To Control Or Not To Control..That Is The Question.

[MJS]

There are 2 threads in the gun and knife section, regarding dealing with those weapons from a SD point of view. I'm posting this thread here, because I'm sure there're some members who do not frequent those areas, so I wanted to get the input from more of our valued members here.

A poll will be added to this thread as well. The question is simple....Do you, when dealing with an opponent with a weapon, work for control of the weapon, while at the same time, executing your defense and counterstrikes, or do you disregard the weapon and just attempt to overwhelm them, with strikes to vital areas?

 

[just2kicku]

I say contol the weapon, or control the hand or arm with the weapon in it. If overwhelming does not work or the vital targets do not present themselves right away, you're gonna get hurt.

 

[MJS]

I say contol the weapon, or control the hand or arm with the weapon in it. If overwhelming does not work or the vital targets do not present themselves right away, you're gonna get hurt.

Agreed Joe!! That is my thinking as well. Besides, there is no reason why we still couldn't punish the person with strikes, while we have control.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Whether you go straight for the weapon, the limb controling the weapon, or immediately disable the attacker themselves...in the end you're basically "controlling the weapon."

The important thing, I believe, is that you make sure that whatever strategy you use gives you the best opportunity and chance of avoiding harm.

 

[girlbug2]

the principle of any SD is: deal with the immediate threat first. If have that gut feeling you're about to get stabbed or shot, neutralize the weapon first then continue to strike the perp.

 

[searcher]

I agree with gaining control over the weapon being essential to your survival. Hopefully you will not be cut up to bad by the time you gain control. I firmly believe that you need to get out of the "line of fire" then keep yourself there or make them stay there and then punish them as much as possible. In the end, they are trying to seriously hurt or kill you, so you need to keep going until the threat has been stopped. Just controlling the weapon will not make the threat stop.

 

[geezer]

Whether you go straight for the weapon, the limb controling the weapon, or immediately disable the attacker themselves...in the end you're basically "controlling the weapon."

The important thing, I believe, is that you make sure that whatever strategy you use gives you the best opportunity and chance of avoiding harm.

Well put. The real question is whether you put more emphasis on controlling, grappling, locking , disarming and so forth, or more emphasis on beating the snot out of your attacker. Either way, if you don't adequately protect yourself from the weapon you'll end up dead.

BTW--not being a LEO (who would be subject to a higher level of scrutiny regarding "excessive force") I favor the "beating the snot out" approach. I find that overemphasizing control with the objective of a disarm etc. can be pretty risky against a determined aggressor.

 

[JadecloudAlchemist]

Control the weapon or the arm controling the weapon and try to point it away from you.

Watching the show Most shocking and Most daring you see alot of attempts by untrained people grabbing the weapon 9 out of 10 times the robber jerks the person away and the weapon is pointing at the untrained person.

I was taught if you are going to grab a weapon
1.make sure you are off the line of attack
2.have it pointing away from you
3.follow up with strikes(perfer ones that will neturalize the attacker such as throat,nose)

 

[zDom]

AND — a very important thing here to remember — even if you DO neutralize the attacker by knocking them unconcious or stunning them, the FIRST thing you should do is ...

(wait for it ...)

take control of the weapon! and dispose of it in a way that it can not be reintroduced to the situation (tossing it into a lake or up on a roof) or make it your tool for continued self defense.

Option B might be preferable as presenting it to authorities as evidence may be important.

But regarding it as just an inanimate object that is no longer dangerous because it isn't in a human's hand doesn't take into account that the attacker might regain his/her ability to seize that weapon and begin using it again — or ANOTHER attacker might take possession and use it against you.

 

[just2kicku]

AND — a very important thing here to remember — even if you DO neutralize the attacker by knocking them unconcious or stunning them, the FIRST thing you should do is ...

(wait for it ...)

take control of the weapon! and dispose of it in a way that it can not be reintroduced to the situation (tossing it into a lake or up on a roof) or make it your tool for continued self defense.

