Understanding the firearm encounter.

BLACK LION

Black Belt
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
551
Reaction score
30
Location
CA
A firearm is a tool for killing plain and simple.

Because of this...

Many myths and misconceptions are associated with firearms. To many, they are perceived to have some sort of mystical powers and carry super powers far beyond the human capability...for this reason they can be used to persudade or force copitulation and even execution.

However they are tools just the same and require a body with the intent and ability to put it to work. Many people train with and against firearms separate from other tools and most often train differently... although there are differences between the two... like the fact that distance while facing a blade is safer than distance while facing a firearm... the safest place when dealing with a firearm is behind the muzzle, not in front of it... although there are differences between the two and other labor saving devices or impact tools...the principles in combating the threat remain the same.

Many outfits advocate "disarms" or some technique involving wrestling or grappling with the firearm...I do not condone this aside from having the ability to "stop or block the action" as a means of temporarily incapacitating the tool while striking targets and the ability to "strip the firearm by trapping the the trigger finger in the trigger guard and rotating the firearm to the outside...never to the inside... like the blade there is a principle of checking wich includes deflection and securing of the firearm...
Striking targets to prevent biodily function is paramount and must be a constant regardless of the tool or anything else... as with the blade one must assume the gun will go off at the least and embrace the fact that you can/will be shot... nevertheless striking targets to injure and incapacitate is the focus above all....
The principles of aggression are the same as the blade and any other inpact or blunt tool and that is... rotate out side of line of fire hence shifting the point of aim point of impact - project throught target and follow through... simultaneously and continously. You may have to deflect the gun to your back with an elbow or you may not have to deal with it at all... you may have to put the firearm in a "headlock" or not have to touch it at all... you may have to stop the action or the cycle of the firearm or not tussle with it at all...regardless of anything striking targets must bethe focus and be constant until there is no more function of any threat(s)
 

MJS

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
30,187
Reaction score
430
Location
Cromwell,CT
A firearm is a tool for killing plain and simple.

Because of this...

Many myths and misconceptions are associated with firearms. To many, they are perceived to have some sort of mystical powers and carry super powers far beyond the human capability...for this reason they can be used to persudade or force copitulation and even execution.

However they are tools just the same and require a body with the intent and ability to put it to work. Many people train with and against firearms separate from other tools and most often train differently... although there are differences between the two... like the fact that distance while facing a blade is safer than distance while facing a firearm... the safest place when dealing with a firearm is behind the muzzle, not in front of it... although there are differences between the two and other labor saving devices or impact tools...the principles in combating the threat remain the same.

Many outfits advocate "disarms" or some technique involving wrestling or grappling with the firearm...I do not condone this aside from having the ability to "stop or block the action" as a means of temporarily incapacitating the tool while striking targets and the ability to "strip the firearm by trapping the the trigger finger in the trigger guard and rotating the firearm to the outside...never to the inside... like the blade there is a principle of checking wich includes deflection and securing of the firearm...
Striking targets to prevent biodily function is paramount and must be a constant regardless of the tool or anything else... as with the blade one must assume the gun will go off at the least and embrace the fact that you can/will be shot... nevertheless striking targets to injure and incapacitate is the focus above all....
The principles of aggression are the same as the blade and any other inpact or blunt tool and that is... rotate out side of line of fire hence shifting the point of aim point of impact - project throught target and follow through... simultaneously and continously. You may have to deflect the gun to your back with an elbow or you may not have to deal with it at all... you may have to put the firearm in a "headlock" or not have to touch it at all... you may have to stop the action or the cycle of the firearm or not tussle with it at all...regardless of anything striking targets must bethe focus and be constant until there is no more function of any threat(s)

So basically your line of thinking is along the same lines as what we'd see in Krav Maga? Move your body and the weapon offline, control the weapon, and counter strike.

For the record, I am not against the KM gun disarms, although some have questioned them in other forums.

