De-Escalating Arguments and Social Violence

By Matthew Schafer
Copyright 2006, All Rights Reserved

Everyone should know how to de-escalate an argument; if you know how to de-escalate arguments you can stop an aggressive person before they get to the violent stage. You should always assume that every argument can end in violence and be prepared to both calm the other person down as well as deal with them if they become violent. Just knowing how to de-escalate arguments can stop the majority of assaults both by acquaintances and strangers.

A 1986 study in The New England Journal of Medicine found that:

"Over 80 percent of homicides noted during our study occurred during arguments or altercations. [I]n cases of assault, people tend to reach for the most lethal weapon readily available. Easy access to firearms may therefore be particularly dangerous in households prone to domestic violence."

Make no doubt, the time in your life when you are most likely to be assaulted, murdered, robbed, or raped is during or just after an argument. Often people get so angry that they are driven to violence and often pick up the closest thing to use as a weapon. Sometimes people do walk away only to find themselves in a kitchen and they end up grabbing a steak knife and coming back to settle their perceived injustice. This is why the most common knife people are stabbed with in the U.S. is a steak knife.

Calming someone down and de-escalating a potentially violent situation is not as hard as many people make it. You don't need to go and get a fancy degree in psychology, all you need are the nine simple rules listed below and a couple of tried-and-true techniques.

The Eleven Rules Of De-Escalation

People get upset and aggressive for one reason: they feel that they are being attacked in some way. Someone may feel that you are attacking their intelligence or integrity and so they get defensive, and then as the situation escalates they get loud and aggressive and then perhaps violent. Since it is the fact that they feel that they are being attacked in some way that is making them defensive, in order to calm them down you have to express to them that you are not attacking them, personally or otherwise. In order to effectively express this to them there are eleven rules you must follow:

1.) See the two of you as not combatants but rather teammates trying to solve a common problem. If someone is arguing with you it is because they see a problem and the only way to calm them down and get cooperation for them it to address the problem, as THEY see it. Try to get to describe the problem as clearly as possible and listen without interrupting. Even if the person is delirious, on drugs, or just making things up go with their understanding of the problem, because even if they are wrong or crazy what they describe as a problem is the actual problem as they see it.

Build the sense of teamwork by using words like “we” and “us” when speaking with them. Listen to their problem and when you try to help them solve the problem as they see it you will start to get them to calm down and cooperate with you.

2.) Respect personal space by giving them 5-6 feet. Your job is to make the other individual feel safe and that it is ok for them to stop being defensive, and one of the easiest ways to do the opposite of that is to encroach upon their personal space. Everyone has a space around them that extends approximately 3 or 4 feet outwards (roughly their arms length) that is considered theirs and you want to make sure that you stay out of that area. Stand back 5 or 6 feet from them to give them plenty of room and allow them to feel comfortable talking to you. Doing this also gives you the benefit of having greater reaction time in the event that they do become violent.

3.) Have non-aggressive body language and if possible angle your body to the side. You want to act and appear non-aggressive because if you appear aggressive or like you’re trying to assert dominance in any way the other person may respond by trying to do the same. Aggressive body language includes things like staring with a fixed gaze, tightening facial muscles, raising your chin, lifting your shoulders, and sticking out your elbows, so you want to do the opposite. Make sure that your gaze is relaxed, your chin is down, your shoulders are lowered normally, and your elbows are not flaring out. If it is possible you want to turn your body to the side so that you are at a 45-90 degree angle to them. The reason for this is that if you are slightly turned to the side you are not perceived as towering over them or trapping them. By turning they will not feel like you are blocking their escape and this will help to avoid triggering their defensive instinct. When you do this they can turn around and leave as well as walk by you.

4.) Take time to think before you speak. The natural reaction is to say whatever comes to mind but you want to avoid doing that. Every time you get ready to say something you should stop and pause for a second to reflect on whether it is the right thing to say, and then open your mouth.

5.) Be calm and talk in a tone that's lower than the one the other person is using. The angrier and louder you get the angrier and louder they will tend to get. What you need to do is relax, be calm, look them in the eye, and speak to them in a calm and even manner. Your natural reaction will be to match their volume but you want to speak calmly and in a tone lower than the one their using because this will help to calm them down.

6.) Deflect insults with deflecting statements. During an argument or emotional situation people will often insult you. The two worst things you can do are to respond to them or to ignore them. If you respond to their insults you can in feed into their emotional energy and get angry yourself; if you ignore their insults you can make them angry because they feel you are ignoring them and they may become more emotional or get violent. Instead what you should do is first realize that the insults come not from the person but from the emotions and often the person will deeply regret them later on when they calm down. Don’t take them personally; after all it is not them insulting you it is their emotions.

Using a deflecting statement shows them that you heard their insult but it bypasses it and gets back to the task of addressing the core issue. The two I use the most are: “I appreciate your opinion but…” or “I appreciate that.” You could also say, “I respect your opinion but…” or “I respect that.” Use these statements then immediately get back to dealing with the issue causing the argument or emotional situation.

7.) Don't talk in absolutes and don't use the words "always" and "never". This is one of the biggest mistakes that people make when arguing. Never ever tell someone that they "always do this" or that they "never do that" because this will just serve to anger them and chances are that there are exceptions to disprove the allegation. Using these words will almost always result in an escalation of the situation so instead tell someone that they "usually do this" or they "usually do that".

8.) Phrase everything as "I feel...". One of the easiest ways to get someone mad is to accuse them of something, and if you repeatedly accuse them of things you will almost always cause them to get defensive. Never ever say, "You don't do this", "You don't like me" etc., because this puts the focus on them and their perceived shortcomings which normally makes them get defensive. Instead you should say, "I feel that you don't do this" or "I feel that you don't like me". By phrasing everything in relation to you and your feelings you take the focus off of them of put it on you and the way you feel. Just by taking everything you want to say to them and phrasing it to them as "I feel that..." you will help them to avoid getting defensive and open the lines of communication.

9.) Always talk about the specific behavior you have issue with instead of talking about them personally. In any situation your goal is not to run the person down, it is to address and hopefully get them to change a behavior. If someone does something you don't like you shouldn't talk to them about how you don't like them and how horrible they are for doing it, rather you should talk about the specific behavior that you have issue with and how you don't like it. By doing this you're not attacking them personally you're only talking about the fact that you don't like something they did. Instead of saying something like, "What's wrong with you, why would you do that?” you might instead say, "I don't like what happened, that behavior needs to change". Always restrict your focus to the behavior you didn't like and don't talk about them personally.

10.) Focus on the future instead of the past. Every second you spend talking to them about the issue that's responsible for the argument is a second the person could snap and get violent. Instead of spending time talking about the past which cannot be changed you should talk about the future which will give you or the other person a chance to do things differently. Rather than fight about what has happened switch the focus to next time. You might say, "Next time this situation comes up this is how I will handle it" or "Next time this situation comes up this is how I want you to handle it". Don't dwell on the past, rather focus on the future.

11.) Don’t argue with an emotional person. When people get upset and angry they don’t respond to logic and reason so you shouldn’t try using them. If someone is really upset then be quiet and let them vent without responding to what they say and after a few minutes it should be out of their system and they should be able to listen and process what you say to them better. If someone is irate then simply walk away or tell them to come back when they’ve calmed down. Give people the opportunity to calm down and get themselves under control before seriously engaging them in conversation. Also, when they’re venting don’t take anything that they’re saying personally because, again, they aren’t being logical or rational and they will often say and do things they don’t mean if order to hurt you. Always remember, emotional people aren’t logical so let them calm down first and then reason with them.

Now we will go to two of the most effective techniques available for calming angry and potentially violent people down.

Technique #1: Repeat, Approve, Respond

"Repeat, approve, respond" is a simple and highly effective technique for taking the emotional energy out of a situation, so effective that it is used by everyone from psychiatrists to telemarketers and from used car salesmen to hostage negotiators. If you talk to a good salesman and really listen to what they're saying you might hear them use it.

The best thing that you can do in a heated argument, or any argument, is to remove the emotional energy. It is the emotional energy that causes people to disregard logic, reason, and common decency. It is that emotional energy which causes people to "see red" and do and say things they would never do otherwise, and there are few better techniques to that than this.

Step 1: Repeat The first thing you want to do is repeat back to them what they just said in a calm and non-judgmental manner. It doesn't have to be word-for-word but it should be the general message. If someone is telling you that you never listen to them you would simply start off by calmly listening to everything they have to say and then when they're finished you'd say, "I don't listen to you" or "So you feel that I don't listen to you".

By opening your response by repeating back to them what they just said it will put them at ease because 1.) they know that you are actually listening the them and 2.) you just said something that they like and that sounds familiar and intelligent to them, which of course it does because they just said it.

Step 2: Approve Now you have to say something that shows that you approve and/or understand the statement you just repeated. For example: "I don't listen to you...I can see how you feel that way", "So you feel that I don't listen to you...thank you for being honest", or "I'm not listening to you...you might be right. Thank you for bringing it to my attention".

Even if you don't agree with them or they're not making any sense you want to say something that shows that you understand them and are compassionate to their argument. Nine times out of ten this will stop them dead in their tracks and they will just look at you shocked. Approving shows that you are open to their argument and let's the emotional energy out so they can respond with reason.

Approving is usually the hardest part of the process for most people. If you get stuck thinking of something to say, just say something that shows that you approve of the communication process as a whole. Examples are: “Thank you for bringing this to my attention”, “great, I love open communication”, “thank you for being honest with me”, “Its good you told me you feel that way”, “I like the fact that you’re being open and honest”, “I’m glad you told me that”, etc.

Step 3: Respond At this point you've demonstrated to them that you are listening to them and you've shown that you are willing to hear their argument so now it is time to respond. "I don't listen to you...I can see how you might feel that way. Maybe I do get to busy and..."

Respond back but make sure that you follow the eleven rules of de-escalation: 1.) see the two of you as a team working to solve a problem, 2.) respect personal space and give them 5-6 feet, 3.) make sure that you are not displaying aggressive body language, 4.) take time to think before you speak, 5.) be calm and talk in a calm and even tone, 6.) use deflecting statements to deal with insults, 7.) don't talk in absolutes or use the words "always" and "never", 8.) phrase everything as "I feel...", 9.) keep the conversation focused on the thing or behavior you have issue with instead of them directly, 10.) keep the conversation focused on correcting the issue in the future instead of dwelling on the unchangeable past, and 11.) don’t argue with an emotional person.

