Teppo Do - Way of the Gun...Lesson One...

[SteyrAUG]

The way of the gun is for those who wish to do more than "just shoot." It is for those who wish to be able to survive modern conflict. It is the modern "martial art" of armed conflict.

1. Realize you are a martial artist. If the Samurai class still existed they would use modern day firearms. The largest Samurai battle (Sekigahara 1600) was decided by firearms. It was firearms that were the deciding factor and allowed a decisive victory that unified Japan under a single ruler, the Shogun, ending almost 500 years of civil war.

2. Train as a martial artist. The person who buys a gun and puts it in the nightstand or glove compartment and "believes" he is prepared for personal defense is as naive as a person who buys a book on "karate" and commits a few moves to memory and thinks they can now fight. The martial artist is the person who raises his personal level of skill above those who would normally prevail by training harder than they do. Only in this way can you hope to defeat a superior adversary.

3. Realize the odds. Survival in armed combat is NOT a 50/50 situation. Your odds are 1:3 that you will NOT survive. There are 3 basic outcomes: 1. You kill your attacker, 2. Your attacker kills you or 3. You both die. Only superior levels of skill and training will increase your chances of survival. To win you must train to win. To defeat stronger ooponents you must train to defeat stronger opponnents.

4. There is no "one way." Just as their is no "correct path" to the top of the mountain there is more than one method of armed combat. While there may be some methods that are "more practical" or "more efficient" they are usually still subject to circumstances which are almost always a variable. A martial artist should seek to know "many ways" so as to be adaptable.

5. Learn what is useful and make it your own. Experts and their methods vary almost from man to man. This does NOT make anyone necessarily "more expert" than the next. One should be mindful that a practical method which is NOT suited to you is NOT useful to you. Your goal should be to learn the best methods that work for you. However, be careful of adopting methods that may be particularly suited to you that ARE NOT practical or effective.

6. Practiced basics defeat advanced technique. While advanced training and skill are valuable and desired a strong foundation of practiced basics is preferred. The basic elements of drawing a weapon, sighting your target and basic reloading skills are far more important than cover to cover drills and ninja rolls with reloads. The most important thing in armed combat is to get your weapon on target and eliminate the threat. Everything else is secondary or auxillary to those skills.

7. Train the body not the mind. Most students will understand a skill the first time it is explained to them. They will comprehend and grasp what is trying to be accomplished with a given technique or manuever. The martial artists realizes this is simply not enough. The body must be trained through excessive repetition to perform the skill WITHOUT the mind. The skills must be repeated constantly until they become conditioned response performed with acquired muscle memory. Only in this way will the mind be free to let a martial artist adapt to a situation and perform unencumbered.

8. Realize armed conflict is usually brief and terrible. Few things happen as expected and predictions are almost impossible. Only superior levels of training, with a strong foundation of basics, will let a fighter encounter the unexpected, adapt and prevail. There simply won't be time to adopt a Beta mindset and go "Zen" in most conflicts. Also the deciding factors that separate winning from losing an armed engagement are often fractions of a second (much like Olympic performances) and small errors change everything. Armed conflict is usually not terribly forgiving.

9. The weapons you have NOW are more important than the ones you hope to obtain "one day." If armed conflict happened NOW you will be fighting with what you have so learn to use it. Also remember that name brands won't save you. A person who is well trained and skilled with a Springfield XD will generally always prevail against a person who simply "carries" a HK, SIG or Kimber. Just as swords made by famous smiths were no guarantee for ancient Samurai in the past, your gear alone is no guarantee of victory today. It is skill and training that decides life and death.

First primary skill training: Learn to draw your weapon, acquire your target and put rounds on your target. Do this above all else. Thousands and thousands of rounds. If this is not practiced, efficient and effortless you have nothing.

This is your most important basic skill. It should occupy all your time.

O yasumi nasai.

[Hissho]

The way of the gun is for those who wish to do more than "just shoot." It is for those who wish to be able to survive modern conflict. It is the modern "martial art" of armed conflict.

Agreed, depending on the conflict. It seems to me that it is mainly unarmed martial artists generally that don't see firearms as a martial art.

1. Realize you are a martial artist. If the Samurai class still existed they would use modern day firearms. The largest Samurai battle (Sekigahara 1600) was decided by firearms. It was firearms that were the deciding factor and allowed a decisive victory that unified Japan under a single ruler, the Shogun, ending almost 500 years of civil war.

