On Killing and Eye Gouging

By Brent L. Anderson

The books “On Killing and On Combat” By Lt. Col. Dave Grossman have much to offer combat and self-defense instructors. Whether you are a martial arts instructor, a practical shooting instructor or a tactical instructor for law enforcement and/or military you will gain practical insights into the human psyche and better be able to train those under your commission.

I would like to acknowledge this article was inspired by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman’s research. When I read On Killing and On Combat for a second time I took notes and made written observations as I digested the information. Those notes led to this article. If you are a serious combat instructor – read these books! I might add that Lt. Col. Grossman read this article and gave it a thumbs up, or a, Hooah! as he likes to say.

***

Grossman spells out the fact “… the average man will not kill even at the risk of all he holds dear…” and the evidence for this has “…been largely ignored by those who attempt to understand the psychological and sociological pressures of the battlefield.”

This key understanding is important because self-defense instructors who rely strictly on traditional drilling of self-defenses in the classroom environment are missing half the equation of self-defense training. Yes “drill” is effective and necessary for learning techniques. Students practice moves over and over until they are spontaneous and without thought. Smooth, reflexive action is stage one of any combat training. However, taking what Grossman and others have learned from studying actual combat, this method of training is the equivalent of pre-Vietnam Military training of firing rifles at stationary targets in preparation for combat.

If you watch the finely choreographed You Tube videos of martial arts classrooms and compare those to the evidence found in actual CCTV video evidence of criminals attacking people you can see there is a vast difference between the classroom study of self-defense and the messy, brutal world of actual attacks. The same is true of actual shootouts verses the training most citizens receive in common conceal carry firearm classes.

Defense instructors need to incorporate roll plays, realism, stress, and confusion into their training exercises and have frank conversations about the psychology of close quarters combat. Most conceal carry firearms classes for citizens teach proper safety, weapons handling and how to hit a stationary target. Trainings rarely address the realities of how to “fight to your weapon” in a spontaneous attack or the combat stress of killing a human being. Unfortunately, many martial artists and conceal carry holders walk around with a false sense of security in a world of impending reality.

A good example of this can be seen in the way law enforcement officers where trained just a few short decades ago verses what is common today. Nationally, law enforcement has adopted philosophies of military training such as tactical shooting and “shoot-no shoot”. Instead of standing on a fire line and shooting at stationary targets several feet away, most modern officers participate in realistic training with pop-up targets or simulations that program the brain in the “Shoot, no shoot” decision making process. Modern U.S. law enforcement are some of the best trained in history. More recently, the use of Simunition® non-lethal training ammunition has added previously unavailable realism.

Using the desensitization and conditioning techniques described in Grossman’s book, instructors of martial arts, self-defense and weapons training can greatly increase the likelihood that techniques are going to work in the hand-to-hand combat range.

As Grossman points out in his book, we live in a society where children are learning to harm and kill through unrestrained desensitization, conditioning, and subconscious denial defense mechanisms provided by modern interactive video games and violent entertainment. These, combined with dysfunctional/abusive families, gangs, inner city poverty and extreme political propaganda in media and college campuses have caused a surge of violence in American society. The threats average citizens face is greater today than any time in recent history.

Introducing Normal People to the Abnormal Realities of Combat

As a self-defense/combat instructor I recognize intuitively the soundness of the research in Grossman’s book. I have had the privilege of training with no nonsense instructors such as the legendary Jim Harrison and others from the fields of law enforcement and anti-terrorism. The techniques, tactics and strategies taught in Harrison’s Bushidokan are primarily in the intimate “Hand-to-Hand-Combat Range” or the “Sexual Range” of Grossman’s spectrum where humans are most uncomfortable and psychologically reluctant.

Bushidokan specializes in the close quarter combat range, where the ripping of flesh, gouging of eyes and breaking of bones are taught as a staple of the realistic street defense tactics. It is one thing to practice joint manipulations in sport jujitsu and a completely different experience to inflict joint breaks where you feel and hear the gristle of a man’s joint giving way under your direct aggressive action. The average citizen has not been prepared emotionally or psychologically for these brutal realities.

Most people have not had the fortunate life experience of in-close street fighting and may become overwhelmed during a serious life-threatening attack. Instructors need to help students prepare for optimum performance in situations where avoidance, escape or evade is not an option. There comes a moment where a person is forced to use techniques to save their life by either taking the life of another human being or destroying the anatomy (breaking, ripping, causing dysfunction) so the attacker is no longer able to be a threat. If both arms and a leg are broken they will have a hard time manipulating a weapon and/or pursuing you; that is dysfunction.