Another great thing about this technique is that it not only takes away their emotional energy but it also removes yours. You can't be yelling back, losing your cool, and saying things you'll regret later if your busy repeating, approving, and responding.

This is a technique that you can do over and over again. You go through the process once and then after you respond they say something else and if there is still some emotional energy left you just repeat the process until all the energy is gone. If the energy leaves and then comes back 5 minutes later you use the technique again.

A rule of thumb is that you don't do the technique more than 5 times in a row because it is at about that number that people start to notice that you're repeating what they've said back to them. So you might do it 4 times in a row and then take a break for a few minutes and then use it again.

You need to practice with this technique to make sure that you have the hang of it. The great thing about this is that you don't need an argument to use it. You can use it in any conversation to make yourself seem more intelligent and thoughtful (repeating back to people what they've just said usually has that effect). I recommend practicing it in every day conversations regularly so you can do it smoothly under duress.

Technique #2: Agreeing

Agreeing is another technique you can easily employ to remove yourself from an unwanted hostile situation. In this technique someone says something stupid to try to provoke you and instead of engaging in an argument you just agree with them. There are two versions of this technique, one for when you are in a situation where you can leave and one for when you're in a situation where you can't.

An example of the first version would be if you're walking down the street and someone yells something nasty at you and you have to respond (the BEST tactic is to ignore them totally because any response my escalate the situation). In this situation you can just say something short such as, "Yep, your right", "I sure am", or even just "Yes" to agree with whatever accusation they're making and then keep walking.

By agreeing you are not adding any emotional energy to the situation, but you might not be taking any out either. If you find yourself in a hostile situation and you want to leave quickly it is far more advantageous to just agree with whatever name you are being called then to argue, but in this technique if someone says something stupid you just agree and walk away.

The second version is used when you can't leave the situation but you don’t feel that you in real physical danger; perhaps you are speaking with a friend, co-worker, or a child. When they say something stupid to provoke you, you simply agree with it and then quickly change the subject.

For example, let's say that a co-worker is in a bad mood and they're telling you that you are horrible at you job. In this situation you could easily get into an argument that would get you nowhere or you could avoid the argument and get back to work just by quickly agreeing with them and then changing the subject. That may go something like this:

Them: "YOU'RE HORRIBLE AT YOUR JOB! WHAT ARE YOU STUPID OR SOMETHING?"

You: "Yup, I sure am. Does anyone know what time the meeting is today?"

If the argument was with your child it may go something like this:

Them: "YOU NEVER LET ME GO ANYWHERE! I HATE YOU, YOU'RE A HORRIBLE PARENT"

You: "Oh yeah, I'm like a meaner version of Hitler. Have you seen the cat lately?"

By quickly agreeing and then changing the subject you can avoid a lot of arguments and save yourself the work of having to de-escalate them.

Technique #3: Acting As If You Feel Worse Than Them

This a technique is not for de-escalating an argument, it is for when you are being verbally assaulted, you can’t escape the situation, and you feel you may be in physical danger. This is designed for someone berating you with insults and trying to make you feel small, weak, and stupid.

This technique works because if someone is insulting and belittling you they are do it so that you feel bad, but if you show them that you feel even worse than they’re trying to make you feel they won’t have any place to go with their insults and will normally give up and walk away.

Let’s say that you get out of your car and someone runs up to you and starts screaming that you cut him off in traffic. It is clear that this could turn into a violent situation so you want to de-escalate it as quickly as possible.

You could throw your hands up in the air and say, “YOU’RE RIGHT! I’M SO STUPID! I MUST BE THE WORST DRIVER ON THE PLANET!” Then you might look at the ground (towards his feet so you can keep him in your peripheral vision) scrunch up your face, and start slapping yourself in the side of the head saying, “STUPID! STUPID! STUPID!”

The point is that you want to make a scene that shows that you feel worse about what happened then they want you to feel. On a scale of one to ten of how bad you could feel about yourself, if you think that they want to be at a ten then make a scene to show them a twelve, or a fifteen. If they’re looking for a ten and you show them a twelve they have nowhere to go and often just write you off as crazy and leave.

If you think the situation can’t be de-escalated and violence is imminent you should immediately go to the technique described next and get ready to start striking targets and causing injures.

De-Escalating Social Aggression

Let's say that someone that makes you feel uncomfortable has approached you and you want to make them back off and leave you alone. That's what we're dealing with in this section.

If someone comes up to you and starts to bother you and you want to make them back off you have three options: 1.) You can be passive and you probably will encourage the aggressor and the situation may escalate, 2.) you can be aggressive and the person will either leave or become aggressive themselves and then a physical confrontation is likely, or 3.) you can use de-escalation techniques to make them disengage and back off at about a 90-95% rate, even with violent criminals.

When They Approach You

When someone approaches you, you want to do two things:

1.) Check to see what their hands are doing. You want to see what their hands are doing because if they attack you it will be with their hands. If one of their hands is in a fist then they're probably planning on throwing a punch; if they're hands are in their pockets or behind their backs they could be hiding a weapon (be careful of anyone who only has one hand in their pocket because the only reason for that is to grab something). If someone is walking towards you and one of their arms is hanging naturally but the other is stiff and not moving then that is a sign that that hand contains a weapon (in the security field this is generally referred to as a "dead arm"). Also notice if they are continually tapping or rubbing an area of their body. If they're doing this usually it is because they have a weapon on them and they are making sure it is still there. Look at people's hands as see what they're doing, take care to notice if they move towards their body.

2.) Look around and check your surrounding area. Look around you and behind you to see who and what is there. Is there anyone else approaching you, from behind possibly? Is there an exit nearby you can run to? Often one criminal will approach you from the front and try to distract you while another attacks you from behind.

Initial Contact

When someone is planning on attacking you usually they will come up to you and try to start a conversation or ask you something. During this time, known as an "interview", they will try to distract you and feel you out while they slowly creep their way closer to attack. When this happens the first thing you want to do is to assertively establish a boundary around you and make eye contact with them. If someone that makes you feel uncomfortable is just walking by you, you should just make quick eye contact with them and get out of their way. However, if you feel that they might attack you (especially if you notice their reaching in their pockets as they near you or one arm is "dead") you should make brief eye contact with them and then put distance between the two of you, like abruptly crossing the road, while keeping an eye on them. Hopefully you have pepper spray or another weapon ready just in case something does happen.

If someone approaches you and you feel threatened you should make eye contact with them. There have been several studies done with repeat violent offenders in various prisons and even the most violent agreed that if their intended victim made eye contact with them it was usually enough to make them pick someone else. Criminals like attacking by surprise and usually just making eye contact is enough to make them feel that their element of surprise has been lost.

If they engage you verbally the first thing you should do is look them in the eye and speak in a calm but assertive voice, establish a boundary, and try to determine their intentions. One of the best questions you can ask is simply "What do you want?" because it cuts to the chase and makes them decide their intentions.

You want to establish a boundary about 5 or 6 feet away from you and make sure that they don't cross it. The more distance there is between the two of you the more reaction time you'll have if they do attack you. If they start to cross the boundary you should first assertively inform them that they need to back up. Most people, of good intentions, will feel foolish and apologize if you look them in the eye and assertively say, "Excuse me, you're getting too close and making me feel uncomfortable! I need you to back up!"

First, inform them of their error and make your feelings about it known because if they're not planning on doing something criminal and you bring their ill manners to their attention they'll usually back up and apologize. This also shows that you are in control of the situation and if they want an easy target they have to go look elsewhere. An example of how this may go is as follows:

They approach you and say, "Hey there, how are you doing?"

You look them in the eye and say in an assertive manner, "Excuse me, you're getting a little too close and I feel uncomfortable! I need you to back up!"

They reply, "Sorry, I just wanted to talk..."

"Well I don't! Please go away!"

When you're at this point you really need to stick to your guns and demand that they respect your boundary because this is where a criminal will try to put you at ease and con their way closer. Whatever they say just ignore it and continue to demand that they back up and give you your space. Don't let up!

If they're persistent you can also say to them assertively, "Give me 5 feet!" Saying this to a criminal generally brings pause and then they tend to obey because this command is a common one used by guards in almost every prison in America. If they are a criminal who has been in prison then saying this will usually give them pause because they'll wonder how you knew to say it to them.

If you're at this point and they still don't respect your boundary then it's time to become aggressive with them and use the "bad dog voice".

The "Bad Dog Voice"

The "bad dog voice" is probably one of the most useful tools at your disposal when dealing with unwanted people. What you do is to give them direct commands with the same tone and inflection as you would if you were scolding a dog who you found defecating on an expensive rug. Upon seeing the dog you'd shout, "NO! BAD DOG! KNOCK IT OFF!" at him and he would respond by flinching away from you. The dog most likely wouldn't understand your words but he definitely would understand your tone.

People respond to that voice just the same way as the dog. There is something about the tone that makes people stop in their tracks and pay attention. If you are trying to get someone to back off the "bad dog voice" has proven effective in stopping them about 90-95% of the time. The trick is to practice and make sure that you are speaking in the same tone as you would as if you were scolding a dog.

You want to use short and direct commands that tell the individual exactly what they need to do to comply with you. You might shout, "STOP! GET BACK! LEAVE NOW! YOU NEED TO LEAVE NOW! BACK AWAY! GO! NOW! BACK OFF!" You don't need to get fancy or be creative with this, you can just keep repeating "BACK AWAY NOW!" over and over until they comply.

If you aggressively shout these phrases while using the "bad dog voice" you will most likely make them actually jump back. In any case you will be making so much noise that they will be worried about someone hearing and if they are criminals they'll most likely leave to find another victim. Even if they are violent criminals about 90-95% of the time they'll start uttering profanities and turn around and leave.

Even if a criminal confronts you and pulls a knife you still might be able to make him back off and leave by using this technique.

If you do this technique and they don't leave then there is no doubt that plan on doing violence to you and you need to prepare to use either weapons or self-defense techniques.

