Understanding the firearm encounter.

[sgtmac_46]

The problem is that many human beings (especially the kind likely to stick a gun in your face) tend to be able to take QUITE A LOT OF PUNISHMENT!

A raise of hands.........how many folks here have ever personally pummeled another human being in to unconsciousness?

To the 'Injure, Injure, Injure' crowd who say to hell with a gun........I'll trade gunshot for punch, knee or elbow any day of the week and twice on Tuesday........I wonder how many gunshot wounds you folks actually think you can take?

'To hell with the gun'.....:snipe2:


'Injure, Injure, Injure'........Yeah, I see how long it usually takes to 'Injure' someone to the point where they submit........usually 3 to 5 5 minute rounds.....if at all! But yes, I know, the all powerful 'eye gouge' isn't allowed in the Octagon.



The problem is that you guys have been training with plastic and wooden guns.........what you NEED to do is get some Simunition guns, load 'em up, put on LIMITED PADDING.........and get a volunteer who isn't your normal training partner........pick a Boxer, Muay Thai or MMA guy........and his ONLY instructions should be 'Stand here and try to shoot me while I try to stop you!'..........see how many times you get shot.




Again, i'll take ANY super-deluxe shot, punch, kick, elbow, etc, anyone wants to give me.........if they are willing to take a gunshot wound in return.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I'm also curious how much power some people think they can generate while holding on to my gun one handed, and both of us swinging around and colliding together in a chaotic manner? The ONLY way some of these suggestions of damaging your opponent work is if you are physically stronger than your opponent to such a degree as to have such an advantage as to be ridiculous.

IF, as is likely the case, the opponent is at the same strength level, or even greater strength level, all of this is dangerous wishful thinking.......not to say that punches and kicks can't be effective in that scenario.....but lose focus on the GUN as THE THREAT is absurd! There may be biting, eye gouging, knees, etc......but the FOCUS is ALWAYS THE GUN!

I think Southnarc provides some excellent points on this......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTBk3rTjuNU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eprLkelgB3M&NR=1

Again, you can take numerous punches........how many gunshot wounds? Gaining control of the gun is a FIGHT ENDER! No one can say the same of ANY single physical technique.

 

[MJS]

Well, this is why I prefer to not just hope that hitting them is going to work. Control, strike, and work for a disarm. IMHO, just hitting them isn't enough, just controlling isn't enough...we need to commit to something and follow through with it.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Well, this is why I prefer to not just hope that hitting them is going to work. Control, strike, and work for a disarm. IMHO, just hitting them isn't enough, just controlling isn't enough...we need to commit to something and follow through with it.

I have to agree MJS. Get off the line of the firearms barrel, control, strike and work for disarm. This seems to be the favored practice around the world.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Well, this is why I prefer to not just hope that hitting them is going to work. Control, strike, and work for a disarm. IMHO, just hitting them isn't enough, just controlling isn't enough...we need to commit to something and follow through with it.

That's the long and the short of it.....strikes have their place, if you find yourself in a position to deliver them......keeping in mind that the gun itself has the power to change the situation in an instant if someone manages to gain control of it.

 

[BLACK LION]

There is a huge difference between pain and injury...it seems as if the two tend to get confused or jumbled together. IMO you either train to inflict pain and dominate or control an opponent or you train to strike vital targets to injure or debilitate your attacker/antagonist/threat.
They are composed of separate but simple principles. Although some may tend to coagulate the two under the same principles they are different and must remain that way due to a few if not many reasons...

pain is subjective... its a sensation of discomfort. You can spend years inflicting pain on someone without threatening life or limb.

Injuries are objective... its bonafide affectuated trauma that needs medical attention... the debilitatting effects could last minutes or a lifetime.

