Teaching university students self-defense at gun-point: A laboratory study on chances of injuries

Transcription

1 Teaching university students self-defense at gun-point: A laboratory study on chances of injuries Cheng Wang, Associate Professor Xi-an Northwest Polytechnic University Gong Chen, Ed.D. San Jose State University 1

2 Abstract The purpose of this research was to investigate the risk level of injuries when fightingback against armed-with-gun attackers in a laboratory situation. It is expected that the results will add critical knowledge to self-defense instruction, and provide self-defense instructors research-based data for more scientific instruction in self-defense. Subjects were 267 university students in self-defense classes. The results indicated that fighting-back when the gun is pressed against defender's body is very dangerous for both male and female defenders. The chance of injury is about 58% either facing a male or female attacker. Furthermore, fighting-back when the gun is 2-3 yards away is extremely dangerous. The chance to be shot is about 95%. The chance of survival is very situational and individualized, depending on the shooter and the defender. The result suggests that defenders do not fight back at gun-point especially 2-3 yard distance unless they have no choice. A trial for each self-defender is also recommended to find out their individual chance of injury to help them understand their capacity. 2

3 Introduction Guns are widely used by criminals in violent crimes in the United States. About 29% of the violent crimes were involved in the usage of guns, and this resulted in 1.3 million Americans facing the gun-point during robberies, burglaries, assaults, rapes, and murders annually (Bureau, 2003). Since a large percentage of the violent crimes involved in the usage of guns, teaching students self-defense at gun-point should be a major and critical part of the self-defense curriculum, and quality instruction of self-defense has significant implications to the lives of millions of university students at campuses and in their workplaces. Fighting-back at gunpoint is a major part of self-defense (Chen, 2004). However, although different fighting-back skills have been taught in different classes in nationwide self-defense courses (Chen, 1998) and in selfdefense textbooks (An, 1994) as well as in martial arts (Du, 1988), and Police training (Steiner, 1986), there is no study on chances of injuries using these skills or on the effectiveness of these skills. In another word, self-defense instructors and textbook authors across the nation are teaching people fighting-back skills at gun-point without any research to support their theories and instruction and instructors do not exactly know what the danger will be when fighting back at gun-point, while students are taught to use skills in life or death situations without knowing how effective these skills are and how much chance they have to survive or to be shot (Chen, 2004). Teaching students self-defense at gun-point concerns the lives of millions of people annually and research on this topic is absolutely critical and urgent. The purpose of this research was to investigate the risk level of injuries when students fight back against armed-with-gun attackers in a laboratory situation. It is expected that the results will add new and critical knowledge to self-defense instruction, and provide self-defense instructors research-based data for more scientific instruction in self-defense to benefit millions of people. The identified risk level will help students make right decisions on if they should fight back or adopt other self-defense strategies. 3

4 Method The subjects were totally 267 male and female students in university self-defense classes. These students had about 20 hours training in different self-defense skills. The document analysis technique was used to analyze the records of classroom assignments. These subjects participated in three experiments in the classroom assignments as a normal procedure of regular self-defense classes: fighting-back barehanded when the gun was pressed at back (174 subjects), fighting-back barehanded when the gun was pressed at head (67 subjects), and fighting-back barehanded in 2-3 meters (26 subjects). The subjects were overlapped and some subjects participated in both experiments. The water-gun which imitates the handgun was used as the weapon for the attacking weapon for attacker in the experiment. These water-guns could be purchased at Rite Aid stores. All subjects learned and practiced different self-defense skills for 20 hours since the beginning of the semester. The skills they learned include distance fighting, close fighting, throws, floor fight, joint control, knife-handling and gun-handling, and different releasing skills. Then subjects were randomly paired up and performed as the shooter and defender. In the first experiment (gun pointed at back) the trial started with the shooter pressing the water-gun against the skin of the back of the defender. The defender then suddenly used the practiced techniques to fight back by moving the body to avoid the shooting and put the gun-arm under control. The shooter started shooting at the defender and kept shooting as soon as the defender made the first fighting-back move until the defender was shot or the gun-arm of the shooter was under control by the defender. The first trial then was over, both shooter and defender stopped and checked the wet spot on the defender's clothes to record where he was shot as the index of injury part. If the defender put the attacker under control, then recorded as the defender Escaped, and the percentages of injuries on different body parts were also calculated. Two categories were used to indicate the degree of injuries. Shots on head/neck, chest/upper-back, and belly/low-back were recorded as Severe Injury while shots on hip/leg/feet and arm/shoulder/hand were recorded 4

