Disarming idiots...

[jks9199]

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...

 

[skribs]

Because if the attacker is 6 or 10 feet away, what can you do unless you have your own gun?

 

[drop bear]

Because if the attacker is 6 or 10 feet away, what can you do unless you have your own gun?

The elpresidente?

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n3txtcVLLrc

Even if you have a gun you are relying on the other guy to be an idiot

 

[K-man]

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...

If the gun is held at you from a distance you have no choice. But when you watch CCTV footage of actual robberies the perpetrators are often shoving the weapon into their victims' faces. If the knife is at a distance you just get out of Dodge.

But, where it is a human shield type situation the guy with the gun or knife is going to be in close. Whether you go for a disarm or not can be debated but statistically if you are being forced into a vehicle to be taken to another location your chances of survival just took a massive plunge.

I would never ever suggest the guy with the weapon is an idiot but there could well be a situation where disarming an attacker could save your life. If you are attempting a disarm you are playing the odds. The odds would always favour escaping if possible. Then you have the choice of complying which for something like losing a wallet, watch or cell phone would make a lot of sense. In a kidnap situation I would be certainly looking for a chance to disarm.
:asian:

 

[hoshin1600]

do you want the simple answer or the 50 page essay i could give on this? ok ,,,heres the simple answer (caution many instructors might take offense to this)......because they have no clue what they are doing. disarming techniques is one of those things that just about no one has every really done and no students will ever be able to come back and say "hey you know that gun disarm you taught us ,well it didnt work". it is all theory with no real experience behind it. the person teaching it has done no homework as far as the senario of the attack. nor do they take into consideration the intent of the attacker. learning to "disarm" someone of their weapon is generally a useless activity without correct context. its like putting the cart before the horse except you aint got no horse and the cart has no wheels or hitch so pretty much all you got is a plank of wood but it could be a cart if you use your imagination:s439:

 

[Dirty Dog]

In part, it's because there are an awful lot of idiots out there.

 

[drop bear]

do you want the simple answer or the 50 page essay i could give on this? ok ,,,heres the simple answer (caution many instructors might take offense to this)......because they have no clue what they are doing. disarming techniques is one of those things that just about no one has every really done and no students will ever be able to come back and say "hey you know that gun disarm you taught us ,well it didnt work". it is all theory with no real experience behind it. the person teaching it has done no homework as far as the senario of the attack. nor do they take into consideration the intent of the attacker. learning to "disarm" someone of their weapon is generally a useless activity without correct context. its like putting the cart before the horse except you aint got no horse and the cart has no wheels or hitch so pretty much all you got is a plank of wood but it could be a cart if you use your imagination:s439:

Only sort of. I have a couple of mechanical disarms I train because if someone is going to shoot me I may as well do something.

I don't think situational is to relevant except for a few broad strokes.

Are they in range to grab?

Are they going to kill you?

 

[Big Don]

Why does just about every disarm assume that the person with the weapon is an idiot?

Probably for the simple reason that the vast majority of people ARE idiots.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hi JKS,

It's not common that you and I disagree on these things, but here I'm going to come out against the characterisation of these methods… let's take it bit by bit.

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?

Honestly, I don't know that they do… there can be major disconnects in understanding the behaviour of the aggressor, which is a bit different, but the way you're describing the armed assailant as an "idiot" doesn't quite match to my mind. And I have a feeling it might be because of differing perspectives and expectations… which gets towards some of my previous comments about training against "trained" not guaranteeing, or even being that transferable to, success against "untrained".

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&#8230

Well, let's take it back a step then… what are the students actually defending against here? Just because there's a weapon involved doesn't limit it to a single type of encounter.

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.

Sure… but, and this is important, who are you and what is your background (obviously, JKS, I know who you are and what your background is, this is simply making a point that you're not the same person as the assailant in these scenarios)?

If I'm going to stab you... You ain't gonna know there's a knife until you're bleeding in most circumstances.

Which takes us back to what is actually being defended against.

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.

That would depend on the type of robbery… a store/building/bank, yeah… a mugging? Less likely to have the barrier there.

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

Okay, let's get to it then.

I'm actually teaching pistol defence (essentially disarms) at present, and they're not too dissimilar to what you're describing… and, really, I rail against the idea of "idiot" attackers pretty constantly (that's gotten me in some trouble with certain persons, actually&#8230. Within some Koryu, it's basically a creed of reality ("Teki wa baka dewanai"… "The enemy isn't a fool"). As a result, I look for realism in everything I do… within the context of the technique itself. So what's the context here? As I mentioned earlier, just because a gun is present, it doesn't make all the encounters the same contextually. If a gun is employed in fairly close range, the most common context is either a mugging or a hostage situation. Why is it that close? Because control is required over the target (hostage), and you need to be close to take what you need from the victim (mugging). In both cases, being shot is not the initial aim for producing the gun in the first place… which does allow for the disarms to be employed, as well as setting up what you're referring to as "idiot" attacks. Same thing with a knife, really… if it's drawn and shown, it's about intimidation, not damage.

