Being Street Smart

[Bhassler]

Mostly people beat up and/or kill other people they know. I live in a not so great part of town (right now I am listening to one of the semi-weekly police chases near and through my neighborhood), yet have never felt seriously threatened. An odd experience I've had a few times is seeing gang bangers commuting to and from the major thoroughfare near my house where they presumably deal drugs or do whatever it is they do, but they're just driving home from work like everybody else. As Bruce said, generally if you don't mess with them they don't mess with you. Given that I don't live in the safest area of anyone on eF, nor the most dangerous, what should I be afraid of? I'd genuinely like to hear from those with concrete experience of these things how stuff goes down, and what are examples of situations that a martial artist should realistically be preparing for-- i.e. serious if not lethal force is required to handle the situation. What's typical? What's worst case?

[Frank Bellemare]

Chris, your logic is impeccable as always.

However, you are considering things from a "scientific" point of view where humans are rational thinking individuals who will naturally choose the solution that is objectively the best for their survival and benefit. I don't believe that to be the case. Humans are much more complex than that; they are full of passion, desires, irrational thoughts and behaviours, their psyche has depths that no one can ever fully understand. Having a weapon in your possession, much like being with two of your friends instead of being alone, will change the way you perceive the potential for a violent encounter.

Because as a human being, you feel empowered by that knife in your pocket or by your two buddies at your side. So whereas you normally would sheepishly and safely change sidewalks to avoid an aggressive-looking junkie, empowered as you are, you might decide to try your luck. Why? Because you're human. Because we lust for dominance over one another. Like bucks banging our heads against each other. Because now you feel like you have enough backup -- after all, with your weapon or your friends you are certainly stronger than that one guy -- so if something happens, chances are you're going to come out on top.

Let me end by telling the story about that guy who got stabbed and killed in a fight outside a bar close by. The one who got stabbed had a few friends with him, the one who stabbed him had none. Why did the guy with the knife decide to fight when he knew he could be surrounded by his opponent's friends? Was that logical, was that dictated by the situation? No, it wasn't. Most likely, he thought that if things turned out bad, he had a weapon in his pocket, an equalizer. But in the end he panicked, stabbed a poor guy in the chest and will spend the next 10 years wondering why he went into that fight in the first place. He was only human. His weapon made him feel safe and powerful, and he ended up making a stupid and deadly mistake.

If we were all able to make rational, cool-headed choices all the time even during difficult situations, we wouldn't even be talking, because martial arts wouldn't exist. The world wouldn't be teetering on the edge of self-destruction, we wouldn't be pointing nuclear warheads at each other, and McDonald's wouldn't be spending 1 billion a year in advertisement to brainwash you into thinking that you need a Big Mac with a big serving of crisp delicious golden fries with that. At every moment of our lives, the line between rational and irrational, between a good and a bad decision, is very very thin.

[Chris McKinley]

Frank,

Your take on the human condition is poignant and certainly relevant. However, you seem to present a rather fatalist approach to the circumstances. While it's true that most people make decisions and evaluations based on undisciplined emotion, you present the case as if it were ubiquitous, unavoidable and permanent when such is not the case.

I'm not necessarily considering things from a scientific point of view so much as from a disciplined professional perspective. Yes, untrained and undisciplined individuals will likely (but are not by any means certain to) make decisions about the use of force and violence based largely on insecurity, ego and other emotions. However, an important aspect of training in almost every martial art is the disciplining of the mind every bit as much as the body. Those who have a greater capacity to do harm are in most traditions ethically more obligated to learn to wield that ability responsibly.

It is also in the best interest of the individual to learn how to evaluate potentially dangerous and violent situations in ways that best serve the interest of survival, safe and unharmed. Learning how to think about violent encounters in more rational and objective ways is a major key to achieving that objective. One of the first steps in one's development in this regard is learning how to separate the ability to determine the use of necessary force from the influence of the individual ego. Your description would lead one to believe that ego-driven decisions about the use of violent force is a permanent, predictable and inalterable condition in all individuals. This is not the case by any means.

