with half a brain, and no training or physical prowess whatsoever. And they didn’t always do it with knives, bats, and guns either.

American gun control isn’t international gun control

December 19, 2012

(Title: But even if it was, it wouldn’t matter to domestic American policies)

(Increase in violence with confiscating and elimination of gun ownership) OP, my response:

It has happened in the UK. Whether it will continue to happen in Australia or Canada, is up to those countries. The only thing that should matter to Americans is the American Constitution and internal politics. Those who look outwards, are either using Switzerland as a defense against the people who want to transform America based upon the British and Euro model, or looking for ways to convince the anti-US Constitution and pro Europeans of other things. Either way, international law is not American law, no matter how many people wanted to vote in the US elections because they think US law affects them overseas.

“This is what “gun control” means. As far as I’m aware, no one in the US (aside from a loony fringe) is suggesting the outright “banning” of all gun ownership.”

You don’t really understand what’s going on in the US at the moment. Nor what has gone on in the past. There are some parallels and similarities to other nations, but again, it’s not necessarily the same thing because even if people had the same political and religious beliefs, they are Australians and British/Scottish/Irish, not Americans.

The issue about knives still apply, but in a different fashion.

It is true that guns are still allowed in Australia and the UK. The difference is that the government won’t let them be used to defend oneself against crime or other types of violence, except if one is a duly authorized member of said government or part of the bodyguard detachment assigned to said government’s protection. In almost all cases where one could use firearms to defend life, the government takes that power away and invests that power in itself, whether this means prosecuting home owners or releasing criminals, doesn’t matter in the end.

When Americans talk about gun control, they’re really talking about a couple of ancillary issues the international world doesn’t pick up on. First of all, the reason why the Leftist alliance for human totalitarian utopia prefers the term gun control, is because they consider or at least claim guns as being evil totems where just touching one corrupts the soul in unsafe manners. This is also derived from the transnational Leftist alliance where gun control has been favored and put into law. Whether it actually outlaws guns or not, isn’t the issue. The fact that it eventually leads to the government monopoly on force and the conversion of citizens into subjects, not defenders of society or of themselves, is the primary issue America’s 2nd Amendment was installed against.

Japan actually has a more or less workable system against guns and swords. But that works for Japan because Japan is Japan (a police box containing an armed officer every mile or so). Australia is not the UK, nor is America either Australia or Japan. To confuse the politics between countries is sort of like why America thought Iraq would rebuild itself into a democracy on day 1 or at least day 95. But it didn’t, because people had their own domestic problems international critters didn’t seem to know much about.

Australia, or at least Sidney, has some pretty bad knife crimes. That nation or city tolerates it, because they would prefer to be assaulted with violence on a regular basis, so long as they aren’t killed by it. The American philosophy has always been, and still is to some degrees, the refusal to accept 24 hour violence. Instead, we accept the penalty of death for stupid actions and expect our fellow citizens to realize the folly of their actions, or we will, not the state or the feds, execute them in defense of our own civilization, community, society, family, etc.

In our bar fights, we don’t pull out guns and shoot people when we start losing. It’s primarily because if anyone was going to do that, they would do that in the beginning. And when everyone saw the gun, they would just run for it, and stop fighting for stupid chest thumping justifications. Flashing guns and what not, has actually deterred more bar room brawls which escalate into killings overseas than people might expect. Those that didn’t believe this, usually did something stupid when talking to a gang banger and got killed for it. In Sidney, where no one carries guns while walking to or from the bar, there’s fights, that escalate into beatings, that escalate into stabbings. In the UK, the perpetual aura of violence around urban cities is on a similar level, although their issue seems to be home invasions and family murders/rapes that are just opportunity crimes stacked on top of other issues. That which Australians and UK loyalists believe is safe and comfortable, isn’t exactly what the rest of the world thinks.

” Because you just don’t have the accuracy, the rate or number of rounds to do the “job”.”

You conveniently forgot Ft. Hood.