Option B might be preferable as presenting it to authorities as evidence may be important.

But regarding it as just an inanimate object that is no longer dangerous because it isn't in a human's hand doesn't take into account that the attacker might regain his/her ability to seize that weapon and begin using it again — or ANOTHER attacker might take possession and use it against you.

I do believe that once you have siezed the weapon, forcefully place in attackers *** sideways, held in by one of my size 14's and let police deal with getting it for evidence. Hehe

 

[jks9199]

You have to have some sort of control over the weapon so that you can then move into the attacker and end the threat. I'm not saying that you need to disarm the guy and use his weapon on him, or have long term control over the weapon -- but you must have enough control over the weapon that you are reasonably confident that it will not be used against you while dealing with the attacker. This might simply be shoving the arm & weapon well off the line while you step in and strike or choke -- or it might be a trap and disarm. The exact choice is subject to the specifics of the circumstances at hand.

 

[Sukerkin]

Any attacker using a weapon is normally very focussed upon the use and possession of that weapon. Therefore, if you utilise an attempt to control that weapon as part of a response then you effectively seize the initiative. Just do not fall victim of the same 'focus' and allow the attempt to control the weapon to be the entirety of your strategy.

For me that is not conjecture, it is something I have experienced when someone attempted to restructure my face for me (I'm not pretending to be some super-hero street-fighter, it was a one time occurrence but I have had the regretable opportunity to find out what works ).

 

[Jenna]

I certainly agree with *the premise* of controlling the weapon first. And but it does not always work like that in reality. Anyone having a dogmatic view of weapon first and attacker second (or vice versa) is imo putting themselves in danger by ignorance. I have found this to be a chicken-and-egg situation and very much dependent upon the circumstances and it is certainly not always feasible to get the right lock to remove BOTH weapon and attacker simultaneously and which I am well aware of in reality.

I view an armed attack as again imposing a requirement on us for pragmatism. As I say, removal of the weapon is obviously paramount. And but if the we find ourselves in a fortunate position to render the attacker incapable of using the weapon, then we should absolutely take that opportunity and not wait until we are in the correct position to execute a subsequent disarm. That is just my opinion and I have had to adjust my formerly more dogmatic view of weapon disarm in light of reality.

Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

 

[mook jong man]

I always try to control and strike simultaneously , sometimes the strike goes out a few milliseconds before the control.

 

[Carol]

.Do you, when dealing with an opponent with a weapon, work for control of the weapon, while at the same time, executing your defense and counterstrikes, or do you disregard the weapon and just attempt to overwhelm them, with strikes to vital areas?

Why do these have to be mutually exclusive?

Weapons are generally held in the hand, I can find vital areas on the hand and arm.

 

[MJS]

Why do these have to be mutually exclusive?

Weapons are generally held in the hand, I can find vital areas on the hand and arm.

I suppose they don't. IMO, here is the difference. You can pass the weapon hand or block/limb destruction, and at the same time, counter strike. This can be anything from a jab to the eyes, a palm or punch to the face. Something from Arnis that comes to mind for an overhead, icepick type attack, is to move in, blocking the strike before too much downward force is applied, while at the same time, counter grabbing the arm and hitting the face/eyes. From there we can move on to something else, or get away.

Not sure if that answered your question, but if not, please let me know.

 

[kior]

I think it's going to depend a lot on the weapon, the situation and the type of attack. Generally in km we're taught to defend the weapon (using a block, deflection etc combined with a body defence and moving off the line) whilst simultaneously counterattacking if possible. If you can't counterattack simultaneously (or even preemptively!) then you do so as soon as you get the chance. Controlling the weapon is generally an addition to the technique, it is not essential in all cases. It depends a lot on the weapon though, being held at gunpoint it's pretty important that you get control of the gun quickly and don't leave it in the attackers power to use it as you make your escape.

