Everyone is entitled to their own methods and principles underlining those methods. Only time will tell which ones have the best success rate. Athough I have never seen or heard of anyone who can control an attacker's trigger finger nor have I ever seen or heard of anyone who has not set off a hair trigger firearm when they have grabbed the weapon, I am sure there are people out there with those superhuman capabilities. As for me, I'll stick with the time proven principles that have left less defenders and bystanders shot, such as not grabbing the gun, not struggling with the gun, and pushing the gun away and up (definately not down). I shall stick with what I have been instructed on.
One-Handed or Two-Handed control when dealing with a gun?
- Thread starter JamesDraegun
- Start date
HKphooey
Senior Master
bobbo said:
Exactly! Use what works for you. As mentioned a few times, try all methods with an AirSoft gun (not exactly the same thing, but will give you an ide of what definitely does not work).
Guns will always be a tricky defense. Do not usually get a "do-over".
Cruentus
Grandmaster
bobbo said:
You are entitled to do what you think is best. I dont mind that people do different things then we do, because frankly, without people doing different methods I dont think wed be in business.
But, at least have the professional integrity to recognize that none of these methods are tried and true because we dont have a large enough pool of statistical evidence to prove that kind of reliability in regards to empty hand techniques vs. the gun. There isnt enough evidence, even anecdotally, to prove that grabbing the hand somehow magically prevents the gun from firing over grabbing the weapon, for example. We dont have enough evidence to prove which method has actually left less bystanders shot.
Furthermore, tactics like grabbing the weapon and redirecting it dont take superhuman capabilities; saying so is only creating a straw man argument.
It is fine to have faith in your methods and to do what you feel is giving you, or will give you, the best results. But I think that we need to make sure that we present our ideas with the integrity that they deserve.
bobbo said:
Agree, although depending on certain methods, you may find some are better than others.
Not quite sure what you mean when you say 'superhuman capabilities' but if you think about it, grabbing the gun or the hand, they're both in close proximity, so I'm not really sure where you're going with this. The chances of the gun going off on either method, grabbing the hands or the weapon itself, are still present.
Proven? By whom? Please keep in mind, that there are countless methods of gun disarming. Every single one makes a blanket statement that their gun disarms are the best. Sure, in their eyes they are, and in the next guys eyes, his are the best. What matters is whats going to work for the person and suit their needs best.
As for the KM disarms, I'm not sure how much exposure you've had to them, but bystanders are taken into consideration.
Mike
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Ironically, I had "Scariest Police Shootouts Vol II" on the TV today.
I wasn't glued to the show because I was multi-tasking, but I did catch two unarmed attempts against the gun.
One was somewhere in South America where a man had a hostage and was sitting with a gun to her head, both backs against the wall. The police man posed as a news camera man who would film him making his demands. The cop kept saying that he needed a closer picture and got within arms reach. Then he grabbed the gun with 1 hand pinning it against the wall (another version of the Krav method that we advocate; the use of environment if possible). He was able to successfully move the hostage away with the other hand while keeping the gun controlled, and subdue the attacker.
Another attempt was a policeman was doing a routine stop, and ended up facing an armed assailent. The cops gun remained holstered while the assailant had his gun pointed making his demands. It is interesting to note that while in front of the officer, although the criminal was within arms reach, he held the gun high and back so the cop wouldn't have been able to reach it if he tried. When the criminal got towards the rear of the policeman, however, he brought the gun down and within arms reach, and the cop made his move. With gun in holster, the cop went reaching for the gun with both hands. The assailent moved back and quickly regained control of the gun from the grab. Luckily the cop wasn't shot in the process. The cop was taken hostage, but later talked the assailent down and lived through the experience.
Anyways, these are just anecdotal incidents, and by no means give a statistical representation of which method is better under real conditions. It does beg the question, however: if the cop had reached with one hand instead of two, and at least had his other hand in transent for his sidearm, would he have been able to draw his own gun in time if his unarmed attempt failed as it did? It is a speculative question with more variables then meets the eye, however it is reasonable to consider the possability all the same.
