Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Greetings

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • alex
    replied
    carry a knife around in NZ and you are going to prison if the cops catch you.

    duncan if you want to know of some knife fighting group in auckland who actually train by fighting and not by watching dvds and youtube videos there is plenty out there. or you could always learn a REAL mans fighting system, auckland is a mecca of muay thai :D

    Leave a comment:


  • Dardalion66
    replied
    Mate,I actually have a couple of questions about this style you are working.Firstly,is there stick & unarmed work,with combinations of the above?.'Cause I know that here in good old Sydney,you would be risking prison every time you left the damned house.The right to bear arms downunder refers to the things sticking out of your shoulder & knives being such an apparant problem over here the penalties for concealed carry are ridiculous,as would be training in any system that emphasises weaponry over open hand.You get the same prison time for a stabbing as a shooting & you don't get fucked up yourself in the process.Blade work isn't so much a martial art as a lesson in psychosis.Did you get as far as the principle of "Rationed attack".A ridiculous title that basically means opening yourself up to taking a hit in order to land the killshot.Even in training,bleeding sucks,& the only chicks I've ever met that dug scars had more of the buggers than I do.I'm not having a go either.I am actually interested,as seminars are about the pace of my training regime the last six months (Not enough attention to breakfalls as a kid).Last question,have you reconciled yourself to using an art that has only one outcome for the loser?Death.

    Leave a comment:


  • It is Fake
    replied
    Originally posted by duncan_bayne
    I personally know two people who were temporarily hospitalised by separate assaults - mind you, the violent crime stats here in N.Z. are pretty bad. Anyway, neither of those people were armed; had either been (assuming of course that they had a basic understanding of how to use the weapons in question) they would probably have fared much better.
    New Zealand. There is the flaw in the argument. I had this discussion with someone else before, from another country. I'm talking about the US.

    The act of rape is considered an injury, if it is completed or not. In many states (no not all) goosing or grabbing a breast can be considered rape. We had a prominent athelete (no not KB) get initially charged with rape using the above example.

    You are right there aren't full stats but, there are many annecdotal stories that escalation increases the violence.

    One thing everyone is missing although Grash, is getting close, is very important.

    A book isn't going to help you in the actual event. This is something talked about on this site. "Train how you fight, fight how you train." Here in the US there are way to many stories where improper training, up to and including guns, has resulted in the weapon being used in the assault.

    Now, maybe it is different where you live. The problem is Phil is US based so, he is teaching incorrect things that may not apply in your country.
    Last edited by It is Fake; 7/18/2006 6:42pm, .

    Leave a comment:


  • Grashnak
    replied
    Originally posted by duncan_bayne
    I agree that to master a weapon takes years of dedicated study. To learn to use one in order to better defend yourself, however, can take only a few minutes in the case of some weapons - and doesn't necessarily require a master to instruct you.
    There really is no point in having this conversation then because I firmly believe that giving anyone any kind of weapon with only a few minutes of instruction is basically setting them up to get hurt. They will falsely believe that they are somehow safer for having the weapon, and they will most likely stand and fight when they should have fled, and they will probably get hurt.

    Untrue. Granted, resistance decreases the chance of rape, but armed resistance decreases it more. And from the stats I've seen, only defense with a firearm signficiantly reduces the chance of non-rape injury as well. As I've said, in most cases, it seems that if you pull anything other than a gun, you've turned "attempted rape" into "fight". You probably won't get raped, but you will get hurt.
    Or killed, which is exactly my point. Basically you are admitting that a woman who is attacked is MORE likely to get hurt if she has a weapon but less likely to be raped. Duh, guys are less interested in raping women who are dead or maimed.


    Sadly, no such stats exist (to my knowledge). So we're left with trying to decide whether a relatively untrained woman, unarmed, is better off than a relatively untrained woman who is armed. Again, the stats that I've seen suggests she is.
    How so? Your interpretation of those stats is that she is more likely to get hurt if she has a weapon. Why are you using "not getting" raped as the gold standard of self defence? So if she gets her head beaten in because she pulled a weapon on a guy, at least she didn't get raped?