Pain is punching and kicking or grappling with someone with no anatomical agenda... you are seeking to dominate by causing pain in order to control and ultimately win.... pain is a social-moral-legal solution or part of some social interaction in which the parties involved are not using violence in order to control the situation. Every punch and every kick sends a silent signal that "I am not trying to injure or kill you, just hurt you"... its the most primal form of social interaction aka "monkey politics"

Injury is objectively targeting anatomical areas as a means to deny function by inflicting trauma as a means of debilitation or incapacitation. Which will inherently need medical attention or result in loss of life.

To me striking is different than punching and kicking.

Striking is objective... it is performed with the entire body weight with full rotation and projection through the target. It is deliberate and precise and always accompanied by folow up strkes to ensure maximum effect. The force of a strike is normally performed by large muscle groups and intended to replace thier body with yours.

Punching and kicking is subjective... its performed elastically for he most part in which the medium is retracted immediately after its extended... normally the weight of the appendage only is behind this method. Normally a general area is subjected to puncehs or kick i.e. the face/head-torso-arms-legs.... it is inherently a means of social behavior and not violence.

facing a gun is inherently a violent encounter... striking with violence is paramount...its the key to breaking, throwing or anything else one would perceive is applicable when faced with an asocial/violent situation.


There is a big difference here that has to be realized or we will just continue flopping over words and terminology.

 

[BLACK LION]

I have to agree MJS. Get off the line of the firearms barrel, control, strike and work for disarm. This seems to be the favored practice around the world.

I agree.

Thats pretty much it... plus or minus 2 of those things which is control and work for a disarm...

Its paramount to get off the LOF and its paramount to strike targets... controling and disarming are a byproduct of these which may or may not come to fruition... There are times when a chain of strikes are effected the firearm tends to dislodge or disarm on its own... there are also times when a chain of strikes puts the firearm in your control. Often times strikes are incorporated simultaneously with a control medium similar to whats used in KM.

 

[MJS]

If we look at the last post by GBlues, we notice that he makes reference to just slapping the gun away and unleashing on the guy. Yes, while I see the points that you're trying to make, it is an assumption that you will always hit the ideal targets. Its been said that you just dont swing away....ok, fine, so you resort to hitting areas that you'll get the most out of. Fine, but what if you don't get to hit those areas? IMO, it seems like you're assuming you always will, and leaving out the 'what if' factor. What if you can't hit a vital target? What if you do, but it has no effect? What if the guy isn't phased by this supposed overwhelming you plan on doing, and points the gun at you and blows you away?

In an effort to understand where everyone is coming from, I'm going to ask this question:

If you are faced with a gun, what is your method of defense? Lets assume, for the sake of the thread, that the guy is pointing it at you from the front.

 

[BLACK LION]

Well, this is why I prefer to not just hope that hitting them is going to work. Control, strike, and work for a disarm. IMHO, just hitting them isn't enough, just controlling isn't enough...we need to commit to something and follow through with it.

I agree. I wouldnt hope that hitting them worked I would know that striking this particular target will give me this reflex reaction which will posture them accordingly and open other targets. Its a chain of violence than can include control but must always involve striking targets. Often times control is a by product of a strike or simultaneously accompanied by a strike. Getting off the LOF is an essential and integral part of striking and/or control.... You strike(injure) for control...its the only wager I can afford when its my life...

A 6' 8" 300lb man will not let me control and disarm him...he will toss me like a ragdoll. Its a must a target and strike with all my weight to start breaking things if I can beat feet and get the h--- outta there..

 

[BLACK LION]

If we look at the last post by GBlues, we notice that he makes reference to just slapping the gun away and unleashing on the guy. Yes, while I see the points that you're trying to make, it is an assumption that you will always hit the ideal targets. Its been said that you just dont swing away....ok, fine, so you resort to hitting areas that you'll get the most out of. Fine, but what if you don't get to hit those areas? IMO, it seems like you're assuming you always will, and leaving out the 'what if' factor. What if you can't hit a vital target? What if you do, but it has no effect? What if the guy isn't phased by this supposed overwhelming you plan on doing, and points the gun at you and blows you away?