This is pretty simplistic. The "samurai class" used guns - a lot - when they did exist. They had entire traditional ryu based on their teaching and use, and some of these are still regularly practiced and demonstrated today. This is all readily available to be seen on Youtube, on DVDs, etc.

2. Train as a martial artist. The person who buys a gun and puts it in the nightstand or glove compartment and "believes" he is prepared for personal defense is as naive as a person who buys a book on "karate" and commits a few moves to memory and thinks they can now fight. The martial artist is the person who raises his personal level of skill above those who would normally prevail by training harder than they do. Only in this way can you hope to defeat a superior adversary.

Agreed.

3. Realize the odds. Survival in armed combat is NOT a 50/50 situation. Your odds are 1:3 that you will NOT survive. There are 3 basic outcomes: 1. You kill your attacker, 2. Your attacker kills you or 3. You both die. Only superior levels of skill and training will increase your chances of survival. To win you must train to win. To defeat stronger ooponents you must train to defeat stronger opponnents.

This is not actually true, especially when dealing with handguns. However, I do agree that one should approach preparation for an actual armed encounter with this kind of thinking in mind, rather than the somewhat idealistic approach of much martial arts, firearms, and defensive tactics training

4. There is no "one way." Just as their is no "correct path" to the top of the mountain there is more than one method of armed combat. While there may be some methods that are "more practical" or "more efficient" they are usually still subject to circumstances which are almost always a variable. A martial artist should seek to know "many ways" so as to be adaptable.

Yes, some ways are better than others.

5. Learn what is useful and make it your own. Experts and their methods vary almost from man to man. This does NOT make anyone necessarily "more expert" than the next. One should be mindful that a practical method which is NOT suited to you is NOT useful to you. Your goal should be to learn the best methods that work for you. However, be careful of adopting methods that may be particularly suited to you that ARE NOT practical or effective.

Yes, and some are more expert than others.

6. Practiced basics defeat advanced technique. While advanced training and skill are valuable and desired a strong foundation of practiced basics is preferred. The basic elements of drawing a weapon, sighting your target and basic reloading skills are far more important than cover to cover drills and ninja rolls with reloads. The most important thing in armed combat is to get your weapon on target and eliminate the threat. Everything else is secondary or auxillary to those skills.

Yes re: the basics. But the rest is simplistic, as it will depend on the situation an the goals/mission of the person using the firearm. Getting to cover may be the most important thing in one situation of "armed combat."

7. Train the body not the mind. Most students will understand a skill the first time it is explained to them. They will comprehend and grasp what is trying to be accomplished with a given technique or manuever. The martial artists realizes this is simply not enough. The body must be trained through excessive repetition to perform the skill WITHOUT the mind. The skills must be repeated constantly until they become conditioned response performed with acquired muscle memory. Only in this way will the mind be free to let a martial artist adapt to a situation and perform unencumbered.

Yes, especially the second half. But you must train the mind as well for success in the real thing, especially when your life is on the line. It is better put: " Train the body and train the mind."

8. Realize armed conflict is usually brief and terrible. Few things happen as expected and predictions are almost impossible. Only superior levels of training, with a strong foundation of basics, will let a fighter encounter the unexpected, adapt and prevail. There simply won't be time to adopt a Beta mindset and go "Zen" in most conflicts. Also the deciding factors that separate winning from losing an armed engagement are often fractions of a second (much like Olympic performances) and small errors change everything. Armed conflict is usually not terribly forgiving.

I like Kipling's "the unforgiving minute."

9. The weapons you have NOW are more important than the ones you hope to obtain "one day." If armed conflict happened NOW you will be fighting with what you have so learn to use it. Also remember that name brands won't save you. A person who is well trained and skilled with a Springfield XD will generally always prevail against a person who simply "carries" a HK, SIG or Kimber. Just as swords made by famous smiths were no guarantee for ancient Samurai in the past, your gear alone is no guarantee of victory today. It is skill and training that decides life and death.

Yes.

First primary skill training: Learn to draw your weapon, acquire your target and put rounds on your target. Do this above all else. Thousands and thousands of rounds. If this is not practiced, efficient and effortless you have nothing.

This is your most important basic skill. It should occupy all your time.


Well, not "nothing," but you sure are much better off.

[Joseph Svinth]

Or, conversely, learn to use the GPS, the radio, and how to call for fire.