From watching these incidents, one is reminded of a couple of things:
1. An attempted disarm, even when successful, usually won't work out in a clean, textbook fashion.
2. One has to be prepared for the environmental differences of the circumstance, and one must be trained to use these as an advantage rather then a disadvantage.
3. What might work in one context, might not in another.
4. One has to be prepared for initial attempts to not work as planned, and be ready to make adjustments for that so you don't find yourself back to square one (guy is pointing gun at you and your standing there with a dumb look) or worse (your shot).
5. One has to train what one feels is most reliable, while at the same time keeping an open mind, realizing that there is no magic answer to questions like these.
Anyway, I thought viewing these incidents were interesting. At the vary least, regardless of your method and how researched it is, or your personal biases, the above principles should probably be taken into consideration.
Paul Janulis
I wasn't glued to the show because I was multi-tasking, but I did catch two unarmed attempts against the gun.
One was somewhere in South America where a man had a hostage and was sitting with a gun to her head, both backs against the wall. The police man posed as a news camera man who would film him making his demands. The cop kept saying that he needed a closer picture and got within arms reach. Then he grabbed the gun with 1 hand pinning it against the wall (another version of the Krav method that we advocate; the use of environment if possible). He was able to successfully move the hostage away with the other hand while keeping the gun controlled, and subdue the attacker.
Another attempt was a policeman was doing a routine stop, and ended up facing an armed assailent. The cops gun remained holstered while the assailant had his gun pointed making his demands. It is interesting to note that while in front of the officer, although the criminal was within arms reach, he held the gun high and back so the cop wouldn't have been able to reach it if he tried. When the criminal got towards the rear of the policeman, however, he brought the gun down and within arms reach, and the cop made his move. With gun in holster, the cop went reaching for the gun with both hands. The assailent moved back and quickly regained control of the gun from the grab. Luckily the cop wasn't shot in the process. The cop was taken hostage, but later talked the assailent down and lived through the experience.
Anyways, these are just anecdotal incidents, and by no means give a statistical representation of which method is better under real conditions. It does beg the question, however: if the cop had reached with one hand instead of two, and at least had his other hand in transent for his sidearm, would he have been able to draw his own gun in time if his unarmed attempt failed as it did? It is a speculative question with more variables then meets the eye, however it is reasonable to consider the possability all the same.
From watching these incidents, one is reminded of a couple of things:
1. An attempted disarm, even when successful, usually won't work out in a clean, textbook fashion.
2. One has to be prepared for the environmental differences of the circumstance, and one must be trained to use these as an advantage rather then a disadvantage.
3. What might work in one context, might not in another.
4. One has to be prepared for initial attempts to not work as planned, and be ready to make adjustments for that so you don't find yourself back to square one (guy is pointing gun at you and your standing there with a dumb look) or worse (your shot).
5. One has to train what one feels is most reliable, while at the same time keeping an open mind, realizing that there is no magic answer to questions like these.
Anyway, I thought viewing these incidents were interesting. At the vary least, regardless of your method and how researched it is, or your personal biases, the above principles should probably be taken into consideration.
Paul Janulis
HKphooey
Senior Master
Good stuff Paul!
The other thing to keep in mind is who the attacker is and what his/her intent and qualifications are. Spending time around expericenced shooters will give you some insight on how they handle a gun. Some punks out there have never fired the guns they carry and are more dangerous because of that. And last but not least, the mental/physical condition of the attcker (depressed, angered, defensive, drunk, high, etc.)
Many martial arts schools can teach you some great techniques for an ideal situation, but nothing evever goes as planned. But some do not teach you to assess the situation to make your choice of defense.
One handed, two handed try to learn as many as possible.
The other thing to keep in mind is who the attacker is and what his/her intent and qualifications are. Spending time around expericenced shooters will give you some insight on how they handle a gun. Some punks out there have never fired the guns they carry and are more dangerous because of that. And last but not least, the mental/physical condition of the attcker (depressed, angered, defensive, drunk, high, etc.)
Many martial arts schools can teach you some great techniques for an ideal situation, but nothing evever goes as planned. But some do not teach you to assess the situation to make your choice of defense.
One handed, two handed try to learn as many as possible.