Stance

You want to stand in a confident manner, however, appearing to be confident is not nearly as important as keeping your head up and frequently looking around to be aware of who and what is around you. A criminal will typically choose to victimize someone who is appearing to be confident over someone who has their head up and is frequently checking out their surroundings. A confident person may or may not resist but with a little skill the criminal can just take them by surprise, but a person who is aware of their surroundings may seem them coming and start running and few criminals want to do that much work or draw attention to themselves by giving chase.

When you begin this technique you want to have your feet about shoulder width apart, put one foot ahead of the other, raise your arms and hold your palms out. You want to make sure that you don't straighten your arms and lock your elbows because if they grab a hold of your arms and they're locked then with a simple tug they can pull your entire body around. However, if your elbows are bent slightly and relaxed and they grab your arms and tug your arms can move independently of your body and you can remain in control of your balance.

You want to be very aggressive and shout repeatedly, "BACK UP NOW!" while using the "bad dog voice" and continue until they leave or attack. Often when you begin the technique a criminal will first respond with surprise, then once the surprise wears off they will try to intimidate you to see if you'll back down but if you keep it up you'll soon realize that it won't work and they'll leave. The key is to aggressively continue until they turn and leave.

Since any normal person will turn and leave when confronted with this technique if they stay or proceed to come closer there is little doubt that they plan on attacking you. If they come forwards again you should respond with a preplanned physical response such as using pepper spray or another technique such as clawing their eyes or attacking their groin with an upward slap or hard kick with your shin.

Ideally you should have pepper spray on you and you should have it in your hands as soon as you enter a transitional area like stairwells, elevators, parking lots, alleys, hallways, etc. If you have pepper spray and you are confronted you should hold it against your body and have the other hand held out with your palm extended towards them while you use this technique. Then if they come towards you, you should spray them in the face and then run away.

Even with the best de-escalation skills you should have the necessary physical skills to defend yourself in case the individual attacks rather than leaves. It is imperative that you take a reputable self-defense class to learn effective techniques and then practice those techniques at home to prefect them. You should also learn to use pepper spray properly and make sure it is in your hands before you enter transition areas. Regardless of what weapon you have, if it is not in your hands when the altercation starts you should forget about using it for the time being.

Handling Intoxicated People

When confronted by an intoxicated person the first technique you want to use is simple redirection. When intoxicated the individual is unable to process information as effectively as they should and redirecting their attention off of you and onto something else has proven to be quite effective. To do this you simply ignore what they are saying and pick an object or activity for them to focus on and then simply suggest it to them.

To give you an example, let's say that you are in a public situation and an intoxicated person comes over to you and starts to bother you. You could look past their shoulder and then say, "Hey, that guy is waving at you!" When they turn and look or question you about it you could suggest that the person has just walked around the corner and that they should go and find out what they want because it looked important. Very seldom will they not take the bait and when they leave it will give you time to leave the area as well.

The Shaolin Temple Myth

By Matthew Schafer
Copyright 2008, All Rights Reserved




As martial artists we have the responsibility to not only use our training wisely but also to question it and question it often. As human beings we also have the same responsibility to question everything and not to rely on blind faith. Everything must not only be questioned but thoroughly researched because at every turn there are those who seek to further their own agendas by misleading us. All elements of religion, politics, economics, martial arts, and every other area must be researched and not be taken at face value.

Within the martial arts there are many myths, exaggerations, and downright lies. We can clearly trace what we consider to be martial arts to China but when we go back into the history we find that it becomes very clouded. What I’m going to try to do here is explore the myth of the Shaolin Temple and try to put Chinese martial arts into context.

The only place to start is to address the Shaolin Temple myth. Anyone who has studied martial arts has heard about the Shaolin Temple and been told that that is where the martial arts originally came from and if they trace their art back far enough they can trace its teachings back to this mecca of martial arts.

Here is the basic story: In 64 AD the Ming Emperor decided to bring Buddhism to China so he sent out a delegation to India to study and bring back its teachings. Three years later, in 67 AD, the delegation returned with Buddhist manuscripts and two Indian Buddhist Monks. The emperor ordered the construction of a Buddhist Temple (called the “White Horse Temple”) which became the headquarters of the Buddhist movement in China. Numerous other temples where constructed over the next few hundred years and Buddhism spread throughout the country.

Sometime between 480-500 AD an Indian monk known as Batuo traveled to China and became well known as a wise expert in Buddhist study. The Chinese Emperor Xiaowen summoned him to his palace and was so taken by this monk that he eventually offered to build him his own Temple at the foot of the sacred mountain Mount Shaoshi located in Henan Province. This Temple was built near the sacred mountain and surrounded by a forest, so it was called “Shaolin Temple” which means “Temple in the Forest of Mount Shaoshi” (“Shao” refers to the sacred mountain and “Lin” means forest). Later others would also translate Shaolin to mean “young forest” or “little forest” but the original name of the Temple was a description of its location.

About the same time a prince was born in Southern India. Being a prince he was allowed to study the martial arts of India (although according to this legend martial arts weren’t invented yet) and became especially adept with the bo staff. The prince also began studying Chan Buddhism and upon the death of his teacher, he became the 28th Patriarch of Chan Buddhism and was given the religious title of “Bodhidharma” (other legends say that Bodhidharma was his actual name and not a religious title).

Following his teacher’s last wishes he sent out to spread Chan Buddhism to China in 527 AD (although some legends put his arrival in China as early as 420 AD). He was initially embraced by the Chinese people but soon met with a lot of resistance because even though he was considered to be very wise, he was also very straight forward and abrasive; one might say he “told it like it is”. Bodhidharma preached that Buddhism had been changed over the years and had lost its way and he sought to return people to what he considered to be the true teachings of the Buddha, as he had learned them. At that time Buddhism had adopted several Gods from Hinduism and taught that one could “buy” their way to enlightenment through acts of kindness towards the Buddhist institution and service to royalty. Bodhidharma preached that the only way to enlightenment was hard work and discipline through years of dedicated Buddhist study and meditation.

Like Batuo before him, Bodhidharma became noticed by the emperor and was summoned to his palace. Feeling the name Bodhidharma was too hard to pronounce the emperor renamed him “Damo” (also known as “Tamo” and “Datmo”). The emperor noticed right away that Bodhidharma was very wise but was taken aback by his abrasive and strait forward nature. The emperor offered to build Bodhidharma a Temple of his own but the monk told him that contrary to the belief of the wealthy, the Buddhist concept of “Nirvana” could not be purchased through good works, such as building temples, but rather had to be earned over years and years of disciplined study. Frustrated the emperor dismissed him.

Bodhidharma was very troubled over the notion that enlightenment could be bought by good works so he set out to solve the problem at what he saw as its roots, the Shaolin Temple. The Shaolin Temple was very famous throughout China for the work the monks did in translating the Buddhist religious texts from Sanskrit to Chinese. There the monks devoted nearly all their time to this pursuit and Bodhidharma believed that he had to reform the great and famous Shaolin Temple before the rest of China could also be reformed.

Upon arriving at the Shaolin Temple the abbot Batuo quickly branded Bodhidharma a “troublemaker”, but he decided to let him stay at the Temple as was the custom. Bodhidharma lived in the Temple for a short time but was not well tolerated by the other monks due to his straightforward nature and overall efforts at reformation. The Temple and the monks there had gained praise and fame all over China for their labors and did not want to give that up to take on his rigorous training regimen, so the abbot soon asked him to leave the Temple.

Bodhidharma then went to live in a cave which overlooked the Temple and resided there for 9 years. During this time he observed a vow of silence and spent much of the day in meditation. Eventually local villagers stumbled upon Bodhidharma living in this cave and he became popular. Villagers and even monks from the Shaolin Temple would travel to seek the reclusive wise man’s guidance, even though he never spoke to anyone. The legend of the reclusive wise monk became so popular the abbot Batuo felt he had no choice but to ask him to come to live at the Temple, and soon Bodhidharma became the Temple’s abbot.

Bodhidharma quickly required the monks to start a regimen of Yoga and basic calisthenics to strengthen their bodies. Three types of exercises were required by the new abbot and they were “Marrow Washing”, “Muscle Changing”, and “The 18 Hand Movements” (also known as the “18 Hands of the Lo Han” which means “18 exercises for the greatest holiness”). It is said that from these Indian exercises the monks became very strong and eventually created martial arts based on their movements. It is also said that Bodhidharma, who was expertly trained in the martial arts of India, taught the monks martial arts as a means of physical exercise, but of course if Bodhidharma taught martial arts to the monks then Shaolin could not be the birthplace of the martial arts, but let’s not poke too many holes in this just yet.

In another legend it was said that martial arts did exist prior to Bodhidharma and Shaolin but they were fractured and very basic. This legend says that the Shaolin contribution to the martial arts was that it was at Shaolin that these various rough combat forms consisting of scattered techniques were organized, refined with scientific principles, and elevated to the status or art forms.

No matter which version you go with, from there it is said that from the Shaolin Temple martial arts spread across China and the monks of Shaolin were known for the utmost mastery of all things martial. The monks, who were said to engage in rigorous martial arts training for up to 10 hours a day, gained legendary fighting ability and were even asked by the emperor to come to his aid and stop various attacking armies, which they did and turned the tides of many a battle.

However, the monks of the Temple became so skilled that they made the emperor nervous so he sent his army to destroy the Temple. The monks did their best to fight off the army but the Temple was eventually burnt to the ground. Only five monks escaped and then went on to spread Shaolin Kung Fu throughout China.

Great story, but with regards to the Shaolin Temple’s contribution to the martial arts, nearly all of it is false. The true role of the Shaolin Temple in the Chinese martial arts has been thoroughly researched by both western and Chinese scholars such as the legendary author and Chinese martial arts historian Tang Hao (1887–1959).

When this legend stands up to history this is what we find:

1.) There was a Buddhist Temple called Shaolin
2.) This Temple was famous for translating Buddhist texts from Sanskrit to Chinese and as the Chinese birthplace of Chan Buddhism
3.) A monk named Bodhidharma did reside there
4.) Martial arts were practiced there
5.) Monks from the Temple were, on several occasions, conscribed by various emperors to assist or fight in lieu of his army.
6.) As soon as the myth that the Shaolin Temple was the birthplace of marital arts started to be spread, many serious Chinese martial artists fought the myths but few people would listen.