In an effort to understand where everyone is coming from, I'm going to ask this question:

If you are faced with a gun, what is your method of defense? Lets assume, for the sake of the thread, that the guy is pointing it at you from the front.

Single hand or two hand grip???
If he is pointing the gun at me then he is most likely not an assassin effecting a hit or he would have shot me already...so he wants copitulation of some sort...

Hands up in neutral...while anticipating the gun discharging at least one round, get off LOF by rotating and simultaneously striking a target... some targets are available by rotating out side and some by rotating inside... Some targets are available by both ...either way I am working for injuries and the spinal reflex associated with that target to set up the next strike and continous chain of violence. I do not normally attempt to simultaneously control the gun when its pointed at my face although I have trained a different disarms and manipulations that work by stopping the action by gripping the slide on a semi-auto or the revolver on revolvers... then ripping it outward against the trigger finger. I dont focus on the gun that way anymore becuase there are way too many types and too many variable... I would rather focus on the brain and the threat ability to operate the tool.

 

[MJS]

Single hand or two hand grip???

To make the thread interesting, lets examine both.

If he is pointing the gun at me then he is most likely not an assassin effecting a hit or he would have shot me already...so he wants copitulation of some sort...

No, I'm not talking about assassination, I'm talking about a street scenario, ie: robbery, mugging, carjacking, etc

Hands up in neutral...while anticipating the gun discharging at least one round, get off LOF by rotating and simultaneously striking a target... some targets are available by rotating out side and some by rotating inside... Some targets are available by both ...either way I am working for injuries and the spinal reflex associated with that target to set up the next strike and continous chain of violence. I do not normally attempt to simultaneously control the gun when its pointed at my face although I have trained a different disarms and manipulations that work by stopping the action by gripping the slide on a semi-auto or the revolver on revolvers... then ripping it outward against the trigger finger. I dont focus on the gun that way anymore becuase there are way too many types and too many variable... I would rather focus on the brain and the threat ability to operate the tool.

Please clarify for me, what targets you will be looking to hit. Just so I'm reading correctly, you are saying that there are times when you do work for control and others that you do not? If so, what would determine when you would/would not?

 

[BLACK LION]

*Assume the gun always goes off and if I do get shot I most likely wont know it and statistically getting shot once isnt the problem...getting shot multiple times is. If I can still think and move I can still kill him. Like wise if he can still think and move he can kill me, even with bullets in him. Its not really up to me, if he fires the gun wether or not I get shot is predetermined. If I am in front of the muzzle, I get hit. If I am of line then it will miss. If I get shot nothing will alter that. If he fires there is nothing I can do to alter the bullets path. I have two options... dont be there at all or take the man out thats intent on injuring me.

* Regardless of which hand or which way it being held or drawn or presented...INJURING him first is my focus. I want to be the one doing it frst and last. rotation and projection gets me there.

* Once you rotate out of the LOF and project into the threat behind the muzzle all your options open up. Regardless of the grip you have to get in there intimately and get to work. Once again The rotation and projection gets me there. Now that I am in the threats base I can pick and choose which area receives trauma first. Its not really a matter of what targets are available, its which one to start on first and reflex reaction its going to provide. it could be a forearm to the throat sprinkled with a broken kneck and back... It could a finger throught he eye socket and a broken knee sprinkled with a stomp to the throat...

The targets make themselves avaialble once you get that rotation and projection. If you want the targets and are intent on putting in the work to get in there and get it done then you will... if you want to get the h--- outta there and are intent on putting int he work to get it done...you will. If you give the gun magical voodoo powers you will freeze, hesitate or make the wrong choice.

Regardless of the grip the targets remain the same... only the angles deffer... I control the gun by controlling the body and brain behind it. I would rather grab him and injure him than focus on grabbing the weapon and then getting to him... I want him... not his gun.

