Talk:Self-defense

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Self-defense article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Martial arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Martial arts. Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article. If you think something is missing, please help us improve them!Martial artsWikipedia:WikiProject Martial artsTemplate:WikiProject Martial artsMartial arts articles

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Other usages

Some martial arts (such as Kempo)teach these predefined sequence of moves. For example, when an assalent punches with his right hand, the martial artist has to block with their left hand, step back, with there left arm grab their right hand, stepforward, punch them in the gut, elbow them in the face....etc and the sequence of moves continues based on the assumption that the assalent doesn't fight back. I believe the general name for this is called "self defense", or something simmilar. For this "self defense" I believe an appropriate definition would be: "a predefined order of moves a person is taught to use when attacked in a very particular way". In the United Studio's of Self Defense (http://www.ussd.com/a/) they teach what they call DM-x (where x is a number such as DM-6) and these are particular "self defenses". Please note that this type of self defense I'm talking about does not work in a real sittuation, and only works in martial art classes where the assalents are instructed not to fight back. For the record I'd just like to say that United Studio's of Self Defense is a load of crap and that it's not designed for real life situation.--artist 09:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Self-defense

Should this page not be called Self-defense (with hyphen)? I cannot move it myself because the other page is a redirect. --nirvana2013 09:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This entire article is not an encyclopedic entry about the term self-defense, but rather an incoherent musing on the nature of what constitutes self-defense. If wiki is supposed to be like an encyclopedia rather than a blog or editorial the wording of this article needs to be substantially changed.

Copy-edit required

The art of self defense is to where a person is able to fend off an opposing threat to themself or other people.

This sentence deleted and pasted here for possible revision.--TJ 10:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC) $Insertformulahere$ the person is allowed to do what ever he needs to do — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.163.209.189 (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National Self Defense

I attempted to edit the National Self Defense section by adding that a pre-emptive strike is also a form of self defense. After an hour of discussing it with "Nlu" (who deleted my addition) he told me to take my position here. If it is agreed here, then it will go back into the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MasterOfOrion37 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I removed it because I believe that stating that it is a form of self-defense is POV. People are welcome to chime in. --Nlu (talk)

This article is decidedly non-encyclopedic

It contains far too many opinions and non-sourced facts. While I don't mean to be rude I move that this article be rewritten to conform to Wikipedia's article standards.

I agree... I'd help if i knew anything about martial arts or Wikipedia... 218.215.140.166 18:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Alarms

I don't think "personal alarms" should be included on this page. Self defense by its implication would encompass active measures, not passive. Otherwise we should include sections on "looking both ways before street crossing" or "moving to better neighborhoods" as examples of passive self defense. Merriam-Webster [1] defines self defense thusly: "1 : a plea of justification for the use of force or for homicide 2 : the act of defending oneself, one's property, or a close relative"

So "passive self defense" as embodied by including "personal alarms" would seem to be oxymoronic. Such items are mainly signaling devices, not weapons.

Also, "Pepper spray and personal tasers are other personal alarm options that can be used in self-defense in a less passive way, but they are meant as deterrant and emergency measures rather than assault items." (links omited) is self contradictory. A taser or can of pepper spray is not an alarm device & in fact are intended for assault &/or battery (in the pragmatic sense of the terms, not necessarily the legal ones). Mention of pepper spray & tasers should be included under the armed self defense heading, minus the description as "personal alarm options". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miketgtr71 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Made Some Changes

- I rewrote the definition of "self-defense".
- Changed "Forms of Self-Defense" to "Physical Self-Defense" seeing as self-defense isn't always physical, though the article only lists physical forms.
- Added "Other Forms of Self-Defense" for the sake of organization.

MastaFighta (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added Some Non-Physical Methods

I agree with MastaFighta that there is physical and non-physical methods. I have just added Awareness, Flight, and De-escalation to the "other forms of self-defense" section. Wsd4life (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted text

This text was deleted:

Unarmed

Many styles of martial arts, usually Asian styles, such as Jujutsu, Karate, Taekwondo,Wushu and Ninjitsu are practiced for self-defense. Some styles train almost exclusively for self-defense (Wing Chun, Krav Maga), putting emphasis on the bodies' weakest pressure-points ^[1]. Others still, are practiced for other reasons and not intended for self-defense at all (eg Tai-Chi, Tae Bo). However, some martial arts that are practiced primarily for sport, such as boxing or judo can be effectively applied for self-defense.

