Brain Tricks From My First Use of Traditional Budo
The first time I ever used the martial arts skills I had learned from the initial approach to kobudo that I started studying in high school, an interesting thing happened.
Of course, over the years there are details I don’t remember – this was high school. And, now that I’ve learned enough about the likely results of what must have included some adrenaline in my blood at the time, I recognize that it’s entirely likely that most of the “actual” details that I might remember would be at least partially wrong.
With that in mind, I’m not so interested in recounting what skills got used or what worked and what didn’t work – I only remember a very little bit. What would be useful, though, is to discuss an odd thing that happened, that I actually DO remember … one that I have recently learned happens a lot to people doing something stressful and “new”.
Read MoreImperfect Self Defense & You
We spend a lot of time at the Dojo working on effective self defense. We also spend time discussing acceptable self defense: when morality and legality are taken into consideration, there are a lot of important things to consider.
Our training covers a range from pinching a little skin, to cutting our adversaries in half from nine feet away. That’s a pretty big range for this “use of force continuum” in our training. The selection process of appropriate response is a little more difficult than you might think.
For example, you might pick the perfect response to a situation, but then realize that your judgment about the situation itself was not so perfect. There are huge moral implications to that. And, there are legal implications to that, too.
Imperfect Self Defense
“Imperfect self defense” (which only applies if there is actual but unreasonable belief in the need for self defense) reduces a murder to a manslaughter.
Read MoreFear & Fighting – How We Train
bpm = danger
We’ve all heard about things like “tunnel vision” happening to people under stress. Our bodies naturally want to focus on the danger happening in front of us (don’t worry, your body will almost uncontrollably turn towards any dangerous-seeming sudden stimulus – that’s why “flash-bang grenades” work so well and predictably), so our eyes focus almost exclusively on what’s happening directly in front of us. That happens at about 220 beats per minute for most folks.
Under survival stress, it is very likely that you’ll have tunnel vision, hearing loss, memory loss. There are countless reports that indicate memory hallucinations. Stress of this magnitude is not particularly helpful! Here’s a nice graph depicting the effects of stress on physical performance. (Got it here: http://bit.ly/d63dQT)
I’ve had the opportunity to chat with a couple of doctors and a med school professor about how long it takes to get to these dangerous heart rates, and their answers are important to consider: less than one second is all it takes to go from “normal” to debilitating.
The good news is that while our fine motor movements and complex motor skills deteriorate as explained in the picture above, our “gross motor movements” simply don’t go through that problem – they even continue to improve! So, it’s important to have a set of skills that function almost entirely with these big, simple movements.
The other side of that equation is that we can get so darn competent and confident that our heart-rates won’t get so high, or won’t stay high if they suddenly spike. This means that we can retain our more complex skills longer even in a stressful situation, if we aren’t so horribly stressed ourselves.
additional concerns in training
In Training at the Speed of Life, we get another important reminder for training:
” … if an officer has the expectation that a suspect will immediately cease his hostile actions when hit by fists, spray, impact weapons, TASERs or bullets, he is in for a rude awakening when fighting an opponent who continues to fight well beyond the point that he should have been brought down. Having a false sense of security based on ineffective defensive tactics can also shatter the psyche of an officer who mistakenly believes that this or that “move” will bring about a swift conclusion to an encounter. Such misconceptions can have a chilling effect on an unprepared officer.”
Indeed, if we always train as if our moves are going to “work” then we can create huge problems down the line. We should instead prepare to do our best, then do our best again, and again, etc. Until the problem is solved, it’s still a problem, and that’s as simple as it gets. We’re not training for the sake of having the best moves; we’re putting in all this effort so that we get the desired results.
what we need to do
Bat Masterson (the famous gun fighter) said:
… the least important thing is speed, second least is accuracy. The most important aspect in winning a gunfight is the ability to preserve the personality.
This certainly is an indicator that we should continue to train our skills, but spend a LOT of our efforts on training our minds. And, training our minds to be comfortable with violence and fighting will be most easily done while facing violence and fighting.
From Training at the Speed of Life:
In an effort to teach students to overcome the effects of visual narrowing, firearms trainers will often use the common range command “scan and breathe.” … It is important to get students to truly understand why they are doing this so that it has relevance if there is ever a need. Scanning is necessary in order to actually see threats that may exist outside their reduced field of vision. Breathing, systematic and patterned breathing, will have the effect of lowering the heart rate, supplying more oxygen to the brain, and reducing the level of anxiety, which can lead to a higher level of cognitive clarity.
I will go a step further here:
In our martial arts training, each of the fighting “stances” in which we find ourselves are meant to be understood as physical responses to emotional states. As such, we stand, breathe, act, talk, and move in particularly different ways when we are feeling different feelings.