As for grappling with a weapon...a struggle will most likely happen, so yes, if the strikes dont have the effect that we had hoped, we will most likely have to struggle for control of the weapon. Of course, while doing that, we should be striking the person, ie: kicks, knees, punches, etc.
 

GBlues

Purple Belt
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
314
Reaction score
22
Location
All over the U.S.
Another thing that I would like to add, is that from what I've been told your main worry is multiple shot wounds. I guess in about 85-90% of the time, the gunman doesn't actually hit a vital target that will kill you. It's the multiple gun shot wounds that you have to worry about. So even if you get shot, there is a good chance that you can continue. SOmething to think about. Perhaps your not able to run but your to far away to mount a good offense of counter, perhaps you could rush and minimalize the multiple gun shots. Just a theory, a gun fight I have never been in, nor do I want to be. Just thought I would add that and see what you guys thought. Cause I would think that the longer you waited to act the more chance it gives your attacker the time to get the intent up to shoot you. I think that is another factor also, it doesn't take much intent on the gunman's part to shoot and kill you. Just pull the trigger and the intent is pretty much taken care of by the bullet. So.......you know.
 
OP
BLACK LION

BLACK LION

Black Belt
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
551
Reaction score
30
Location
CA
I notice that KM advocates rotating the firearm inward with the natural bend of the finger and not to the outside against the natural bend .


I also notice alot of focus or emphasis on controling the weapon and using punches and kicks as a defense... I see less striking with the entire body and more elastic maneuvers. I see less breaking or dumping associated with proper rotation and projection through the target.... What I have experienced in training is that with a properly executed chain of injuries the tool tends to disarm itself either from bodily impact or gravitational impact... often times the tool is stripped becuase the were hit so hard it flew out, wether its with the body or the earth...

Dont get me wrong... there are principles and such that can be extracted from every system... KM has a few of them including the "headlock" they use for rear attack...

However many systems are adorned with far too many techniques and less emphasis on basic principles...
 
OP
BLACK LION

BLACK LION

Black Belt
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
551
Reaction score
30
Location
CA
Another thing that I would like to add, is that from what I've been told your main worry is multiple shot wounds. I guess in about 85-90% of the time, the gunman doesn't actually hit a vital target that will kill you. It's the multiple gun shot wounds that you have to worry about. So even if you get shot, there is a good chance that you can continue. SOmething to think about. Perhaps your not able to run but your to far away to mount a good offense of counter, perhaps you could rush and minimalize the multiple gun shots. Just a theory, a gun fight I have never been in, nor do I want to be. Just thought I would add that and see what you guys thought. Cause I would think that the longer you waited to act the more chance it gives your attacker the time to get the intent up to shoot you. I think that is another factor also, it doesn't take much intent on the gunman's part to shoot and kill you. Just pull the trigger and the intent is pretty much taken care of by the bullet. So.......you know.

the statistic was that 95% of people shot once survive....

Depending on the scenario...escape can be a viable option if there is adequate cover or distance from threat. I have had a gun drawn on me from approx 15 feet while being commanded to get down... I noticed an 8ft hill and decided I had a better chance if I ran and I did just that.
Point being, moving targets are harder to hit wether aggressing or eggressing....

being or staying static is akin to sitting on a toilet in the middle of a kill zone to go #2... indecision is essentialy assisting in ones murder and possibly the murder of others...

One thing many mat not consider is utilizing the accomplice(s) as a "meat shield" for aggressing or eggressing... it is a viable option.
 

GBlues

Purple Belt
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
314
Reaction score
22
Location
All over the U.S.
the statistic was that 95% of people shot once survive....

Depending on the scenario...escape can be a viable option if there is adequate cover or distance from threat. I have had a gun drawn on me from approx 15 feet while being commanded to get down... I noticed an 8ft hill and decided I had a better chance if I ran and I did just that.
Point being, moving targets are harder to hit wether aggressing or eggressing....

being or staying static is akin to sitting on a toilet in the middle of a kill zone to go #2... indecision is essentialy assisting in ones murder and possibly the murder of others...

