Common Sense

I wonder why I don’t see any common sense when it comes to teaching “techniques” in the self-defense and combatives arena. Recently I was reading a post with snapshots/photos of how to do a specific improvisational technique using a shirt-jacket against a modern military rifle. My impressions that rise up are as follows:

First, the person with the weapon is facing an unarmed person with just their shirt-jacket. The weapon is held extended toward the tori in a manner if used to shoot might not be too stable. I also wondered if that person was extending the weapon out unconsciously to facilitate a good demonstration with the tori.  Then I noted, if the weapon were loaded, why did the tori start their technique while standing directly centerline in front of the weapons barrel where that little piece of lead comes out very, very quickly? Is there some reason the tori knew without a doubt that the weapon was empty or that the uki would not actually fire it? 

It seems to me that if I were the tori, in combat, and a uke or enemy combatant faced me with a military weapon that I am going to stand there and do what I am told or die because no one would intentionally come within range of a combatant so they could disarm them of their weapon. A rifle like weapon means you can stay a safe distance from an unarmed person and control the situation well enough. 

Second, the unarmed tori then uses the shirt-jacket (still don’t know how he found time to take the shirt-jacket off to use or how he came to have it in his hands and most of all why this person was without his weapon since it seemed to be a combative technique between soldiers of opposing armies. Maybe the lesson is about being able to improvise in this situation but it still does not “make sense.” 

The tori with the shirt-jacket appears to then pull the weapon barrel straight to his centerline in an attempt to bring the uke with the weapon closer in so he can then use his hands to take that person down to the ground. The weapon if we assume is not loaded could have been used as a bo like object and by stepping forward aggressively going with the pull of the shirt-jacket could have pierced the tori’s solar plexus. Hmmmm.

Again the weapon does not seem to be held properly. Another thought is why the person with the weapon moved close to the tori with the shirt-jacket, etc. It just doesn’t make sense. Why didn’t the tori move off centerline and out from being in direct center to the exit point of a high caliber weapon. 

Third, the tori who happens to be the instructor uses an analogy of both the sword and escrima knives as a basis or reasoning for this type of training, against a firearm. This does not make sense either as what was used for a sword fight or a knife fight is like apples to oranges. They are different and come from a time when that type of fighting was without the use of firearms/weapons like an automatic rifle, etc. 

When I think of self-defense regarding techniques I tend to think of strategies and tactics that will allow one to achieve safety. In combatives I tend to think the same processes but with a goal of living while making sure the enemy does the dying for their country. If I have a hostile determined to do me harm with or without a weapon I am going to pull a “Raiders of the Lost Ark movie” by pulling out the pistol and shooting the sword wielding antagonist. 

While I consider what I would implement as to a strategy on this example it comes to my mind to think, “Why and how did I allow myself to end up facing an armed opponent while I had nothing more than my empty hands and a shirt-jacket?” 

Then I think, these guys are military professionals so why don’t they ask these questions and why to they blindly accept the technique without some type of process to validate it for military use vs. civilian defense, etc.?

The instructor has tons of experience teaching martial arts as well as being a retired Marine with combat experience and I wonder why he or she had not analyzed this type of instruction before putting it out there?

Am I just being difficult for questioning such things when I see them? Am I being overly concerned when it comes to such things being taught to our military who could be in combat relying on this for their lives? Does anyone have the research and studies on combat to validate such training regimens? 

Honestly, if it were just another self-defense course for some concerned civilian who in all likelihood will never have to rely on it for safety, etc. would I really care? I care because it is about our military professionals going to combat who may use it regardless of its validity and effectiveness and possibly die along with their fellow combatants that concerns me so I tend to question these things for their common sense factor. 

Oh, as I have this thought, if this were just a scenario where I observed a combatant with a weapon who didn’t know I was there and I had the opportunity to remove the threat I would not approach that person face on. I would approach as stealthily as possible and take them out by surprise. I would hope to have at least a knife to cut the throat but there are other hand techniques that can be used to remove that threat. Looking down the barrel of a automatic rifle is not the best of circumstances and to take that on “head on” facing the barrel seems “stupid” unless you have no other choice. I can think of other ways to accomplish this then rely on a shirt-jacket. But then again, I am not active duty nor am I a hand-to-hand combat veteran, i.e. one who gained experience in this in combat where I took lives in the line of duty, etc.