Again the international focus is not the American focus. We here in the States don’t really like living in slavery, whether that’s due to dependence on the government or on somebody else for protection. A degree of national protection via communal sacrifice is tolerated, but it’s not the preference. The US is big enough that even this baseline doctrine is challenged by urban policies.

The division in this country is between urban cities that are basically fiefdoms controlled by the Democrat politicians at the top, and “other places”. Urban cities have even more severe restrictions on guns than international countries have, yet produce the majority of US crime statistics. Such restrictions were witnessed when New Orleans police officers going house to house before Katrina started confiscating hand guns. NOPD then promptly disappeared and went awol, letting the robbers, rapists, and murderers start looting and breaking stuff. Now with a populace totally disarmed, except the ones that didn’t volunteer to hand over their only defense, New Orleans descended into a chaos that was wholly man made, yet instigated by a natural disaster. But American domestic policy makers never talked about banning cities, mayors, police, criminals, or natural disasters after that event wrecked havoc with people’s lives. Even though such things were the direct cause of the destruction. There was no political power in it, so to speak.

New Orleans isn’t particularly liberal or conservative. It’s a Democrat fiefdom in a Republican state, but it’s still a fiefdom because it is an urban center. The rest of the nation doesn’t particularly want to become like New Orleans, Oakland, Los Angeles, New York, or any other place controlled by 99% Democrats either. They may not realize exactly why they dislike it, but the form it takes is usually a response to the “gun control” deceptive speech and propaganda by the Left.

We don’t need Australian cities or Japanese cities or UK cities as examples for American laws banning civilians from defending themselves. We already know where we are going because our cities are already there. So it has never been the case of some delusion or slippery logic slope as international critics would like to see it as. Frankly, Americans don’t care what happens in other countries. Even the Democrats that say we should become like Australia and the UK, because they don’t have people shooting each other, only care about their domestic power inside the US, not outside it.

Unless the mass media decides to cover it, Americans don’t even realize the crime and killings going on in our inner black neighborhoods and white ghettoes. The fundamental problem is not gun control or banning guns, but has gone far beyond that little caricature of a propaganda phrase.

“Leaving aside the practicability/possiblity of “cultural change” (which I will discuss in a minute), is it not more appropriate to compare the US to another frontier Anglo-based society like Australia? “

Only if you have a position that would benefit from said comparison. The reason people compare it is not because we are similar to Australia, but because they benefit from the comparison. Americans have been doing this with the EU for decades now. Domestically, unless you fought a civil war to kill your British masters to gain said freedom, it’s hard to make the comparison. It could easily be said that South Africa, Liberia, and Iraq/Afghanistan have more in common with US problems than modern Europe or Anglo Saxon speaking countries. Americans speak the same language, yet our beliefs and problems differ greatly from state to state, city to city, Alaska to Detroit. China and Japan had states warring against each other, even though the people they fought spoke the same language. Just because somebody speaks the same language and shares the same culture, doesn’t mean the differences diminish to nothing. If anything, the differences are magnified and distorted precisely because people speak the same language.

The fact that foreigners understand more about their own country than they do about the US, is obvious. What isn’t obvious is that most everyone expects the US to be ignorant of things outside the US, but never applies that perspective to their own cultural perspective. CNN and other American so called media, don’t do much of anything to educate Americans inside America about the things going on in America. That is why that actor told people to stop watching the news, and instead investigate using the internet and use something called critical thinking, not sitting in front of a box being told the gospel. It isn’t going to do much to educate foreigners about America if they watch CNN either. The same goes for Hollywood movies and other such cultural artifacts from the US.

The United States of America is progressing towards another civil war. If we don’t even understand why it is so or what is causing it, foreigners won’t have much of a better chance.

To end that line of thought and go back to another one I glossed over: knife violence, UK crime statistics, and anti Ft. Hood tactics.

