We Have The RIGHT To Defend Ourselves

If you are a wildebeest in Africa, you face a threat daily.  Wander from the herd, and you are on the menu.  Get weak, ill or old, and you may find yourself facing off against a lion, or two...or three.

Thankfully, you are not a wildebeest.  If you were, you wouldn't be reading this.  I don't know of any Saharan animals who can afford a computer or can get reliable internet service.  Plus, typing with hooves tends to lead to all kinds of websites that could get one in trouble.

But you may still find yourself facing an imminent threat at some point in your life.

A lion will seldom attack a herd of animals.  It will look for the smaller, slower ones to attack.  A pride will surround a herd, and run them around until they can separate one.  The obvious idea here is to travel in a pack.  (I won't call it a herd for fear of upsetting the one or two people who may actually be reading this).

But since it is hard to always travel with several other people, what else can you do?

Don't be the slowest or weakest of the herd.  Hit the gym; do some cardio; learn self-defense...

Just my opinion here, and I'm sure I'll offend at least one of the few people who may be reading this, but self-defense can be learned in a lot of different ways.  "Martial Arts" are what most people think of when they hear "self-defense".  And while Karate and Tae Kwon Do can teach a lot of great things, they may not be what you need to truly defend yourself.  Yes, I know...I've seen the videos of people in street fights being knocked out by a spinning back-kick too.  But how long does it take to get proficient enough to do that?  And what happens if the criminal isn't willing to wait for you to reach that point before attacking?

To me, it is much more important to learn real-life skills that you can use to defend yourself right from the beginning.  Learning dozens of katas before being able to actually use it isn't what I would want to learn.

After spending a few years in Krav Maga, I truly feel it is one of the best defense systems out there.  Yes, there are others that are also great.  Learning a skill the first week that may help save your life is much more worth it to me.  Krav Maga can be used whether you are 10 or 80.  It is designed to be used by men or women, and regardless of your size or strength level. And if you are in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, you can learn from a great man who truly wants to teach you in a way you can learn it.  Steve Hickman at Legacy Krav Maga.

But let's assume you are not able to get yourself into a class.  Maybe you are at an age where you feel unable (or unwilling) to get into shape.  You have become one of the wildebeests who may get separated from the herd.  What do you do?

You have the right to defend yourself, regardless of your age, shape or ability.

So let's look at a few alternatives to physical defenses...

Stun guns were all the rage when they first came to the market.  There are a couple of problems, however.  The most obvious to me is that you have to be right next to the assailant.  Since most attackers aren't going to attack someone larger than themselves, this puts the stun gun user at an immediate disadvantage.  If you are close enough to get the stun gun against him, he is already close enough to grab you, punch you, etc.  And if they assailant is wearing a coat, or thick clothing, it might not even do any good anyway.  And since these work on batteries, you have to always insure the batteries are charged and ready to use.

And there are tasers, much like the police use.  These have the advantage of being able to hit an attacker from several feet away.  And, depending on whom you ask, they can be much more effective than a stun gun.  But you still have to get the probes through whatever clothing they may be wearing.

And we can go back to the battery argument as well.

Pepper spray: no batteries required.

Pepper spray has been touted as an effective, non-lethal form of protection.  Sprayed into the face of an attacker, it can immobilize and temporarily blind the attacker, allowing the victim to escape.

But if it is a windy day, you stand the risk of inhaling the vapors yourself, or at least missing the attacker.  And I've seen videos of police pepper spraying someone, and having it NOT seem to affect the person at all.

And there is always a knife.  Not like the one shown, since in most states, it is illegal to carry one like this.  But you can certainly carry a decent sized knife (in the state of Texas, you can carry up to a 5 1/2" blade.
   
But a knife has the disadvantage of a stun gun.  You must be in a hand-to-hand situation for it to do any good.  It will not immobilize the attacker, and so must be used until the threat ceases.  And, it's a messy and disturbing choice.

Which leads us to my personal choice: a handgun.

So let the arguments begin!

Let's get the discussion started with gun control.  For my liberal friends (yes I have them), I want to go back to the lion and wildebeest for a moment.  You feel I should not be allowed to own (or carry) a firearm.  If the lion attacks, the wildebeest has the right to defend itself.  And it will use its horns to do so.  The argument that guns make the world unsafe is to tell the wildebeest that he has to give up his horns.

If we remove the horns from the wildebeest, we do not disarm the lion.  And rest assured, the lion will not decide he should NOT attack the wildebeest because it would not be fair.  The only thing that accomplishes is make sure the prey has no way to defend itself.

Disarming me (or any other American with the right to own and/or carry), will not disarm the criminal.  And it will certainly NOT persuade the criminal to NOT attack.  All it does is make sure I cannot defend myself when attacked.