[SteyrAUG]

This is pretty simplistic. The "samurai class" used guns - a lot - when they did exist. They had entire traditional ryu based on their teaching and use, and some of these are still regularly practiced and demonstrated today. This is all readily available to be seen on Youtube, on DVDs, etc.

Never said they didn't. And their use indicates their desire to use the most modern weapons available. However, matchlocks weren't so revolutionary as to make the sword, bow and spear obsolete. Modern firearms do. So it is not simplistic to suggest that if the Samurai still existed as a military force, they would use modern firearms just like every other military force.




This is not actually true, especially when dealing with handguns. However, I do agree that one should approach preparation for an actual armed encounter with this kind of thinking in mind, rather than the somewhat idealistic approach of much martial arts, firearms, and defensive tactics training

Which part don't you agree with? The 1:3 odds or the notion that to defeat stronger opponents you must train to do so? If you mean the latter, trust me that just "having a gun" is no guarantee of success against somebody who also has a gun and experience.




Yes, some ways are better than others.

I think you are reading into this a bit much. Obviously the modern method pioneered by Cooper is more practical than the old 1930s FBI method. What I was addressing is Isosceles is not always superior to Weaver or vice versa.



Yes, and some are more expert than others.

Again, I think you are looking for an argument that may not be there. I stated "This does NOT make anyone necessarily "more expert" than the next", in other words it can, but not always.




Yes re: the basics. But the rest is simplistic, as it will depend on the situation an the goals/mission of the person using the firearm. Getting to cover may be the most important thing in one situation of "armed combat."

Many things in Sun Tzu are simplistic, but they remain true and not everyone is aware of them. I didn't title my post "Advances Special Forces Firearms Training."




Yes, especially the second half. But you must train the mind as well for success in the real thing, especially when your life is on the line. It is better put: " Train the body and train the mind."

Again, you are hunting the wrong tree. I never said one did not need to train the mind. Combative mindset is an entirely different issue (not to mention a slightly more advanced one) that I didn't speak to.




Well, not "nothing," but you sure are much better off.

Here I'm going to disagree. With respect to combative effectiveness, if you don't have those basic things you might as well have a tuba. You have nothing.

[SteyrAUG]

Or, conversely, learn to use the GPS, the radio, and how to call for fire.


Hard to do during a car jacking.

:laugh:

[Joseph Svinth]

Why not just give them the car? If somebody needs a six-year-old Kia that badly, theyclearly qualify as desperate.

[Hissho]

Never said they didn't. And their use indicates their desire to use the most modern weapons available. However, matchlocks weren't so revolutionary as to make the sword, bow and spear obsolete. Modern firearms do. So it is not simplistic to suggest that if the Samurai still existed as a military force, they would use modern firearms just like every other military force.

Sure. I read something of an emphatic nature in your statement that appeared to be an attempt to drive home the point that "the samurai used guns and would today." Current scholarship has well established this and it has been a topic at E-budo more than once, so it is nothing new.




Which part don't you agree with? The 1:3 odds or the notion that to defeat stronger opponents you must train to do so? If you mean the latter, trust me that just "having a gun" is no guarantee of success against somebody who also has a gun and experience.

That's the tough one. The 1:3 odds are not always true. However, it is a good thing to approach the possibility of armed combat with that in mind because it is a guard against complacency.

And since I don't know you and have no idea of your background, where you are coming from, whether you have ever experienced it yourself, in what format that way, or whether you simply attempting to give us a lesson in as dramatic a fashion as possible to make a point, I don't trust what you say about "armed conflict" or what "decides life and death." I don't trust anything anyone on a forum says about anything regarding this kind of thing until I know something of them, or they write enough well considered things revealing a depth of knowledge and experience that makes me want to read what they write.

Too many people attempt to set themselves up as experts at something they have no real world experience in, or overly embellish their resumes in order to make themselves out to be more than they are to gain some kind of virtual credibility.

But though I reserve the right not to trust your opinion, I do think some of your points are very good ones.



Again, I think you are looking for an argument that may not be there. I stated "This does NOT make anyone necessarily "more expert" than the next", in other words it can, but not always.

Do you think that questioning some of your statements is looking for an argument?



Many things in Sun Tzu are simplistic, but they remain true and not everyone is aware of them. I didn't title my post "Advances Special Forces Firearms Training."