    Whose problem is that, exactly?
    Um, its the problem of your unfortunate friends who you'ver armed without giving them the means to actually defend themselves should they ever pull the weapon on a guy.


    Again, I can understand escalation going badly. I can understand self-injury (even with a kubotan?) But I don't get how weapons training is going to prevent you from using force where it is unwarranted.
    Because any weapon training worth taking constantly reinforces the responsibilities that come with carrying a weapon and will underline the various situations and legal repercussions of weapon use. Reading a magazine article by a non-expert will not do that for you.

    Leave a comment:


  • BackFistMonkey
    replied
    Originally posted by duncan_bayne
    This is becoming tiresome. The stats are from the 1979 - 1985 installments of the Justice Department's annual National Crime Victim Survey, cited in Kleck, Gary; Sayles, Susan, "Rape and resistance." Social Problems. May 1990.

    Really, did you have to wait for me to show you mine before you'd show me yours? This isn't a game between children; it's a discussion between adults.
    Then I seriously suggest taking this discussion into the Armory where W/we can all debate under a reasonable ruleset .

    Yes noobie town does crimp some of our styles .

    * edit *

    Besides ALOT of our members refuse to set foot in this place .

    Leave a comment:


  • duncan_bayne
    replied
    Originally posted by It is Fake??
    You are using 20 year old stats. Then earlier you talk about trotting out these statistics as some type of trump card.

    Use your own logic. You haven't provided links or names to your stats. As soon as you do I'll provide mine.
    This is becoming tiresome. The stats are from the 1979 - 1985 installments of the Justice Department's annual National Crime Victim Survey, cited in Kleck, Gary; Sayles, Susan, "Rape and resistance." Social Problems. May 1990.

    Really, did you have to wait for me to show you mine before you'd show me yours? This isn't a game between children; it's a discussion between adults.

    Leave a comment:


  • It is Fake
    replied
    You are using 20 year old stats. Then earlier you talk about trotting out these statistics as some type of trump card.

    Use your own logic. You haven't provided links or names to your stats. As soon as you do I'll provide mine.

    Leave a comment:


  • duncan_bayne
    replied
    Originally posted by It is Fake??
    This is the point you are missing. I waited until 2 other people saw what I saw.

    Things have completely changed over the last 20 years. Many of the things you said would get a woman killed or hurt severely.

    Plus there is a HUGE flaw in your statistics. This flaw would negate your Kubotan and many SD theories.

    Look it up. Eventually, I will tell you.

    Also, I'm in agreement with much of what GS has said.
    Please, don't play games with me. If you have stats or reasoning that refute mine, post them and we can debate their merits.

    Leave a comment:


  • It is Fake
    replied
    Originally posted by jnp
    No, because statistical analysis has improved greatly on the last 20 years.
    This is the point you are missing. I waited until 2 other people saw what I saw.

    Things have completely changed over the last 20 years. Many of the things you said would get a woman killed or hurt severely.

    Plus there is a HUGE flaw in your statistics. This flaw would negate your Kubotan and many SD theories.

    Look it up. Eventually, I will tell you.

    Also, I'm in agreement with much of what GS has said.

    Leave a comment:


  • duncan_bayne
    replied
    Originally posted by Grashnak
    I don't know where you got the impression that I said it was so simple that he shouldn't write about it. My point was that no weapon use is simple and that no one who isn't an expert (which Phil admits he isn't) has any business pretending to teach the use of weapons.
    I agree that to master a weapon takes years of dedicated study. To learn to use one in order to better defend yourself, however, can take only a few minutes in the case of some weapons - and doesn't necessarily require a master to instruct you.

