Blog Update- Things That Have Been Bothering Me

The new blogger setup is terrible and I hate it. Maybe I am paranoid or something but I think it is also eating comments. The amount of time I waste waiting for it to unfreeze or editing out jumbled together stuff is out of control.

Something kind of weird has been coming clear to me. First people want to read or listen to folks who know what they are doing or at least have half a clue. This makes sense as I don't learn a whole lot from folks who know less than me about a given topic.

However half the time folks want to ignore the advice or scale it down such that they are basically ignoring it. I get this too. Different things work for different people. More to the point often the right answer is at least somewhat hard and people have varying amounts of time/energy/motivation. It is often harder to do the right thing than the easy less right thing.


The place where it confuses me is that folks seem to want a kind of rubber stamp of approval on these decisions which go against the advice which was given in the first place. They really, really want to hear that their own watered down psuedo version of your plan is going to clearly lead to the exact same results.

Example: I recommend that you practice an exercise program that consists of lifting heavy things and running or road marching with some bodyweight stuff mixed in. A guy comes on the net and says after reading 30 posts on this topic that he walks for 20 minutes 3 times a week and does some situps and pushups occasionally. If I do anything other than lie and tell him that this plan he is executing is great and will clearly prepare his body for the zombie apocalypse his underwear gets in a big wad about it.

I guess part of teaching or instructing people and to a degree a piece of this whole blogging thing I do is giving people recommendations about how to do things that I matter of factly do not recommend. Typically this is trying to fit them into the closest option to the thing I actually suggest and have it work with their life. I might be improving with this as my ability to use tact has increased over time but then again my willingness to argue or debate is dropping so who knows.

Another thing that bothers me is bringing up a problem without a solution. Maybe it is just because it was ingrained into me at work to never bring anybody a problem unless I have a solution. Chances are they know it is a problem also and if they could figure out a better answer they would already be using it. So basically just pointing out the problem is being a sharp shooting jerk. The difference between being that annoying sharp shooting jerk and somebody offering their .02 cents is having a solution to the problem you present.

Example, I got into a discussion with a fellow over combatives. I favor the modern hybrid style that is MMA. He talked forever about what is in his very well informed opinion wrong with MMA. The thing is that he failed to actually offer a better option. That was convenient because last I checked MMA guys were just beating the hell out of everybody all over the place. So much so that over the past few years traditional competitions and old school combat type sports have been frantically making up random arbitrary rules to keep MMA guys from curb stomping their stupid fake little competitions into oblivion. You don't see MMA leagues banning super deadly karate/ kung fu fighters from showing up but the opposite is definitely true. If anybody mentions the so deadly you can't possibly practice it against an opponent who actually tries to fight his own plan "Krav" I might burst a frickin blood vessel.

Another thing that has been bothering me is when folks try to argue feelings instead of actually discussing facts or valid points. Maybe to say it more accurately when they try to make up facts or points to fit their feelings.

Example: I hate the Springfield XD, strait up. I hate the angle of the grip, I hate the stupid little grip safety, I hate the way they look, I just hate them. The only way I would buy one is if the deal was so good (like say $200) that I knew I could either pass it to a friend and be doing them a favor or easily sell it at a nice profit.

Note that I never said they were not good, reliable and functional weapons. I didn't say they are not safe or a very good value which comes with a well thought out initial set of accessories. They are fine weapons, probably in the top choices for tough practical use, just not one I have any interest in owning.

Does this distinction make sense? I didn't try to make up some BS facts to fit my feelings on the matter. I just stated them and moved on.

Finally it gets even worse if I talk about any gun negatively. Every single gun all of you all own is the perfect survival weapon for every possible situation. It doesn't matter if you can't hit the broad side of a barn with it at 5 paces, the thing holds 1 or 2 or 7 bullets, it is notoriously unreliable, ammo for it was only made between 1897 and 1899 in Zaire or that  only 7 of them were made in somebodies mom's basement and thus parts/ accessories are virtually impossible to find. It is the best damn gun ever. Everybody finally happy?

Anyway that is what has been bothering me in the blogosphere lately.

Why You Need All Sorts of Fighting Skills: Very Interesting Video

First of all I would like to credit FerFal and his blog Surviving in Argentina. I totally stole this video from his blog. I am doing so because I want the dozen people who read my blog and don't read his bigger, better blog to see this. Also it leads into something I have been meaning to write about. Anyway first watch the video.




The lessons which FerFal notes are meaningful and I do not intend to unnecessarily rehash them. Here are my additional thoughts.