A rewrite can be done and info should be re-inserted; pressure point technique is of vital importance for non-lethal takedowns of attackers and is thus vital in self-defence (not everyone wishes to kill his attacker even in a self-defence situation) Other useful styles are: World War II combatives, Judo and Jiu-Jitsu, many Kung Fu styles, Jeet Kune Do, the Filipino and Indonesian martial arts (Kali, Silat, and the like). Also, some forms of Japanese and Korean striking arts (not Karate and Tae Kwon Do). -->info from the martialist booklet (see http://www.philelmore.com/download-beamartialist/Be_A_Martialist.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.161.76 (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also include info on atemi-waza, see http://www.scribd.com/doc/97777/Self-Defence-Pressure-Points, which is also focused on pressure point attacks. Finally, mention the staff and another non-lethal weapon (2 small sticks) which is used in the phillipines (saw on national geographic doc; see above). These are also useful with pressure point attacks I believe, like the tonfa—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.196.110 (talk • contribs)

I removed the bit about specific arts, there are hundreds that could be listed so better to just list martial arts generically.

(Atemi-wasa is not 'pressure points' but vulnerable points/areas) ones, using pp in self defence is contentious, & fight-science is not a reliable source, there was extensive criticisms of the methods. Mentioning staffs & batons as less lethal when the main idea is blunt for trauma seems odd, also do people walk down the road carring a 6 foot stick in-case? --Nate 14 81 17:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe then a seperate article may be made called "Non-lethal takedown"? Article could list stun guns, plastic baton rounds and new weapons such as FN303, the non-lethal launcher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.244.200.179 (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also didn't mention the tonfa and yawara as non-lethal weapons. These too are useful and may be inserted into this article or the proposed one. Finally, other Less-lethal weapon/non-lethal weapons as Flexible baton round weapons, the sonic weapons and High Power Microwave weapons may be useful and can be included. See the Directed-energy_weapon and Less-lethal_weapons. Also include weapons as the XREP and regular Electroshock weapons. Weapons as the XREP allow long range stunning; without requiring any wires. Also include the dart gun/needler (which fires tranquilizer syringes, sedating the target). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.161.76 (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia can not be trusted because people can do what i just did. i edited this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.163.209.189 (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ National Geographic's documentary on self-defense

Pressure point attacks

Perhaps a small paragraph can be written on pressure point attacks (eg with yawara) and other similar attacks such as the Peroneal_strike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.161.76 (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then, for your consideration:

Some martial arts styles are practiced specifically for self-defense purposes. Notable examples include such systems as Aikido, Krav Maga, and Hapkido. Each of these place a special emphasis on joint- and pressure point-manipulation due to the lower likelihood of causing severe injury (and therefore causing an inquiry into whether or not such force was justified). This is comparable to Peace Officers using Tasers or pepper spray rather than their sidearms against resisting perpetrators or crowds. Some less-lethal weapons also exist for the purpose of attacking these points, most notably the Kubaton. Kijou (talk) 05:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A while a go I removed any reference to specific marital arts, as the effectiveness of any particular system can be debated (I can think of dozens whoe would say Akidido is the worst system for self defence, while being an interesting martial art. Also it acts as a nexus for spam links. We need to source anthing inply a spesific art is good for self defence. Their is an article on pressure point and the yawara and this should be disscused. --Nate 14 81 11:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wording was specifically chosen to not imply that any of those systems are "effective." The paragraph only says that they are "notable examples." As for sources, I included none because the paragraph I wrote is here for consideration, not to be a final product :) . Although, with all that said, if articles on pressure points and less-lethal hand weapons already exist, then it would probably be easiest to insert a brief comment about them in the section under "Physical" and provide links there and in the "see also" section. Kijou (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The context of Self Defense in Law