Grossman reviews a mass of historical data on “Why Can’t Johnny Kill”. He explains that during the Napoleonic and Civil War eras the fire rates of soldiers were incredibly ineffective and not because of the weapons technology. Regiments of this era (usually numbering between two hundred and one thousand men) fired on each other at an average of thirty yards in open fields. The effectiveness of their long guns were (should have been) horribly deadly at that range. Historic battles produced an average hit rate of only two men per minute. The reason such battles mounted up casualties was because the contests were so long. Such firefights often dragged on until exhaustion set in or nightfall put an end to hostilities. History records hit ratios of 119 or more rounds fired per 1 man killed.

The United States government discovered during the World Wars that soldiers were ineffective killers. During the Civil War era, cannon fire (like machine-gun fire in WWII), accounted for more than 50% of the casualties on the battlefield. Artillery fire has consistently accounted for the majority of combat casualties in the twentieth century. Grossman delves into the psychological differences between one man killing another, group efforts (such as cannon and machine-gun units) and the psychological effect of distance on killing (hand-to-hand range all the way to dropping bombs from 20,000 feet). He further explores the effects of drill (Pavlovian conditioning), use of propaganda and techniques of dehumanizing the enemy to increase kill rates in soldiers. The United States started examining this “problem” during WWII and by the Vietnam War had increased kill rates among its soldiers to more than 90%.

“During World War II U.S. Army Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshal discovered only 15 to 20 percent of the American riflemen in combat during World War II would fire at the enemy. Those who would not fire did not run or hide (in many cases they were willing to risk great danger to rescue comrades, get ammunition, or run messages), but they simply would not fire their weapons at the enemy, even when faced with repeated waves of banzai charges.” Section I, page 3 On Killing

In summary, the simple fact is that when faced with a living, breathing opponent instead of a target, a significant majority of soldiers revert to a “posturing mode” instead of intentionally causing harm to another human being.

Lessons for self-defense and conceal carry instructors.

The self-defense take-away from the historical evidence presented is that a majority of humans in society and throughout history have a powerful, innate resistance toward killing or harming one’s own kind. This is a reassuring fact and can give a renewed faith in human kind; however, the primary objective of a defensive tactic’s instructor is to prepare people for worst case scenarios where we are forced to face the deviants, miscreants and sociopaths of our society.

The problem between these two realities is that the majority of men, women and children who join a self-defense class or take conceal carry firearm training are going to be in the “majority” i.e. people who have a deep seated resistance toward causing harm to another human being. And those who are likely to attack or abuse these “average” human beings are much more likely to be narcissistic criminals who hurt others carelessly. Therefore, self-defense training must psychologically prepare people with proper mental conditioning in conjunction with the physical techniques. For the average woman to prevail against a hardened criminal with a sexual assault history she will have to cause ferocious, violent damage to the assailant without hesitation, without remorse and without any “cringing” about what she has to do to cause serious injury or death to such a felon. Anything less than a vicious all out “rabid dog” attack will likely end up in her being assaulted and/or killed. This is reality and too few self-defense instructors understand it much less teach it.

For example, when I talk about the proper techniques for gouging or scraping eyeballs I always expect giggling, cringed faces and nervous body language (from both men and women). That’s before I even mention popping the eye out of its socket or sticking a sharp object all the way into someone’s brain (I usually reserve those discussions for law enforcement, military and my own children). I imagine more than a few readers found themselves cringing from reading these words or a bit shocked that I mentioned teaching such techniques to my children. If so don’t let that cringe pass without asking why. Why did I cringe? The most common answer/reaction comes from the fact that normal, non-sociopathic people tend to internalize such actions as “what that must feel like”. Most of us learned the golden rule at a young age “Therefore, do to others what you would have them do to you” and healthy well-adjusted parents often admonish children with words like “Imagine how that would make you feel”.

Rightfully so, our culture nurtures empathy. If a self-defense instructor does not address this fact a student is likely to never use a valuable technique that could in fact save their life. My daughters, are sweet, empathetic young ladies who will go out of their way to help others. Even so, at ages as young as twelve, they would have had no qualms about clawing and gouging eyes in a serious self-defense situation. Even the sweetest personality can be conditioned to do what for most is “the unthinkable”.