1. Unfortunately sometimes bad people are big, strong and skilled at fighting. A relatively large (or I guess larger than you) Goblin with even a modest background in combatives, who has been in and out of the correctional system and generally lives a rough violent life is really not someone you want to fight. They know what they are doing and are almost surely used to taking some punishment. Unlike some kid who tinkers in a moderately effective martial art they will almost surely not reconsider their intentions with a broken nose or a loosen a tooth. You will likely have to physically incapacitate this sort of person to stop them. I'm talking beating them unconscious, choking them out, crippling or killing them.

2. As FerFal noted semi automatic handguns tend to jam a lot at contact range. I would guess the primary causes are clothing or whatever getting snagged up in the struggle when the slide moves and limp wristing due to firing quickly from awkward positions. Practice clearing your weapon quickly under pressure. TAP the magazine, RACK the slide, BANG (if applicable). It is not going to clear every single failure but will clear most and can be done without breaking eye contact with your opponent while moving backwards to create space. Practice and you can do it very fast.

As seen when the Goblin picks up the still jammed gun in close quarters you would do well to just assume all battlefield pickups of semi automatic pistols are jammed and immediately TAP, RACK before looking to BANG.


3. Mace doesn't stop people. Particularly people who are used to taking punishment and potentially have even been maced before. Those huge cans that shoot the big stream are probably better than the little convenient to carry cans but still don't expect the result to be like a home run swing with a baseball bat to the face. Use mace to create space and time to get the heck out of there and or employ a better weapon. Expecting more than that is probably asking for trouble.

The main point I want to talk about is that different types of fights (somebody smart once broke fights down into 4 ranges, projectile, kicking, punching, dirty boxing (elbows, knees, short punches, throws, etc,) and grappling) are not discrete events that happen in isolation. Some firearms schools like to make you think that you can become so aware and skilled because of their amazing training that there will always be time to employ precision pistol fire from a safe distance. That is a bunch of crap.

It is egotistical and stupid and dangerous. Part of the reason is that these schools like to present themselves as being able to solve all your problems in a weekend. The concept of shooting someone can be sanitized and packaged. The reality of hand to hand is up close, personal and nasty. It requires physical conditioning which doesn't fit well with a "we can magically solve all your problems for some money over a long weekend" package. Also it takes a long time to become proficient at. You're talking about months and years not hours or days.

Even if you have a gun and know how to use it if somebody gets near or into kicking or punching range you are in a hand to hand fight. A gun is not a magical cure all. As FerFal noted someone with a bit of specific training can often stop that pistol from coming into the equation at all. I remember a disturbingly accurate saying "what is the first thing somebody does after being shot with a pistol? continue whatever they were doing before". Unless you hit someone in the brain or spine (imagine a T with the horizontal part between the eyes and the long vertical part extending down the spine) they will almost surely not be stopped in their tracks. Remember your goal is to STOP THE THREAT.

There are a lot of shots that will kill someone but that doesn't matter. If somebody cuts your head off with a piece of junk gas station knife then dies later from injuries you inflicted as far as I am concerned you lost. For example a shot through the liver or lung is, without prompt surgical intervention, almost surely lethal. However before the goblin loses enough blood or whatever to pass out they could potentially kill you. Conversely if you accidentally shoot someone low and to the outside and shatter their hip (depending on if you hit the artery, how bones shatter, etc) they will probably live but aren't going to keep coming at you. Thus you successfully managed to STOP THE THREAT.  Shoot until you run out of ammo, can safely disengage or you STOP THE THREAT.

You've got to learn how to fight hand to hand. There just isn't a substitute for it. At a minimum you need to be able to get somebody off you and create enough space to break contact or employ a handgun. The cops use of his weak hand to create and maintain space was pretty effective in the video.

 If somebody grabs you in a crowd and you are struggling then get them off you comes you you've gone from a standing grappling to dirty boxing or striking range. If they pull out a knife you are in a knife fight. A lot of the fundamentals do not change. Stuff like sound footing and being in a good athletic position translates through all ranges and situations.

There are all kinds of implied tasks here. Weapons training, firearm retention, combatives, knife and counter knife stuff come to mind. You could probably spend your whole life trying and not master these things. Don't worry about obscure fancy stuff or lots of ways to do things. Instead of trying to learn a dozen ways to deal with someone rushing you or grabbing you, or whatever it's probably better to be well practiced and drilled in two of them. It's blocking and tackling not quarter back sneeks. Gabe Suarez writes about this topic here.