One of the things that foreigners don’t hear much about, since Americans don’t hear about it much domestically either, is the incidents where mass murderers have tried to kill a lot of people with guns, but failed. There are a lot of reasons they failed, but primarily they failed because the citizens themselves, the so called victims, fought back and disabled or killed the would be mass murderer. This cultural and societal belief that one is the defender of oneself, one’s family, and one’s community, is not exactly strong in other places that rely on military and police for protection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knoxville_Unitarian_Universalist_church_shooting

One might notice that these incidents didn’t involve people killing the gunman. It just resulted from a certain idea, that is usually associated with church goers, of a community and one’s duty to it. It would be hard to find courage to do something similar when one has invested the police and military forces with the firepower and the right to use it all the time.

These are the live shooting examples.

As foreigners are fully cognizant, whether you are living inside the US or outside it, you don’t get much say in US policies regardless of what you think “should be” the case. But if you did have full awareness of the problems and solutions, many Americans would still trust you, the foreigner, to make a rational decision about the Final Policy, than we would trust the people in our very own country that we have seen deliberately increase the number of victims to mass killings.

Ft. Hood= Gun Free zone, all guns confiscated to the armory with MP exceptions. Columbine=gun free zone. Virginia Tech=gun free zone. Churches=usually gun free zones, unless you’re in the Bible Belt, then you’re kind of screwed if you try to kill people there. Cities=not gun free zones, just gun free for people who aren’t criminals or part of the government elite class.

People outside and inside the US should really ask themselves why they don’t hear about mass killings that were stopped. Why do they only talk about and hear about the failures? Because the failures give the power brokers justifications to make more failures perhaps? If people wanted “solutions”, America has plenty of them. But they aren’t the ones people talk about vis a vis gun control. There’s a reason for that. And it’s one that benefits the dead not at all.

If and when the power brokers in our nation want to make it turn citizens into protected children, there is no “gun control” solution, unless the solution is to disarm the people of their only defense. Whether that only defense is their hands or their knives or a bat. We’re definitely talking about gun control and not ignoring it, but a lot of domestic American policies are worded in a sort of “war is deception” mode in order to deceive both domestic and foreign audiences. Things are not what they appear to be. But even if they were, many Americans would still not accept the role of victim sheep forced to survive based upon the random dictates of luck and some guy with an armed bodyguard telling them who is part of the protected class and who is not.

We’re not interested in whether knives are more dangerous and lethal than guns. If anything, we prefer guns because it requires less work and is more lethal, since a woman defending herself against rapists and mass murderers, better be as dangerous as she can be, without 10 years training in “knife fighting” to compensate. What is true with criminals using guns and knives, is 1000 times more effective and applicable when speaking of the broader civilian and citizen defense forces. A nation that has gotten its people to think of security as giving more power to the elite nobles, rather than doing things for themselves, has created a habit in its people that will not lead to anywhere safe or good. The US is not particularly interested in whether Japan or Australia can make such a philosophy work. What we are interested in is whether the people enforcing such philosophies and religious doctrine in our cities, is going to be able to enforce their views on the rest of us who don’t live in Democrat states or urban cities.

The TSA has stopped 0 terrorist attacks. The civilians on Flight 93 stopped the White House or the Capital (full of bodyguard protected Ivy League lawyers and politicians) from being burned to ash. Americans will always favor the latter over the former. Until non-Americans and anti-Constitutionalists win the civil war, at least. Until then, though, it applies.

Freedom is hard. It is not safe. And it definitely isn’t luxurious. People don’t climb mountains and train in martial arts because it is fun like eating chocolate is fun, but because it sharpens the senses and makes living worthwhile. America has always taken such beliefs to a certain extreme, beyond what other nations were willing to do. If the case ever ceases to be true, then you will have known one side or the other won over completely. But before then, expect nukes to explode a few times on this planet and a few millions to die. Australians would never rise up in armed rebellion against the local or state government, primarily because they lack the means. United States is slightly different. We’re much more similar to barbarian states and old historical dramas like Japan’s Sengoku period, than many people would expect from the vision of the US as exemplified in Hollywood (that of a gluttonous, gun violence filled, pathetically weak and decadent culture focused on no beliefs worth living for whatsoever). Some of the barbarian/decadence element is exemplified in our invasions of foreign nations, but most call that just bombing people from a safe place: cowardice essentially.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.