Nemo wrote:The non lethal suggestion here are pretty useless. I've gone up against martial artists, tear gas and pepper spray. Martial arts without size is just going to make me pick you up and pound you against a wall till you stop moving. Most martial artists, even the teachers, have never even been in a real fight. Unless you plan on sparring at least once a week don't waste your time. Once I physically lift you off the ground all your training is useless. Tear gas/pepper spray is annoying. I would get gassed every year in the Army. Other than the initial shock value it is merely painful and makes it difficult to see. It would make a hardened attacker angry. These are all bad ideas.
Get or gun or don't. These other suggestions would not stop a real attacker. Run away and call the cops. A cellphone is the best non lethal weapon you can have.
'Most' martial arts instructors? Methinks you have not a shred of evidence for that.
OMG I'm terrified! You must be a ......................Ninja! I see a lot of them on Bullshido! LOL
If you pick up my 101 Kg while I'm busting your face or breaking your bones it would be classed as superhuman, since up to 5 police are sometimes needed to restrain one unskilled bozo high on drugs and feeling no pain, even the small ones. I would respecfully note that size only matters between people of equal skill, and it can actually hamper you in close encounters of the bar kind.
Oh, and in a 'real' fight I'd disable someone's legs and eyes to stop an attack anytime - I've never ever seen a street fight won by picking up someone who may have a concealed weapon or actually know how and where to strike you, including ripping your eyes out - and small guys can do this just as well.
The 'forces' card doesn't wash with me as we used to have loads of squaddies in town and I've also trained with many. Funny, they get beaten up too. Didn't see one try to lift the lads from the local mines, or the gypsy bare-knuckle guys. However, I've seen doorment pick up fighting drunk women and end up a mass of cuts and bruises as they didn't have restraint skills and also did not reckon on other girls and the boyfriends joining in.
The last time I was out past my normal bed-time, in a 'quiet' local city of culture, the local naughty teen kids had meat cleavers and machettes concealed, which were flashed about when no police were around. They used to have baseball bats and rounders bats, but discovered edged weapons work better. Meanwhile,the UK is full of grannies handing in ther bread knives in police knife 'amnesties', while police get all worked up about anyone carrying a tiny lock knife. Mad. LOL
You think that, in the midst of an obesity epidemic, people can run? Not many and not far. Running also tends to isolate someone and make the group kicking they receive a much longer affair.
Most 'thugs' (isn't that a racist slur against the thuggees of India?) favour a weapon but by all means try and pick them up whilst their mates slash you, or do what happened (back to topic) locally and get shot. More and more guns are available, many hired for each gang killing or just for the weekend.
I used to train doormen in self defence and restraint and knife defence and guess what - I have never started a fight either, but I have ended a few. Now I'm in my late 50's I am slower but have experience to compensate. Someone my age may also have potential weapons such as a walking stick and 'pen' (kubotan) as everyday objects which may be useful, especially if trained in sword arts and stick fighting.
I do agree, however, that most MA training is stylised and there is little control over the quality of teachers. However, to take one example, if you train well for maybe 7 years or so, building up to random attacks with a live (sharp) 11 inch tanto, you will fare better against other similar edged weapons you meet and maybe be lucky and just get badly cut. However, since such training also sometimes ends up with badly cut people, it tends to be a private exercise with no insurance, which is a pity.
So, posturing egos aside, I favour the 'least harm' application of defence as it does fit in with Buddhist principles, which do not insist on you being slaughtered, but teach compassion, which I interpret as trying to ensure least harm to all, including the attacker.
So, given the Indiana Jones scenario - faced with a skilled swordsman and no escape, do you shoot him?