One thing many mat not consider is utilizing the accomplice(s) as a "meat shield" for aggressing or eggressing... it is a viable option.

Yeah, moving is definitely better. So the statistic is pretty right on then. So figuring that, your most pressing matter isn't being shot once it's being shot more than once. Right? Of course you don't want to get shot even once, but you know what I mean. YOu either have to run and get the hell out of dodge, or you have to kill the guy before he can shoot you once, twice, or even more.
 

MA-Caver

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
14,960
Reaction score
312
Location
Chattanooga, TN
Tuco said it best in "The Good, The Bad & The Ugly".... "if you're going to shoot, shoot, don't talk."
 

searcher

Senior Master
Joined
Mar 15, 2005
Messages
3,317
Reaction score
59
Location
Kansas
Another thing that I would like to add, is that from what I've been told your main worry is multiple shot wounds. I guess in about 85-90% of the time, the gunman doesn't actually hit a vital target that will kill you.

Depends on who is doing the shooting. And it kinda sucks if you are from the 10-15% that are in the "one-shot kill" group.


I notice that KM advocates rotating the firearm inward with the natural bend of the finger and not to the outside against the natural bend .


The reasoningfor this is that if you bend the wrist toward the palm side, it makes the finger nearly impossible to actuate the trigger.
 

KenpoTex

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 24, 2004
Messages
3,001
Reaction score
144
Location
Springfield, Missouri
I think it's a little dumb to get hung-up on which direction to rotate the gun (inside vs. outside). The situation is going to dictate which technique is used. Things like the position of your body relative to your oponent, bystanders nearby, location of allies or other hostiles...these are just a few things that might influence which direction you go if you even get to choose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MJS

MJS

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
30,187
Reaction score
430
Location
Cromwell,CT
I have to agree with KenpoTex on this. I've seen discussion on inside vs outside methods of disarms. Much like what art is better, this is something in which the battle will rage on and on. LOL.

He does bring up good points though. I mean, I've read KM instructors say the same thing....you need to take into consideration whether or not you are with someone, as well as bystanders in the area. If my wife was standing on my left, to move to the inside would put her in danger. Likewise, if there was a group of people standing on the street corner, moving to the other side would put them in danger.
 
OP
BLACK LION

BLACK LION

Black Belt
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
551
Reaction score
30
Location
CA
Great input guys...


Thats exactly why I dont get hung up on the gun at all or grappling with it for that matter... It gets too specific and there are many contrasting opinions and practices....

Its good to practice stripping and stopping the action but I dont bank on those things... I am really only concerned with getting out from in front of that muzzle and putting them down as smooth and ruthless as possible....

The gunjitsu stuff is good to know but when life and death is measured in seconds I really dont have time to worry about the gun itself...my focus is denying him normal function so the threat ceases to exist... I dont have the luxury of intricate maneuvers...

From my experience... if the agression is executed properly the gun ends up stripping itself.... especially once the earth hits thier body...

the principles here are the same as any tool... dont focus on disarming or grappling with the tool... focus on shutting down the real threat and dont stop till the job is done...even if you have been blugeoned -stabbed or shot...
 

zDom

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 21, 2006
Messages
3,081
Reaction score
110
Something to add regarding running away:

Try to include some lateral movement relative to the shooter (if possible, while trying to get something between muzzle and you).

It is harder for a gunman to track left-right and hit the target then it is up-down or target running in a straight line toward or away.
 

jks9199

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
23,473
Reaction score
3,795
Location
Northern VA
the statistic was that 95% of people shot once survive....