Think about this stuff. How would you fare in a similar situation? Maybe you're a hulk of a fellow who wrestled through college or have been doing Judo since childhood, maybe you divide your spare time between power lifting and cage fighting and are generally a bad dude to mess with. However if that isn't the case you would be well advised to do something to better your situation. This is a great example of a case where anything helps. Take a self defense class. Learn about weapons retention by taking a course or working with a knowledgeable friend or acquaintance. Work on drawing and presenting a weapon while moving backwards. Practice clearing jams by feel without looking. Conduct low/ moderate intensity force on force drills to work through scenarios which trouble you. Just do something to better your situation.

Real Life Vs Movies/ TV

Wifey and I are watching a movie and something just jumped out at me. Some guy was being a jerk so the main character up and popped him one. He then stood there and did nothing then the jerk mollywhopped him pretty good in return. While it can certainly be debated when physical violence should be used if you are going to hit someone at least follow up until they are unable to retaliate. Hitting them and then letting them get set for a fight is stupid. Follow up until they are in a bloody pile on the ground and then get the heck out of there.

Worth Reading

FerFAL wrote a post on realistic vs 'gym' fighting. It touches on a lot of stuff and I found myself alternatively laughing and nodding my head in agreement. He and I have relatively similar backgrounds (MMA/ BJJ) so that isn't a big surprise. You might get something out of this and you might not, who knows.

In any case it should be good for a coffee breaks worth of entertainment.

Initiation of Force

Some political parties and groups say that America should never initiate force. I personally believe they are well intentioned but none the less significantly misguided. Here is why I believe that.

The idea comes from two main places. First some various political/ philosophical theories about natural rights and such and secondly that your momma might have told you that you should never hit someone first but can hit them back if you must. While nice ideas and not bad for little kids they certainly don't measure up in the real adult world.

I don't remember my Mother ever telling me that. I do remember my Dad telling me when I was little that sometimes you have to fight to stand up for yourself. Even if someone else is bigger and stronger and a bully if they know you will fight if they mess with you they will almost always go pick on someone who will not fight. Experience and observation have shown this to be true. Somewhere around the double digits Dad and I had a conversation about actually fighting (not little kid playground shit) which is a subject he was well versed in. He said if you have to fight hit them first and knock the hell out of them.

It has been a long time since that conversation. During that time I have been in enough fights to confirm my Fathers words as truthful. I have gotten into fights at parties and bars and most other places you can get into a fight, winning most, having others which were closer to a draw and occasionally taking a random shot to the dome. Not saying these experiences are something to be proud of but like a lot of growing up they are what they are. While my experiences are by no means exceptional they then again are almost becoming so. So many people are fucking pussies these days. In any case I come from a place where people (particularly younger men) sometimes settle disputes with physical violence. I hope that my children grow up in such a place lest they might become fucking pussies.

The world really is much more polite in places where people realize that if they step too far out of line someone might well smack them in the mouth. People sure think a lot more about what they are going to say and do. The same thing that can be said about an armed society can be said about a society where people are willing to physically fight with each other.

Matter of fact if the two sides are halfway even matched the guy who gets a good first shot and follows up on it (never got the idea of getting a real good punch then letting someone recover and come at you) almost always wins. If a 140 pound guy who has drunk them self strong decides to sucker punch a behemoth or a serious MMA guy they are going to have a bad night. I once saw a behemoth of a fellow take out about 5 of those guys in a row, pulled him off the last one because after the second time he kicked the guy in the face I was a bit concerned he would kill the fool. Never understood the "I am going to get really drunk and hit that huge/tough guy right in the face" train of thought but alas I digress. The point is that the person who gets the first shot usually wins.

In a larger and far more serious context these days (really the last 60 years but increasing with precision guided missiles and bombs and bad assed planes in the last 30-40 years) military engagements are faster and more final than ever before. The Jeffersonian era where a country could just hang out (aided by relatively weak neighbors, wild indians and an ocean then later weak neighbors and two oceans) and have a tiny army then get word something is going to happen and then have at least a year to call up, train and equip a huge force are over. [Also not to stomp too much on the "we could just defend our country with a militia of riflemen" myth (really another post for another day) but it is also a lot more technological and complicated now than training men to load muskets on command and walk in tight lines.] Mechanized warfare put that era to bed and modern air power put it entirely to sleep.  Both of the Arab Israeli wars illustrate what can be done with a devastating first strike. Numerous other examples apply.

Matter of factly the "don't hit them unless they hit you" rule is best left to elementary school children on the play ground. Adults need to be brutally realistic about things and when it is time to fight (without getting into details social groupings and countries both have somewhat clear lines here) it is stupid to intentionally let the other guy take the first shot and is almost a sure way to get your ass beat. Take the first shot yourself and capitalize on the advantage to decisively finish the fight.