Students should be receiving education in the area of learning how to evaluate potentially hostile encounters as much as in any other area to which martial art applies. Instructors unwilling or unable to do so are guilty of gross negligence and intellectual dishonesty. Just as firearm safety and the proper use of a firearm for personal protection can be and is taught every day to otherwise completely untrained individuals, imparting the skills to evaluate situations objectively represents perhaps the single most important way an instructor can empower a student to protect himself and his loved ones from real-world violence.

Further, learning to do so is perhaps the single most important thing a person can do to protect himself and his loved ones and to take ownership of that responsibility. If you find yourself operating out of ego-driven evaluations, especially in stressful circumstances, I suggest you may benefit greatly from beginning regular communication with people capable of helping you to develop the ability to handle such situations more objectively and professionally.

[Ian]

There's a big difference between the professional mindset and that of a punk.

Safety belts don't make me want to drive recklessly, and weapons don't make me want to jump into ego-driven fights. I find your comments completely off the mark:

Because as a human being, you feel empowered by that knife in your pocket or by your two buddies at your side. So whereas you normally would sheepishly and safely change sidewalks to avoid an aggressive-looking junkie, empowered as you are, you might decide to try your luck. Why? Because you're human. Because we lust for dominance over one another. Like bucks banging our heads against each other. Because now you feel like you have enough backup -- after all, with your weapon or your friends you are certainly stronger than that one guy -- so if something happens, chances are you're going to come out on top.

Compare a happy-slapper or a neo-nazi who hurts for sport, and someone who fights to defend himself, his family, and his country.

My practice is based on non-destruction, humility, being a good person, and acting in self-defense. It's completely different from what you're trying to imply.

[Sprint]

You could do a lot worse than listen to this guy http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/

[CaliG]

Personally I've lived in rough neighborhoods or at least near them and I agree that if you walk around like you know the place (like you live there) people don't mess with you, again I think it's because you're not showing fear or aggression.

When you show one or the other people are going to react.

As far as carrying weapons I do think it's a double edged sword. I've seen a bar owner who used to hide a crowbar behind his back when approaching someone he wanted out, again in the Mission in SF. Well one day someone decided he didn't want to leave and pushed him and the bartender swung at the guy and cracked his skill. He was arrested, not sure what happened but I don't think he thought he was going to actually have to use it, but he made his choice.

I've also heard of people pulling out knives and having them used against them. There's a famous story of a well known boxer pulling out a knife on a biker and slashing him, only to have the biker take it and stab the boxer 20 times. Too bad the boxer didn't just stick with his fists, perhaps then he'd still be here, we'll never know.

[Chris McKinley]

CaliG,

Your example of the bar owner is a poor one, since it demonstrates someone making decisions about the use of force based on ego and dominance. No one on this board advocates that mode of thinking, nor is that mode of thinking in any way necessary to the carrry or use of weapons in actual self-defense. IOW, your example in no way makes the case that carrying a weapon is of necessity a double-edged sword in that regard.

You also mention "a story" of a boxer vs. a biker. All of this leads me to believe that you, and most of the other posters, are writing from the perspective of someone who has never directly experienced that level of violence before. To be fair and clear, that would be expected, and is in no way an evaluation of your insight, intelligence, rationality or capability as a martial artist. However, it does limit you to speculation and/or learning vicariously through the experience of others.

Quite a number of people, myself included, have experienced this level of violence firsthand. There is no need for speculation. Granted, none of us has been magically granted an automatic monopoly on knowledge of violent encounters, by any means. However, firsthand experience is usually superior to vicarious anecdotes in such matters.

Yes, people can carry weapons purely to provide a false sense of confidence or to egotistically dominate others. Yes, it's also possible that a poorly trained individual can present a weapon in combat and lose possession and control of it, even have it used against them. Simple anecdotal examples, though (either pro or con), are no substitute for solid, rational argument, debate or reason.