Depending on the scenario...escape can be a viable option if there is adequate cover or distance from threat. I have had a gun drawn on me from approx 15 feet while being commanded to get down... I noticed an 8ft hill and decided I had a better chance if I ran and I did just that.
Point being, moving targets are harder to hit wether aggressing or eggressing....

being or staying static is akin to sitting on a toilet in the middle of a kill zone to go #2... indecision is essentialy assisting in ones murder and possibly the murder of others...

One thing many mat not consider is utilizing the accomplice(s) as a "meat shield" for aggressing or eggressing... it is a viable option.
Support that statistic, please. And does it take into account the difference in circumstances? For example, an accidental shooting versus deliberate, defensive shooting compared to offensive.

A bullet is definitely not an automatic fight-ender; not even a hail of bullets. All the same -- I don't know that I would want to bet on ineffective shot placement from my assailant. That just kind of seems like relying on the attacker to attack you "properly..."
 

sgtmac_46

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
4,753
Reaction score
189
I see a lot of statements about getting the gun off line and then 'shutting down' the attacker with physical techniques........that's all well and good......but I see a minor problem.......some people don't shut down so easy.

Moreover, the fight is probably going to go to whoever gets control of that firearm first.....NOT who can punch the other person in the face the most times.

Lets look at some real world situations and see how strikes and physical techniques fit in to the equation.......i'll provide one example, and i'm sure plenty of folks can find others.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3848295523081681233

The suspect had a gun in his waist band.......he pulled it out when the scuffle began. Those in the 'I'd control the gun and then apply my destruct skills to neutralize the attacker' point out where these skills would have come in to play. At what point should Trooper Cress taken his hand off of the gun and began striking the suspect?

Now note that Trooper Cress does get the subject face down, and attempts strikes to distract, but they ultimately serve no purpose other than that. He ultimately has to retrieve his own gun to end the confrontation.........those suggesting some sort of rear-naked choke would be well advised to consider the logical consequences of that action.

I suspect that this is indicative of REAL world struggles over firearms.......that of a prolonged struggle over the firearm, resulting in one person gaining control of it (or his own) and ending the struggle view weapon.


I'm open to other possibilities........if someone can provide some REAL WORLD examples of them in application.
 

sgtmac_46

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
4,753
Reaction score
189
Support that statistic, please. And does it take into account the difference in circumstances? For example, an accidental shooting versus deliberate, defensive shooting compared to offensive.

A bullet is definitely not an automatic fight-ender; not even a hail of bullets. All the same -- I don't know that I would want to bet on ineffective shot placement from my assailant. That just kind of seems like relying on the attacker to attack you "properly..."

I'm going to bet that the statistic is probably for ALL shootings, including the accidental variety, which as you allude to would definitely skew our results.

Personally, i'm more interested in knowing the statistic of how often the average bad guy hits what he's shooting at.......that one seems most relevant......of course even that one's not necessarily useful, as we have no way of knowing if we have the 'average' bad guy, the (hopefully) 'BELOW average' bad guy, or (hopefully NOT) 'ABOVE average' bad guy.
 
OP
BLACK LION

BLACK LION

Black Belt
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
551
Reaction score
30
Location
CA
You cant just get control... you have to take it.... maybe you are stronger than that guy that particualr time, maybe you are more trained than him...what about when he is stronger or better trained... can you still get control...maybe with luck... Targeting gives me a guarantee... If I have to stop the action or cycle of the firearm or put it in a lock or strip it while I am doing that then so be it... I shouldnt NEED the gun to defeat any threat.


As far as the statistic...it may have been incomplete or distorted a bit from the actual by the person who represented it...It could have also been dated. I have found more recent statistics that somewhat support that statement but not entirely.
Check out
Dr. Vincent J. Di Maio
 

sgtmac_46

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
4,753
Reaction score
189
You cant just get control... you have to take it.... maybe you are stronger than that guy that particualr time, maybe you are more trained than him...what about when he is stronger or better trained... can you still get control...maybe with luck... Targeting gives me a guarantee... If I have to stop the action or cycle of the firearm or put it in a lock or strip it while I am doing that then so be it... I shouldnt NEED the gun to defeat any threat.