That's it. That is all that provable history can come up with. What's more is that when Tang Hao researched Bobhidharma he concluded that it was extremely unlikely that he was trained in any martial art, and of course if he had been then martial arts would have to predate the Shaolin Temple.

In order to see the Shaolin Temple in proper context we should discuss what relationship these organizations had with the public and Chinese social structure. Buddhist temples were supported by the entire community and sometimes the government or warlords. Temples were (as they still are in some places today) usually quite wealthy and owned large amounts of land. To protect their material wealth and to guard their vast lands the temples had their own militias. Shaolin Temple would have been no different from any other Temple in that it would have owned a large amount of land and had its own small army to protect it. This army would have been made up of individuals who were trained in martial arts and most likely they would have received their martial arts training from the same place as most other people...by serving in the military.

Throughout most of China’s existence it has actually had several different types of militaries existing at once. During the Ming Dynasty China actually had three different militaries. The Red Banner Army was China's main army and protected the palace, the Manchu homeland, and other key positions. The Green Army acted mainly as police within the country, but according to records they were usually "unavailable" to fight. China's third army was actually made up of privately owned armies and militias. Any wealthy family, business, Temple, village, or warlord would have its very own private army to protect its interests and maintain order. Since the Green Army could rarely be counted on local order was usually maintained by private militias. Each village would have their own small militia that was usually made up of village locals, paid for by the village, and trained by local villagers who originally got their martial art training while serving in the militias of all the other villages they had previously lived in.

These small private armies and militias were often asked or conscribed by the emperor to assist the regular army in fighting or even fight in their stead. So Shaolin Temple, like every other Temple, would have had their own security force that practiced martial arts, protected the Temple and its interests, and sometimes these security forces were asked to fight alongside the regular Chinese army to battle invading forces.

The real fighting monks of the Shaolin Temple would most likely not have been monks at all but rather people hired by the Temple to protect its interests. Some of the hired soldiers might have studied Buddhism while they were there but the Temple would have most likely limited this because they were not paying them to be monks. Instead of being scholarly and wise Buddhists the legendary “Shaolin Warrior Monks” would have actually been a security force that would have been a contingent of trained martial artists who would have lived the life of any soldier, such as doing basic infantry drills, marching, going through inspections, maintaining an armory, and policing the all the land and holdings of the Temple. Since they represented the Temple they would have likely shaved their heads, worn their robes, and had to abide by a moral standard as not to bring shame on the order, but that is most likely the only similarities between the actual monks and the soldiers stationed there.

At this point I should point out that this private military structure is where many of the different Chinese martial arts styles come from. For example, if you were wealthy your family would have its very own private military to protect it, its lands, its interests, and maintain order. This private military force would consist of members of the family as well as hired soldiers and would either be very small to very large depending on the family’s assets and overall wealth. They would study martial arts and the training as well as the weapons, uniforms, etc. would be provided by the family. Often the family would hire a well-known martial arts master to live with the family and either lead their military or train them in martial arts. This being so, each family would have a different and unique martial arts style it practiced and taught to its private army. This is where you get family systems just as Jin Ga, Lau Gar, Li, Mok, Yue, and many others.

If you were an able bodied person living in a village you would be expected to join that village’s private military. The private military would be structured similar to the modern National Guard and it would be funded and housed by the local village. The village would also provide weapons and martial arts training. Whoever was in charge of the military’s martial arts training would teach whatever style they knew and everyone was expected to attend training and be proficient so they could protect the village from bandits, warlords, and criminals.

People would often move from village to village as their profession or the economy demanded and upon settling in they were expected to join that private military as well. They would bring the martial arts teaching they had learned from the last village’s military to the new ones, and thus martial arts knowledge spread across China. This is where village systems come from such as Chen Taijiquan which comes from Chen Village.

By now we know that martial arts were practiced on the grounds of the Shaolin Temple, as it was practiced by the private militaries hired by every large religious Temple, but what proof is there that their martial arts was in some way significant or special? In all written history there are really four sources that speak about Shaolin martial arts that predate 1905 AD.

The first source is from some writings said to be from the Shaolin Temple itself but these writings cannot be authenticated definitively as to who wrote them and when. It also cannot be guaranteed that they came from a source who was actually associated with Shaolin (most practitioners of Buddhism and martial arts, as well as their documents, were rounded up and destroyed by the government in the Chinese Cultural Revolution which lasted from 1966 through 1976) or that they are objective. In the same way people often take liberties when writing their resume’ when they look for a job, writings claiming to be from Shaolin Temple that speak of their legendary feats cannot be expected to be truthful and without embellishment. Since these documents cannot be authenticated, often contradict themselves, speak of several different temples that bear the Shaolin name, and could be considered to be self-serving very few historians regard them as credible.

The second written source that refers to martial arts being practiced at Shaolin was when in 1561when a Chinese General named Qi Ji writes about touring the country to see martial arts demonstrations as research for a martial arts manual he was writing. He writes that among the many places he visited he went to the Shaolin Temple and was very impressed by their staff techniques. He was impressed to such an extent that he incorporated one of their set routines into his manual.

The third is a few years later in 1566. An English manuscript tells of a journey that a group of English traders had in China. Within that writing they briefly mention that during the trip they were lost in a storm and found their way to the Shaolin Temple where they asked for refuge. They were given shelter and then provided with a martial arts demonstration that impressed and delighted them. Martial arts knowledge was very restricted, especially when it came to foreigners, so when the monks were asked what these incredible feats were the monks replied that they were seeing a demonstration of “Kung Fu”. The term “Kung Fu” means “great expertise or mastery developed through discipline and years of hard work”. The English traders took this to mean that Chinese martial arts were called “Kung Fu” and this is why we use that term in the west to this day.

The forth source is from royal manuscripts that talk about several battles between the Chinese military and invading armies. In some of these writing they speak of private militaries that were conscribed by various emperors to fight alongside of the national army and among some the names of private armies it mentions the Shaolin Temple providing soldiers.

That’s it. Before 1905 only four sources mention the Shaolin Temple practicing martial arts and the first one isn’t considered credible by most historians and the second, third, and forth mention Shaolin’s martial arts only briefly. If Shaolin was a martial arts powerhouse it would be expected that more historical evidence would exist, yet we find that most of the references to Shaolin martial arts come after 1905.

The martial arts did not begin at the Shaolin Temple, and it makes sense that it didn’t happen this way. In truth there was no real connection between the lethal techniques of martial arts and religion.

The first recorded human society was the Sumerians who lived in what is today southeast Iraq. Samaria dates to 4000 B.C. and the earliest swords known to exist date to around 1600 B.C. so obviously combat systems are older than the Shaolin Temple which dates to around 500 AD. History shows that basic combat techniques and strategy were often known by lay persons to various degrees out of necessity, but real expertise in combat systems and warfare was the territory of the military.

The point of driving home the martial arts-military connection is to put the martial arts into proper context. If you look at the modern marital art of marksmanship practiced by our military you’ll see that it is studied as a form of combat…period. It does not have a philosophical component; it does not have a first aid or medical component other than what is necessary to kill another person; it doesn’t not have a traditional meditational component; and no one running around saying that by studying riflemen-ship you’ll be a better or wiser person. Marksmanship is a discipline of function…period! The same was true 1500 years ago in relation to using your fists, feet, swords, spears, etc.

The martial arts were practiced by the military for combat and they were practiced by the general public for self-protection. Originally there was no religious or moral component and no one thought that training in martial arts would make you a better person. If you went back in time to 1300 ad and asked a kung fu master if his style was “Buddhist” or “Taoist” they would look at you like you were nuts. It’s the same was as if you went to a hunter and asked if his rifle was “Catholic” or “Protestant”.

The question should now be asked: if the marital arts in China largely came from, and were refined by, the various Chinese militaries and not by wise warrior monks in the Shaolin Temple…why is there this notion, how did it start, and why did it start?

Let’s look at the history and context of Chinese society. In the golden ages of martial arts, the Ming and Qing dynasties (1368 to 1911 AD), most Chinese were poor and illiterate, had very little education, and were too busy dealing with basic survival to focus on religion or morality. Martial artists rarely taught for a living and if they did it was only to a select few. Most martial artists, like today, had a day job and lived very unglamorous lives. If a martial artist did make a living with his training it was usually in the military, as a bodyguard, a criminal, or a street performer.

Martial artists were not great people, or at least not any better than anyone else. The fought, they killed, they robbed, and they lied just like everyone else. There are records of martial artist con men going around the countryside and scamming villagers. The way this typically worked is that one person would arrive at a village a few days ahead of the rest of his group and mingle with the general population. When the rest of the group arrived at the village they would issue an open martial art challenge to the villagers declaring that they would beat anyone there in a fight. In all the turmoil and confusion of the open challenge the conman sent there in advance would step forward and accept the challenge on behalf of the village. Local villagers would then place bets and a perfectly rehearsed contest would take place with the traveling challenger being victorious, often by using a “secret technique”. Later, all parties would meet up at a different village or hideout and split the profits.

Many martial artists would earn a living by performing on the street using magic tricks. This is where many of the myths of "chi", internal energy, came about. Putting out a candle from 10 feet away, using "chi" to knock over an opponent from a distance or through a wall, breaking a spear against your throat, having a partner jump on your stomach with all his bodyweight from 7 feet in the air and not being injured, laying on a bed of nails, breaking a stack of boards with your pinkie, running a sword across your skin without being cut, producing smoke with your fingertips, using "chi" to boil a glass of water, and many, many other feats were merely magic tricks that used psychology, chemistry, and physics to fool people who had little to no education, and still fool many people today. (It often surprises religious people to learn that turning water into wine, the famous miracle performed by Jesus, was a very common magic trick in China well before biblical times. In fact, most of the miracles described in the bible and other religious texts were in fact established magic tricks in Asia during those times.)

In 1756 the Chinese instated a trade policy called the Canton System and began very lucrative trade with Europe that made many European and Chinese businessmen very wealthy. The British East India Trading Company had a monopoly on trade with China and soon grew unhappy with the trade policies they saw as unfair. China decided that it only wanted to be paid in silver for exported goods while the European countries did business with gold. England had to spend a lot of time and effort to get enough silver to buy Chinese goods (especially tea which was in large demand in England) to the point where, after a trade was completed with China, it had actually lost money.