Now, I would say that what Sun Zi says is simple, but not simplistic. But we probably mean the same thing.




... I never said one did not need to train the mind. Combative mindset is an entirely different issue (not to mention a slightly more advanced one) that I didn't speak to.

"Train the body, not the mind."

This can be confusing as to your actual meaning.

However, the rest of that reminder is a very good one. It is why I think the "samurai" settled on kata (the way they do it koryu) as their training method, and it jibes totally with modern research into combative performance from people like Dr. Bill Lewinski at Force Science.

The two must be trained together. Perhaps you can explain a bit more on why you think combative mindset is an entirely different issue, and why it is slightly more advanced?




Here I'm going to disagree. With respect to combative effectiveness, if you don't have those basic things you might as well have a tuba. You have nothing.

Skill is a major component of combat effectiveness. But people with the slickest of skills can crumble when their mindset fails. People with average skills, but the ability to maintain their mind in the middle of life and death stress, are often able to overcome.

[Hissho]

Why not just give them the car? If somebody needs a six-year-old Kia that badly, theyclearly qualify as desperate.

Yes but Joe, what if your infant is strapped in the car seat of that six year old Kia?

Several threads are going on at several boards regarding "what to do" in certain situations - re: madmen with guns, carjacking, carrying a gun for self defense, etc. Folks usually give answers which are from different perspective: sometimes an innocent lack of knowledge or cursory knowledge of self defense/defensive tactics subjects (which as you know I tend to I rail against, as bad info chasing half-understood info is not a good thing).

Or total resignation or complacency: "Well, there is nothing I could do, so I don't think about it" or "I've never needed a gun, so why carry one?"

These sorts of attitudes belie the idea that people are practicing/training at all for self defense or with the idea that what they do is a "martial art." If you are not coming from the idea of preparedness, you aren't practicing anything "martial" at all. Don't we say that the "samurai" - at least the ideal before becoming "armed bureaucrats," - went armed wherever they went, including to the bath and the bed?

The fact is, the prepared - and a nod to Richard here, the armed and skilled - martial artist might in fact be in a better position to save other lives than their own; active shooters have been stopped by single armed civilians and off duty police officers - the Trolley Square shooter was armed with a rifle, but was pinned down by an off duty officer with a handgun until tactical officers could arrive and take him out.

A mother or father with a weapon could stop that carjacker from taking that child with him - or the child of another during a different event...

Not missing the beam in my own eye, just last week I was involved in an off duty encounter with two men much larger than I, developing from some extremely dangerous actions they were pursuing that for several moments placed my family (present at the scene) and another individual in danger.

This was close enough to my home that in my own moment of complacency ("what could happen?") I decided to go armed with only a knife and not a firearm.

In order to stop what was going on in the event, I became involved in brief physical encounters with each one at different times, having to watch for the second each time - had I brought my firearm I would likely have avoided having to physically engage at all, and may have stopped their dangerous behavior through threat of lethal force alone, and if not, would have been able to use it from a greater, safer, distance. At two times I was hand on knife at contact distance, thinking I was about to go to lethal force, but the confrontation shifted and both times the justification was not quite there.

As it was my actions momentarily stopped their actions enough to allow my family to gain some distance. Their actions continued after the first one's unwillingness to re-engage me, and my own focus on self defense versus arrest and control mode, and disengaging myself.

No one was injured, but still, having had a gun would have been far safer, whether lethal force was used or not.

[Joseph Svinth]

Well, if that' s a serious concern, then I'm assuming you already have the doors and windows armored? If you've got the bucks, Mercedes makes some sweet rides.

Back in the day, we used to have this armored '73 Plymouth Fury. The armor plate rattled badly above 90 mph, and the visibility was definitely cloudy due to the Lexan windows, but with that 440 Interceptor engine, it could still pass anything on the road but the gas station.

[SteyrAUG]

Why not just give them the car? If somebody needs a six-year-old Kia that badly, theyclearly qualify as desperate.

Because I don't trust my well being to the benevolence of such a person with a gun. When you bring a gun to me under those circumstances, I have to assume you intend to kill me regardless of any compliance on my part.

[SteyrAUG]

That's the tough one. The 1:3 odds are not always true. However, it is a good thing to approach the possibility of armed combat with that in mind because it is a guard against complacency.

I suppose there is a 4th possible outcome, neither of you will be shot and you will both run like scared girls, but that really isn't addressing the nature of armed combat. What other possible outcomes would you suggest exist?