As far as the statistic...it may have been incomplete or distorted a bit from the actual by the person who represented it...It could have also been dated. I have found more recent statistics that somewhat support that statement but not entirely.
Check out
Dr. Vincent J. Di Maio

You 'shouldn't' need the gun to defeat any threat......but in the real world things don't usually go as they 'should'. ;)

The gun is a game ender.......a punch or a kick or a knee not necessarily so. Even if you lock in the PERFECT rear-naked choke, for example, and I have mere seconds of consciousness left...........I can negate that rear naked choke if i've gained control of the gun simply by pressing the barrel of the gun against the chokers femur, just for example, and pulling the trigger until he lets go.......which he'll do when I shatter his femur and the hot exhaust gases from the gun actually explode the meat of the thigh and create a huge contact wound entry hole........repeat as needed!
 

MJS

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
30,187
Reaction score
430
Location
Cromwell,CT
I see a lot of statements about getting the gun off line and then 'shutting down' the attacker with physical techniques........that's all well and good......but I see a minor problem.......some people don't shut down so easy.

Moreover, the fight is probably going to go to whoever gets control of that firearm first.....NOT who can punch the other person in the face the most times.

Lets look at some real world situations and see how strikes and physical techniques fit in to the equation.......i'll provide one example, and i'm sure plenty of folks can find others.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3848295523081681233

The suspect had a gun in his waist band.......he pulled it out when the scuffle began. Those in the 'I'd control the gun and then apply my destruct skills to neutralize the attacker' point out where these skills would have come in to play. At what point should Trooper Cress taken his hand off of the gun and began striking the suspect?

Now note that Trooper Cress does get the subject face down, and attempts strikes to distract, but they ultimately serve no purpose other than that. He ultimately has to retrieve his own gun to end the confrontation.........those suggesting some sort of rear-naked choke would be well advised to consider the logical consequences of that action.

I suspect that this is indicative of REAL world struggles over firearms.......that of a prolonged struggle over the firearm, resulting in one person gaining control of it (or his own) and ending the struggle view weapon.


I'm open to other possibilities........if someone can provide some REAL WORLD examples of them in application.

Couldn't agree more, especially with the first 2 paragraphs. I too, have seen this advocated in a few other threads, however, I have been saying that I personally do not want to rely on that alone. I never have and never will be, a card carrying member of the 1 hit, 1 kill club. Not saying it can't happen, but for me, control is more important than trying to KO the guy or overwhelm him with shots, while he has full control of the weapon.
 

MJS

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
30,187
Reaction score
430
Location
Cromwell,CT
You cant just get control... you have to take it.... maybe you are stronger than that guy that particualr time, maybe you are more trained than him...what about when he is stronger or better trained... can you still get control...maybe with luck... Targeting gives me a guarantee... If I have to stop the action or cycle of the firearm or put it in a lock or strip it while I am doing that then so be it... I shouldnt NEED the gun to defeat any threat.


However, the same can be said about empty hand SD as well. Nothing says that if I hit this guy 4 times in the face, while we hope that as martial artists, we have an advantage, nothing says that those shots will do nothing more than piss the guy off. IMO, I think its a bit risky saying that its a guarentee.

Again, I will refer back to the DLO clip by the dog bros. We repeatedly saw them gaining control, punsihing the guy, and working from there.
 

GBlues

Purple Belt
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
314
Reaction score
22
Location
All over the U.S.
Let me refer to the clip and tell you the officer never got an injury until he shot the guy. Big difference here, big difference. Nobody is advocating a one shot kill. I haven't said that, and I'm relatively sure that Black Lion hasn't said that. What we have said, is get the injury.

The deal is this, the human body can take a lot, a lot of non-specific trauma. You can beat a guy for an hour sometimes longer, before you knock him out, or cause an injury with non-specific blunt force trauma. Throwing blows wildly and crazy and just hitting whatever you can hit, is fine, if you want to drag it out as long as possible, increasing the chances of him getting the upper hand.

