# Understanding the firearm encounter.



## BLACK LION (May 27, 2009)

A firearm is a tool for killing plain and simple. 

Because of this...

Many myths and misconceptions are associated with firearms. To many, they are perceived to have some sort of mystical powers and carry super powers far beyond the human capability...for this reason they can be used to persudade or force copitulation and even execution. 

 However they are tools just the same and require a body with the intent and ability to put it to work.  Many people train with and against firearms separate from other tools and most often train differently... although there are differences between the two... like the fact that distance while facing a blade is  safer than distance while facing a firearm... the safest place when dealing with a firearm is behind the muzzle, not in front of it...   although there are differences between the two and other labor saving devices or impact tools...the principles in combating the threat remain the same.  

Many outfits advocate "disarms" or some technique involving wrestling  or grappling with the firearm...I do not condone this aside from having the ability to "stop or block the action" as a means of temporarily incapacitating the tool while striking targets and the ability to "strip the firearm by trapping the the trigger finger in the trigger guard and rotating the firearm to the outside...never to the inside...   like the blade there is a principle of checking wich includes deflection and securing of the firearm... 
Striking targets to prevent biodily function is paramount and must be a constant regardless of the tool or anything else...  as with the blade one must assume the gun will go off at the least and embrace the fact that you can/will be shot... nevertheless striking targets to injure and incapacitate is the focus above all.... 
The principles of aggression are the same as the blade and any other inpact or blunt tool and that is... rotate out side of line of fire hence shifting the point of aim point of impact - project throught target and follow through... simultaneously and continously.   You may have to deflect the gun to your back with an elbow or you may not have to deal with it at all... you may have to put the firearm in a "headlock" or not have to touch it at all... you may have to stop the action or the cycle of the firearm or not tussle with it at all...regardless of anything striking targets must bethe focus and be constant until there is no more function of any threat(s)


----------



## MJS (May 27, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> A firearm is a tool for killing plain and simple.
> 
> Because of this...
> 
> ...


 
So basically your line of thinking is along the same lines as what we'd see in Krav Maga?  Move your body and the weapon offline, control the weapon, and counter strike.

For the record, I am not against the KM gun disarms, although some have questioned them in other forums.  

As for grappling with a weapon...a struggle will most likely happen, so yes, if the strikes dont have the effect that we had hoped, we will most likely have to struggle for control of the weapon.  Of course, while doing that, we should be striking the person, ie: kicks, knees, punches, etc.


----------



## GBlues (May 27, 2009)

Another thing that I would like to add, is that from what I've been told your main worry is multiple shot wounds. I guess in about 85-90% of the time, the gunman doesn't actually hit a vital target that will kill you. It's the multiple gun shot wounds that you have to worry about. So even if you get shot, there is a good chance that you can continue. SOmething to think about. Perhaps your not able to run but your to far away to mount a good offense of counter, perhaps you could rush and minimalize the multiple gun shots. Just a theory, a gun fight I have never been in, nor do I want to be. Just thought I would add that and see what you guys thought. Cause I would think that the longer you waited to act the more chance it gives your attacker the time to get the intent up to shoot you. I think that is another factor also, it doesn't take much intent on the gunman's part to shoot and kill you. Just pull the trigger and the intent is pretty much taken care of by the bullet. So.......you know.


----------



## BLACK LION (May 27, 2009)

I notice that KM advocates rotating the firearm inward with the natural bend of the finger and not to the outside against the natural bend .  


I also notice alot of focus or emphasis on controling the weapon and using punches and kicks as a defense...    I see less striking with the entire body and more elastic maneuvers.  I see less breaking or dumping associated with proper rotation and projection through the target....  What I have experienced in training is that with a properly executed chain of injuries the tool tends to disarm itself either from bodily impact or gravitational impact... often times the tool is stripped becuase the were hit so hard it flew out, wether its with the body or the earth... 

Dont get me wrong... there are principles and such that can be extracted from every system... KM has a few of them including the "headlock" they use for rear attack...  

However many systems are adorned with far too many techniques and less emphasis on basic principles...