    Of course, if you then drew the conclusion that you were proficient in that weapon given some basic instruction & practice, you'd be sadly mistaken. Again, however, Phil has explicitly cautioned people against that mistake on a number of occasions.
    Originally posted by Grashnak
    I don't know about rape. Rape is a fairly small subset of self-defense. I would guess though that if ANY resistance reduces that chance of rape, that just kicking and screaming would do, and thus you wouldn't need to carry a weapon that you don't know how to use, and can have used against you.
    Untrue. Granted, resistance decreases the chance of rape, but armed resistance decreases it more. And from the stats I've seen, only defense with a firearm signficiantly reduces the chance of non-rape injury as well. As I've said, in most cases, it seems that if you pull anything other than a gun, you've turned "attempted rape" into "fight". You probably won't get raped, but you will get hurt.

    FWIW, though, last I heard stranger rape was significantly less likely than acquaintance or partner rape. IOW, the best defense against rape is to choose your friends & partner carefully.
    Originally posted by Grashnak
    And I could easily interpret your quote to mean that pulling a weapon other than a firearm increases the chance of a woman getting her ass kicked (which I presume is a "non-rape injury" before she gets raped.
    Half-right. Injury chances go up (except for firearms), rape chances go down. The impression I get is that what tends to happen is that there's a fight, followed by the rapist fleeing, but the woman gets injured during the rape.
    Originally posted by Grashnak
    You bet your ass thats what I'm saying. Putting a stick in your purse and occasionally hitting a wall with it does precisely NOTHING for your ability to protect yourself. Hell, its practically the definition of Bullshido. At the worst, your are providing these women with an ill-placed sense of confidence. You'd be better off buying them some running shoes and sprinting lessons.
    Interesting ... how would we test that assertion?
    Originally posted by Grashnak
    Please feel free to provide some stats within say the last 10 years of rape victims with kubotans vs rape victims without kubotans.
    Sadly, no such stats exist (to my knowledge). So we're left with trying to decide whether a relatively untrained woman, unarmed, is better off than a relatively untrained woman who is armed. Again, the stats that I've seen suggests she is.
    Originally posted by Grashnak
    You talked about buying people kubotans as presents and giving them a copy of Phil's articles. I can guarantee you that those people aren't putting in regular practice in the deadly striking arts of the kubotan.
    Whose problem is that, exactly?
    Originally posted by Grashnak
    Well, I was commenting on weapons more generally, where someone who carries a gun (for example) without any training is more likely to kill someone accidentally or in a situation where it isn't warranted.
    Accidentally? I can buy that. Unwarranted? Please explain.
    Originally posted by Grashnak
    With regards to the kubotan specifically, mostly the emphasis was on getting your ass severly kicked by pulling a weapon you don't know how to use, but I suppose you could accidentally get luck and fuck up someone who didn't really deserve it.
    Again, I can understand escalation going badly. I can understand self-injury (even with a kubotan?) But I don't get how weapons training is going to prevent you from using force where it is unwarranted.
    Originally posted by Grashnak
    Any time you pull a weapon (no matter if its a gun, a knife, or a stupid stick) you better be 100% sure that the situation justifies it, or you may find the cops slapping the cuffs on you.
    Absolutely. And IMO, going to jail is a secondary concern compared with living with your actions if they were unjustified.

    Leave a comment:


  • Grashnak
    replied
    Sorry, I was away camping and missed this.


    Originally posted by duncan_bayne
    Indeed. So, you're saying that kubotan use for striking is so simple that Phil shouldn't write an article about it ... but that it's so complicated that it shouldn't be taught by anyone other than an expert?
    I don't know where you got the impression that I said it was so simple that he shouldn't write about it. My point was that no weapon use is simple and that no one who isn't an expert (which Phil admits he isn't) has any business pretending to teach the use of weapons.



    Have you any stats to back up this assertion? Those that I've seen are related to rape (admittedly a small subsection of violent crime), but the interesting thing is that physical resistance, of any kind, dramatically reduces the chance of rape ocurring. Interestingly, resistance of any kind other than with a firearm increases the chance of non-rape injury - in other words pull a weapon other than a gun, and you turn it from attempted rape into a fight.