I would like to see a legal bit about what is lawful and unlawful self defense. A single act can be interpreted differently. One example my teacher uses is someone attacks you, you knock them out but are afraid they will give chase. Should you kick them in the side while they're down to further incapacitate them or just run away? If it was a healthy young woman, the prosecution may not be so forgiving but if it was an 80 year old, frail lady, I think the juror would be a little more sympathetic. That kind of thing. My teacher also says that you cannot (legally) inflict bodily harm to protect property and I noticed the article mentions defending property. (This changes if, for example, someone is trying to steal your car and your baby is in the backseat, in other words: human life is at stake.) That line about property could get someone in trouble if they read this article and think it's okay to beat up someone stealing the radio out of their car. I suggest it be removed or changed. Quietmartialartist (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giving a simple answer to this question, unfortunately, is impossible. Different jurisdictions have radically different self defense law. In one you might be able to shoot a thief in defense of your property, while in another you might face charges even after defending your life unarmed. It may be impossible for an encyclopedia to give any specifics. Elmo iscariot (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While it may be difficult for an encyclopedic review of all the different laws, especially as they are subject to change, the article as-is misleadingly suggests that self defense IS a legal defense in general; this is not the case even in all western countries with a common legal heritage. To understand the difficulty, this article http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome might be helpful. It discusses evolution of the laws pertaining to gun control and self defense in general in Britain. At the very least, the article should acknowledge the very diverse reaction to the concept and practice of self-defense around the world, or state explicitly the article's contextual focus is just the USA. UC232 (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Defending others

The article starts out

"Self-defense (or self-defence; see spelling differences) is a countermeasure that involves defending oneself, one's property or the well-being of another from physical harm."

and cites dictionary.com for reference. However, dictionary.com does not mention the defense of others. Either we need another source, or the defense of others should be removed from the article.

I noticed this too. It should be either sourced or removed. 75.71.20.179 (talk) 05:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an advice column?

WTF is this sentence for?

"Keep in mind, if you are knowledgeable enough, you should have the common sense to keep something simple on you, like a key, or anything else that you can legally stuff in your pocket and hold onto just in case." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.110.174.128 (talk) 12:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not encyclopedic information. Removed. --bonadea contributions talk 13:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original RBSD page

Can anyone tell me what happened to the original Wiki article/page for RBSD? It seems someone has deleted the whole page and just dumped a footnote in this page instead (probably a MMA or Bullshido fanatic if previous experience is anything to go by). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.72.19 (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Armed

Hey all...

Just wanted to put in my two cents on something in the ==Armed== section:

"Everyday objects, such as baseball bats or aerosol spray cans, can also be used as improvised weapons for self-defense, but are not likely to be as effective as purpose built weapons. Some non-lethal weapons as the Kubotan have also been built to resemble everyday objects, such as keychains.[3]"

"[...] but are not likely to be as effective as purpose built weapons." This is POV. A pencil in the eye will do more damage than a baseball bat that misses.

"Some non-lethal weapons [...]" There's no such thing. The proper term is "less-lethal," since weapons that have been designed to subdue have killed (as have unarmed applications).

Much of this article seems to be unnecessary, relates POV, and seems to advertise certain methods of self-defence (for instance, the efficacy of any martial art for the purpose of self-defence is speculation).

There ya go, my two cents. Worth every penny. BestDef (talk) 07:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling defense/defence

I think it's confusing that two different spellings defense (AE) and defence (BE) are used in this article. I'd recommend to use only one - and mention the other possible spelling at the beginning of the article.

Edit: Was my suggestion, created an account now to follow this. Likfornu (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted some changes made recently and added a link to spelling differences.TMCk (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Likfornu (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is wrong to claim defence is British' spelling. This is the spelling used in most parts of the world speaking English.

Differences from combat sports and formal martial arts

Some edits I recently made to the John Havan article ([2]) caused me to look at this one, and to wonder whether it ought to have a section about self defense vs. combat sport/martial arts. Havan describes those as "play fighting ... a contract between two opponents who were bound by stringent rules and regulations not to cripple or kill each other", saying, "Essentially, [they are contests] between two evenly matched people using the same techniques, and the fittest and fastest would win." He contrasts this with "real fighting", which he describes as a contest for domination, saying "The winner could take what he wanted from the looser, including his life, and this would be done through crippling or killing."^[1]

Any thoughts?

References

^ Havan, John (2006). Self Defense. Booklore Publishing Corp. pp. 33–34. ISBN 971-817-111-8. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Why is crossbow under armed self defense?

It seems like an uncommon method of self-defense, where most would probably use a gun instead. Goose121 (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sport

What is sport? 196.189.147.249 (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] National Geographic's documentary on self-defense

[2] Havan, John (2006). Self Defense. Booklore Publishing Corp. pp. 33–34. ISBN 971-817-111-8. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

[1]

[1]