----------



## BLACK LION (May 27, 2009)

GBlues said:


> Another thing that I would like to add, is that from what I've been told your main worry is multiple shot wounds. I guess in about 85-90% of the time, the gunman doesn't actually hit a vital target that will kill you. It's the multiple gun shot wounds that you have to worry about. So even if you get shot, there is a good chance that you can continue. SOmething to think about. Perhaps your not able to run but your to far away to mount a good offense of counter, perhaps you could rush and minimalize the multiple gun shots. Just a theory, a gun fight I have never been in, nor do I want to be. Just thought I would add that and see what you guys thought. Cause I would think that the longer you waited to act the more chance it gives your attacker the time to get the intent up to shoot you. I think that is another factor also, it doesn't take much intent on the gunman's part to shoot and kill you. Just pull the trigger and the intent is pretty much taken care of by the bullet. So.......you know.


 
the statistic was that 95% of people shot once survive....   

Depending on the scenario...escape can be a viable option if there is adequate cover or distance from threat.  I have had a gun drawn on me from approx 15 feet while being commanded to get down... I noticed an 8ft hill and decided I had a better chance if I ran and I did just that.  
Point being, moving targets are harder to hit wether aggressing or eggressing....    

being or staying  static is akin to sitting on a toilet in the middle of a kill zone to go #2...    indecision is essentialy assisting in ones murder and possibly the murder of others...  

One thing many mat not consider is utilizing the accomplice(s) as a "meat shield" for aggressing or eggressing... it is a viable option.


----------



## GBlues (May 27, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> the statistic was that 95% of people shot once survive....
> 
> Depending on the scenario...escape can be a viable option if there is adequate cover or distance from threat. I have had a gun drawn on me from approx 15 feet while being commanded to get down... I noticed an 8ft hill and decided I had a better chance if I ran and I did just that.
> Point being, moving targets are harder to hit wether aggressing or eggressing....
> ...


 
Yeah, moving is definitely better. So the statistic is pretty right on then. So figuring that, your most pressing matter isn't being shot once it's being shot more than once. Right? Of course you don't want to get shot even once, but you know what I mean. YOu either have to run and get the hell out of dodge, or you have to kill the guy before he can shoot you once, twice, or even more.


----------



## MA-Caver (May 27, 2009)

Tuco said it best in "The Good, The Bad & The Ugly".... "if you're going to shoot, shoot, don't talk."


----------



## searcher (May 27, 2009)

GBlues said:


> Another thing that I would like to add, is that from what I've been told your main worry is multiple shot wounds. I guess in about 85-90% of the time, the gunman doesn't actually hit a vital target that will kill you.


 
Depends on who is doing the shooting.    And it kinda sucks if you are from the 10-15% that are in the "one-shot kill" group.




BLACK LION said:


> I notice that KM advocates rotating the firearm inward with the natural bend of the finger and not to the outside against the natural bend .


 

The reasoningfor this is that if you bend the wrist toward the palm side, it makes the finger nearly impossible to actuate the trigger.


----------



## KenpoTex (May 27, 2009)

I think it's a little dumb to get hung-up on which direction to rotate the gun (inside vs. outside).  The situation is going to dictate which technique is used.  Things like the position of your body relative to your oponent, bystanders nearby, location of allies or other hostiles...these are just a few things that might influence which direction you go _if you even get to choose._


----------



## MJS (May 28, 2009)

I have to agree with KenpoTex on this.  I've seen discussion on inside vs outside methods of disarms.  Much like what art is better, this is something in which the battle will rage on and on. LOL.

He does bring up good points though.  I mean, I've read KM instructors say the same thing....you need to take into consideration whether or not you are with someone, as well as bystanders in the area.  If my wife was standing on my left, to move to the inside would put her in danger.  Likewise, if there was a group of people standing on the street corner, moving to the other side would put them in danger.


----------



## BLACK LION (May 28, 2009)

Great input guys...


Thats exactly why I dont get hung up on the gun at all or grappling with it for that matter... It gets too specific and there are many contrasting opinions and practices.... 

Its good to practice stripping and stopping the action but I dont bank on those things... I am really only concerned with getting out from in front of that muzzle and putting them down as smooth and ruthless as possible.... 