In 1817 the British East India Trading Company, which controlled the opium market coming from India, arranged with the Chinese Emperor to pay for Chinese goods with opium as well as silver in an attempt to balance the trade deficit. They began importing opium into China in massive quantities and within 10 years there was a widespread opium problem among the Chinese people. This was made worse in 1834 when the trade monopoly held by the British East India Trading company was broken and Americans began trading with the Chinese and paying with opium from Turkey that was cheaper in quality and price. The new completion drove opium prices down and many Chinese became angry that foreigners were hurting the country by weakening its people with opium addiction. It is estimated that over 2 million Chinese were addicted to opium as a result of this trading.

In 1839 the emperor ordered that the opium trade was now illegal and companies trading with China had to sign an agreement not to import opium and had to surrender any opium shipments they had to the Chinese government. This started of series of events that led to the Opium War between England and China which lasted from 1839 to 1842. The war ended with Britain occupying Shanghai and the Chinese emperor signing a treaty that they considered very unfair.

The result of this war was that opium trade was renewed and word quickly spread of how easily the more technologically superior English defeated the greatly numerically superior Chinese. In response to this many western companies descended upon China and religious missionaries stormed in like locusts to convert the non-Christian Chinese.

The mid 1800’s saw a huge invasion of China by western influence and many Chinese politicians and businessmen sought to develop relationships with western companies to reap the great fortunes that trading with them could bring. A huge movement followed where much of Chinese society started to westernize themselves and abandoned traditional clothing for a western suit, tie, and top hat.

How did all this effect marital arts? It caused a large portion of the country to move away from them. In no area was this abandonment of martial arts greater than among the wealthy and upper classes who now either saw martial arts as unnecessary because handguns were now widely available, or they wanted to distance themselves to win the approval of westerns who might see it as a “lower class thing to do”. By 1880 most wealthy Chinese businessmen and officials had their bodyguards move from carrying martial arts weapons to keeping a colt pistol under their shirt.

Among the lower middle class and poor martial arts training was still popular to a large degree because they didn’t have the access to firearms and needed to defend themselves in the very turbulent times. However, with large portions of the Chinese population moving away from martial arts the masters and those who depended upon teaching for their livelihoods had to find a way to remain relevant.

What occurred from roughly 1850 to 1920 was martial arts had to go on a marketing campaign to get their followers back. In order for martial art teachers to maintain their income and their high status in the Chinese community they had to come up with a way to “rebrand” themselves and market marital arts training as a still useful skill in the new Chinese economy. Not only that, if they wanted to get the wealthy and powerful members of society back they had to find a way to make martial arts training prestigious.

There were many strategies used including dumbing down the training to allow more people to enroll in schools. This led to many arts losing their combat efficiency in favor of teaching techniques that looked cool and were fun to do but didn’t have proper combat applications (which still happens widely today where a lot of schools teach tournament competition and try to pass it off as real authentic martial arts and realistic self-defense).

Masters also tried to reinvent themselves to be a more appealing to the upper class and more heroic to the lower class. This time was one of revolution and the government had to put down numerous revolts by the people who wanted the foreign influence ended, the Christians driven out, or the new Chinese Christian population wanting to force others to adopt their religion by the end of a sword. With all the rebellion also came books that showed the romantic righteous struggle of one particular group over another. Each book had a star that was brave, wise, and nearly unbeatable in combat. These books, which were the equivalent of dime store romance novels, were published by all types of groups in China as propaganda and became very popular among the public.

These books and the images in them were so popular that martial arts masters started to try to adopt those qualities and images. The stereotypical image of the wise and just marital arts master who could do no wrong, beat 15 opponents with the wave of his hand, and could hear a cricket from a mile away was adopted by the martial arts community and dates to around 1915. Before this martial art masters were not seen as any wiser or any better than anyone else (but prior to 1850 they did hold a somewhat higher status in the community simply because they had the ability to kill you). The same thing happened in the United States after the movie “The Karate Kid” (the first one, not the horrible, horrible remake) came out and many instructors tried to be like Mr. Miyagi; or after Bruce Lee movies became popular and instructors started to imitate him which still happens to this day.

To go after the wealthy they had to consider what the wealthy people of those days still valued. Even though a lot of the wealthy made an outward effort to adopt western things they still valued religion and all things ancient because Chinese believed that the older something was the better it had to be.

Lying about your style’s history and even forging historical documents to make your style appear older or connected to a well-known master was a widely used and time tested marketing ploy among Chinese martial artists. After all, the way Chinese society viewed martial arts, if you developed a style it was considered “too new” and untested, but if your grandfather created the style people would think it might be credible; however, if you could convince people that your style was hundreds of years old, came from a famous master, or was connected to a famous place it was not only seen as credible but training in it was seen as experiencing Chinese history firsthand and being connected to it.

Masters continued the age old tradition of lying about their styles history and trying to connect them to religion and places of religious significance was especially clever. While a large portion of the new westernized upper class considered the grueling training of martial arts a lower class activity, they considered religious pursuits to be an extremely upper class activity. By convincing people that they could use martial arts training as a moving meditation to aid spiritual development they opened the religious market as potential customers. To do this, though, they needed a good story to set it up.

Tying the martial arts to the Shaolin Temple was actually very smart and it solved a lot of their problems. Firstly, you get to connect marital arts with Buddhism which helps you to tie everything together and intermingle the two disciplines in a nice package to appeal to the upper class. Secondly, if you wanted to tie your martial art to a religious entity to couldn’t get any better than the Shaolin Temple. This Temple was infamous and highly regarded all over China due to (firstly) their work transcribing Buddhist texts and (secondly) being the Chinese birthplace of Chan Buddhism which was very popular in China (Chan Buddhism also spread to Japan were it was called “Zen” or “Zen Buddhsim”). So by saying your martial arts comes from Shaolin you borrow the prestige of that Temple, its religion, and the famous Bodhidharma himself.

Saying your art came from Shaolin became so popular people wanted to tie different arts to Taoism was well. They did that by saying their art came from the famous Wudang Mountain Temple. Today a lot of people see martial arts as a discipline which includes self-defense and combat training, learning oriental medicine, meditation, and spiritual and moral development but that is actually a fabrication and a creation born mostly between 1905-1920 for marketing purposes. Since the dawn of martial arts until about 1850 marital arts was solely a combative discipline and didn’t contain these things.

The majority of what is today considered martial arts came about in the late 1800's and early 1900's as a marketing effort. In the same way much of what people know about the samurai of Japan came from the 1700's and later, when the samurai were actually around since the 1100's.

The Shaolin Temple myth was most widely spread by two books; the first was a popular novel called, "Travels of Lao Can" which was written around 1905, and the second was "Secrets of Shaolin Temple Boxing" written in 1915. Both of these books were very popular and widely read.

To comment on the latter book ("Secrets of Shaolin Temple Boxing") historian and author Stanley E. Henning wrote an article entitled "The Chinese Martial Arts in Historical Perspective" (published in 1981). In that article he stated that, "Both [the legendary historians] Tang Hao and Xu Je Dong exposed this book's lack of historicity but, unfortunately, it became popularly accepted as a key source of Chinese martial arts history enthusiasts, and its pernicious influence has permeated literature on the subject to this day". In other words, even though credible historians have disproven the historical information in this book about how the martial arts were created it was (and still is) widely regarded as a credible source of Chinese martial arts history.

The Shaolin Temple myth was further spread by the government of the “Republic of China” in 1928. To organize, control, and spread the Chinese martial arts the government created a large martial arts school called the “Central Guoshu Institute” (Guoshu was a term meaning “national art” and it was the name that the government gave to the martial art styles if officially approved of and chose to recognize). The government handpicked five masters to head the institute.

In October of 1928 they held a national martial arts tournament which was attended by 600 participants including some of the most revered masters and their students. The organization reportedly separated the 600 participants by splitting them in two categories: “Shaolin Styles” and “Wutang Styles”. This was reportedly the first official use of the Shaolin/Wutang classification used in martial arts; although it was only used by the Central Guoshu Institute originally it soon spread all over China.

There is exactly zero credible evidence that the Shaolin Temple was the birthplace of the martial arts or even a hotbed of martial arts training. All credible evidence says that the Chinese military (the Red Banner Army, the Green Army, and private armies and militias), not the Shaolin Temple, were responsible for creating, developing, promoting, and spreading Chinese martial arts throughout China. All credible evidence says the "legend" of the Shaolin Temple was created in books and cannot be traced back further than 1905.

As a couple of side notes, after the Chinese martial arts reinvented themselves their troubles weren’t over because they ran into the communist takeover and the Cultural Revolution which ran from 1966 through 1976. During this time the new government wanted to recreate China and decided to round up and destroy all things that were traditionally Chinese because they were no longer relevant in the “new China”. The martial arts were at the top of their list and martial arts practitioners and master were rounded up and executed, their schools were burned down or taken over by the government, and all the martial arts documents and training manuals they government could locate were rebounded up and burned (it is said that the government did keep some masters alive and retain some martial arts manuals in order to train their military). Martial arts were forced underground with the penalty of death for you and your family, and the masters either fled China or were killed.

Many masters fled to Hong Kong (which was under British control), Thailand, Taiwan, Vietnam, Korea, Indonesia, America, and other countries and any that could not were killed or imprisoned. The result of this is that many people now believe that if you want to learn true Chinese martial arts today you have to look outside of China. When martial arts practice was again made legal some masters may have returned but it is unlikely because they may be have killed for leaving in the first place (when it comes to communism not dying is often illegal).

Another effect of this destruction and exodus is that a lot of martial arts and martial art knowledge have been lost forever. Many styles taught today are most likely incomplete and lacking a lot of their secrets and applications.

It is important to note that while traditional martial arts were made illegal and punishable by death the government approved practice of “Wushu” was encouraged. Chinese martial arts have gone by a variety of names but the government wanted a new name for a new regulated artform. Traditionally martial arts were called “Chuan Fa” or “Quanfa” (meaning “methods of fighting with the hands”) but the new system was the literal translation of the term “martial arts” (“Wu” means martial and “shu” means arts).