And since I don't know you and have no idea of your background, where you are coming from, whether you have ever experienced it yourself, in what format that way, or whether you simply attempting to give us a lesson in as dramatic a fashion as possible to make a point, I don't trust what you say about "armed conflict" or what "decides life and death." I don't trust anything anyone on a forum says about anything regarding this kind of thing until I know something of them, or they write enough well considered things revealing a depth of knowledge and experience that makes me want to read what they write.

Too many people attempt to set themselves up as experts at something they have no real world experience in, or overly embellish their resumes in order to make themselves out to be more than they are to gain some kind of virtual credibility.

But though I reserve the right not to trust your opinion, I do think some of your points are very good ones.

I am a "studied individual", in other words...nobody. I'm not CIA, never was Delta or anything like that. But I can learn from the experiences of such men. But given this is the internet, I completely agree about accepting statements at "face value." Lots of airsoft guys sporting ranger tabs on the internet.

I'd tell you about my actual personal experience but such statements don't mean much on the internet where everyone is a Navy Seal.



Do you think that questioning some of your statements is looking for an argument?

Not at all. It just seemed "to me" that you were reading into my statements in an attempt to disagree.



"Train the body, not the mind."

This can be confusing as to your actual meaning.

I was saying "only" what I stated. I didn't attempt to go into combative mindsets, zanshin or anything like that. I was stating only that you need to train the body to do what the mind already understands, independent of the mind, which you know as "mushin."




The two must be trained together. Perhaps you can explain a bit more on why you think combative mindset is an entirely different issue, and why it is slightly more advanced?

They are related and different. Mushin is easier, anyone who practices a repetitive skill has it. Attaining a true combative mindset is the product of things like attained mushin and the confidence it brings to the individual.



Skill is a major component of combat effectiveness. But people with the slickest of skills can crumble when their mindset fails. People with average skills, but the ability to maintain their mind in the middle of life and death stress, are often able to overcome.

Exactly, and that is why I think it is more difficult to attain such a mindset and why it is more important.

I think I can also clear up some misunderstanding that may have developed as a result of this post. Being a newb I'm sure it looked like some guy who thinks he's Moses showed up with some stone tablets for you plebes.

This post was actually done many years ago for a firearms forum I was a member of. Too many people there simply got a gun, did some basic target shooting and "believed" they were now combat effective.

I tried to bring them some of the understanding of the way a martial artist trains in order to give them some perspective.

Being a new guy here, I had the old post saved so I simply offered it up copy/paste style since you has a specific sub forum for firearms.

[Joseph Svinth]

Because I don't trust my well being to the benevolence of such a person with a gun. When you bring a gun to me under those circumstances, I have to assume you intend to kill me regardless of any compliance on my part.

Sounds like you've been hanging with too many unreconstructed Black Panthers. They used to say the same thing about the Pigs.

[Hissho]

I suppose there is a 4th possible outcome, neither of you will be shot and you will both run like scared girls, but that really isn't addressing the nature of armed combat. What other possible outcomes would you suggest exist?

That could be a fifth. But "tactical retreat" sounds better than running like scared little girls. I think it is very much a part of an armed encounter when the bullets are real and landing around you.

A 4th would be that you may be injured and fight through to win the day, or at least to walk away. This is quite more likely than not, in fact, if one does not simply curl up and lay there waiting to die, or waiting for their friends to rescue them if they can still move and act on their own.

Being shot is hardly the end of it. If you are gone with a hit, not much you can do about it. But by carrying a weapon, professionally or in self defense, you accept that risk. If you are still here after the hit, you are likely to survive if you can fight your way to victory, escape, help, and then medical attention.

Having an idea in your head that if you get shot you are in the 2 out of 3 is counter-productive to a fight through mentality, and stopping that kind of idea from being even passively passed on and absorbed by people reading these kinds of things has become a sort of soapbox of mine.

The 1:3 ratio should always be tempered with the idea of "certain victory" (hissho) and that you will stay in the fight regardless of what happens to you.

"He cuts skin, I cut flesh; He cuts flesh, I cut bone."





I'd tell you about my actual personal experience but such statements don't mean much on the internet where everyone is a Navy Seal.

Thanks for not going into any kind of overly embellished double-speak others might have engaged in.