Should everyone carry a weapon? That's an extremely personal choice; beware of anyone promoting one-size-fits-all answers. However, the decision should be based on real, accurate, solid reasoning and information, not speculation and anecdote.

[Bhassler]

You also mention "a story" of a boxer vs. a biker. All of this leads me to believe that you, and most of the other posters, are writing from the perspective of someone who has never directly experienced that level of violence before. To be fair and clear, that would be expected, and is in no way an evaluation of your insight, intelligence, rationality or capability as a martial artist. However, it does limit you to speculation and/or learning vicariously through the experience of others.

Quite a number of people, myself included, have experienced this level of violence firsthand. There is no need for speculation. Granted, none of us has been magically granted an automatic monopoly on knowledge of violent encounters, by any means. However, firsthand experience is usually superior to vicarious anecdotes in such matters.

Yes, people can carry weapons purely to provide a false sense of confidence or to egotistically dominate others. Yes, it's also possible that a poorly trained individual can present a weapon in combat and lose possession and control of it, even have it used against them. Simple anecdotal examples, though (either pro or con), are no substitute for solid, rational argument, debate or reason.

Unless a person has been forced to kill in personal combat, then it's all hearsay-- no need to let that be a bar to discussion. Though I may agree with you and defer to your greater experience, it's still just taking your word for it. As far as that goes, training for any particular eventuality is ultimately just speculation; it's just a question of how accurate the speculation is likely to be. Appealing to reason or rational debate is relatively ineffective if one or more parties in the discussion don't have enough information to know what's reasonable. That said, although an Amish farmer may not be able to discuss global wind patterns effectively with a trained meteorologist, the Amish guy's still got a pretty good idea of if it's gonna rain or not.

In the same sense that a series of applications don't magically arrive at a functional martial art, a series of rational arguments about what one should be prepared for don't arrive at a realistic appreciation of life threatening violence. So if a martial art is the gong fu of learning to defend oneself from physical danger without actually being placed in danger, what's the gong fu of street smarts relative to street violence?

[Chris McKinley]

Bhassler,

Being forced to into using deadly force is not necessary for one to have significant direct experience with personal violence, thankfully. You're right in stating that lack of such experience should not be a bar to discussion; in fact, I believe quite to the contrary. I think communication on these issues provides an opportunity for those who have such experience to share it with others so that perhaps such situations can be avoided or minimized for others. It also provides opportunity for those who do not have such experience to learn something valuable from those who have. I'm all for free, generous and objective discussion of these matters.

For clarification, I do not request nor expect deference. EF typically doesn't offer it anyway, but it would be unnecessary to continued valuable discussion. Heck, I tell my own students not to believe anything I say without finding out for themselves. Granted, it's not always logistically possible, but it's a principle of teaching them to take ownership of their own training and self-protection and not to automatically believe any so-called expert, no matter who they are.

RE: "Appealing to reason or rational debate is relatively ineffective if one or more parties in the discussion don't have enough information to know what's reasonable.". Yeah, that's the situation I'm trying to avoid. The only way I can is to ask folks not to rely on anecdotal evidence, martial gossip, or hearsay in making informed decisions.

RE: "...a series of rational arguments about what one should be prepared for don't arrive at a realistic appreciation of life threatening violence.". No, they don't. They are what we would call essential, but insufficient. This means that just because rational arguments alone aren't all that is required for accurate discussion, we still must include them because such discussion would also be incomplete without them.

RE: "So if a martial art is the gong fu of learning to defend oneself from physical danger without actually being placed in danger, what's the gong fu of street smarts relative to street violence?". I don't know, since I don't buy into the premise of the first part of the question. Authentic martial art doesn't require the student never be in a dangerous situation; just that when he is, he will (hopefully) be prepared for it. In fact, if it were literally possible to avoid any dangerous situation whatsoever, there would then be no reason for the martial training.