 

[BLACK LION]

I always need to push, push push and remain torso to torso until I drop him. retention is the opposite which is pull pull pull to create distance and most often thats accomplished by simply dropping down(if he grabs the gun).

I need to recognize the threat >>> project though to injuries

rather than recognize the threat >>>do threat specific move >>>> project through to injury...

that middle part of the latter is where I die

 

[MJS]

*Assume the gun always goes off and if I do get shot I most likely wont know it and statistically getting shot once isnt the problem...getting shot multiple times is. If I can still think and move I can still kill him. Like wise if he can still think and move he can kill me, even with bullets in him. Its not really up to me, if he fires the gun wether or not I get shot is predetermined. If I am in front of the muzzle, I get hit. If I am of line then it will miss. If I get shot nothing will alter that. If he fires there is nothing I can do to alter the bullets path. I have two options... dont be there at all or take the man out thats intent on injuring me.

I'm a bit confused by a few things here. First, how can we assume that getting hit 1 time, will not stop us? Second, in the very next line, you said if you can still think and move. So, if you only got shot 1 time, moving shouldn't be an issue.

Hopefully, we could move faster than he can think about pulling the trigger. His brain has to process our movement, and then he has to pull the trigger. If we could distract him, perhaps by talking, that may buy us time to pull off a defense. I do agree with your thinking of getting off line.

* Regardless of which hand or which way it being held or drawn or presented...INJURING him first is my focus. I want to be the one doing it frst and last. rotation and projection gets me there.

And likewise, that is my thought as well, regarding injury, however, every gun disarm that I've ever seen, has the defender gaining control, and its stressed that this is key. IMO, it seems as if once again, there is an assumption that by hitting the 'sweet spot' will enable us to overwhelm the BG, with no worry of control of the weapon.

* Once you rotate out of the LOF and project into the threat behind the muzzle all your options open up. Regardless of the grip you have to get in there intimately and get to work. Once again The rotation and projection gets me there. Now that I am in the threats base I can pick and choose which area receives trauma first. Its not really a matter of what targets are available, its which one to start on first and reflex reaction its going to provide. it could be a forearm to the throat sprinkled with a broken kneck and back... It could a finger throught he eye socket and a broken knee sprinkled with a stomp to the throat...

Just so I'm understanding correctly...you're saying get off line, no control of the weapon, and immediately go for the throat, eyes, etc.? With all due respect, this is starting to remind me of those folks who think that those shots are 'The Deadly" fight enders. Now, while I do have faith in those things, I'm not assuming that they'll halt the person. Now, if you're talking about flowing from one shot to the next, etc., then yes, I'd be more willing to go with that theory.

Again, just so I'm understanding here, you're doing all of this without any weapon control?

The targets make themselves avaialble once you get that rotation and projection. If you want the targets and are intent on putting in the work to get in there and get it done then you will... if you want to get the h--- outta there and are intent on putting int he work to get it done...you will. If you give the gun magical voodoo powers you will freeze, hesitate or make the wrong choice.

Regardless of the grip the targets remain the same... only the angles deffer... I control the gun by controlling the body and brain behind it. I would rather grab him and injure him than focus on grabbing the weapon and then getting to him... I want him... not his gun.

I think at this point, we'll have to agree to disagree on the control aspect.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I agree. I wouldnt hope that hitting them worked I would know that striking this particular target will give me this reflex reaction which will posture them accordingly and open other targets. Its a chain of violence than can include control but must always involve striking targets. Often times control is a by product of a strike or simultaneously accompanied by a strike. Getting off the LOF is an essential and integral part of striking and/or control.... You strike(injure) for control...its the only wager I can afford when its my life...

A 6' 8" 300lb man will not let me control and disarm him...he will toss me like a ragdoll. Its a must a target and strike with all my weight to start breaking things if I can beat feet and get the h--- outta there..