The government didn’t necessarily want to eliminate martial arts altogether, it really wanted to control them. In 1958, before the Cultural Revolution and the destruction of traditional martial arts, they organized the “All-China Wushu Association” to control the martial arts and regulate them by government standards. Wushu was a creation made by the new government that was designed to give people a good show, be entertaining, but not learn the true fighting applications of actual martial arts. While they encouraged Wushu they hunted down and killed true masters. Wushu is widely considered to be solely a performance art and void of the actual combat and self-defense teachings of traditional Chinese martial arts.

Another note is that the modern Shaolin Temple is little more than a tourist attraction. The government reopened it as a source of national pride and as a tourist attraction, and reportedly the new Shaolin Temple brings about $2 billion US dollars into the Chinese economy each year. The government cleaned up the temple, filled it with modern Wushu experts dressed in robes, and today it its purpose it to put on a show for both the Chinese people as well as foreigners, and also to try to convince people that China still has retained its martial arts knowledge and abilities instead of hunting them down and killing them off. It is regarded by most experts that the new modern Shaolin Temple does not practice traditional Chinese martial arts or even Chan Buddhism.

More on Street Fighting and What’s Wrong with This Picture

By Matthew Schafer

Copyright, 2008, All Rights Reserved

I’ve gotten a fairly interesting response to the article “The Street Fighting Myth” and I feel that maybe I wasn’t as clear as I should have been. So let me be a little more clear on the matter…street fighting is bullshit!

Let me tell you a little story about something that just happened here. A few nights ago a young man in his early 20’s left a bar where he worked to make the night deposit. As he walked to his car another car pulled up, two guys got out, walked up to him and engaged him in conversation, jumped him, hit him until he fell to the ground, repeatedly stomped and kicked him, then took the money that he had on him and fled.

I’m not sure if that kid has come out of his coma yet but his doctors say that he will never “be right” again, and that he will need direct care assistance for the rest of his life. This kid was in his early 20’s and his life is basically over. He will be a vegetable that his family will have to take care of for the rest of their lives.

Another story, a young man was standing by his car in the parking lot of his apartment building. Two other young men come up to him and started to argue with him. A friend on the third floor saw the altercation and decided to come to his friend’s aid but he was so intoxicated that he decided to jump off of his balcony and promptly broke both of his legs. One of the individuals then pushed this young man who then falls and hits his head of the pavement.

One little push and this young man is now a vegetable and his family cannot afford to take care of him. They depleted their savings, his father’s business had to file bankruptcy, and his siblings have been reported as using drugs to cope with the situation. This young man can no longer regulate the temperature of his body so his family has to watch him around the clock because he could easily catch pneumonia and die. The thing is though, the family has admitted that maybe it would be best for their son and themselves if he did pass on. They even considered taking the family or Oregon where doctor-assisted suicide is legal.

This is the reality of violence and injury. The Chinese knew this and they had a saying that, “when two tigers fight, one will be killed, and the other will die later of his injuries”.

If somebody is going to try to victimize you, seriously injure you, then there is a very good chance that one of you will be killed or messed up so bad that you will never “be right” again and your family will have to bear the burden of taking care of you for the rest of their lives. The only question is which one of you will it be?

If you are going to try to street fight then it will be you. You cannot fight with a criminal, but you can use various methods of self protection.

The first thing is that you have to know how criminals think, how they commit their crimes, how they pick their targets, what vulnerabilities they look for, and what will make them pick you as a target. Then you have to make a plan, constantly be aware of your surroundings, be looking around, and asking yourself, “what’s wrong with this picture?” and “is this necessary?”

You’re walking to your car and another car suddenly pulls up…what’s wrong with this picture (everything so turn and start running). Two guys get out to “talk” to you…what wrong with this picture? Is it necessary for them to get out of their car? Is it necessary for two of them to get out? Is it necessary for them to try to get close to you? NO! None of that is necessary so the second it starts happening you should run like hell.

If two guys approach you is it necessary for them to do so? What’s wrong with this picture? If you have the distance you should run like hell. If you don’t have the distance between you then you should become assertive, establish your boundaries, and then become aggressive, not with your words but with your voice. This tells them that if they come closer that they have a fight on their hands, alerts others who may be able to call for help, and immediately tells you their intentions. If they leave, which most will, that’s fine, but if you do all that and they don’t then you are in a situation where you could possibly be killed.

If they approach you, guess what you should have in your hands…pepper spray. I always tell my students to have pepper spray in their hands if they’re out and about and I always do the same. If it is in your pocket or purse then it does you no good, you need to have it in your hands.

Getting into a fight with a criminal is a method that just doesn’t work. Your first line of defense is your will to survive and your decision to do so, second is making a plan for when things do happen and then following that plan, third is your awareness of your surroundings, fourth is making brief eye contact with everyone and displaying your level of alertness by making sure that people see you looking around, fifth is your ability to run, sixth is your display of aggressiveness when cornered, seventh is pepper spray or another personal weapon (I much prefer pepper spray, even to carrying a gun), and last is self defense techniques designed to cause debilitating injury to your attacker that will require medical attention. Anything else won’t work.

If someone attacks you chances are they will do it by surprise and your clue that its time to defend yourself will actually be being attacked. If someone does come up to you, you don’t get into a fighting stance because that will just escalate the situation and may cause them to pull a weapon. Instead you assume an aggressive posture with your palms outward and elbows in and down, and aggressively give them short commands that tell them to leave. If they don’t leave then you maintain your structure and your focus until they are close enough to use pepper spray or, if you don’t have it, strike them first.

Step into them aggressively and try to drive two of your fingers all the way through their eyeballs, drive your forearm through their throat, use your palm or knee to hit upwards into their groin, stomp on the sides of their ankles, repeatedly slam your palm into their ears with all your body weight, or you might slap their eyes to give them a concussion in their optical nerves. Don’t just swing your arms at them but step into them and when you hit them keep your back straight and bend your knees to drop your bodyweight into the strike.

I don’t care how big, mean, under the influence, or murderous a man is, if they are standing in front of you and you look at their ear, step in aggressively while keeping your back straight, slap your palm into the ear, push all the way through it and bend your knees on impact, you will rupture their ear drum (which takes their balance, leaves them very nauseous, and 9 times out of 10 they want to lay down on the floor) and most likely, provided you followed all the way through and bent your knees, drive them head first into the ground. If you want to make sure you drive them head first into the ground all you have to do is bring your arm down towards the ground during your follow through from the slap. If that individual goes head first into the ground it could kill him.

One of you is most likely going to be killed or end up as a messed up vegetable for your family to take care of, and it is far better that it is him instead of you.

The Street fighting Myth

By Matthew Schafer
Copyright 2008, All Rights Reserved

The other day I heard an all too common story from a friend. This friend trained at a mixed martial arts club in Grand Rapids, Michigan that had two star members. These two members were brothers who had been training in a martial art called Kajukenbo for over 15 years and who were now certified instructors in the art. Kajukenbo is a martial art known for its aggressiveness and for being "martial arts street fighting". For 15 years these guys had been training to fight, both with and without weapons, and recently they decided that doing mixed martial arts would be right up their alley so they joined a local club and were really impressing the other members. From what I was told these two guys were just about how one might envision them: big, mean, avid bodybuilders, and covered in tattoos.

A week or two ago both these gentlemen, who were arguably very, very tough, made a trip to Flint, Michigan and while walking down the street they were approached by two other men and a physical encounter ensued leaving both of these Kajukenbo black belts in intensive care. These two men were not only black belts but instructors in a street fighting art, were in exceptional shape, and were trained in the use of weapons but still they were not only beaten but severely beaten to such a degree that they are in intensive care. How could this be, especially in a two on two fight?

The answer is actually very simple. These men had spent years learning all about street fighting but the truth is that there's no such thing as street fighting. Street fighting doesn't exist. There's only three types of fighting: 1.) sport fighting (boxing, wrestling, mixed martial arts, etc.) which takes place in an agreed upon place with agreed upon rules and usually has a referee, 2.) brawling which is an ego based encounter and usually resembles sport fighting with no rules or referee, and basically consists of people becoming angry, pushing each other, swinging their fists at each other like gorillas, and then walking away with bloodied lips, and 3.) assault which is when one person walks up to another person and violently attacks them with the intent of causing serious injury or death and often includes weapons and multiple attackers. That's it, all fighting and violent encounters fall into these three categories.

What people consider to be "street fighting" is actually just sport fighting or brawling. Sport fighting is 99% of what people consider fighting: two people fighting in an agreed upon way with agreed upon rules. Brawling is people getting mad because their feelings are hurt and lashing out in an uncontrolled and undisciplined manner and if any injuries happen they are typically very minor. Assault is someone wanting to seriously injure, forcibly rob or rape, or murder you. Sport fighting only happens if you agree to it, brawling can usually be avoided by being polite and respectful to people then knowing de-escalation techniques, but assault can't be avoided, you can reduce your chances of having it happening to you but you can't all together avoid it.

The idea of meeting someone on the "street" and both of you getting into fighting stances and duking it out just doesn't happen. If you look at the information provided to us by the FBI about crime you'll see that criminals attack by surprise and don't assume fighting stances or give you the opportunity to duke it out.

The two brothers lost their encounter because they were trying to street fight and the only place street fighting happens is in the minds of people who don't understand violence and the realities of injury. If you think that when a criminal comes up to you and tries to victimize you that you can get into a fighting stance, dance around, do your boxing or whatever, and outfight a criminal then 99% of the time you're dead wrong. If a criminal isn't very experienced then maybe he'll give himself away and you can get a shot in before he hits you but most of the time the best you can do with all that stuff is act really aggressive and scare him away. Criminals will take you by surprise so the idea of putting up your hands and fighting them just isn't realistic; most experienced criminals will approach you and knock you out or disable you first and then rob you.

From what I heard two guys just walked up them, said something to them, and then started punching them until they knocked them down, then kicked and stomped them until they stomped moving, and then took their wallets and ran away. In no way was that street fighting, it was a crime plain and simple. Street fighting just doesn't exist, what does exist is people of very low moral value using speed, surprise, and violence of action to victimize others.