[CaliG]

Chris, no offense but you should relax. I have my opinions and you have yours, I don't know why you'd assume that I've never encountered violence or that because someone does martial arts they have complete control over their emotions and choices.

Unfortunately, growing up in LA when Easy-E and Colors came out I have experienced violence, I never started it but I have been on the receiving end of it. In fact one time I chased away some gangsters from my house with a gun. Does that somehow give me more street cred to my argument?

Maybe it does, but I don't it's necessary to have a view on this thread. In fact I think it's riduculous to tell someone that their opinions are invalid because you don't agree with them. If you don't agree, you don't agree. That's cool, if I thought someone was after me I'd probably carry again, it's not my first choice but then again neither is being jumped. Your point is taken, but people can disagree with you too, perhaps later they'll change their mind but don't tell me I have no idea what violence is because I've seen more than I'd care to remember.

[Chris McKinley]

CaliG,

I kinda thought you'd miss the point on that one and go ad hominem instead. Oh well. RE: "I don't know why you'd assume that I've never encountered violence or that because someone does martial arts they have complete control over their emotions and choices.". I have not made such an assumption. In contrast, you and Frank seem to have made the opposite assumption as illustrated by the points in your posts. As to why I, or any other reader, might assume that you've had little to no experience with real violence, perhaps your use of a strawman anecdote in the case of the bartender or your referencing a second or thirdhand anecdote about a boxer who was disarmed is a good place to start. The first anecdote does nothing to make the point that one is obligated to act out of ego/emotion when armed, and the second is presented as if it were an unusually noteworthy example of someone being disarmed in a violent encounter.

RE: "Maybe it does, but I don't it's necessary to have a view on this thread.". Neither do I, as I explicitly state in my most recent post to Bhassler.

RE: "In fact I think it's riduculous to tell someone that their opinions are invalid because you don't agree with them.". So do I. Notice, then, that I have not done so...to you, nor to anyone else on this thread. Since I'm already there, I'll leave all the relaxing to you since you seem to be far more worked up over this than I.

[CaliG]

I have not made such an assumption.

Excuse me?

Quite a number of people, myself included, have experienced this level of violence firsthand. There is no need for speculation. Granted, none of us has been magically granted an automatic monopoly on knowledge of violent encounters, by any means. However, firsthand experience is usually superior to vicarious anecdotes in such matters.

Btw, I was at the bar at the time.

Since I'm already there, I'll leave all the relaxing to you since you seem to be far more worked up over this than I.

Far from it Chris, far from it.

Maybe I misread you but your first quote seems to imply that people on EF need to list their experiences for you to believe them. I'm just saying I've been there too.

[Chris McKinley]

Assuming you are still interested in actual discussion of the topic and not just immature "I know you are, but what am I?"-type exchange, I'll address your relevant point:

RE: "Btw, I was working at that bar at the time.". That's why I didn't label that anecdote as second or thirdhand. And yet, your being present still does absolutely nothing to strengthen that anecdote's ability to make your point that merely having a weapon present automatically obligates one to act egotistically/emotionally, and that therefore by implication, we ought not carry weapons. For every one of those anecdotes, one could find at least one that refutes it by illustrating how an armed person responded appropriately either by using the weapon only when it was absolutely necessary, or by not choosing to present the weapon because, despite personal feelings, doing so was not absolutely necessary. The greater point here is that exchanging anecdotes in the hopes of proving a point or strengthening a position is ultimately a fruitless endeavor.

[Chris McKinley]

If I have misread you, then you have my apologies. However, until you provide other more clarifying information, I am unable to draw an alternate conclusion regarding your point. If you would please explain what you meant to convey instead, I would be interested to see what your intended point was. Perhaps it might lead the discussion back to a more constructive direction overall. The internet is often a difficult place to discuss complex issues without inherent miscommunication.

[CaliG]

Assuming you are still interested in actual discussion of the topic and not just immature "I know you are, but what am I?"-type exchange, I'll address your relevant point:

Chris, you've completely misread me bro.

But's that's the internet.