And yet striking is notoriously ineffective in stopping committed individuals........knockouts by unconsciousness or debilitation are the exception, not the rule.

I must humbly disagree.......counting on strikes to disable an armed man is a gamble that I consider a long shot......I hear often how this art and that art is capable of causing immediately critical damage with one or two strikes.......but I rarely see any real world examples of that in practice, except against opponents who are extremely over matched.


Again, the notion that we are going to violently strike with OUR most powerful weapons, and it will overwhelm him IGNORES the fact that his most powerful weapon is more powerful than ours........weapon must be removed.



Now if you have your OWN gun, then I agree.........move HIS weapon off line, as you draw yours, and shoot him in the Fatal T at point blank range! But short of that, the odd's of causing instant incapacitation with your bare hands, from the front, while controlling his weapon, is pretty darned low, with all due respect, IMHO.

I could be wrong.....and am open to the possibilities if real world evidence presents itself.

 

[BLACK LION]

"A strike is an attack with an inanimate object, such as a weapon, or with a part of the human body intended to cause an effect upon an opponent or to simply cause harm to an opponent"

Focus-Penetration-Kinetic linkage-Gravity

I do count on TRUE striking... not just punching or kicking the surface but projecting 3 feet beyond the focused target with my entire body weith.
I do count on injuries above all else... in combination, sequence or whatever you call it... I refer to it as a chain in which injuries are linked together to form true and complete threat incapacitation...

Injury shifts the odds in the favor of who is causing them... Injury is the only focus if I cant get the hell outta there.

recognize the threat and injure repeatedly til non functional... scrambling fro threat specific techniques will get me closer to being injured and not doing the injury.... its simply cause and effect.... either you are causing injury or you are effected by them...

there is no magic.

the control aspect comes from the injury... I wish to control the operator and not the tool...

I know for a fact that I nor anyone living and breathing can just get up and walk away from a crushed windpipe and a broken neck without the assistance of a gurnee or a trip to the doctor... no matter the threshold... this is not about pain and discomfort...its about denying the electrical or mechanical function of the body.


the problem here is not what I am posting... its the mysticism and voodoo magic of the gun thats prevelant. There has to be a technique for the gun and the focus has to be the gun... why? Just becuase you shoot someone or get shot doesnt mean they are dead unless you hit a vital target...on top of that..whats to say the gun isnt fake or jammed or unfamiliar...all these variables and many other that relate all lead away from the greasy, gritty truth.... its not about the gun or some technique to gain control of it to give you the upper hand... its about running them down and getting in there torso to torso and killing them where they stand...

there is no easy way or any magical pill... its hard work but thats what training is for... but the stupid-simple truth is, its your job is to run that man down and kill him with your body or whatever you can muster before he can kill you... push push push...not giving an inch. Gaining control of the firearm does not negate the fact that you could still be killed even with it in your hands.... TAKE OUT THE OPERATOR....

the gun is not the most powerful weapon and not my ultimate threat...

a working mind and body is the most powerful weapon and the ultimate threat.... not the tool. A moving thinking human can still injure me with or without the tool....

I also keep seeing reference to one shot and thats not what I am advocating.... I AM ADVOCATING REPEATED INJURY TO NON FUNCTIONALITY..... NO LESS

 

[BLACK LION]

SGT... I know in my heart you can break a mans neck with your bare hands... I know you can break a knee or spine or trachea with a well ececuted stomp... I know you can send a rib into the liver with a well executed elbow.... the list goes on... with the right principles in place its easier to injure a threat in the field than it is to not injure your partner in training.... its the mental focus and the work to get in there torso to torso thats not so easy.

 

[MJS]

What I find rather interesting is the following....

every video clip I've seen, every martial artist I've worked with, every picture I've seen in a book, that is regarding weapon disarms, have all advocated the same thing...control of the weapon. I find it rather interesting that all of these people are doing the same thing. Unless I've missed it, I've yet to see someone use the 'disregard the weapon and overwhelm them with force' method. But hey, I suppose there's a first time for everything.