 

[MJS]

I certainly agree with *the premise* of controlling the weapon first. And but it does not always work like that in reality. Anyone having a dogmatic view of weapon first and attacker second (or vice versa) is imo putting themselves in danger by ignorance. I have found this to be a chicken-and-egg situation and very much dependent upon the circumstances and it is certainly not always feasible to get the right lock to remove BOTH weapon and attacker simultaneously and which I am well aware of in reality.

I view an armed attack as again imposing a requirement on us for pragmatism. As I say, removal of the weapon is obviously paramount. And but if the we find ourselves in a fortunate position to render the attacker incapable of using the weapon, then we should absolutely take that opportunity and not wait until we are in the correct position to execute a subsequent disarm. That is just my opinion and I have had to adjust my formerly more dogmatic view of weapon disarm in light of reality.

Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

Good point Jenna.

Let me clarify. The purpose of this thread was sparked from 2 other thread, one on a gun, the other on a knife, in which some members were saying that their main focus is not on the weapon, but instead, overwhleming the badguy with hits to vital areas, to take him out. So, unless I'm reading wrong, I take that as, "Who cares if this guy has a knife, I'm going to hit him in the eyes, the throat, the groin, break his knees, back and neck...oh, and in the meantime, if I take cuts, not a biggie."

Sure, when working club and knife techs., I've had my partner give a real committed attack, and yes, I'd be lying if I said that I never got hit. Difference is, is that I want to minimize as much damage to myself as possible, and IMO, that can be done by controlling the weapon.

As far as disarms go...I put them in the same category as an empty hand vs. empty hand situation. I'm not looking to do something specific. Someone is doing a roundhouse club to my head, I'm not going to be thinking of the X number of techs. for that situation to do. I'm going to react. The situation, environment and targets available to me, are going to dictate what I do.

If we look at a lock flow drill, we'll see a large series of locks. Of course, one would never do all of those, however, its a drill to teach various locks, so when the arm is in a given position, there is a wide array of things to pick from. Same thing with the weapon...I may have to work a bit before I get that disarm.

Whether we grab the arm, wrap our arm around theirs, or pin it to them, I need to get control. Yes, our goal is to take out the badguy, but I don't feel comfortable to just try to take him out with strikes, while the entire time he is swinging that weapon at me.

Sorry for the long post. I hope that answered your question.

 

[MJS]

I think it's going to depend a lot on the weapon, the situation and the type of attack. Generally in km we're taught to defend the weapon (using a block, deflection etc combined with a body defence and moving off the line) whilst simultaneously counterattacking if possible. If you can't counterattack simultaneously (or even preemptively!) then you do so as soon as you get the chance. Controlling the weapon is generally an addition to the technique, it is not essential in all cases. It depends a lot on the weapon though, being held at gunpoint it's pretty important that you get control of the gun quickly and don't leave it in the attackers power to use it as you make your escape.

IMO, I'd say the same would apply to a knife as well. Now, I've seen some KM disarms, in which, as the badguy is coming in, the defender kicks to the groin or face. So yes, in that case, thats the tech. From that distance, the BG isnt close enough, at the moment, to cut anything else, so given the fact that our legs are longer, that works.

Now, once the person is closer, I have read in those other threads I mentioned, where someone said that all they'd do is slap the knife hand away, and overwhelm them with strikes. So yes, while that is good in theory, they're also assuming that the BG is not going to be doing anything else. As I said, we'll probably get cut, but I want to minimize as much damage as I can. By not controlling, I don't feel that I'd reach my goal.

 

[morph4me]

I train to control the weapon by controlling the attacker. A weapon by itself can't hurt you unless there's someone using it, so it's usually a matter of getting inside so the Sometimes people get so focused on the weapon that they forget there's a person attached to it with the intent of doing them bodily harm. That being said I think that disarms and weapons defenses are last resort techniques, to be used only if there's no other choice. If someone wants stuff, I'll give them stuff, if they want to use the weapon, I have nothing to lose by defending.