If I am a criminal, and I want to kill as many people as possible, I will not choose a gun store.  I will not walk into a police station.  I am going to a school, or a mall where a 30.06 sign is posted.  I will find a place where guns are prohibited.  I do not want to take a chance that someone there will shoot me before I have the opportunity to inflict as much damage as possible.

And let me explain the main purpose behind this blog:

As Steve Hickman told us during one of our Krav Maga classes:

"You have a responsibility to return to your family every day."  

It is my responsibility to make sure that happens.  If I feel confident enough in my 5'7", 190 lb. build, then that's all I need.  (I certainly do not feel that confident in my size).  I have decent strength for a 50-year-old.  But that is not enough.  I'm much more confident with what Krav Maga has taught me.  But against two or three (or more), would that be enough?  What if they assailants have a knife, or gun?

Bruce Lee was arguably the greatest martial artist ever.  But even his amazing abilities would not have protected him against a bullet.

It has been quoted many times: "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

True.

Many of the proponents of gun control are protected by bodyguards who are carrying guns.  Why?  If guns are the issue, they are part of the problem, not the solution.  And we have police to call when we are attacked.  Why?  Because they have guns, and can stop the bad guys with guns.

So make your choice.

Whatever your choice is, know that I will help defend you to the best of my ability.  With my 5'7", 190 lb build, my strength, such as it is, my Krav Maga skills, and, most likely, my gun.  Because that is my right.

And while I never want to offend anyone, if you choose to be offended, then that is your right.

I pray I never need to prove my willingness to defend either of us.
         

Ship of Fools

At 8 PM Monday night, April 7th, 2014, a man walked into a police station in Los Angeles and opened fire on two officers.  One officer was hit seven times, but both he and the female officer returned fire, hitting the suspect several times. 

The officer is said to be in good condition, and the gunman was critical.  No one else was injured.

Scary moments to be sure.  But let's compare that with another incident that happened last week.

On Wednesday, April 2nd, 2014, Ivan Lopez walked into an administrative building in Fort Hood, and opened fire.  Four people were killed and sixteen wounded.

That followed less than five years after Nidal Hasan (I'll refrain from using the title "Major", as he certainly dishonored his rank) killed thirteen, and injured more than thirty others.

What is the difference in the Fort Hood shootings, and the Los Angeles police station shooting?

Common sense. 

As soon as the two officers in Los Angeles realized what was happening, they took action.  They returned fire, incapacitated the gunman, and ended the incident.

As soon as the soldiers at Fort Hood realized what was happening, all they could do is run and hide, and wait for someone to come help them. 

Men and women, who we have trained to be the best in the world were defenseless.  Those we arm, and send into harm's way to defend third world countries when needed, were unable to defend their own lives on a military base here in our own country.  Men and women who are more than capable of dealing with armed suspects intent on killing, were unable to do anything until Military Police arrived.

How stupid is this?

They are trained to defend our country, and we will not let them carry weapons on our bases here at home. 

Similar circumstances:

1.  Two officers versus one gunman.  One officer injured; gunman incapacitated.

2.  Dozens of United States soldiers versus one gunman.  Thirteen killed, more than thirty wounded.  Gunman shot and paralyzed, but still very much alive.

3.  Again, dozens of United States soldiers versus one gunman.  Four killed, and sixteen wounded.  Gunman took his own life.

Let's paint a different picture. 

Nidal Hasan walks in the building that morning in 2009, intending to kill as many soldiers as he can.  Yet, as he pulls his weapon and readies himself to kill, others in the room see what's happening, and draw their weapons.  Yes, he may have killed one or two, but then would have quickly found the justice he certainly deserved.  No long court battles.  No news stories about how many millions are being spent to provide food, shelter and transportation for Hasan.

What if Ivan Lopez had met the same resistance?  He pulls his gun, and gets off a couple of rounds before others take him out?

And before you get on to me for not being compassionate, let me explain.

I know they are saying Lopez had some mental issues after serving overseas.  I'm not saying he didn't deserve to get help.  What I am saying is, the other innocent people deserved to go home to their families that night.  If we had equipped the soldiers to do the job we expect them to do, and have trained them to do, the outcome would have been very different.

And it may be easy to look at the situation and feel a little safer.  After all, it was on a military base, and the majority of us do not live there.  But what if he had somehow taken a weapon from that base, and used it to attack the city of Killen, killing dozens?  Would we then argue that we shouldn't have those weapons on our military bases?

It's been said a hundred times.  Guns don't kill people.  People kill people.  And until we understand that the evil is not in the tool, but in the holder of that tool, we will continue to suffer.

Let's arm the men and women of our military.  We let them carry weapons when they are protecting other countries.  Let's tell them that their lives are worth as much as citizens in a country halfway across the world.  Let them do what they were trained to do.

May God bless all who proudly serve.  And may we proudly stand behind them.