In our training, once we have the basic motor mechanics smooth and with at least conscious competence, we begin using a breathing pattern that fits the moment and the mood associated with that training. If both parties (aggressor and defender) use appropriate breathing, the drills become much more useful (they’re a lot more fun, too).
Consider that there are two kinds of “practice”:
- skill drills
- emotional response drills
I believe that you need to do both.
I very strongly encourage you to make breathing an important part of your training right away. Breathe as if you are calm, excited, angry, scared, surprised, etc. and find out how it affects your movement. If you don’t notice a difference, you’re probably just not paying attention.
I also suggest the use of sense impairment in training: earplugs, visual impairments like blindfolds or specially prepared “tunnel vision goggles” make a huge difference. (If you don’t train at my Dojo and you’d like an idea for preparing these, contact me and I’ll tell you what has worked best for me after a LOT of searching and purchasing).
I have a ton more I’d like to say, but I’m really curious about what you are thinking so far.
Read MoreMartial Arts vs. Self Defense: What is the difference?
If I know martial arts, don’t I know self-defense?
The answer to this question is perhaps a bit easier than it first seems. Is fighting always needed to keep myself or others safe?
The elaborate way I think of it is, in the large Venn diagram of self-defense and martial arts, there are large places where they overlap, but there’s an even larger space where they don’t.
That is what I wish to point out here – all the overlooked areas where they don’t.
You can generally keep yourself (& others) safe without fighting anyone. Ridiculously simple techniques – like pinching believe it or not – can be all that you need to get someone away from you or a loved one. Someone grabs your friend’s arm, you give them a good smurf bite, they’ll most likely let them go – and you have plenty of time to grab your friend and get out of dodge.
Self-defense courses usually include:
- situational & environmental awareness
- 3rd party intervention
- legal awareness
In the “before” stage, if you are aware of your surroundings, you will seldom (if ever) run into an issue. Then in the “during” stage – getting yourself out of the situation and as far away from it as possible is all you really need to learn. The “after” stage should be calling the cops, determining what a “safe place” to go is (important especially for kids) and so forth.
So then, “does that mean that if I do martial arts (assuming it’s a fighting art) does that mean I can defend myself?” I mean, if I can fight I can defend myself right? Surprisingly, the answer to this is more often than not, “No.”
Not to get me wrong, being able to fight can be useful, and training may have given you a good mindset if a situation should arrive. However, there are many other factors that people tend to overlook. How many times have you looked at a fighting martial art that studies more than just fighting. When you spar or train, all the elements are already in place, and it is understood that you two are after each other. There is no question, whether they are going to come at you – that’s what you’re there for!
Martial Arts courses usually include:
- fighting techniques
- fighting muscle memory/honing
- fighting mindset
Simply, fighting. Fighting is so intense, emotional, and complex, that 95% if not 100% of the training is spent on it. All the little nuances of body language, and subtle cues of what might become a fight is simply ignored at this point, because you assume fighting.
Fighting is when you both parties want it. California calls it “mutual combat”. Self-defense means at least one of you, for your sake or that of bystanders, doesn’t.
Now, if you are lucky enough to train in a martial art that occasionally takes learning how to spot an altercation into consideration, what of 3rd party or group tactics? How many fighting martial arts will introduce a scenario that your kid is being grabbed by someone, and you and your spouse see that and need to intervene? Or if you see someone refusing to let go of your friend, how to stop what is happening without fighting? What if there are minors involved?
These are all ways of hands on self-defense with no fighting skills necessary.
Finally, there is the part where most people tend to ignore – we’re in the 21st century, there are laws. If you happen to own anything, and would like to keep it that way, you cannot just come in swinging. Being aware of what the legal climate looks like where you live or even where you might be traveling to, is always a good idea. Keeping up on those laws (“ignorance is no excuse”) is a great way of ‘intellectual’ self-defense.
Those of you who know me, know that I train in martial arts regularly and believe that it can shape an amazing lifestyle, and I could not see my life without it. That being said – train hard, think harder. Things aren’t always easy to lump into one category. Martial arts and self-defense can be learned together, but are usually taught separately. Always looking at the big picture is the best way to save a life.
Read MoreNew California Gun Laws VERY Questionable
I was driving home yesterday, and I heard a report on the radio that there is a new movement in California government to make it illegal to carry an unloaded gun. I thought that was silly, and there must be some mistake … or at least I hoped so. Unfortunately, I was wrong. My comments are in blue and I’ve highlighted sections of importance:
From TheUnion.com
SACRAMENTO ― Should California ban the “open-carry” of firearms in public?Do gun-toters pose a danger when they carry their weapons in public, even if they’re unloaded?
Some California lawmakers think they do and want to rein in a growing trend among Second Amendment advocates who grab their handgun when they reach for the car keys and head to the supermarket.
