Self Defense For Women Tips

Jes vans says:

my experience = win self defense fight, go to jail.

Benzi Benz says:

‘I go papapapap’ best advice ever thanks 🫱🏼‍🫲🏻😹🔫

Sander Henkes says:

Never trust know one, always get youre shit togetter. 45 acp can be a real pall

Bryan Boyd says:

6:30 🤔 Throat 👌🏿 but unless you can ring that bell 🔔 🧠😵‍💫 of a superior physical specimen stun and run 🏃🏽‍♀️.

Besides we BIG individuals tend to be inclined toward protecting granted with some exceptions. *I don’t think 💭 of one’s self in this context but seemingly some do* 🤔If I’m big what you?😂

🗒️ For anecdotal evidence if it takes an entire bench of players to restrain one individual there is not much your average individual can do.

*This is coming from that stand point of someone on the occasion one happens to interact professional athletes they call me big guy and they are taller then oneself*

It’s the napoleon complex, predators, chemical manipulated acolytes and uncivilized hordes that most need to worry about for certain! 👍🏿

⭐️ it’s a nuanced type issue⭐️

Pain is pain but some have a higher tolerance of it or threshold for it.

See 👉🏿Body Suspension and Pain Processing 🤓

Or

Kermit Washington and Rudy Tomjanovich (Not even intending to do the damage that was done and altered Mr. Washington’s and Coach Tomjanovich lives forever )

Not even going into bone density difference but the above ☝🏿 illustrates that but with great power comes greater responsibility!😉

Well-blazered Man says:

Liked these tips and, again, this is one of those videos that I will watch two or three times.

How's It Happening says:

Stay strapped like a car seat

Alan Cranford says:

I really like the multiple opponents point because in my opinion martial arts, self-defense training, police and security guard combatives, and military hand-to-hand combat training all lack multiple participant training.

In police and security guard work, going one-on-one is a bad idea. The principle of overwhelming force means that when empty hands are used to subdue, teamwork between several officers produces that overwhelming force. Going one-on-one is sportsmanship–and sportsmanship has no place in law enforcement.

You gave a vivid visual example of three-on-one defender though I'm going to call it out because experienced street thugs position themselves so that they can coordinate their attacks and attack from several directions at the same time. That takes a finite amount of time to set up–the dynamic edition is for a single attack to initiate the swarm attack and the rest pile on. Defensively, the defender, too, can use numbers. Someone has to watch the six! Flank or rear attacks on the aggressor work.

Military hand-to-hand combat is mostly (when not exclusively) one-on-one with the exception of riot control formations. This will sound insane to the untrained, but when KILLING sentries, one-on-one works (preferably with overwatch) but when the goal is a living prisoner, two or three taking down the sentry and hauling off the prisoner. It's far easier to carry a prisoner with helping hands than to lug 150 wriggling or limp pounds of prisoner on your own. Note that kidnappers will either be significantly larger than their victims or use a team AND weapons to carry out their dirty deed. Knocking down a victim and rolling the victim up in a carpet takes teamwork and surprise–and a carpet.

Teamwork is needed even when firearms. In 1969 Rich Davis was confronted by three armed robbers in Detroit–Davis had been practicing on multiple close-range targets. "Shooting to Live" (Sykes and Fairbairn, 1942) trained Shanghai Municiple Police constables to fire magazine-length bursts into a single target–if modern American crime stats are accurate, about 60% of civilian gunfights are one-on-one and the remainder have two or more attackers. Neutralizing one attacker and running out of ammunition might work–distributing firepower takes practice and some planning. Davis had a six-shot .22 revolver and he trained to put two bullets into every target and then shift to the next target without pausing to admire his handiwork. Infantry tactics are combining fields of fire so that more than one weapon covers every enemy on the battlefield–the fields of fire overlap so that each enemy is neutralized, so that when one of your guys goes off-line (reloading, weapon broken, your guy is a casualty) that part of the defensive perimeter isn't a hole. The problem is that even in this the American military doesn't drill having concentrated fire and distributed fire by fire teams and squads (and other small units).

I got lucky in the National Guard on machine gun ranges I ran–the "talking guns" technique pairs up two machine guns with overlapping fields of fire that take turns polluting that bit of real estate with flying lead. Short bursts from each gun in turn confuse the enemy as to the machine guns' locations. When one team announces "OUT" or reloading or something, the other gun picks up rate of fire to compensate while the other gun gets back in the fight. I'm annoyed that police don't practice this on the range–I understand resource limitations, but it's part of fire discipline. A criminal with a gun has to be taken out of action before that criminal shoots someone–two police shooting him are far more likely than one to put the criminal down, and in return the criminal has two police that must be addressed–or the criminal can surrender.

Weapons are used–often to intimidate the victim into compliance, but sometimes the crime goal is inflicting "grave bodily injury" and worse. A strong-arm (unarmed) mugger is far more likely to demonstrate that he means business by sucker punching the victim than a robber with a gun is to fire a shot–why attract attention unless the goal is to kill the victim? Getting compliance means demonstrating overwhelming superiority, and with some weapons that means inflicting immediate injury in order to show "I mean business!" Surprise is a weapon. Numbers are a weapon. Being bigger, or pitting male against female, that's a weapon. A club or other impact weapon might be used, but knives are cheap, easy to acquire, and effective even without a lot of experience or training. Training is "synthetic experience." Using a noose around the neck is not common. For a while, "num chucks" were popular because those whirling sticks were intimidating–truth is that without a lot of skill, that weapon is more dangerous to its user. If 40% of criminal attacks are "two-plus" against a single victim, that would make numbers a common enough weapon that practice against multiple attackers should be equally common in training.

These four self-defense techniques should be part of everybody's skill set. I chose multiple attackers (and defender teamwork) out of the four to amplify because multiple attackers are very common. Ask Andy Ngo about his encounters with AntiFa.