[The following is excerpted from our book No Second Chance: A Reality Based Guide to Self-Defense.]
We,
humans that is, have, like our primate cousins, opposable thumbs which enable
us to grasp any object we see fit. One of the attributes that separates us from
our primate cousins in the use of our opposable thumbs Is the myriad objects we
see fit to grasp and how we utilize these objects once we grasp them. Our
species is descended from a line that sought to grip objects and use them in
ever more unique and creative ways. This grasping of an object and then turning
it into a tool of some sort was (and is) so pronounced in hominids that one
branch of our family tree has been dubbed Homo habilis or “Handy man.”
This ability to see wide and varied
applications in grasped objects is the result of the neo-cortex, that vaunted
overlay of brain matter that we find in our species. The neo-cortex is what
allows us to pick up a hammer and see it both as a tool for construction or
destruction. It allows us to see a sphere and envision it as a ball to be
bounced, rolled, thrown, struck with a stick, fired from a BB gun, used in
machinery, embossed with continents to make a globe, and on and on and on.
This extraordinary combination of
opposable thumbs and neo-cortex goes a long way towards explaining the success of
our species in manipulating the world around us. I call your attention to these
wondrous but perhaps abstruse (in our context) facts because it seems that,
more often than not, self-defense advice is either too focused on tools or not
focused enough. Let’s start with too much focus.
There are those among us who have
permits to Carry a Concealed Weapon (CCW in my state) in other words, they have
the legal right to carry a firearm for personal protection. (Let’s get
something clear right up front, I think CCW licensure is a terrific idea;
non-partisan research on the topic seems to support it as well). There are also
those who carry any number of other gadgets: Pepper Spray, Mace, Tasers, Rape
Whistles, what have you. I do not wish to argue against any of these tools used
to provide safety for the individual as long as the tools are used with the
utmost care and responsibility. In other words, just as CCW permit carriers
have to undergo an education and safety test to carry a firearm it might
behoove the individual who is carrying any other device to have a firm
pragmatic grounding in how their device works and in what situations it might
be for naught.
An informal poll of those who carry
“self-protection gadgets” reveals that the vast majority have never received
any training in using the device and, get this, most have never used the device
whatsoever even in a test situation. By this I mean, the vast majority of those
who carry pepper spray have never fired a can in open air to check for
distance, blowback, ease of use or any such realistic parameter whatsoever. I
simply find it hard to believe that a tool that is meant to be used in a
high-stress situation that has never been utilized in any context whatsoever
will be used competently or at all when needed.
By all means, if you are going to
entrust your life to gadgets of any stripe, please, echo the responsibility of
CCW permit carriers and learn the ins and outs of the chosen gadget. Make sure
you understand how to use it, when to use it or, even if the gadget in question
is effective in the least. Remember, you must plan and act now as it is far too
late for training once you are in the midst of an attack.
Now lest you think that I am urging
everyone to get a CCW permit (I see no problem with that idea for all
responsible law-abiding adults) let’s address part two of my too much focus on
the tool objection. I have worked with numerous law enforcement, military, and
other first response personnel in training individuals for surviving personal
attack for over two decades and, I have to be frank, these front line warriors
seem to come in two forms.
The first, is thankfully the most
common, the professional who understands the technology he or she is expected
to use. They understand its strengths and its weaknesses. They also have a
healthy respect for the reality of equipment failure (failure of design,
failure to use optimally under duress, failure to access said equipment, et
cetera). These individuals take survival training seriously as the nature of
their jobs, their lives, their families depends on it. They have all of these
fantastic tools/gadgets in their arsenal and yet you find them training as if
they had no weapon at hand. These people are grounded in reality.
The second group believes in what I
have heard from more than a few law enforcement personnel as “the 100 pound
badge and the 500 pound gun.” This group has placed so much faith in the
capabilities of their gadgets that they fail to prepare for what could occur if
they encounter any of the aforementioned failures. Considering that the nature
of their jobs ensures conflict this stance seems both irresponsible and
unprofessional.
Let’s ponder group one again. If
intelligent members of conflict professions who are well-armed and well-trained
in the use of these arms are concerned about their failure or lack of utility
why should the average citizen who is probably less well-armed, less well-trained
be any less concerned?
Guns and gadgets in the hands of a
well-trained citizenry is not a bad idea. What is a bad idea is an
over-estimation of effectiveness and an under-estimation of what you would do
without said gadget. It is not uncommon to see normally intelligent people make
silly and potentially dangerous mistakes simply because they thought that they
had an ace in the hole. I have heard story after story along these lines: “I
knew it was a bad part of town but I thought that since I had my pepper spray
with me everything would be OK.” Tools should be tools and not a crutch for
poor judgment.
Now, let’s address the flip-side of
the tool argument. We know that human beings have an astonishing capacity for
utility and creativity. I want you to stop what you’re doing right now and look
around you. How many weapons do you see? How many objects in your immediate
environment could be used to stab, jab, hurl, strike, bludgeon, slice, scrape,
poke, do any damage to a predator if needed? How many objects could be used to
toss or tumble into the path of someone chasing you, right now?
Unless you are in the proverbial
padded cell you should find numerous objects in your environment that could be
utilized to save your life. I’ll stop right here and play the game myself--I am
currently sitting in a food court at Denver International Airport.
Ÿ The ball point pen on the
table next to me could be used for jabbing at an eye, throat, any soft tissue
target.
Ÿ The fork to the left of my
laptop could be used to jab soft tissue targets as well.
Ÿ The laptop itself could be
flung in the face of an attacker (life over property, remember?)
Ÿ I could use the chair I am
sitting on as shield, to strike with, to throw.
Ÿ I have a napkin dispenser on
the table to my right that could be used to bludgeon or to be thrown as I ran
away.
Ÿ The huge plate of fries at
the table next to me (I’m talking huge, people,--who eats that many fries?)
could be flung in the face of the attacker. Will it hurt them? No. Will it
distract as I move on to the next tool or make my escape? Yep.
Ÿ A miniature snack chip
display rack on top of the counter about a yard away could be wielded to strike
with or to be flung.
You
get the idea. There are tools, potential self-protection devices in every
environment you encounter unless you are placed inside a padded cell (we’ll
call that crime scene #2).
With
this information in mind, it is time to present our next week-long experiment.
Comments
Post a Comment