5 as Non-severe Injury. Each shooter tried 10 times by repeating the same procedure as the first trial. Then the attacker and defender switched their roles and conducted 10 trials again. The second experiment (gun pointed at head) followed the same procedure except the attacker pointed the gun at defender's head. The third experiment (gun was 2-3 yard away). The attacker pointed gun at defender in a distance of 2-3 yeard. The defender started fighting back using any skills learned in the class. The attacker started shoorting as soon as the defender started the first self-defense move. The defenders and attackers were both instructed not to try any dangerous movements which may result in injuries and stopped when there was a chance of injuries. The assignment was conducted for several semester without any injuries. This research was done in the lab situation in order to provide a basic idea about the chance of injury when subjects fighting back at gun-point instead in the real life-threatening situations, therefore it has some limitations. For example, the force used in the experiment can not be as violent as in the real situations. Therefore, the chance of injury based on the results of this study probably will be different in real life situations. Furthermore, the experiment tried to avoid any potential injuries, therefore, some skills (such as strike the groin or face or knee, or bite) can not be used in the experiment and that has some impact on the applications of the results in real situations. The percentage of shots during the 10 trials was used to describe the risk of injuries. The Z Test for Comparison of Two Proportions (Bloomer & Forsyth, 1977) was also used in the study to compare males and females, and between distance and close fighting-back. Subjects' general chance of injury when a gun was pressed at the body Table 1 indicated the general results of the chance of injury when the defenders fighting back as the attackers were pressing the gun against the defenders' back. About 58% of the chance the defenders were shot and 42% of the time the defenders were able to put the shooters under control without injuries. About 71% of chance the defender will suffer severe injuries (shots on the head, chest/upper-back, and belly/low-back) and about 29% of the chance the 5

6 defender will be shot on arm/hand/shoulder and hip/leg/feet which is not considered as severe injuries. However, although shots on arms and legs are not life-threatening in the first place, the defender will lose some ability to continuously fighting back or running away and thus may be shot more after they are injured. Place Table 1 about here The percentage was obtained when the shooters shot the defenders every time when defenders fighting back. If the shooters do not fire every time, then the chance of injuries should be less. Comparison of male and female subjects' general chance of injury when a gun pointing to the body Table 2 indicated that there was no significant difference between males (58.6%) and females (57%) as the defenders fighting back when the attackers pointing the gun at the defenders' back. The chance of severe injuries (shots on head, belly, chest) for males will be about 75% and for females will be 68%. There was a significant difference between male and female defenders on the chance of severe injuries with male defenders having higher risk of severe injuries. Place Table 2 about here This results indicated that fighting back at gun-point barehanded is very dangerous no matter the defenders are male or female. The chance of being shot, however, will be reduced if the shooter will not shoot every time in real self-defense situations. Percentages of subjects who were shot from one to ten times out of ten trials 6

7 Table 1 and 2 indicated the general chances of injuries for the combined, male, and female subjects. However, the chances of injuries were very individualized. Some subjects were shot every time they fought back while some put the shooter under control every time. Table 3 indicated the percentages of subjects who were shot from one to ten times out of ten trials for each defender. Most defenders were shot more than four times no matter the defenders were males or females. Place Table 3 about here Chances to be shot by male attackers Since most attackers in real life are males (Conklin, 1989), it is necessary to identify the chances of injuries when fighting back against male shooters. Table 4 indicated the chances of injuries when defenders of different groups (males, females, and combination). The chance of injuries when attacked at gun-point by males was similar to the percentage when attacked by combined male and female shooter group. Both female (59.5%) and male (60.4%) defenders had the similar general chances of injuries when the attacker were males. Place Table 4 about here The actual chance of severe injuries for male defenders was about 77% and for female defenders was about 68%. However, this difference failed to make statistically significant level. This means that when attacked by male attackers at gun-point, both male and female defender would have the similar chance of severe injuries. Chance to be shot in the distance of 2-3 meters 7

8 To examine the effects of distance on the chance of injuries, 26 subjects experienced fighting back at gun-point when the shooter was 2-3 meters away. The defender could use any self-defense skills they learned to fight back. As soon as the defender started the first move the shooter began to shoot until the defender was shot or the attacker was under control. The results of this experiment in Table 5 indicated that about 95% of the time the defenders were shot and the chance to put attacker under control was only about 5%. About 60% of the time the defenders were shot on the vital parts of the body. Place Table 5 about here This result indicated that it is not a good chance to fight back at gun-point when the shooter is 2-3 meters away from the defender. Two to three yards away is too far to fight because it is out of the reach of the defender but gives the attackers more time to react the defender's movement. The defender had more chance of survival when the gun-point was touching their body since the defender can reach the gun easily and gives the attacker less time to respond. When the shooter was 2-3 yards away, the defender was shot more on the chest/upperback and arm/shoulder than the shooter was closer. There was no significant difference on other body parts. Chances of gun pointed at head and at back To examine the effects gun's position on the chance of injuries, 67 subjects experienced fighting back at gun-point when the shooter pressed gun at the head. The defender could use joint control or other skills they learned to fight back. As soon as the defender started the first move the shooter began to shoot until the defender was shot or the attacker was under control. Although the results of this experiment in Table 6 indicated that about 61% of the time the defenders were shot and the chance to put attacker under control was only about 39%. There 8