I too cringed at the first thoughts of sticking my fingers into someone’s eye sockets but with time and conditioning I have learned to view this as an extremely effective tool in my arsenal of defensive tactics. If I can stick my fingers in someone’s eyes and end a fight in two seconds that is much more desirable then having to fracture their facial bones with my elbows or crush their rib cage with my knees. Gouging the eyes is great for regaining the more desirable options of escape and/or evasion in a self-defense situation; therefore, it truly is a tactic as much as a technique.

I explain to students the logic of how attacking the eyes can actually prevent the need for more serious measures up to and including drawing a weapon and killing an attacker. In addition I cover the topic of physiology and the fact that the human body is very resilient. Even a fingernail scrape to the surface of the eye will heal and likely cause no permanent damage. These facts are an important part of conditioning students to accept the technique as valuable and something they can and will actually use.

The discussions centered around attacking, gouging and even popping out the eye of an attacker is an important psychological tool for helping people find what I call their savage mindset. Those with combat experience often talk about flipping the switch as a way to describe the mindset change that must take place in a deadly threat encounter. My mentor, Jim Harrison, used to describe it as going from rabbit to rabid in the snap of a finger.

If children or adults are going to have any realistic advantage against a larger, stronger attacker then violently attacking the eyes is going to be one of the foremost techniques for actual success. In addition to mentally preparing students and talking through the normal apprehension associated with gouging and scraping the eyes we also practice in graphic detail on realistic Body Opponent Bags (B.O.B.) produced by Century Martial Arts. During this realistic practice we discuss things like criminal investigation. We talk about how to make sure we get the attackers DNA under our fingernails so he can be identified later and give positive praise to students as they scrape and rip the eyes of B.O.B. with serious commitment.

The realistic practice, emotional debriefing and practical examination of physiology and crime scene investigation help with desensitization, conditioning and rationalization that normal people need in order to overcome their natural resistance to causing harm to another human. Make no mistake, self-defense is not compatible with pacifism. Most defensive tactics instructors also focus on reinforcing a code of conduct based on justice, mercy, honor, courage and self-control. These are obvious and necessary balancing factors when training people to maim and kill. We are not attempting to convert average people into heartless assassins - we are merely training them for the realities of personal combat.

From my years of experience conducting Women As Warriors™ (my own brand of women’s self-defense) I have made observations about natural responses they often have to harming fellow human beings. As a result, I have adjusted my training methodology to help women overcome the mental obstacles of destruction to the human anatomy. My classes cover awareness, escape and evade as well as physical self-defense. The defensive portion of my training involves savage violence as one of the primary tools.

Most women come to my class hoping to learn a few ancient Chinese secrets on how to effortlessly defeat any attacker. Many have been to other trainings where they have been taught “kick em’ in the groin; put your keys between your figures to punch and other cliché nonsense that passes as self-defense training. If I am going to be able to teach things like eye scraping, throat crushing, finger snapping, ripping and tearing male genitalia and other effective techniques - I have to get past the revulsion stage as quickly as possible. Through trial and error I have hit upon a method that turns passive women into mamma grizzlies. First I get women focused away from “self-protection” and focused on “protection of others”. Grossman details in his book that soldiers often will put their lives a great risk to save or support comrades on the battlefield even when they are “non-firers”. I believe the psychology is the same.

In Women As Warriors I start by asking how many would be able to stick your fingers in a rapists eyes to get them off you and escape? I push the point even harder by saying,

“I’m not talking about some namby-pamby poke to the eyes – I’m talking all the way to the second or third knuckle.” and I make squishing, popping noises while demonstrating in the air.

The reactions are usually horrified faces, nervous giggling and super uncomfortable body language. Before they are done squirming in their seats I say, “Okay, okay, I know that is gross but now imagine this – you walk into a room and surprise a rapist assaulting your son, your daughter, your little sister or the cute little kid next door – what would you be willing to do to protect that child?”

Immediately, the whole class changes from squeamish to resolute. Their body language becomes upright and alert, the giggling stops and the faces of those same women look like they could kill – and guess what they absolutely can! This opens the conversation about the psychology of killing and harming an aggressor. We discuss FBI statistics and the psychology of rapists. The fact is people who commit sexual assault and other crimes often escalate who they are willing to hurt including the most vulnerable in society. Sexual predators can have hundreds of victims in their lifetime unless they are put in prison.