I like your direction on mushin....I think it gets over-philosophized, and I have come to personally believe it is basically automaticity and nothing more. This does "free up the mind" to "remain in the present moment" and attend to the situation that is occurring

[Hissho]

Well, if that' s a serious concern, then I'm assuming you already have the doors and windows armored? If you've got the bucks, Mercedes makes some sweet rides.

Back in the day, we used to have this armored '73 Plymouth Fury. The armor plate rattled badly above 90 mph, and the visibility was definitely cloudy due to the Lexan windows, but with that 440 Interceptor engine, it could still pass anything on the road but the gas station.

But Joe, this is exactly the thing that derails these kinds of discussions. It's not a serious concern until BAM! right there, right now, it IS your concern.

Maybe your loved ones are looking at you to "do something" because, after all, you are the one that is trained in martial arts, and in that moment you have no answer for it.

This is why I am so emphatic about people teaching martial arts in a traditional format to get away from the idea that they are teaching self defense.

Is something like this likely for the average martial artist? Especially for the generally more educated and more thoughtful people that embrace and seek out traditional arts? Not at all.

Possible? Yes. "If it happens, there is nothing I can do about it..." Not hardly. If properly prepared.

The encounter I described was the very first physical confrontation I have ever been involved in outside of a work capacity. I never expected it to occur, but I was prepared for it, and trained to the point that when it started happening I had the ability to address it; Though I had neglected to bring a better option, I still had an ability to escalate if needed.

Hearing your young child screaming while you are fighting with violent people is not an experience I wish on anyone. It was surprisingly distracting, because all of my previous stuff has been "on the job."

It is particularly not something I wish on someone who - despite years of martial arts training - realizes in the midst of it that they are not, in fact, as prepared as they they thought they were to deal with it.

[SteyrAUG]

That could be a fifth. But "tactical retreat" sounds better than running like scared little girls. I think it is very much a part of an armed encounter when the bullets are real and landing around you.

A 4th would be that you may be injured and fight through to win the day, or at least to walk away. This is quite more likely than not, in fact, if one does not simply curl up and lay there waiting to die, or waiting for their friends to rescue them if they can still move and act on their own.

Being shot is hardly the end of it. If you are gone with a hit, not much you can do about it. But by carrying a weapon, professionally or in self defense, you accept that risk. If you are still here after the hit, you are likely to survive if you can fight your way to victory, escape, help, and then medical attention.

Having an idea in your head that if you get shot you are in the 2 out of 3 is counter-productive to a fight through mentality, and stopping that kind of idea from being even passively passed on and absorbed by people reading these kinds of things has become a sort of soapbox of mine.

The 1:3 ratio should always be tempered with the idea of "certain victory" (hissho) and that you will stay in the fight regardless of what happens to you.

"He cuts skin, I cut flesh; He cuts flesh, I cut bone."

Well it remains 1:3, here's why. If everyone runs like a scared little girl we didn't really have armed combat did we? But if we are talking about armed combat "actually happening" it is 1:3.

Being "injured and fighting through" isn't a 4th outcome.

That is Option 1. You survive and kill your opponent.

Also, I spoke in terms of living or dying, I never raised the issue of being injured. Being injured is just something that is likely, the outcomes are the same.

1. You kill your opponent. You survive and may or may not have injury.

2. Your opponent kills you. He survives and may or may not have injury.

3. You both die.

I never stated "being injured" ends the outcome. The outcome isn't decided until one or both are dead.





Thanks for not going into any kind of overly embellished double-speak others might have engaged in.

I like your direction on mushin....I think it gets over-philosophized, and I have come to personally believe it is basically automaticity and nothing more. This does "free up the mind" to "remain in the present moment" and attend to the situation that is occurring

It has been my experience that concepts like mushin, zanshin, ki, kiai and aiki are grossly misunderstood. This is primarily the result of those who never properly understood them, or in some cases never actually having been taught, teaching them. People tend to fill knowledge gaps with "cool sounding nonsense."

Suddenly very basic things get blown out of proportion until things like "ki" become "the force" from Star Wars and so called experts claim the ability to levitate, read minds and move objects without touching them. These exaggerations raise expectations among inexperienced students and they feel that if they aren't getting "asian wizardry" they are getting ripped off.

In most cases, these concepts are nothing but ancient descriptions for things we have a better and more practical modern understanding of. But "mushin" sounds so much more exotic than "conditioned response through repetitive training and muscle memory." People will pay money to learn "the art of no mind", but "conditioned response through repetitive training and muscle memory" just sounds like effort and hard work.