Now, what the body can't take is injury. Target specific injury. You hit a guy in the face, and yeah it hurts, but it didn't cause an injury unless you broke his jaw. What I think people are missing is the piling on of injuries. It's not about one strike one kill, it's about getting the first one and landing it so you can get more injuries.

A guy has a gun pointed at you and you decide to focus on the weapon. That is not your primary problem. The gun is useless without somebody to make it function. Your problem is the guy pointing the gun at you with the desire to kill you. If you go for the disarm and you don't get it, your wrestling with this guy for the gun. WHich, has no power of it's own to do you any harm, unless the trigger is activated by a finger.

To do a disarm on a gun you have to move offline to begin with. While either grabbing the gun or then grabbing the gun. Why waste the effort on the gun hand, when you could just get an injury. A lot of people on here are confusing injuries with pressure point knockouts I think, or the good old fashioned just hit the guy. WHile yes it is as simple as just hit the guy, it's about where you hit. People who think they can take a shot, (i.e, a punch or kick), are stupid. You can not take a targeted strike to your body. It's not going to happen. The same way people swear that guys jacked up on pcp or cocaine can get up and walk with two broken legs. Not happening it's impossible. If he got up and started coming at you, it means you didn't break the legs, simple. There's no magic pill going to change that. THe same with rupturing testicles. If you get the injury and you rupture, he's not standing upright anymore. He's bent over and no longer thinking about shooting you, he's crying over his destroyed fun bags. Same with my thumb. I really think that if I shove my thumb 2 inches into an attackers or gunfighters eyeball socket, he's not gonna worry about shooting me anymore, he's going to worry about his missing eye. Injuries aren't a matter of a tough body. There is no way to strengthen those areas, because they are weak areas of the body for every single person walking this planet.

The point that I'm trying to make is this. You take a gun away from somebody, your fingerprints are on it. You now have the weapon, if you continue any attack at that point you become the attacker, and if the cops show up, that is what they see. A bad guy pointing a gun at a citizen, and it could turn really bad. So you just pistol whipped the guy big deal, your prints are all over the gun, his blood is all over the pistol butt, and your going to jail for assault and battery. That gun is probably not going to be registered to the attacker, so you can't prove that it's his, and for all you know it could have been used in countless murders. Possession is 9/10th's of the law. Guess what, your in possession of a weapon that has killed god knows how many people. On the other hand, if you beat the man to death with your barehands, well, his fingerprints are all over it and it's much easier to prove that he was the bad guy, than to prove that you weren't.

If your going to mess with the gun hand at all it should be to give you more room, slap it away from you and PLOW into this guy like your lineback for the Dallas Cowboys with your forearm leading aimed directly at his throat, or a fist at his xiphoid process, or two fingers going for his eye, whatever you feel comfortable with. But make sure your weight is behind it, and your causing as much damage to that target as you possibly can. Once you get that injury you don't stop there you pile on more injuries, because you do not want to find out that he has another gun stashed in his pocket after you just blasted him in the throat. YOu can't give them time to recover. You start from the injury and continue to add more injury on top of more injury, and sytematically wreck his body. Till you feel comfortable enough that you can safely turn your back on him and walk away. Cause you never know, he may have buddies around that you have to deal with also, again you don't want him getting up.

Injury, injury, injury, injury, and more injury. The hell with taking the gun away, or hitting him in the face 4 times. Injure this man...life alteringly so. Even if you don't kill the guy, when he gets out of the hospital he's missing an eye, a nose, or he's limping for the rest of his life, or his arm doesn't work. He didn't pull a gun on you because he wants to show it to you and tell you how great you are as a martial artist. He pulled it on you because he wants to kill you. No other reason to pull a gun and point it at anybody.
 

Latest Discussions

Top