Most modern governments/societies make the same mistake of trying to control the weapon when it is the criminal who needs to be controlled. In our small hometown dojo I do not teach my student how to control an attacker’s weapon, I teach them how to control or eliminate the machinery behind it, the man. It is a waste of time to attack a weapon, especially if you do not remove the driving force behind it, causing a disconnect between the mind and the mechanism, whether that mechanism is a gun, a knife or a ballistic missile. I often hear the statement that a knife is an offensive weapon[2]. As an instructor I would ask, as opposed to what? To take the opposite tack, is there really such a thing as a defensive weapon? If defense is nothing more than an attack in kind, then I suppose the definition fits. Of all the weapons available to a criminal a knife is one of the least capable offensively. A gun, a piece of pipe, or a baseball bat: all have superior range and certainly more power than a knife. Unfortunately, the knife is like a snake, people intuitively fear them and that makes them seem more evil. People, who might ignore an evening news item of a person beaten to death with a pipe, will recoil in abject horror at the mention of a person killed by a knife.
To rule the night, or the neighborhood, a criminal only needs to be in possession of a weapon one level above that which the average citizen might own. For example, if every head of the household had a machete standing by the door the criminal only needs a gun. If the guns are taken away, a criminal only needs a knife. If the knives are all confiscated, the possession of a lead pipe restores the criminal to king of the mountain status. Where does this backwards weapons race stop? How far do we feel we need to strip the average citizen of the means of defending himself? With nothing more malevolent than a mechanical pencil or a chop-stick a person of ill intent can kill another person.
I suppose that until a maximum number of laws have been enacted, and law-abiding citizens have been stripped of even more freedoms, the politicians won’t rest. Once that has been done and the crime rate soars, as it did in Australia, what will they do next? Obviously the next step is to confiscate the mechanical pencils, lead pipes, baseball bats, and chop sticks. “Poor old England”, that’s what my friend in Lancaster said. Will it be “Poor old America”…….next?
David Decker
Instructor: White Shadow dojo
[1] http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/06/27110147/01543
[2] Weapon: 1. Any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon. 2. Anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim: the deadly weapon of satire. http://dictionary.reference.com/
Posts
2 comments:
Starting from more or less the same premises, I come to the exact opposite conclusion. It's like that quote from Sean Connery in the Untouchables: "You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That's* the *Chicago* way!"
So suppose statistics show that the most popular weapon amongst gangsters is a machine gun... what do you advise law-abiding citizens then? A canon?
Whenever someone asks me if he should take up martial arts training because he's afraid he might get beaten up, I tell him the beating will get worse when he does. Who's going to attack a skilled martial artist barehanded? A potential attacker might not want to take chances against a martial artist and bring a weapon to a fight. No matter what turnout, the consequences will always be more severe. The more lethal the weapon, the more chances somebody might get killed: makes perfectly sense, no? So I prefer a society where weapon possession is discouraged. I’d prefer England, where in most areas (exception for Northern Ireland), Bobbies don’t need to walk armed, then say a well equipped police officer in NY city. And I don’t know the figures, but I’m pretty sure the latter have more casualties amongst their troops.
And of course, it is always the man yielding the sword, but wouldn’t you agree that you first block or control the sword, and then, by doing so, the man?
looking back through my blogs I should have responded to this but would it make any difference in Frederic's thinking? No of course not and his opinion is valuable even if I disagree with it.
I do not agree with blocking the weapon first, a weapon is an inanimate object, a tool. A 250 pound mugger or rapist needs no weapons against a teenage girl or an 80 year old woman, but he will avoid the trained martial artist, whose "weapons" (hands) are better than his own. It is irresponible to believe that the lack of a weapon will deter an attacker or that the presence of one will cause a criminal to go back to his lair and get a more lethal one. The criminal always uses the most lethal weapon at his disposal without moral concerns. Remember the police are under no explicit obligation to protect you, only preserve law and order. They cannot be everywhere at all times, and your personal defense is your responsibility.
Post a Comment