    I don't know about rape. Rape is a fairly small subset of self-defense. I would guess though that if ANY resistance reduces that chance of rape, that just kicking and screaming would do, and thus you wouldn't need to carry a weapon that you don't know how to use, and can have used against you.

    And I could easily interpret your quote to mean that pulling a weapon other than a firearm increases the chance of a woman getting her ass kicked (which I presume is a "non-rape injury" before she gets raped.



    Are you saying that women shouldn't carry kubotans, even if their training is limited to reading Phil's articles & practicing striking techniques on inanimate objects?
    You bet your ass thats what I'm saying. Putting a stick in your purse and occasionally hitting a wall with it does precisely NOTHING for your ability to protect yourself. Hell, its practically the definition of Bullshido. At the worst, your are providing these women with an ill-placed sense of confidence. You'd be better off buying them some running shoes and sprinting lessons.


    Because the stats I've seen suggest that in the case of stranger rape, they'd be better off with one than without one.
    Please feel free to provide some stats within say the last 10 years of rape victims with kubotans vs rape victims without kubotans.

    Firstly, where did you get the "don't practice with regularly" thing from?
    You talked about buying people kubotans as presents and giving them a copy of Phil's articles. I can guarantee you that those people aren't putting in regular practice in the deadly striking arts of the kubotan.



    Secondly, I'm a little confused as to why you think that someone carrying a weapon like a kubotan with which they've had no formal training is more likely to over-react to a situation - in other words, that someone going armed is going to behave like some kind of trigger-happy nut-job? I believe your assertion is known in some circles as "projection".
    Well, I was commenting on weapons more generally, where someone who carries a gun (for example) without any training is more likely to kill someone accidentally or in a situation where it isn't warranted.

    With regards to the kubotan specifically, mostly the emphasis was on getting your ass severly kicked by pulling a weapon you don't know how to use, but I suppose you could accidentally get luck and fuck up someone who didn't really deserve it.

    Any time you pull a weapon (no matter if its a gun, a knife, or a stupid stick) you better be 100% sure that the situation justifies it, or you may find the cops slapping the cuffs on you.

    Leave a comment:


  • jnp
    replied
    Originally posted by duncan_bayne
    Because rape in 2006 is different to rape in 1980? I don't get your objection to older stats.
    No, because statistical analysis has improved greatly on the last 20 years.

    Leave a comment:


  • duncan_bayne
    replied
    Originally posted by hapkido_keith
    What, in your vast experience, causes you to suspect this?
    "Train" is an ambiguous word. If you go home and train with it, how are you training? Hitting air with it and imagining it's an enemy? Hitting a heavy bag? Hitting a BOB? Drilling with another person? What do you mean by "training those strikes?"
    I was thinking of hitting inanimate objects such as bags, posts, a BOB if you have one, etc. etc. to get a feel for how the strikes work. Of course, sparring with a resisting partner while using a training weapon would be ideal.

    What I'm getting is that even with a modicum of training (practicing simple strikes against inanimate objects) you will be better equipped to deal with an assault. The better the training you receive, the better equipped you will be. However, some is better than none whatsoever.

    Even with a complete vacuum of training, people have successfully defended themselves with weapons. Well-documented examples of people defending themselves with improvised, expedient weapons abound. Two that spring to mind are a woman defending herself against a home invader / rapist with her husband's hunting knife, and a 14 year old girl defending herself against a kidnapper by striking him in the nuts with a claw hammer.
    Originally posted by hapkido_keith
    If you want to discus the mertis of the kubotan, start a thread on it, or ask me and I will start a thread for you.
    Please do - I'd be interested to get some wider feedback.

    Originally posted by hapkido_keith
    You posted them while I was writing. Try to find some stats less than 20 years old.
    Because rape in 2006 is different to rape in 1980? I don't get your objection to older stats.