[SteyrAUG]

Sounds like you've been hanging with too many unreconstructed Black Panthers. They used to say the same thing about the Pigs.

A person can be foolish enough to subscribe to blind racism and still be intelligent enough to tend to his own well being. Malcom X was a racist par excellence and rivaled any KKK Grand Dragon, but he did have a very practical outlook on personal defense.

If you wish to trust your very life to the good intentions of a man who is forcibly taking your property with a firearm, that is your life to gamble with.

I'm not the Vegas type and I long ago learned what some people are capable of.

[Hissho]

Richard - or Patrick.....whichever it is...

I follow you.


What is your experience?

[SteyrAUG]

Richard - or Patrick.....whichever it is...

I follow you.


What is your experience?

Martial Arts: 30+ years

Japanese, Okinawan and Chinese systems.

Firearms:

30+ years of shooting lots of things that go bang.

[Joseph Svinth]

Well, as I write this, F16s and F18s are flying over my house, as part of the annual air show. In the event one of the pilots has a flashback and mistakes me for Osama, I suppose I could try to get a surplus REDEYE.

I should probably get some RPGs, too. After all, Strykers have run over cars around here.

Or, maybe I just need to quit playing Fantasy Violence, and worry about what happens in my corner of the universe.

About 88% of the children who get mental health treatment through the state Crime Victims' program had been sexually assaulted, and about 40% of the adults had been sexually assaulted. Source: Michelle New and Lucy Berliner. 2000. "Mental Health Service Utilization by Victims of Crime," Journal of Traumatic Stress 13(4), 693-707.

The physical and sexual violence fits patterns, and is rarely very imaginative. (Okay, there was that fellow in Enumclaw who rented out farm animals, but as far as I know, he didn't abuse children.)

As for the local gun violence, here are a couple recent examples, none involving carjackings by persons unknown, most involving people getting killed.

1. The local police chief, the one brought in to clean up corruption in the department, shoots his wife in the parking lot, in front of their kids, then shoots himself.

2. According to the papers, a 350-pound man savagely attacks a 140-pound female police officer, who bravely fights him off without recourse to her firearm. This sounds heroic, until you read up on the folks, by name. The woman is a 29-year-old Triathlete. Meanwhile, the man is in his 50s. He stands about 5'5" tall. He has had multiple back surgeries, can't walk without his cane, and needs to stop to rest every couple hundred feet. His heinous crime? Shoplifting a steak from the local supermarket. Between us, I agree with the police chief that his officers require additional training, but not the firearms training that the chief was using this story to pitch.

3. County worker, has some issues, probably involving erectile dysfunction. He and his wife argue. The cops get called. The cops stay outside because they guy waves a .44 Magnum. The wife and kids sneak out the window. One shot is heard. A couple hours later, after the robot sounds all clear, the cops go in. Guy is dead. Autopsy report reads cause of death is gunshot wound to head.

4. The family calls the cops because the guy is abusive. The cops show up. Everybody knows everybody; the cops have been to the house before. The guy shoots the cops. Before they die, they shoot back. The guy dies, too.

5. A local deputy sheriff on administrative leave (for cause) gets in an argument with his inlaws. He shoots his inlaws, then shoots himself.

Bottom line? Lots of guns, lots of dead people, no carjackings in the bunch.

But your mileage may vary.

[SteyrAUG]

Bottom line? Lots of guns, lots of dead people, no carjackings in the bunch.

But your mileage may vary.

Sometimes you find the civilized world simply isn't.

Bad things can happen to good people.

Police usually respond to, rather than prevent crime. The likelihood of having a cop present when you are attacked is slim.

Violent crimes are committed with guns, knives, swords, sticks and bare hands. The common denominator is a criminal willing to use violence and anything as a weapon.

This often leaves the individual in a situation where he has to defend himself to the best of his ability, with whatever he may have from guns, knives, swords, sticks and bare hands.

So for me that means having the greatest possible advantage over those who would do me or my family harm. Grenade launchers and flame throwers often require some set up time and can be hard on the home decor. So I usually go with something like this.

http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/787/00000000020eu0.jpg

[Baio]

just to point this out richard meadows aka Patrick Thomas is not using his real name and is violating e-budo policy and was thrown off budoseek for basically starting the same argument