Being armed - or even learning self-defense - increases the chance you'll be harmed

For the most part, and for most people - there are exceptions.

My thinking is that people who are armed or who know self-defense are emboldened to be more confrontational and less likely to back away from potentially violent situations. As a result, they are more likely to be harmed if their weapons and/or training aren’t enough to deal with a particular situation or their luck simply runs out.

The exceptions would be people who are already in situations where they are likely to be victims of violence and/or where backing off is not much of an option. For example, LEOs, security guards, and perhaps even people who live in extremely dangerous environments to some extent.

It would be interesting to know if there have been any studies which would prove this one way or the other. But I think it would be very difficult to assess this, since the people who are armed and/or trained are probably the same type who are predisposed to be more aggressive to begin with.

I don’t know about any studies, but I remember when I took karate years ago (back in the early 80s).

A few of us in the class moved up to green belt (which really isn’t that high).

Anyway–I remember the instructor told us something to the effect of, “You’ve learned just enough to get your asses kicked.”

Probably not the case for women. Here’s an excerpt from a report on the results of women’s self-defence training … I suspect they were pro-self-defence-classes going in to their research, so it may have bias, but these are decent scientific results anyway:

“Similar positive findings also emerged from an internationally hailed research study
involving nearly 900 women from three Canadian universities (Senn et al., 2015).
Half of the women were randomly selected to undertake a 12-hour resistance and
self defence programme, while the control group received only brochures offering
prevention advice. The research found that, one year later, the incidence of reported
rape among women who took the programme (5.2%) was just under half that of the
women in the control group (9.8%), while the gap in incidents of attempted rape was
even wider. These outcomes demonstrate that as well as improving confidence and
self esteem, a robust self defence programme can reduce rates of sexual
victimisation.”

I imagine the relevant factors are quite different for men, and won’t speculate there. But women are very unlikely to start physical fights - self-defence course or not - so for women, that factor is not very relevant. I’m not in favour of high gun ownership either - I know that people with guns in their house have higher rates of fatal accidents and suicides - but I imagine the stats there are highly gendered too

I’ve read that two things many self-defense classes fail to account for is:

  1. The element of surprise (in the classroom, you’re going up against an instructor who won’t sneak up on you from behind, and who won’t do anything that’ll really surprise you), and

  2. The lack of true brutal force. An instructor, obviously, cannot use realistically violent force, the kind that would cause serious injury - that’s a recipe for getting sued and going to prison. But a real-life assailant sure ain’t going to hold back.

The consequence of 1# was that many women, despite having taken extensive self-defense training, still completely froze and forget everything in shock when they were actually attacked in real life, because it was a surprise attack and they had never trained for surprise.

You forgot a third one: conflict avoidance, which includes anything from thinking about how to avoid dangerous situations to relying on conflict deescalation once you’re in an argument or confrontation.

What?! How did your sensei expect you to beat those bullies over at Cobra Kai with that attitude?!

From my own experience, I think learning self defense helps you know your strengths and limitations. That, in turn, allows you to approach situations confidently so you don’t project weakness and invite aggression.

I haven’t read the rest of this thread. But I just have to say that my many yrs of martial art training has made me never ever want to get into a fight. Too much shit can go wrong, no matter how experienced you are, that would lead to serious injury of either/all participants. And in my experience, it’s the un/barely educated, in/ barely experienced ppl that are itching for fights. Also age has a huge impact on this as well.

However, there is also definitely a subset of well trained ppl that are only there because they want to hurt ppl. They don’t give a shit about the chess match or the movement or there physical feats. They are there to crush skulls and that. Is. It. And the relish the day when they can do so legally. Either in the ring or in the streets. Those guys (yes, almost always guys) do not care about getting hurt.

Most people who get training don’t take “many years of martial arts training”-they take a self defense course or two.

Do you have a cite for the martial arts piece? Color me skeptical.

