My friend Mickey Shuch (CarryTrainer), and I were texting last week. He started the discussion by asking me what I thought about some people in the 2A and Self-Preservation communities dismissing physical fitness as having no importance for self-defense. I laughed because I assumed he was making a joke. Surely something so obvious, and that has already been documented to be a fact, could not truly be in dispute by anyone? Could it? He assured me that yes, there are some who are trying to push that bit of Flat Earth thinking. 

To say I was stunned is a gross oversimplification. In the current age of information, something so demonstrably true cannot be argued, because it is so easy to show that it is factual. But apparently the facts have to be brought up again and again until the willful lies and willful ignorance retreats. So I am going to do a quick two part exploration of this topic. Today for part one, we will look at the insipid fallacy that your self-defense situation will only last a few seconds. In part two, we will look at what happens to the body during a life threatening event, as well as how fitness deos more than any other single factor in contributing to winning such an encounter.

There has been a myth in the gun-centric self-preservation world for decades that all gunfights take place at three yards, involve three rounds, and last no more than three seconds. If those numbers are an average (and there is plenty wrong with even assuming that but this is not the time to get into that)), that still does not mean what these folks think it means. An average means there is as much ABOVE the average as there is BELOW the average. So a gunfight may take place at 5, 6, 7, 15, or more yards, involve far more rounds and last longer. Well, so it is for ALL self defense scenarios. Thinking that your fight will only be a few seconds and not planning for more is a very good way to help you to lose that encounter, and suffer horrific pain, injury or even death. Want some examples? Here you go:

Entangled Gunfight with a private citizen where the struggle lasted (by the reporter’s own words) “several minutes”. 

Lok at the time during the video. This gunfight lasted more than a couple of seconds. Think the good guy in this was not breathing hard and felt like he just came through a 10k race?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6911863/Armed-robber-gets-butt-kicked-asks-gun-back.html

Again, another entangled weapon fight with a private citizen that lasts for an extended period. What do you suppose the end result would have been if the good guy had gassed out after the first two or three seconds because he was in lousy shape? Do you think the robber would not have taken advantage of that and gotten his gun back out and tried to finish the fight his way? 

Crazed homeless man attacks a woman for an extended time. Not only did she have no physical skill set to fight back, she did not have the physical capability to continue the fight. Note how soon she was out of the fight and was totally at the bad guy’s mercy. This was NOT a couple of seconds of violence. 

https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/man-poses-as-good-samaritan-at-crash-site-then-robs-shoots-driver

And again, an entangled weapon fight with a private citizen lasts almost a minute and ends with the good guy trying to run away. Long time to fight, and then to need the extra burst of energy to try to escape? You think that does not require some level of fitness to be successful? 

I can go on and on. These events happen all the time, and I can just keep adding more and more to hammer home the point.. But this sampling is enough, especially since they are all recent, and ALL of them I quickly found with a short google search, and one vid led to another. If you advocate for not having a modicum of fitness, then you are morally bankrupt, because the evidence does not support the theory.