What Is A Martial Art?

By Matthew Schafer
Copyright 2007


When most people think of the martial arts they think of people running around in pajamas while punching, kicking, and yelling. While this tends to be accurate I truly believe that there is more to a martial art than this.

What inspired me to write this article was a conversation I had with someone earlier today about a "martial arts" school that is in my area. I put martial arts in quotations because I think that calling what this school teaches a "martial art" is a grave disservice to the martial arts. However, it is not my purpose to bad mouth this school, rather I intend to only define martial arts as I see them.

I have discovered that both martial artists and non-martial artists alike consider the martial arts to be little more than punching and kicking techniques. The other day I was walking through the park and I saw a boy of about 8 or 9 punching, kicking, jumping, and screaming. My first thought was that this boy was having a seizure and I took out my cell phone to call for help as I looked around for his parents. Suddenly he noticed me standing there and he stopped and turned to me and said, "Do you like my karate?"

Is that all the martial arts are? If the martial arts are nothing more than punching and kicking then we would have to include the following as martial arts: boxing, kickboxing, Tae Bo and other forms of aerobic kickboxing, kickball, soccer, hacky sack, and other childhood games such as paddy cake and bloody knuckles. I purpose that if all martial arts are is punching and kicking then soccer is a martial art, after all soccer has kicking in it.

What if we increase our definition from just punching and kicking to include throwing, takedown, choking, and joint locking/breaking techniques because many martial arts also use those techniques? Well, then the local high school wrestling team is practicing martial arts. Is a regional high school wrestling tournament really a martial arts tournament?

My personal opinion is that martial arts has very little to do with punching, kicking, throwing, etc. A drug addict who is spastically flailing his arms and legs in the air is not doing martial arts. My belief is that real martial arts are not the physical techniques but the methodologies and tactics that the martial arts employ. For example, which sounds more like martial arts: 1.) some guy just walked up to me and threw a punch at me and he missed so I hit him with a left hook, or 2.) I was being aware of my surroundings and I saw some guy walking towards me in an angry fashion. I put my hands up in a "stay back" fashion and used both my body language and my voice to establish a boundary but he ignored it and he threw a right hook at me. Luckily I was watching the center of his body and I saw his torso and right shoulder move so I knew the punch was coming, and I side stepped it letting it safely pass by me. Then I stepped into a strong forward stance and countered with a left punch and a kiai to his floating ribs.

In the above, what exactly is the "martial arts" aspect? If all the martial arts are is throwing your arms and legs in the air then both 1 and 2 were examples of martial arts because they both included punches. However, I think that the actual martial arts were knowing to be aware of your surroundings, noticing the individual's intent, establishing boundaries with body language and voice, watching the guy's torso and shoulders to see when the punch would come, the tactic of side stepping to avoid the blow, and then the methodology of hitting with proper structure and breathing, and of hitting vulnerable areas of the human body as opposed to just swinging away at general areas. In my book, the martial arts are not really what you do but how you do it.

When I teach a martial arts class I make a distinction between what is and what is not martial arts. If I see someone throwing a sloppy technique I stop them and explain to them that what they did wasn't martial arts. Anyone can throw a punch, but to do it with proper focus, intent, structure, alignment, breathing, and targeting is marital arts.

The other side of my argument is that if you take the term "martial arts" you notice that it has the word "martial" in it and that you're talking about the art of warfare. So, for an art to be a "martial" art it has to be geared for combat or at least applicable to combat or self defense. The way I look at it, the minimum requirements for an art to be an actual martial art is that it MUST teach both defenses for knives and multiple attackers. Why, because knives and multiple attackers are some of the common threats that you face, so if you are planning on walking down the street safely in today's world you'd better know how to deal with them.

Muay Thai is a great form of kickboxing but if a world champion Muay Thai kickboxer was walking down the street and two guys approached him, pulled a knife, and demanded his money he would be screwed. While Muay Thai is a great and very effective form of kickboxing it is only a sport and doesn't teach knife defenses or how to handle multiple attackers.

The same holds true for "MMA" or "mixed martial arts". For as cool as people think it is, it is not a martial art, at least not in my book. MMA, Muay Thai, Wrestling, Pankration, Sumo, Judo, many styles of Ju Jitsu, the majority of Tae Kwon Do, and boxing are not, in my book, martial arts. I do make exception for Kendo, many schools or archery, as well as combat shooting because if we dropped people skilled in those disciplines in a battlefield they may be able to hold their own for a time.

It really gets peoples' dander up when I say that Judo and some styles of Ju Jitsu and Tae Kwon Do are not martial arts and I can understand that because they do use martial art uniforms and belts so the mistake is forgivable.

Judo, it should be mentioned, was never intended to be a martial art. The founder of Judo was very open about the fact that he was creating a sport form of Ju Jitsu , and Judo is considered a sport. While some schools of Judo do teach knife defenses, I've never heard of defending against multiple attackers as part of Judo's curriculum. While I respect Judo and it does have some great self defense moves, such as wrist locks (that they took from Ju Jitsu), I consider Judo on the same level as high school wresting.

Take Judo and compare it to Krav Maga, which has in it's normal curriculum knife defense, gun disarms, multiple attackers, and ground fighting. While I'm not a big fan of Krav Maga, it makes Judo look like ballet.

Today many schools of Ju Jitsu teach nothing but sport martial arts as well. Many people have commented to me that they went to study Brazilian Ju Jitsu but left because the school was doing nothing but preparing them to compete in MMA fights.

Nearly every single Tae Kwon Do school or system that I've come across teaches nothing but punching and kicking. I have found some Tae Kwon Do instructors who do teach knife defenses, usually only to black belts, but they had to learn them from outside their Tae Kwon Do community and then add them to their curriculum. Never once have I found a Tae Kwon Do school that taught defense against multiple attackers as part of their curriculum. Therefore in my opinion, while there might be some instructors out there who do teach Tae Kwon Do as a martial art, Tae Kwon Do in general is not only not a martial art but gives martial arts a bad reputation.

I used to give various self defense seminars throughout Colorado and it would make me sad when I went into a Tae Kwon Do school to teach knife defenses, gun disarms, joint breaking, or fighting on the ground and I would walk in and see 15 or 20 black belts who looked at me like they were starving. I don't think I ever got out of there on time because everyone was pawing at me wanting more. These "black belts" had spent years doing nothing other then punching, kicking, and teaching forms to lower belts that when they had the opportunity to learn something like knife disarms you could almost see their mouths water.

Just like someone who goes to a restaurant and orders filet mignon only to have the waiter bring them burnt toast, they had signed up to learn martial arts only to have their instructor feed them the same punching and kicking techniques every week for years. These poor people had excitedly reached the rank of black belt wondering what great new things they would learn, only to find out that the only thing in store for them is a bunch more forms, maybe a new kick or two, years of teaching colored belts colored belt material, and maybe if they're lucky they get to swing nunchackus around a little. That's why so many people leave awhile after they reach black belt, there's nothing for them to do but show up to class and teach colored belt material.

The particular school that I mentioned in my area is a prime example. They teach a form of Tae Kwon Do that they made up themselves and they teach absolutely nothing other than how to flail your arms and legs in the air. I was asked to sit on the judging panel for one of their black belt testings and I saw black belts who couldn't throw a kick without falling over. I saw people who would spar and be thrown backwards whenever they hit their opponent. No balance, no focus, no being grounded or centered, nothing but swing your arms and legs in the air. I should also mention that everyone passed.

Over the years I worked out with a few of their black belts only to be shocked because I found out that some simple things that I considered to be white belt material were never taught. There was a guy who trained at the school for 3 years, was a black belt, and for the first time he was learning that if someone grabs your wrist you can go against their thumb to pull your hand out. That's self defense 101 and I thought people learned that within their first two belts! Hell, you can go to any women's self defense class and I'll bet that almost every single one teaches that within the first 30 minutes. So why doesn't a black belt with 3 years of training know it?

I know I've run a little long, but if the martial arts are to have any credibility we can't just give out belts to people who can swing their arms and legs in the air. We can't just teach someone a bunch of punches and kicks, give them a black belt, and tell them that they've learned everything they need to know. We can't have all these people walking around with the title "master", "grandmaster", "senior grandmaster", "chief grandmaster", or "eternal grandmaster" (that one still makes me roll my eyes) when all they can do is perform a bunch of punches and kicks. Of course if we raise the standards to what I suggest then 99% of martial arts schools in America would have to close their doors.

I can't blame people for not respecting us, we've done it to ourselves.

On Gun Disarming Techniques

By Matthew Schafer

Copyright 2008, All Rights Reserved

In this article I will talk a little about specific gun disarming techniques. Let me first say that pretty much any disarming technique is fine, the problem with most techniques isn't the techniques themselves but how they're applied. The number one problem with gun disarming as a whole is that everyone just wants to get the gun away from the attacker so you can turn it on them and gain control of the situation; however this is a flawed methodology.

There is a saying in the martial arts/self-defense world that, "you fight the person, not the weapon". This means that if someone attacks you, the problem that you have is not the gun or the knife that they have but their brain and their ability to make conscious decisions. If someone punches you and you block their punch, then you have successfully protected yourself from the punch but you can't stop and rest on your laurels because you still have to deal with the attacker. If someone attacks you with a knife and you disarm him, then you have successfully protected yourself from the knife but you still have an attacker to deal with. In the same way, if someone confronts you with a gun and you take the gun away from them then you have successfully protected yourself from getting shot by the gun but you still have a dangerous predator in front of you to deal with.

The notion that if you take the gun away from your attacker and turn it on them, that they will become fearful and compliant is one that is not sound. Your attacker may become instantly compliant but he may just take his gun back, after all don't think that "good guys" are the only ones who can perform gun disarms (1 out of every 7 police officers who are shot are shot with their own guns). After all, over 90% of the people who are purposely shot (non-accidentally) in their own homes are shot with their own guns. Usually how this happens is that someone wakes up hearing an intruder, gets their gun, and leaves their bedrooms to investigate. They confront their attacker telling him to freeze and threatening to shoot but instead of freezing the intruder simply puts his hands up and says something like, "it's ok, just stay calm" and then walks right over and takes the gun. Most of the criminals that you will encounter are street-smart brawlers and con men that have no problem fighting for a gun.