9 was no significant difference between the gun at head and the gun at low-back. About 76% of the time the defenders were shot on the vital parts of the body. But there was no difference between the gun at head and the gun at low-back on the chance of severe injuries. Place Table 6 about here This result indicated that fighting-back at gun pointing to the head and gun pointing to the low-back is equally dangerous. In both situations, the defenders were shot about 60% of the time, and the severe injuries were about 70% of the time. Conclusion 1. Fighting back at close gun-point (the gun presses against the back) is dangerous. The chance to be shot when fighting back at gun-point is very high for both male and female defenders if the shooter shoots every time. The chance of injury is about 58% and the chance to escape is about 42%. Facing a male or female attacker at gun-point has similar chance of injuries. 2. Fighting back at gun-point when the gun points to the chest from two to three yards away is extremely dangerous. The chance to be shot when fighting back at gun-point at this distance is about 95% and the chance to escape at this distance is only about 5%. The result suggests that defenders do not fight back at this distance. If the defender has to fight back at the gun-point, it is much safer to do it when the gun is close to the defender than the gun is 2-3 yards away. 3. Both male and females defenders have equal chances to be injured when fighting back at gun-point. They also have equal chances of injury when they are attacked by male attackers. 4. It is equally dangerous when fighting back gun-point when the gun is pointed to the head and the back. The chance of severe injuries for the defenders are similar in both situations. 9

10 5. Even most defenders are shot more than twice out of ten trials, the chance of survival is very situational and individualized, depending on the shooter and the defender. A trial for each self-defender is recommended to find out their individual chance of injury to help them know about their capacity. To those defenders who were shot every time or most of the time, fighting back probably is not a good strategy for them and other strategies which fit into their individual capacities should be adopted. 10

11 Reference An, Z. (1994). Self-defense. Beijing Physical education University Publisher, China: Beijing. Bloomer, P.J., & Florsyth, R.A. (1977). Elementary statistical methods in psychology and education. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2003). Criminal Victimization in the United States. MD: Annapolis Junction. Chen, G. (2004). A comprehensive guide to self-defense. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Iowa. Chen, G. (1998). A study on subjects taught in nationwide university self-defense courses. Journal of International Council of Health, Physical Education, Recreation-Sport and Dance XXXV(1) Conklin, J. E. (1999). Criminology (4rd ed). Macmillan Publishing Company: New York. Du, Z., & Du. Z. (1988). Joint locks and counters. Beijing Physical education University Publisher, China: Beijing. Pickering, M. G.V. (1979). A woman's self-defense Manual. World Publications, Inc. CA: Moutainview. Steiner, B. J. (1986). No second chance. Paladin Press, CO: Boulder. 11

12 Table 1. Defenders' (combined males and females) general chance to be shot by attackers (combined males and females) Number of trials Percentage Total shots % Escaped % Shot % Injured body part Severe injuries % z=6.33 p<.01 Non-severe injuries % z=12.4 p<.01 12

13 Table 2. Defenders' chance to be shot--comparison of male and female defenders Male defender Females defender Number Number of trials Percentage of trials Percentage p-value Total shots % % Escaped % % Shot % % z=0.67 p>.05 Severe injuries Non-severe injury % % z=2.33 p< % % 13

14 Table 3.* Percentages of defenders who were shot from one to ten times out of ten trials Combination Female Male times of shot # of subjects # of # of out of 10 shot (n=174) % subjects % subjects % % 5 4.9% 1 1.4% % 1 1.0% 0 0.0% % 5 4.9% 7 9.9% % 7 6.8% 4 5.6% % % % % % % % % 6 8.5% % % % % % 7 9.9% % % % % 8 7.8% 6 8.5% *There was no significant difference between males and females. 14

15 Table 4. Chances to be shot by male attackers Males defender Females defender Combined defender n=52 n=22 n=74 # % # % # % Total shots % % % Escaped % % % Shot % % % Severe injuries Non-severe injuries z=0.18 p> % % % z=0.16 p> % % % 15

16 Table 5. Comparison of chances to be shot in the distance of 2-3 meters and gun pointing at the body 2-3 yards pointing at the body n=26 n=174 Number Percentage Number Percentage p-value Total shots % % Escaped % % Shot % % z=12.6 p<.01 Severe injuries % % z=1.18 p>.05 Non-severe injuries % % 16

17 Table 6. Comparison of chances to be shot when the gun is pressed at low-back and at the head Pointed at the head Pointed at the body n=67 n=174 Number Percentage Number Percentage p-value Total shots % % Escaped % % Shot % % z=1.17 p>.05 Severe injuries % % z=1.67 p>.05 Non-severe injuries % % 17