“What I’m concerned about is people who have no training can carry a gun for no other purpose than to make a public statement,” said the bill’s author Democratic Assemblywoman Lori Saldana of San Diego.
Goodness gracious! Her major point of concern is that people will make a public statement! Head for the hills, folks! That’s not too far of a leap from her actual statement, and the “slippery slope” it describes is at least a little Orwellian and frightening.
Starbucks caused a nationwide stir recently when it allowed so-called open-carry advocates to bring their weapons into its coffee houses in the states that allow it. But several retailers have banned weapons in their stores, including Peet’s Coffee & Tea and California Pizza Kitchen.If signed into law, California would be the fourth state to ban people from wearing guns openly, according to the Legal Community Against Violence, a public interest law center based in San Francisco.
Florida, Illinois, Texas and the District of Columbia have a similar open-carry ban.
California and 34 other states allow people to carry a gun without a license. However, only California, North Dakota and Utah require that the weapon be unloaded.
Gun owners in the 12 other states must have a license or permit to carry a handgun, said Benjamin Van Houten, an attorney at the law center. Residents of Alaska and Vermont can carry a loaded gun without a license, while Arizona residents will be allowed to do so as early as this summer under a bill signed last week.
In California, only gun owners with a concealed-weapons permit can carry a loaded weapon, which would not change under the Saldana bill.
Emeryville Police Chief Ken James, a member of the California Police Chiefs Association, said open-carry laws have been on the books since the late 1960s, but gun advocates have only recently begun to demonstrate their right to carry a gun.
“Officers are taught from Day 1 in the academy that guns are a threat,” said James, whose association is sponsoring the bill. “This open carry places officers in a position between a rock and a hard spot.”
The policy also costs taxpayers and diverts law enforcement from investigating crimes whenever police officers are called to respond to a report of someone wearing a gun, Saldana said. Gun owners say unloaded guns pose no threat to the public.
“If you can’t carry loaded, then it’s really just a waste of time to ban it because you’re asking law-abiding people to disarm themselves from an object that does no harm to anyone because it’s unloaded,” said Rachel Parsons, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association. “In a time when there’s limited taxpayer funds, passing these additional laws that mean absolutely nothing is a waste of taxpayer dollars.”
Did anybody note that we’re in a recession/depression … and THIS suddenly deserves legislature’s attention?! And, while on the topic of legislators … did you know that THEY GAVE THEMSELVES THE RIGHT TO CONCEALED CARRY?! Yeah, I’m a little ticked off by that one.
Under current California law, gun owners are allowed to carry ammunition as long as it’s not in the weapon. Saldana and other critics say that proximity adds to the public-safety threat.During a recent news conference, Saldana played a video that showed a person can load a gun in seconds.
Previous attempts to prohibit open-carry of guns have stalled in the Assembly. The chamber’s Public Safety Committee is scheduled to hear the Saldana bill Tuesday.
Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, the committee’s chairman, supports the ban.
“Whether a gun is loaded or not, it’s still an act of intimidation and bullying,” Ammiano said.
Saldana said she hopes Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will sign her bill because he has been responsive to law enforcement concerns in the past. Schwarzenegger spokeswoman Rachel Arrezola said the governor has not taken a position.
From Reason.com:
Equally troubling is Sotomayor’s record on the Second Amendment. This past January, the Second Circuit issued its opinion in Maloney v. Cuomo, which Sotomayor joined, ruling that the Second Amendment does not apply against state and local governments. At issue was a New York ban on various weapons, including nunchucks. After last year’s District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down DC’s handgun ban, attention turned to whether state and local gun control laws might violate the Second Amendment as well.
“It is settled law,” Sotomayor and the Second Circuit held, “that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right.” But contrast that with the Ninth Circuit’s decision last month in Nordyke v. King, which reached a very different conclusion, one that matches the Second Amendment’s text, original meaning, and history:
We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the “true palladium of liberty.” Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited. We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.
It may be worth noting a piece of advice from Machiavelli’s The Prince:
Now, no new prince has ever at any time disarmed his subjects; rather when he has found them unarmed he has always given them arms. This is because by arming your subjects you arm yourself; those who were suspect become loyal, and those who were loyal not only remain so but are changed from being merely your subjects to being your partisans. … But as soon as you disarm your subjects you start to offend them, showing whether through cowardice or suspiscion that you mistrust them; and on either score hatred is aroused against you.
I don’t carry a gun very often (except when working with our Fugitive Recovery Team) and I don’t even suggest that most people ever consider carrying one. I do very strongly suggest that people carry non-lethal methods of self-defense, like pepper spray and Tasers or stun guns.
I hope that people would be less likely to deploy lethal force (and the research tends to bear this out) and they would be more willing to defend themselves in a way that would be likely to avoid lethal force or even injury.
If the best fight is no fight, then perhaps the second best fight is one in which you don’t have to do any undue harm.
Read More