    Leave a comment:


  • hapkido_keith
    replied
    Originally posted by duncan_bayne
    You are comparing a boxing match (i.e. a sporting event with rules, regulations, and protective gear) with expedient street defense - a criticism that, FWIW, Phil has levelled against many on this forum.

    Perhaps a more telling question would be "if I told you how to use a kubotan to perform simple strikes, and then you went away and practiced it, what would your chances be of defending yourself against an unprovoked attack on the street?"

    The answer, I suspect, would be "better than if I'd not had the kubotan and basic instruction & practice".
    What, in your vast experience, causes you to suspect this?
    "Train" is an ambiguous word. If you go home and train with it, how are you training? Hitting air with it and imagining it's an enemy? Hitting a heavy bag? Hitting a BOB? Drilling with another person? What do you mean by "training those strikes?"

    What makes a "crappy" weapon, exactly? I'm well aware of the limitations & intended uses of the kubotan. I think it fits in nicely at the bottom end of the force spectrum as far as weapons go; with rudimentary instruction & practice, it'll make any strikes you manage to land more effective. I'm leaving aside compliance techniques that require more rigourous training.

    But, the fact that it's unlikely to do serious injury to an assailant is actually a good thing, provided you have something more effective in your arsenal as well. E.g. you wouldn't want to knife a furious colleage who's grabbed your throat (BTDT working in the wee hours for a courier company), but bashing his arm with a kubotan would, IMO, be a reasonably use of force - and easier to train for than unarmed techniques to remove his hand.
    If you want to discus the mertis of the kubotan, start a thread on it, or ask me and I will start a thread for you.
    Which ones? On firearm defense against rape?
    You posted them while I was writing. Try to find some stats less than 20 years old.

    Leave a comment:


  • duncan_bayne
    replied
    Originally posted by hapkido_keith
    Maybe I can draw the analogy here. I can tell you how to throw a jab. Just hit the guy fast with your lead hand. That's all a jab is. Based on the information I just told you, what do you think your chances are of landing a successful jab in a boxing match if you had to fight right now?

    I'm saying that if she's not trained well to use it, the kubotan isn't going to do her any good.
    You are comparing a boxing match (i.e. a sporting event with rules, regulations, and protective gear) with expedient street defense - a criticism that, FWIW, Phil has levelled against many on this forum.

    Perhaps a more telling question would be "if I told you how to use a kubotan to perform simple strikes, and then you went away and practiced it, what would your chances be of defending yourself against an unprovoked attack on the street?"

    The answer, I suspect, would be "better than if I'd not had the kubotan and basic instruction & practice".

    There is no silver bullet ...
    Originally posted by hapkido_keith
    I won't say I'm an expert, but I will say I'm confident that I know more about hand-to-hand combat than Phil. I'm VERY confident that I know more than you. And I'll say this: the kubotan is a crappy weapon. If you disagree and want to argue about it, or debate the merits of Phil's articles, just start a thread in The Armory or Your Martial Art Sucks subforums, or give the word and I will be happy to start the thread myself and we can discus this topic at length.
    What makes a "crappy" weapon, exactly? I'm well aware of the limitations & intended uses of the kubotan. I think it fits in nicely at the bottom end of the force spectrum as far as weapons go; with rudimentary instruction & practice, it'll make any strikes you manage to land more effective. I'm leaving aside compliance techniques that require more rigourous training.

    But, the fact that it's unlikely to do serious injury to an assailant is actually a good thing, provided you have something more effective in your arsenal as well. E.g. you wouldn't want to knife a furious colleage who's grabbed your throat (BTDT working in the wee hours for a courier company), but bashing his arm with a kubotan would, IMO, be a reasonably use of force - and easier to train for than unarmed techniques to remove his hand.
    Originally posted by hapkido_keith
    And perhaps you can share these stats that you've seen?
    Which ones? On firearm defense against rape?

    Leave a comment:

Collapse

Edit this module to specify a template to display.

Working...
X