When you describe the way you'd employ a firearm, the tactic and context is rather different… as an LEO, you're wanting to either gain compliance or end a violent situation with (potentially) lethal force. You're also trained in the employment of firearms in these contexts, which gives you a particular form of decision making and chosen actions. You employ your firearm in a tactical method… with an idea of the aim you have (which is different to the mugger), and a usage of distance that is congruent with that tactical approach. The knife assault you describe is not particularly "Law Enforcement" (ha!), but it is an ambush assault… which is different to the mugging/hostage/intimidation usage of a blade. Our use of a blade is very much the same… and, for the record, we do have knife defences designed to deal with such an attack as well… but then again, I'm not training people to be muggers...

So, why do so many disarms have an attacker in very close range? Because hostage/mugging style assaults are the types that lend themselves to disarming tactics… ranged employment of firearms (random shootings, drive-by's, mass rampages with assault weapons) don't lend themselves to such tactics. Knives, well, they have to be employed in reach of the victim, so having it brandished from a distance doesn't make any sense… and an ambush assault, although the response might end with some form of disarm, has (by necessity) a different beginning tactic/response. Are the attackers "idiots" for giving these forms of attacks? Nope. It's just one of the myriad that could be encountered. And, I might suggest, these are more likely (depending on where you are, of course) to be experienced by most of society than a random assassination attempt.

With all that said, of course, there are a range of things that can be seen in many of these training methods that do warrant the phrase "idiot(ic)" at times…

 

[hoshin1600]

i think chris parker stated it well when he talks about the context and tactics. I believe you have to start with the context and the intent of the criminal. is his intent to mug and rob or kidnap, or is his intent a mass killing like sandyhook or the colorado movie theater killer? the criminal's intent will condition his actions and modus operandi. the next important factor is the mental state of the criminal which is again determined by his intent. a criminal looking to get in and out quick with the registers cash is as Chris stated using the weapon as a tool to get controll and compliance from the victim. however his mental condition may determine that he is going in with guns blazing and his intent is to take everyone out and show the world he"s a bad ***. that being said i will repeat myself, the criminals intent determins his actions and our training has to take into account the most common situations that may be encountered with these scenarios. i feel what the original post was pointing out is that at no time is a gun barrel sticking in your back a realistic action that a criminal would do. it does not fit any common context or intent. the only time i have seen this is in old Bogart like films of the 1950's but as such the image seems to have stuck with us as something that "could" happen and many instructors still teach this defense. next ..the frontal confontation. Chris points out that a criminal with the intent of robbery has to get close enough to actually take the cash and may not have the intent of killing but is more focused on escape before he is caught therefore using the weapon as a compliance tool. with this intent we have to put it into a context. maybe you are a store clerk or bank teller. the next step would be to incorporate this into our training. i challenge all instuctors to do a frontal disarm with a 2 ft wide and 4.5 ft high commercial counter between the attacker and defendant. this robbery scenario is at the lowest end of the scale for violence. as you move up that scale to situations with greater degrees of violence like a mass killing at the top, the less likely a disarm opportunity will present itself. i should also mention i am talking about the type of disarms that are commonly taught as a stand alone technique as opposed to fend, strike, kick, grab, controll, takedown, pin and then disarm.

 

[wimwag]

I don't think they are assuming the attacker is an idiot. I think they assume you'll act when you have the advantage and the risk of being shot is at it's lowest.

 

[Crossracer]

It's a fair question and there have been great replies.
A bad guy wants to get up close, a bad guy wants to scare the piss out of you. He doesn't want to be yelling at you from 6-10 feet away. He wants you to be pissing your pants. Take your stuff and hopefully leave.
I teach CKM, I teach my guys to listen to their gut. That if they feel that this is just a business transaction (ie hostile take over) then give up the items and be mad the next day. But you have to be alive to be mad.
But if the bad guy decides to escalate this, say by taking your daughter or wife, now the parameters have changed. And we escalate accordingly.
Gun disarms work. Unless you are wearing a shirt proclaiming yourself to be a marshal arts god, the bad guy is going to assume you are completely helpless shlub.
I've demonstrated to several Leo's the gun to head disarm. None of them, even knowing it was coming, could retain control of the gun.
We practice so that we are comfortable with the move, but I teach my people that we do everything we can to make sure we never get in that situation in the first place.

