Shoot or don't shoot may have been a poor explanation on my part. Several reasons for wanting to go through the course. It's an area of interest and it doesn't just deal with shoot or don't shoot. It covers things like the necessity to potentially take someone's life at the nastier end of self protection and the psychological impact it has and what possibly prevents you from crossing the line. Not only that it covers many aspects of one's personal life and development. What stops people from going that extra mile, taking that chance? It also helps you understand where your line in the sand is. If you can picture a situation at a low level, step into it and see where you would either walk away, de-escalate, or get physical you then you start to know in advance where your trigger points are. You can do that right up the the nastiest of scenarios, although as I've said I'm now aware yet what that involves. Hannibal would explain if you want further information. I can't elaborate much further, as I don't know what's in the programme.
Thanks, that makes more sense. I think we can talk about broad points without needing the specifics of Hannibal's syllabus. The question remains, and this is not specifically aimed at you but anyone teaching or training in lethal force options: if the odds of you ever needing it in your life are astronomically low, is it a healthy pursuit? It's a heavy thought process. Especially if we're talking about taking the life of a "good guy having a bad day" rather than some archetypal irredeemable thug. That is potentially putting parents through the horror of their child not out living them, children going through the life long trauma of losing a parent, families losing their financial support... does that make you a stronger person, does it aid personal development, or could it have the opposite effect and be damaging to your psyche? If it isn't necessary for survival, does it become a form of entertainment? A recreational activity? If so, is that a hobby that enriches your life, or does going to these dark places have psychological dangers associated with it? I don't know the answers, but I think they are interesting questions.
The way I see it, the most honest truth concerning self defence or self protection is that no one knows. No one can know what will need to be done in a situation that's not happened yet. Its just a guess. That's it. A guess and theory. A situation simply is what it is at that moment and no-one can say what the movement solution will be or what the environmental solution will be or what to say or not to say or whatever. It's a guess. No-one knows the attacker or attackers, their reasons, motives, skilled, unskilled, life situation .etc. Its just theory. A guess Yea, some might seem a good guess, and be presented with confidence and bells and whistles but it's still a guess. Just because something worked for someone at some times , does not mean it will work for anyone else at another time. Alot of self defence theory is based on survivorship biased. The ability to adlib on the spot and just go with the situation and do what the moment needs is huge. Adding luck and infinite other factors helps, but at the end of the day you just have to try to get out of the situation ,or not get in it, as best you can within the ever-changing context of that situation with whatever you have. Be that some kind of fundamental ability to fight back if you get ambushed and not care what you look like ,just be effective in the chaos, or using your brain, or wit or social skills or whatever if a potential situation is spotted through awareness. Who knows? It's not about being perfect or getting it all right. It is what it is. The situation dictates the solution. Not the other way round. It it works, it's perfect for that moment. If it didn't, it wasn't. That's the truth. That's life. The anxiety of the unknown is what people prey on. If someone packages it neatly and acts like they know it all and have answers and perfect neat and tidy solutions and moves and look good against a guy that just stands there , people will buy it. Self defence instructors or anyone really, who are fairly capable simply have experience and have done what they have done to get to where they are. The job, the training, life experience or whatever. They did not do the self defence courses they created and claim everyone else should do to get to where they are. Funny that. That's just the truth. No shortcuts. No special tactics, no special moves, no perfect thing to do.There is no one size fits all
There's truth in what you say, but the same could be said of kickboxing, grappling or anything else. Why ever practice combos or flowing between techniques when there's no guarantee they will work out in a match? It's because people have consistently made them work in the past, as well as running through different permutations to give people the ability to adapt to changing circumstances. People aren't that unpredictable. Like any animal, they have a limited range of behaviour and instincts.
That's not quite true. For example..Geoff Thompson worked as a bouncer in order get over his fear of violence and to pressure test his martial arts. By his own admission he was shown the ropes by John Anderson and other more experienced doormen. He then began to spread the word about the fence, the 3 second fighter pre-emption, etc. Stuff he'd learnt on the door.
Not knocking your view-point. You crack on. And I fully support your decision. I am however also 1st aid at work/CPR trained. Before COVID happened, Fire and Ambulance adjusted their CPR to remove the mouth>mouth rescue breaths entirely. Stating the chest compressions themselves bring enough O2 into the lungs. The mouth>mouth has always brought in a bit of an issue, as stuff like fluid based diseases (as well as general hygiene/vomit etc) were potentially transferable. Even with a face shield that some emergency services are provided gives some but not full protection. (face shield is basically a big cling-film sheet, placed over the unconcious face, has a filter for the mouth). Post COVID, its now, I wear a mask, and put a mask on the patient and crack on with the chest compressions. Some masks have metal in them so, to be careful when using a defib. Theoretically it lessens the O2 intake, but only a miniscule amount, and some oxygen is better than zero oxygen. Afterwards, the patient and myself will get covid checks and self isolate unless negative. I remember a story of a man having a heart attack and died in the street, no one would go and help him because it was literally the 1st weeks of knowing about covid, at the time no one really knew the infection rates or even the symptoms. Personally I wouldn't probably know what to do either. I want to say I would've jumped in and helped, in reality I'm not sure.
My first student digs was a room in a house rented out by an old geezer (early 70's). Horrible place but all I could manage to find until the next term. I was 20 and very green behind the ears. One morning I walked into the living room to see the old geezer face down on the floor, struggling to breath. I thought he'd had a heart attack. I had no first aid training at that point but knew vaguely of a "recovery position". I flipped him over to find his eyes staring but not conscious, face covered in blood (he'd broken his nose when he fell) and foaming at the mouth. Quite honestly there was no way I was going to try mouth to mouth. Tried some vague attempts at chest compressions which just sprayed spit and blood everywhere. Then realised he was actually still breathing so stopped that. In a moment of clarity I remembered that the next door neighbour was a nurse so I put him on his side and went round there. Luckily she was in, she came round and tended to him. After 10 minutes he regained consciousness but was very poorly. Turns out he'd had an epileptic fit and nosed dived (literally) into the floor. He should have taken medicine but didn't because it slowed him down and made him sluggish (he played golf pretty much every day). I can see the merit in advice that makes people get stuck in with something that might only be marginally effective rather than trying to get them to do something more effective against their natural instincts.
