Weapons And Self-Defense

Integrating Weapons Into a
Combat & Self-Defense Curriculum

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

[Reprinted With Permission]

American Combato
Seattle Combatives


THAT weapons are part and parcel of the original Eastern and Western martial arts is no revelation. However, today's atmosphere presents two challenges that, for the most part, have either not been met or have been poorly met by those who teach and who practice close combat and self-defense.

While a significant number of those who come to the study of martial arts today do so for self-defense and not in order to partake of a classical/traditional discipline or a competitive sport, the truth is that perhaps only three to five percent of those schools and teachers purporting to teach "self-defense" are truly doing so. For the most part the plethora of schools in the United States, Canada, and Europe teach antiquated fighting methods; methods that, at the expert level, may be adapted to use in emergencies, but that are not in any sense all-out practical combative arts. The statistically average black belt holder in virtually any of the typical systems being taught today is probably no better able to defend himself for real than would be someone who has been wrestling or boxing for six months or so.

The reason why native Asian masters (notably men like Richard Chun, who dispatched a gang of punks single-handedly, and Takayuki Kubota, who established a reputation when he came to Los Angeles in the 60's by helping LAPD officers "pacify" dangerous street louts) fare so well when they are put to the test is: They have put in year upon year upon year of grueling practice for hours EVERY DAY before arriving in this Country. In fact two months of the training that these masters have undergone exceeds what most of the more serious black belts who have been promoted here amounts to, in two years!

A champion boxer or a champion wrestler can also defend himself exceedingly well. But that which a "champion" can do after devoting himself body, mind, and spirit full time to his training says nothing about what most people need — and possess the genetics to do — before they can protect themselves in a real life predicament.

Classical/traditional, no more than sporting/competitive, is NOT the way to go for close combat and self-defense!

Weaponry as taught in the martial arts today bears not the slightest relation to that which the private citizen needs for practical self-defense. And when students of the martial arts become enamored of such implements as the nunchuku, sai, tonfa, bo staff, and samurai sword, etc. they may in fact become capable performers of traditional weapons skills, but that are not acquiring practically functional weapons abilities for 21st century requirements — in peacetime or in war.

We have spoken with some excellent classical/traditional students and teachers over the years. Their attitude, when and where they see their training as being undertaken for "self-defense" is either: "Oh, I don't bother with that ‘traditional' weaponry. I just do the unarmed stuff, which I can use in the street," or "I realize that those traditional weapons are limited, but when you get really good with ‘em they're better than nothing!"

We respectfully disagree with those philosophies. And although we respect and appreciate that classical/traditional weaponry — like classical/traditional unarmed combat — can be a most valuable practice for those enthusiastic about such things, we must insist upon its impracticality for actual use, today.

What is practical and effective today? Primarily firearms. Secondarily, weapons such as fighting knives, walking sticks, and combat tomahawks (like the superb La Gana "American Tomahawk"). As a last resort one may use improvised and expedient "weapons-at-hand" (like a letter opener, a pen or pencil, a rolled up magazine, a utility knife, a screwdriver, hammer, a rock, or a chair, etc.). But relying upon a manriki-gusari (length of chain that is weighted at both ends), throwing darts or stars, or any of the myriad other "martial arts weapons" is — for practical, modern use — foolish.

The weapons of today are the weapons that the modern student of close combat and self-defense must acquire and train to use.

Unfortunately, a percentage of those who come to the study of martial arts for self-defense actually do so because they prefer not to use weapons! They "don't like" guns or knives, for example. What these people need is to be trained correctly. The fact is that is doesn't matter what these individuals "like" or "don't like". Weapons are and always have been a reality! The person who believes — and who is encouraged by some commercializer who has no business representing himself as a self-defense teacher, to continue to believe — that unarmed self-defense is sufficient and will enable him to protect himself against weapons that may be employed against him, is dangerously misinformed! He is living in a fool's paradise, and the greatest favor that a real teacher can do such a one is to frankly confront him with the truth. Weapons — real, effective, modern weapons — are not an "option", but are rather a necessity for practical self-defense. And unless weaponry is regarded as being integral to a study of close combat and self-defense, that study is dangerously and seriously incomplete.

The modern adult student of self-defense regards unarmed combat, and armed combat, as his proper concern.

Naturally, weapons must be taught carefully and responsibly. The acquisition of weapons should of course be legal, and we encourage no one to violate any laws. Our point here is merely to emphasize a point that must be understood because it is true. Weapons are integral to martial arts training, or the training is not "martial", at all.

In our System we focus on laying a strong foundation in physical, technical,
tactical, and mental training first. (We refuse to teach weapons to anyone, save perhaps an elderly or handicapped person, who does not first acquire unarmed capabilities). This provides some measure of assurance that the individual will be confident and adept enough to keep the use of weapons in their proper place. He will not, in other words, regard them as a crutch, and resort to them when their use is neither necessary nor lawful.

We respectfully suggest that other teachers follow this example. Our advocacy of weapons is always for their lawful and responsible use only when absolutely justifiable and necessary in legitimate self-defense.

One final thought: Of great importance in modern close combat and self-defense training is improvised weapons — or "expedient" weapons, or "weapons-at-hand". While the modern handgun, shotgun, fighting knife, and walking stick are appropriately taught as formally manufactured practical weapons, no student should miss the acquisition of knowledge and skill in the use of everyday objects and tools that are at hand, as weapons: eating utensils, pens, pencils, items of furniture, even such things as gravel, rocks, branches, and grooming aids, etc.! The only limit here is imagination and will. (Note:— While so-called "martial artists" do not appear to appreciate the fact, many of their "traditional weapons" were incorporated into the martial arts because they were conveniently improvisable at the time. Nunchucks, tonfa, long bo, etc. are ALL archaic "weapons-at-hand" that were incorporated into classical Okinawan karate because that was all that the unarmed peasants could speedily improvise and employ with their unarmed [karate, or "te"] skills! It is hilarious to hear some hallucinating moron in 2009 who — topknot and all — fancying himself a "true martial artist", espouses these "traditional" improvised weapons, yet who disdains the idea of a modern student learning some of the improvised weapon skills that, for instance, we teach to our pupils!).

We are realists in teaching self-defense. So should you be in learning self-defense.

Bradley J. Steiner