BL,

Thank you again for going into an indepth breakdown. A few things that I'll comment on from you post.

1) I agree with the strike thru theory. Yes, that should be a no brainer that we want to hit thru the target.

2) Much like empty hand defense in training, the opponent should not just stand there, but instead try to create a live feeling, therefore they should not just stand there, but instead move, and offer resistance. So, going on what you're saying, during your overwhelming attempts, are you saying that the badguy isn't going to be trying to defend himself? Do you think that if he has a blade, that he's not going to be swinging it, while you're trying to overwhelm him? You're willing to take the extra damage by not controlling the weapon? Now, yes, I know we'll probably be cut, but like I said, if I can minimize the damage I'm going to.

3) I think there may be some confusion, when you hear the word control. I'm not saying to grab onto the arm and do nothing more than struggle for control. I'm saying, gain control, even by means of doing an initial shot to momentarily distract the person, punish the person, work for disarm. I want to take away one of his tools, which is the weapon.

4) I like to think about the what if. So my question is, what if what you're doing fails? Please don't tell me that what you do is a sure shot thing, because in my years of training, I've yet to come across the ultimate art. If what you're doing works for you, God bless, more power to you. However, for those that are not advocating the same thing, please don't make it sound like those methods will not work.

 

[zDom]

its simply cause and effect.... either you are causing injury or you are effected by them...

Here is one of the specifics we disagree on:

You can't count on it being "either/or" — chances are BOTH are happening: you are (if doing things right) causing injury but are ALSO very likely to be RECEIVING injuries simulataneously.

Trading injuries you do with empty hands for injuries done to you with a weapon is NOT a good trade!

How you be SURE you are giving while not receiving injuries? You can't. All you can do is increase your odds and mitigate the injuries you receive through diligent training of worthwhile techniques.

If you or anyone out there is SO good that they can ALWAYS overwhelm ANY attacker with determination and skill, they should definitely take up professional fighting — I'd love to see it. I would tune in regularly to watch Mr. or Mrs. Undefeatable defy all the odds on a regular basis.

 

[BLACK LION]

I apologize in advance for not being able to focus on every one of your points so let me just generalize my point here and hope it suffices...

I am not advocating complete ignorance of the tool or firearm in this case... there are some instances in which deflecting or capturing or controlling or stripping or disarming the gun is in order but not without Injuring them as the focus and the goal... If you just jump and grab the gun the threat could easily just pull by sitting or laying down and you get dumped into... focus on disarming the gun and not injuring the operator is a bad recipe. It may require some sort of fein or feint or kansas city shuffle or whatever... the focus and goal should be injury... how you get there is not the concern... its getting the injury first that changes the odds in your favor... if someone puts a gun to my head and asks for something he missed his chance to kill me... what I do at that moment to get to the injury is up to that time and place... what I dont want to focus on is which way can I wrestle the gun away from him while forsaking myself the luxury of injuries... if he puts a gun to my head the last thing I want to do is grab the gun and dance over it without injuring him...

Injuries give you everything... wether its a break or a dump or a throw or a disarm or what have you... you have to break down the man behind the tool and not the tool behind the man...

I am not against de-tooling the threat or controlling the tool becuase there are times that warrant it like attacks from behind but there are times that dont... injuries must be primary focus and the priority becuase that is what will give me true control... I cant just jump up and grap the gun hoping hell let me turn it against his finger joint and break his finger while stripping it away to shoot him with it... try that with a 105lb female against a 250 lb man... who do you think will have true control... while she is working to crank the gun away he is free to backhand her into next teusday... now if she were to shove a thumb through his eyeball while grabbing a fistfull of jewels and twisting... her odds of controling or disarming just increased favorably...

Some good FOF with airsoft clears up many misconceptions