Something else that might happen is that you take a gun away from a criminal and order him to lay on his stomach only to have him laugh at you. Why? Because you are using his gun and he might know that the gun is not loaded, is not functional (maybe it doesn't have a firing pin), the safety is on and you haven't disengaged it, or maybe the gun is not a real firearm...maybe he attacked you with a toy gun, a water pistol, or a realistic looking Airsoft pistol. You know nothing about the gun you are taking away and you actually don't know if it will function, but your attacker probably does.

You should also take into consideration that when the police arrest an individual and search him or her it is not unusual for that individual to have on their person several guns, several knifes, or several guns and several knives. Many criminals carry multiple weapons and if you take his gun away he might just pull out another and now you're in a gun fight.

Also take into consideration that is it very unlikely that you are an expert in the tactical use of firearms. Sure, if you're a Green Beret you can probably just pick up a random gun and use it but how many of us are Green Berets? It is not logical to expect someone to be able to take a gun away from someone and instantly be able to use it, let alone use it under duress. Do you know where the safeties are one a 1911, M9, .38 special, or a Sig Sauer (some of the most common guns used by criminals)? If you don't and you end up taking one of those guns away from a criminal you may be wondering why it won't fire while your attacker is repeatedly striking you in the face.

Even if you are a Green Beret and you have no problem using a wide variety of weapons it still doesn't mean that you will be able to use your attacker's weapon against him. As stated above you know nothing about your attackers weapon and it very well could have modifications you don't know about (such as extra safeties), be unloaded, non-functional, or a water pistol.

The idea that all you have to do is take the gun away from your attacker, step back, turn the gun on him and be instantly safe is quite unrealistic and extremely dangerous. To go back to the old and true saying that, "you fight the person, not the weapon", the only logical course of action is to not only control the weapon but to also neutralize the attacker at the same time. For example, you might take the gun away and instead of stepping back and pointing it at him, you hold onto the gun in a tight fist (keeping your fingers off the trigger) and you might break his knee with a stomp, collapse his windpipe with a chop, or rupture his testicle with your shin. My preference is to take the gun away and then consider it an impact weapon (a hard blunt object you can use for striking).

What is a better scenario: 1.) someone pulls a gun on you and you execute a perfect gun disarm then step back and point the gun at him yelling, "GET DOWN! LAY DOWN ON YOUR STOMACH!" and then hope that the criminal complies or runs away, that you have the psychological ability to pull the trigger if you need to (most don't), that you have the skill to not only hit your attacker but hit him in an area that stops him (be prepared to shoot him multiple times), and finally hope that the gun fires when you pull the trigger; or, 2.) someone pulls a gun on you and you execute a perfect gun disarm then, while holding onto the gun in a tight fist, you slam the butt of the gun into his temple as you bend your knees, to drop your weight into the strike. The strike either knocks him out or makes him extremely lightheaded by disrupting his blood pressure via attacking his temporal artery, and causes him to fall to the ground and strike his head on the pavement (which could result in unconsciousness, coma, brain damage, or death). Then you run away. Which do you prefer?

Moving on to talking about techniques, as I said above there really isn't a problem with the majority of the techniques out there the problem is how they are used and applied. When it comes to disarming there are a few principles you have to follow and as long as you do then most techniques are fine. One of the main principles that should be observed is called the "push/pull principle" and what this principle means is that during a disarm you should always push on the weapon and never pull on the weapon.

This principle can be demonstrated as follows: get a partner, give them a training gun, have them stand about 4-5 feet away, and then have them point the gun at you. Tell your partner not to move and to maintain a firm grip on the gun. Then grab the gun with both hands, push it to the side so that you are off the line of fire, and then pull on it. There is a good chance that the gun will end up pointing at you. (Note: for these drills I prefer to use a toy gun at fires those rubber suction cup darts. You can find them in any toy store for less than $5.00. I like to use them because it is very obvious if and where you get shot.)

Now do the same thing but this time have your partner pull back on the gun when you pull on it to simulate wrestling for the gun. You'll notice that if you both pull on the gun at the same time what happens is that the gun ends up aligning with the center of your body, right around where your heart is. If the two of you had been wrestling over a real loaded gun and it had gone off you probably would be dead right now.

Try one more thing for me, do the drill again but this time you can do any disarming technique you want, only this time as soon as you touch the gun your partner will take a big step back and pull back on the gun. Did your technique work, or did the gun end up again pointing dead center at your chest? Well, since we live in a universe of physics I can guarantee that the gun did in fact end up pointing right about the same spot as where you keep your heart.

The truth is that if you are attempting to disarm someone and during your technique you pull on the weapon and your opponent resists and pulls on the weapon too you could end up with a bullet in the center of your chest. Now, I'm not saying that a technique that involves pulling on the weapon won't work, because it may work very well, what I am saying is that the technique won't work every time. If you do the technique against a partner who resists you and you do it 100 times you may be able to have it work without incident 98 times, but those other two can ruin your weekend. A lot of techniques "work" but the trick is finding techniques that work all the time.

The other side of this is that if you are the one who has the gun and someone grabs the gun to take it away from you, all you have to do is take a big step back, pull on the weapon so it aligns with the center of their body, and pull the trigger. By simply pulling on the weapon you can almost guarantee that you will get a center shot each time.

I said "almost guarantee" because if your opponent pushes on the gun he can force the gun up against you and no matter how strong you are as a matter of physics you won't be able to force it off. Pushing on the weapon has proven to be extremely effective technique. If you are disarming a gun all you have to do is grab the gun and push on it and keep pushing on it. Either you will end up pinning the gun against them and they won't be able to pull it off, or in resisting they will tense up and/or lose their balance and they will fall. If you keep up with them and keep pushing you can easily end up pinning the gun right underneath their chin and discharge it (assuming that it will fire).

To reintegrate, any disarming technique will more than likely work as long as you push on the gun and don't pull on the gun. If you have a gun and someone is trying to disarm you all you have to do is step back and pull on the gun and it will align dead center.

Now let's look at three of the most common gun disarming techniques that I've seen taught. Two of these techniques come from the Israeli self-defense system known as Krav Maga. I don't know the name of the first technique but I refer to it as the "Krav Maga Special" (KMS).

To perform the KMS you start with someone pointing a gun at you and you 1.) grab the barrel of the gun with one hand and push it to the side as you rotate your body out of the way, 2.) push the gun towards them at an angle which locks their wrist, and then push the gun against them so they cannot operate it, 3.) while holding the gun in place you punch the guy in the face or jaw twice with your other hand, then 4.) use both hands to pull the gun out of their hand and then step back to "safety". You can see this being demonstrated at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZtRmnly_sU and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qekP5aE5py0

People seem to really like this disarm and I see it being widely taught, but unfortunately this technique violates the push/pull principle by making your attacker pull on the weapon. The manner in which the principle is violated is by punching your attacker while holding onto the weapon. If someone pulls a gun on me and I grab and hold onto the gun with one hand and I punch the guy in the face with the other, guess what will happen...I will impart force into my attacker and he, being a bipeds (on two legs), will be forced backwards and he may very well fall to the ground. When he gets knocked backwards or falls, his bodyweight will pull on the weapon and it will end up pointing dead center at my body.

I hate to use the UFC as an example, but what happens when one of the fighters catches a decent punch in the face, especially the jaw? The answer is that the fighter falls down. If your attacker keeps a hold on the weapon while you are knocking him backwards then it is the same as him pulling on the weapon, and you could inadvertently end up causing the weapon to end up pointing at you. Even a light punch can knock you down if it lands on your jaw and falling is a form of pulling. You never, ever hold onto the gun and hit the attacker-that's just asking to get shot.

The second disarm I wanted to address is generally referred to as the "pistol disarm" and although this disarm has been around since the 60’s it is generally credited to Krav Maga despite the fact that Krav Maga has only been in America since 1981. To perform this disarm you simply clear the weapon with one hand as you rotate your body out of the way, then you pull forwards on his wrist to pull him of balance, and then rotate the weapon out of their hands with your other hand. You can see this disarm being preformed by going to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfOtlXs59M0

This disarming technique is not bad but it does violate the push/pull principle by pulling on the weapon. Also it has you disarm the attacker and step back and turn the gun on them, which generally is not a dependable course of action. I teach a version of this technique but I change it by eliminating the step where you pull on the weapon, and instead of stepping back after I have the gun I proceed to cause injuries. The technique I teach looks like this:

Your attacker holds the gun in his right hand and points it at you. You step in with your left foot and rotate your body towards the weapon as you gently clear it with your left hand. You grab his wrist with your left hand and the top of the gun with your right hand, then you move your chest to the gun and pin both the gun and his hand against your chest. Then you step back with your left leg as you turn 180 degrees to the left and drop your weight in a horse stance or half horse stance. This will result in the attacker either being thrown to the ground (usually head first) or bent forewords off balance and the gun is now in your hands. If he’s on his feet you drive your forearm into his throat, and if he is one the ground you stomp on his temple.

This technique not only disarms the attacker but it also doesn’t pull on the weapon and if done at full speed it takes care of the attacker himself by throwing him headfirst into the ground.

This last technique I will quickly discuss is one that is again widely taught but I have not been able to get to work even after hours and hours of trying. I call this the “Jim Wagner Disarm” (JWD) because he is the first guy I saw demonstrate it. If you don’t know who Jim Wagner is don’t feel bad because I wouldn’t trust the guy to boil water.

To do the JWD to step off the line of fire as you grab the hand that holds the gun with both of your hands. Then you step forewords as you slam both the gun and his hands into this face once or twice, then you take the gun and step back.

Again, in this disarm you are holding onto the gun and hitting him which isn’t a good idea but beyond that this technique is defeated by the “startle reflex”. When someone gets startled, like when someone grabs the gun that they’re holding, the natural reaction is to tighten up all their muscles. So, chances are that their arm will be ridged and you won’t be able to hit them in the face.

I’ve tried this for hours with different partners and each time their arm stiffens and I can’t get it to bend so I can hit them in the face with it. I have very little respect for this technique.

I hope this article helped to shed some light on some of the nuances of firearm disarmament, and if anyone has any questions I will be happy to address them