For Self Defense Is It Necessary To Know How To Kill?

by : Tim Larkin

Lets start with a couple of questions:

1. In this day and age, what could possibly be the reason to teach someone how to kill another human with his or her bare hands?

2. Do I actually advocate instructing clients in this very specific, lethal material?

The answer to the first question is that there are many reasons why it is essential one get this lethal knowledge. The answer to the second question is not only do I advocate teaching it but that I absolutely teach it to all my clients.

It is very clear that using violence is appropriate in very few situations. To use violence for any reason other than injuring a human threat who would otherwise maim, cripple, or kill you is extremely risky.

With proper knowledge of the physiology of the vunerable areas of the human body one can effectively attack any assailant, regardless of size, strength, or athletic ability.

So it is inconceivable that one could train a client for self protection yet ignore the subject of killing. If faced with a life and death struggle you need clear, concise information on how to systematically shut down the other guy's central nervous system(CNS).

This is especially true for male on female violence, which females must treat as a lethal situation. Also any fighter facing a potentially lethal attack by a larger, stronger or faster human must be able to immediately shut down that human's CNS.

Still, very few instructors teach this direct approach to using violence. Why is this the case? It has been my experience few actually have the skill and expertise to do so.

To hide this deficiency they state legal issues and spiritual reasons for not teaching such principles.

Yet many of the techniques they show directly result in potentially lethal outcomes something that is never pointed out to the client. In fact, most clients go through training with no clear knowledge of which strikes and techniques are lethal and what the impact is on the human body from these strikes and manipulations.

I find it far more dangerous not to know how to kill. When you consider the flip side of that knowledge is the fact that any time you put your hands on another human being to inflict violence you have no idea whatsoever how that person will respond to the strike.

A person built like Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime may have a bad heart and your punch to the solar plexus to 'teach him a lesson' may, in fact, kill him. That is why I stress the difference between ego situations and life or death threats.

A few years ago you probably heard about the 'Hockey Dad' trial in Massachusetts. A man ended up going to jail for manslaughter over an argument with his son's Hockey coach. By all accounts the smaller coach was a real jerk and made the kids do some useless and dangerous training on the ice.

This 'Hockey Dad' voiced his concern and the verbal exchange led to a fight. 'Hockey Dad' ended up killing the smaller coach by repeated blows to the head.

It was not intentional, both men were wrong. But the one common factor here was this: neither had any idea of the effects of those strikes upon the other! Both families lost their dads that day; one was killed, the other is in jail.

It is my goal with clients to give them all the lethal knowledge necessary so they can make the decision on whether or not it is worth the potential legal hassles to fight over an ego issue or to instantly be able to destroy the assailant's CNS in a life or death threat.

It's great to hear feedback I get from clients who have easily avoided the 'Hockey Dad' scenarios by having the clear knowledge of the appropriate use of violence. I value that feedback as highly as the ones received from those who used the very same knowledge to save their lives in a life or death threat.

Truly knowing how to kill another human places total responsibility on the trained individual, makes you a far better citizen and, in my experience, far less likely to use violence as an answer to any situation that is not life threatening.