Disarming idiots...

[MartialMellow]

^ I also knew a story from some odd years ago. The story had a black belt attempting to kick someone who pulled a knife. The black belt was stabbed. It works both ways. I would be cautious.

 

[RTKDCMB]

A few years ago my Aunty was the victim of a home invasion, the guy robbed her and tried to rape her at knife point, she ended up stabbing him with his own knife. My Aunty was about 80 years old at the time.

 

[Crossracer]

i have read a few times in this thread about letting the criminal take your stuff and try to get out of the situation through compliance. that its not worth it if "all they want is your money" this is an artical a LEO trainer i know posted on his facebook its well worth the read and thinking about.
Men Comply with Armed Robber. He Shoots Them Anyway | TheBlaze.com

There is always that chance. Just as there is always the chance the person will take the items and go away.

If you want proof, look at crime statistics. If each reported armed robbery turned into a death struggle, the murder rate would be hugely higher.

So I stand by my premise of giving up your stuff is still the best plan to start with.

Bill


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MartialMellow]

A few years ago my Aunty was the victim of a home invasion, the guy robbed her and tried to rape her at knife point, she ended up stabbing him with his own knife. My Aunty was about 80 years old at the time.

If the guy only tried to rob her, would she have stabbed him?

 

[Buka]

Everything is based on distance. In close quarters - elevator, at a bar, in a crowd, in your home, while you are being "interrogated" by the bad guy, in a car, restroom, in any small space at all. And as all LEOs know, whenever you go to a call you can guarantee there will be at least one firearm present.
It's better to be prepared and never have to use it than, well, you know.

My biggest problems with disarm techniques in dojos are that a lot of the people being taught have no previous experience with firearms. I believe only advanced students should be taught handgun disarms. I also think that those students should FIRST take a handgun safety course by a certified instructor, then spend several days on a range with a wide variety of handguns. IMO it's up to the sensei to set these things up as PART of disarm education, and not separately. I believe it's the only way to do it properly - otherwise, I don't believe it should be part of the curriculum.

 

[RTKDCMB]

If the guy only tried to rob her, would she have stabbed him?

It happened in another state so how could I know?

 

[MJS]

For some reason, I've been looking at or seeing posts and videos of disarming techniques, either for knives or guns. I've got a simple question: Why does just about every disarm assume that the person with the weapon is an idiot?

For example... A simple gun disarm begins with a gun shoved into your back. You pivot, trap the gun, and do harm unto the attacker. Another, gun to the front... Raise your hands, move into the assailant slowly until you suddenly move in and take the gun, etc. Knife disarms often assume that the attacker is going to be stupid, and advertise the knife from a range where they loose the advantage. (Note, please, that I'm not even getting into the legal consequences due to shooting/stabbing/whatevering someone after you've disarmed them...)

Let's be real: I take you down at gun point, I'm not 3 feet away. I MAY be 6 or 10... but, y'know... my Glock 22 reaches out a hell of a lot further and hell of a lot faster than you can run, so I'm probably going to try to have 15, 20, 30 feet or more. If I'm going to stab you... You ain't gonna know there's a knife until you're bleeding in most circumstances. Going off the top of my head; I haven't done any research into it yet -- but off the top of my head, most robberies with a gun do occur inside of maybe 10 feet -- but also often involve a barrier, or an implied weapon, not a displayed gun.

So... Why the hell do so many disarms assume that the attacker is an idiot, and gives up that range, advertises the weapon...

Most encounters that I've seen/heard of, happen up close. If someone is going to mug someone, that weapon is going to be up close and personal. Given the fact that the vast majority of bad guys aren't expert marksmen, ( I say that because if we look at drive by shootings, look at all of the bullets that go everywhere BUT the intended target.) if the BG was a good distance away, and you took off running, not necessarily in a straight line, the odds of getting shot, IMO, go down.

Personally, I think it's a good idea to work different ranges. Perhaps one of the reasons those things are not worked, is due to lack of RW experience.

 

[oftheherd1]

Defending against a weapon is always fraught with danger. Not defending against a weapon may be also, as some have already said. In fact in the Washington, DC area, there is a man who seems to like to cut women's throats after he has robbed them. Sadly, from watching the news, it seems robbers are getting more likely to use their weapon. I don't know why.

But unarmed weapon defenses require the attacker to be close. If a person advances aggressively, that should be a clue that something is about to happen. What, and what weapon, may indeed be concealed until the last second. If one is alert to the aggressive advance, there is a better chance to do a disarm.

In the Hapkido I learned, we were taught knife defense. Generally it was expected we would see the weapon. Even so, one needs to be very practiced and skilled. The low attack from close quarters is the one that allows the least reaction time. However, if you have prepared yourself for some type of attack based on how an opponent approached you, you may have a chance. Swords are also very hard to defend against, but there are defenses. Just don't make a mistake.

But again, defending against weapons is fraught with danger.

As to defending against guns, even worse. The closer to you the better, but even so, all your opponent has to do is twitch his finger. If he is close enough, and you are practiced enough, you may get away with it. But hope your opponent isn't also fast and practiced against your defense.

Once again, defending against weapons is fraught with danger.

But it can be done. Guns are a little more problematic as a gun-wielder doesn't have to be so close to you as JKS pointed out. And to answer your question JKS, I don't know, but suspect the defenses are done based on the probability that an attacker will get within range. If that makes him stupid, good luck for you, both that he is stupid, and got close to you. Because most defenses won't work beyond 5 or maybe 10 feet. And most of the defenses I learned we would be closer and move into the attack.

Just my opinion.

 

[wingchun100]

I don't think they assume the person with the weapon are idiots, but they DO run students through demonstrations that include an unrealistic attack. If I have a knife, I'm not going to come at you in a wide, sweeping arc as if I had a bat. My moves would be quick, small, almost invisible. I haven't had much knife training, but I do know that I would hold it blade-down so the blade could be against my inner forearm, and you wouldn't necessarily be able to see it.

As for the gun...well, even up close I wouldn't trust any kind of disarming technique. By the time I have touched the person's gun hand, they have probably fired a round or two.

 

[RTKDCMB]

I don't think they assume the person with the weapon are idiots, but they DO run students through demonstrations that include an unrealistic attack. If I have a knife, I'm not going to come at you in a wide, sweeping arc as if I had a bat. My moves would be quick, small, almost invisible.

The unrealistic attacks with the wide sweeping movements is just a way of practicing the basic techniques under ideal conditions so that you can more easily adapt to the real thing, same as when you practice blocking and counter attacking in step sparring, patterns and basics and then apply it to the sparring.

I haven't had much knife training, but I do know that I would hold it blade-down so the blade could be against my inner forearm, and you wouldn't necessarily be able to see it.

That's where awareness comes in handy.

As for the gun...well, even up close I wouldn't trust any kind of disarming technique. By the time I have touched the person's gun hand, they have probably fired a round or two.

That's why you simultaneously move out of the line of fire when you do your disarm and also why you do not even attempt a disarm unless you believe the gunman pulling the trigger is immediately inevitable.

 

[wingchun100]

Maybe it is for basic practice, but the average beginner student doesn't know that. A LOT of people take what they are taught as gospel. And even though the teacher knows it's BS, they don't say "this is for ideal conditions only and real knife defense is a lot harder" because they know it would scare the average person away. It doesn't take a lot to make the average martial arts student become a FORMER martial arts student; not everyone has the dedication to it that people on this board have. Once you show them it might actually take WORK to get good at some of this stuff, they bail.