A majority of women leave my classes knowing if they are attacked they are not only protecting themselves they are protecting countless victims in the future… “Yes, officer you’re looking for a guy with scratch marks on his face and eyes, broken fingers, and a broken arm – would you like to scrape his DNA out from under my fingernails?”. When a woman is able to see their attacker as a potential molester of an innocent child they will rip eyes and crush throats like a mama grizzly protecting her cubs.

Though this article is focused on eyes as a target there is a wide variety of other examples to psychologically prepare normal people to the abnormal realities of combat. It just takes some creativity. For example, I created a fake, breakable arm. It attaches to a punching bag and is loaded with either dowel rods or paint stir sticks. When the student breaks the arm, they get the feel of a simulated arm, realistic resistance, and the sound of splintering and cracking.

A friend of mine, James ‘Smokey’ West, is a fellow combat instructor and experienced street fighter. He is a retired Green Beret and Special Forces soldier with over 20 years in the U.S. Army and security contracting. He teaches down and dirty, no nonsense self-defense seminars across the country, has videos on YouTube and has written the book, A Mind for the Fight, which is well worth the read.

We were sharing notes of how we teach people to flip the switch into savage mindset. One of the many things he does is teach knife skills. He will hang a 20-pound ham on a rope and have students stab it and imagine it’s a bad guy. He explains how common it is for people to miss or barely poke the ham with a knife. It takes coaching and conversation to get his students proficient but it is an excellent starting point for having the type of uncomfortable conversations we need to have with students. This reinforces Lt. Col. Grossman’s research about how reluctant people are to inflict damage even in an imaginary scenario with a ham. Like my breakable arm, stabbing a ham is not only about teaching techniques, it is introducing normal people to the necessary mental conditioning they have to have in order for the physical techniques to work in a deadly-threat-encounter.

Stabbing a ham is similar to a Navy SEAL training drill for gouging eyes. A partner will hold a small orange in front of their eye socket and scream bloody murder while the other partner imagines sticking their thumb into an eyeball. The role play is so realistic that some are unnerved to the point of nausea.

The savage mindset can be implemented into training with a little creativity. Physical skills and techniques deteriorate with time and lack of use. But a savage mindset and the ability to intuitively flip the switch are not as susceptible to skill degradation as many other types of training. The core philosophy of my own B.A. SURVIAL™ training is to teach normal people how to be Savage, Not Average.

As Dwight D. Eisenhower put it, “What counts is not necessarily the size of the dog in the fight – it’s the size of the fight in the dog.” This brings us full circle to bridging the gap between physical techniques and psychological conditioning. When the fight inside your heart [spirit] is passionate but regulated by a resolute, determined mind [mental preparation] then your physical size and strength become secondary elements to fully executing a formidable defense.

I can draw on a lot of analogies from the animal kingdom and I think one more is worth mentioning because of misconceptions about size and strength. I mentioned grizzly bears which are big strong animals. I like the mama grizzly metaphor because a real grizzly will protect her cubs even against a larger, stronger male bear with an almost psychotic suicidal rage. If you can’t imagine yourself as a grizzly then might I suggest a wolverine? Even if your attacker is a big strong animal there is one thing that trumps physical presence and that is a ferocious Bad Ass Survival fighting spirit. In the animal kingdom even grizzly bears do not want to mess with a wolverine. Wolverines are vicious little animals about the size a grizzly’s hind leg yet wolverines have been recorded chasing grizzlies away from a kill (food).

It is the heart of the animal (or human) that will have the greatest advantage in a deadly conflict. Think of your own analogy, train your brain to flip that switch, give yourself permission to turn into that ferocious beast when the situation dictates it. You are the weapon; everything else is just a tool!

The effectiveness of modern conditioning techniques that enable soldiers to kill in combat is irrefutable. Just as law enforcement has adopted these training methods to better equip officers, self-defense instructors and citizen firearm instructors can harness the power of these training methods to better prepare their students. I hope more instructors will adopt Savage, Not Average in their own teaching.

About the Author:

Brent Anderson is the owner of B.A. SURVIVAL™ and Ko Heichi Bushidokan®. He is an ASP Certified Weapon and Handcuff Instructor with over 30 years’ experience in self-defense, martial arts and weapons training. Mr. Anderson has the distinguished honor of being promoted to black belt by self-defense expert and martial arts legend Jim ‘Ronin’ Harrison.