As a person who has been stabbed, you are right, it's a sneak attack. I teach my people you will get cut and you will be behind the curve at the beginning till you understand you are in a knife fight.
But the blocks I teach are not designed to cripple, they are blocks so you can buy time to set yourself up. It's all about buying time to get ahead of the curve. Again, bad guy doesn't know I know how to disarm a knife many different ways ( all quite painful for him) so he will assume I'm going to flee or just fight ineffectvly.


In the end, my effective combat radius is mostly the length of my hands and reach of my feet. Yes some disarms are silly, but at least the person is attempting to learn something that will give them a fighting chance in a very bad situation.
That alone puts them farther ahead of the curve then most people.

Bill


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Jks9199 this is a good question and point. I think Chris did a pretty good job above in discussing this but I will add some as well. It comes down to the person with the weapons intent, their understanding of the tool they are using, their mind set in the moment, etc. If someone is trying to abduct, utilize someone as a hostage, or just want to dominate/control or humiliate someone they may get close. If their are multiple people involved then there is also a chance that the attacker may be closer to someone as well. If the incident is in an elevator they will be close. In a small room, etc. So the environment where whatever is happening can also have a big factor as well. It is not so much the attacker being an idiot as it is what do they want to do. If they have a gun and just want to kill people then there is a chance they won't get very close. If they want to get some thing from someone ie. wallet, etc. they may get close. However, if they have a knife they will have to get close either to kill or to dominate or control they victim for whatever reason.

When training people in IRT we certainly work on that close in disarm situation but also we look at what you could do when someone is farther away. Maybe they are distracted for a second with multiple people they are watching and you can dive in or run away. Maybe they are far away but then close to move you some place etc. and you have a chance or an angle that works from a short distance. Just a few variables but there are lots of them. One of the things I point out to people in IRT is also how to utilize a tool in the way it is supposed to be used. If you have a firearm and need to utilize it for self-defense do not allow someone to get close to it if possible. Keep space and utilize it from a distance like it is meant to be used. The same with a knife in that know it is a tool that is utilize in a close in manner. No need to show it until you are close.

Now someone trained like yourself or myself with an LEO or military background, etc. may utilize a firearm from a distance never giving someone a chance to counter and you are right in that no one would see the knife until it is to late. However, you and I are not going to be out mugging people, killing people, etc. but instead protecting them if possible. We are not the norm in this regard because of our understanding, training and skill sets.

 

[Tgace]

Just my. 02 on disarms.

They are a low percentage skill with high stakes consequences.

The opportunity to use them and the odds of them working are small, but when its your only chance of survival the need to know them is high. As a MA skill set they are in an odd position....do you invest a lot of time in them knowing the chance of using them successfully is small? Or do you ignore them at your peril?

As a small tangent Ill refer to something I wrote a while ago.

http://tgace.com/2013/11/13/sometimes-there-is-nothing-you-can-do/

Sometimes I think that "high skill" combined with overestimation of real world ability can get people into trouble. The first order of business should be designing a lifestyle that avoids the issue in the first place followed by layers of options with H2H as the last resort whenever possible. Granted, sometimes that's not possible but it should be the goal

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Just my. 02 on disarms.

They are a low percentage skill with high stakes consequences.

The opportunity to use them and the odds of them working are small, but when its your only chance of survival the need to know them is high. As a MA skill set they are in an odd position....do you invest a lot of time in them knowing the chance of using them successfully is small? Or do you ignore them at your peril?

As a small tangent Ill refer to something I wrote a while ago.

sometimes there is nothing you can do | the things worth believing in

Sometimes I think that "high skill" combined with overestimation of real world ability can get people into trouble. The first order of business should be designing a lifestyle that avoids the issue in the first place followed by layers of options with H2H as the last resort whenever possible. Granted, sometimes that's not possible but it should be the goal

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Absolutely good point in that they are low probability but you may absolutely need to know them. Yet the probability of every using them is very small. Very interesting post Tgace!!!

 

[MartialMellow]

What if the attacker is on meth? A few years ago, I read of some meth attacks. The attacker seemed to be angry and quite aggressive.

 

[drop bear]

What if the attacker is on meth? A few years ago, I read of some meth attacks. The attacker seemed to be angry and quite aggressive.

Most attackers seem angry and quite aggressive. In my experience anyway.

 

[drop bear]

And yet disarms happen.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r90w-AXESIk

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dOE2AsDYDro

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JTVboBmby38

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ehZ7fYDVtiY

 

[K-man]

And one more, this time a knife.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q96BoQ8RMpQ
:asian:

 

[hoshin1600]

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