I might be criticized for adhering to some sort of fair fighting
system which obviously isn't much in favor here, but I must completely disagree. I reject this "Anarchist's Cookbook
" notion that "It's either you or him, so you better damn well fight for your life." In most fights, the simple fact is that it's not a matter of life or death
. There will be bystanders
, or some measure of goodness
in your opponent, and frankly, there will be no need for killing, or even crippling your opponent. There are many ways to disable someone without causing any permanent physical harm.
I cringe somewhat when I hear people speak casually and technically about which bones to break, and how to best maim another person. I do not wish to draw conclusions, but I can only assume that, judging from society as a whole, most of the people who espouse these techniques have never been forced to employ them. I do not wish to give off the impression that I am some pacifist wimp who believes that all violence is inexcusable and would gladly turn the other cheek... In fact, I myself have been practicing martial arts for three years. But the fact is that if presented with a dangerous situation, my first intention would be to end the fight as quickly as possible with a minimum of permanent physical damage.
It's not even a matter of fair fighting, whatever that means (in taekwondo, my sparring opponents often yell at me for blocking with my knee... it's painful to them, but effective and not against the rules). It's merely a matter of pragmatism. Do you really want to kill someone? Murder is a big thing, legally, emotionally, and otherwise.
That is not to say that there will not be certain situations in which one's own life will be at stake; this is undoubtedly true. However, to approach every physical encounter in one's life in this manner is both vain and can only do more harm than good.