Being armed is more dangerous has been “common” knowledge for a long time. Kyle Rittenhouse is a prime example. If he wasn’t armed, odds are really high he would not have gone to Kenosha. Kinky Friedman also subscribes to the being armed theory. I know i’ve seen multiple studies but too lazy to look this up for the OP.

Agree that they can be dangerous to themselves or anyone.

Jesus fucking Christ 68 of 900 women got RAPED in the one year after they participated in this study?? (And more were assaulted) I know 20% of American women have experienced rape but seeing rape stats in a sort of random population and timeframe like this is jarring. Ugh.

Carry on. With sadness.

Good point. It’s so easy to get desensitised to this sort of stuff when it’s just numbers on a page…

I think this is a really pretty good answer, if you lift weights, go running, for exercise, it gives you a pretty good idea of where you’re at, people who don’t regularly engage in certain behaviors don’t really know where they stand. And their overconfidence often leads to a bad outcome.

For hubs and I, being armed forces us to actively avoid confrontation or iffy situations. Much of the time spent in self defense and CCW classes are instructing us how and why we want to NOT have to use deadly force.

The very best defense is to not be in a situation where you need to use it.

Of course, hubs and I are sane and tend to pick instructors and friends who are also sane. Insane folks don’t really do that so much, so end up driving across state lines to kill strangers who looked different than them.

Yeah, those stats were a bit depressing.

The phenomenon the OP is describing is risk compensation.

I feel like that 1 in 5 number sounds high. And this article by Time magazine also describes how those numbers might be a bit overstated:

The flip side of those numbers is that there are a lot of rapey men out there. Which is also depressing.

Aspidistra,

Probably not the case for women. Here’s an excerpt from a report on the results of women’s self-defence training … I suspect they were pro-self-defence-classes going in to their research, so it may have bias, but these are decent scientific results anyway:

I don’t think that report is about “self-defense” in the sense that I’m referring to here. I was thinking more of martial arts type self-defense. From that report, the course largely covers how to:

“recognise sexual and family violence and abuse;
understand that it is not okay (and not their fault);
learn clear strategies for recognising, resisting and responding to specific violent/abusive events, disclosing abuse and seeking help, supporting other people who are victims of violence and abuse; and
feel empowered and have their self-esteem enhanced”

There’s some about fighting too, but that’s not the bulk of it, it would seem, so it’s a completely different dynamic. FWIW, based on these skills, I would guess the bulk of the success at reducing rape and abuse is about date-rape type situations, where these types of skills (assertiveness etc.) are more of a factor.

Little_Nemo

The phenomenon the OP is describing is risk compensation

That’s completely true. I was aware of the general concept of risk compensation, but for some reason did not realize that the OP was just an example of that. Thanks.

I remember the first time I was old enough to get into a bar and watching a few good barfights. That was enough to take the allure of being a macho guy out of it for me. I hate bullies and generally have a don’t take shit from people attitude, but those experiences made me realize it’s important to know when to fold 'em and talk your way out of problems. Better yet, see trouble brewing before it unfolds and stay the fuck away.

No. Any training worth anything will mention the lack of predictability of a violent encounter, as noted upthread. It will also emphasize the high legal liability, financial hardship, and medical risk from even a successful use of justified force.

Accordingly, such training emphasizes avoidance of times, areas, and people more likely to result in encountering a potential act of violence. ‘Avoiding stupid people, doing stupid things, at stupid hours of the day, in stupid places.’

Further, it will emphasize the need for maintaining situational awareness of potential threats, and recognizing actions and actors that may constitute future threats. It will mention deescalation techniques when the above fail. The commentator and expert witness on deadly force, Massad Ayoob, mentions in one of his books, having a sacrificial wallet and roll of bills, to use to distract or buy off an aggressor(s). Buying a drink may work, as well as other signs indicating a nonconfrontational mien.

Failing all of that, it may indeed be necessary to use force to stop an imminent threat of deadly injury or serious bodily harm.