Two Unpleasant Facts

© COPYRIGHT 2009 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – September 2009 Issue

[Reprinted with Permission]

American Combato
Seattle Combatives

THE first is that most violent attacks today involve multiple assailants.

The second is that most violent attacks also involve assailants who are armed.

The above (for anyone having a problem with reading comprehension) does not mean that "all" attacks or that "every" attack involves multiple assailants and weapons. There are still plenty of instances when punks, bullies, and assorted other scum who like to make trouble, "go it alone and unarmed" and simply attempt to gratify their despicably insane desires and drives by targeting some soul whom they feel that they can push around, injure, humiliate, beat up, rob, or even kill without the assistance of fellow bacteria to back up their efforts. However, THE MAJORITY OF UNAVOIDABLE, VIOLENT AND DANGEROUS PHYSICAL ATTACKS THAT OCCUR ON THE MEAN STREETS AND IN THE HOMES OF URBAN AND SUBURBAN AMERICA TODAY involve multiple and/or armed scum.

The implications of these two facts are profound. They at once tell us volumes about the state of moral and cultural decrepitude that our society has degenerated to, while at the same time teaching us some valuable lessons regarding THAT WHICH WE NEED TO DO IN ORDER TO BE PREPARED TO DEFEND OURSELVES.

Since even the worthless dailies and the carefully prepared and doctored evening "news" reports on TV have (unwittingly) presented all that any intelligent and objective individual might require in the way of evidence that Western culture is FINISHED, we will not dwell on this fact. Besides, it makes us nauseous even to think about it.

We'll shift right to the matter of preparing for the possibility of being forced to defend against more than a single adversary who attacks us, and/or for the possibility (read: probability) of having to contend with WEAPONS during any physical encounter.

What — really — must we understand about these types of situations, and what must we do to be reasonably sure that, if one of them ever comes to us, we stand a good chance of surviving and prevailing over the odds?

The first thing to understand is that life-threatening physical attack situations amount to situations of WAR. We are not "competing" when we undertake to fight a war — we are battling for survival! There are no rules in war, save one: WIN! The very concept of ethics, fairness, sportsmanship, or even decency, is suspended "for the duration". And when the "war" is a self-defense emergency that has been foisted upon an unfortunate victim, IT IS THE ATTACKER(S) WHO BEARS FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT OCCURS, AND IT IS THE ATTACKER WHO HAS CHOSEN TO SUSPEND ETHICS, FAIRNESS, SPORTSMANSHIP, AND DECENCY, BY VIRTUE OF THAT WHICH HE HAS CHOSEN TO DO. If a defender is to have a chance to prevail in such an awful situation, he cannot and must not be burdened with concerns for such humane considerations that his attacker(s) has disregarded.

The second thing to understand about these situations is that THEY ARE ALWAYS LIFE-THREATENING. Whether multiple/and/or armed assailants are youngsters or older individuals, and regardless of their gender the threat that they pose is a lethal one. Thus, the reaction that a defender is not only justified in generating, but also URGED TO APPLY WITHOUT HESITATION, is deadly force.

The third lesson we must learn is that tactics must be suitable to the emergency. "Training for self-defense" by restricting oneself to one-on-one type predicaments, or to the assumption that no weapons will be involved (unless we SEE a weapon) is ridiculous. The proper tactical imperative for the student of close combat and self-defense is to train in the skills that he is acquiring by assuming that — even when he is not initially aware of the fact — the individual whom he initially confronts has assistance, and is armed. Statistics conform the validity of such an assumption.

The fourth lesson that offers is that those who train for self-defense must train in techniques that enable them to — a) Inflict immediate and grievous injury, without tying oneself up with any single, individual adversary, and b) React under any conditions, anywhere, with skills that are reliably simple and that have been retained without any need for excessive practice. "Training for a contest" is a short-term, young man;s game. Training for self-defense is a LIFETIME PURSUIT. If the skills with which an individual trains are not retainable and DOABLE when he is in hs 70's and 80's, then what possible value can they have for real world self-defense? Remember: One becomes a more attractive target for human scum when one becomes old; one cannot claim that one is "retired from competition" and expect a trio of armed home invaders or street bacteria to retreat!

The fifth critical thing to learn from looking at the facts is that ONE MUST INCLUDE MODERN WEAPONS IN ONE'S TRAINING AND STUDY OF SELF-PROTECTION. Criminals carry and use firearms, knives, and other deadly weapons. There is no reason on earth why decent people should not avail themselves of such weapons, also — and make themselves MUCH BETTER SKILLED AND DANGEROUS WITH THOSE WEAPONS THAN ARE THE SCUM WHO WOULD PREY UPON THEM.

In our advocacy of the attitude, skills, armament, and tactical considerations that we have presented we wish to make it clear that in no sense do we condone, advocate, or in any manner sanction the breaking of any laws. We are simply trying to provide a wake up call to those whose sense of practicality may have been less than desirable in their efforts to prepare for actual, real world emergencies.
We have never believed that there was any reason why decent human beings should not avail themselves of the fullest measure of readiness for dealing with any who might attempt to violate them. And in today's sick and violent world, "those who would attempt to violate them" generally move in packs (like hyena), and carry weapons to assist their evil purpose.