The gunjitsu stuff is good to know but when life and death is measured in seconds I really dont have time to worry about the gun itself...my focus is denying him normal function so the threat ceases to exist... I dont have the luxury of intricate maneuvers... 

From my experience... if the agression is executed properly the gun ends up stripping itself.... especially once the earth hits thier body... 

the principles here are the same as any tool... dont focus on disarming or grappling with the tool... focus on shutting down the real threat and dont stop till the job is done...even if you have been blugeoned -stabbed or shot...


----------



## zDom (May 28, 2009)

Something to add regarding running away:

Try to include some lateral movement relative to the shooter (if possible, while trying to get something between muzzle and you).

It is harder for a gunman to track left-right and hit the target then it is up-down or target running in a straight line toward or away.


----------



## jks9199 (May 28, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> the statistic was that 95% of people shot once survive....
> 
> Depending on the scenario...escape can be a viable option if there is adequate cover or distance from threat.  I have had a gun drawn on me from approx 15 feet while being commanded to get down... I noticed an 8ft hill and decided I had a better chance if I ran and I did just that.
> Point being, moving targets are harder to hit wether aggressing or eggressing....
> ...


Support that statistic, please.  And does it take into account the difference in circumstances?  For example, an accidental shooting versus deliberate, defensive shooting compared to offensive.

A bullet is definitely not an automatic fight-ender; not even a hail of bullets.  All the same -- I don't know that I would want to bet on ineffective shot placement from my assailant.  That just kind of seems like relying on the attacker to attack you "properly..."


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 30, 2009)

I see a lot of statements about getting the gun off line and then 'shutting down' the attacker with physical techniques........that's all well and good......but I see a minor problem.......some people don't shut down so easy.

Moreover, the fight is probably going to go to whoever gets control of that firearm first.....NOT who can punch the other person in the face the most times.

Lets look at some real world situations and see how strikes and physical techniques fit in to the equation.......i'll provide one example, and i'm sure plenty of folks can find others.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3848295523081681233

The suspect had a gun in his waist band.......he pulled it out when the scuffle began.  Those in the 'I'd control the gun and then apply my destruct skills to neutralize the attacker' point out where these skills would have come in to play.  At what point should Trooper Cress taken his hand off of the gun and began striking the suspect?

Now note that Trooper Cress does get the subject face down, and attempts strikes to distract, but they ultimately serve no purpose other than that.  He ultimately has to retrieve his own gun to end the confrontation.........those suggesting some sort of rear-naked choke would be well advised to consider the logical consequences of that action.

I suspect that this is indicative of REAL world struggles over firearms.......that of a prolonged struggle over the firearm, resulting in one person gaining control of it (or his own) and ending the struggle view weapon.


I'm open to other possibilities........if someone can provide some REAL WORLD examples of them in application.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 30, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> Support that statistic, please.  And does it take into account the difference in circumstances?  For example, an accidental shooting versus deliberate, defensive shooting compared to offensive.
> 
> A bullet is definitely not an automatic fight-ender; not even a hail of bullets.  All the same -- I don't know that I would want to bet on ineffective shot placement from my assailant.  That just kind of seems like relying on the attacker to attack you "properly..."



I'm going to bet that the statistic is probably for ALL shootings, including the accidental variety, which as you allude to would definitely skew our results.

Personally, i'm more interested in knowing the statistic of how often the average bad guy hits what he's shooting at.......that one seems most relevant......of course even that one's not necessarily useful, as we have no way of knowing if we have the 'average' bad guy, the (hopefully) 'BELOW average' bad guy, or (hopefully NOT) 'ABOVE average' bad guy.


----------



## BLACK LION (May 30, 2009)

You cant just get control... you have to take it.... maybe you are stronger than that guy that particualr time, maybe you are more trained than him...what about when he is stronger or better trained... can you still get control...maybe with luck...   Targeting gives me a guarantee... If I have to stop the action or cycle of the firearm or put it in a lock or strip it while I am doing that then so be it... I shouldnt NEED the gun to defeat any threat.  


As far as the statistic...it may have been incomplete or distorted a bit from the actual by the person who represented it...It could have also been dated. I have found more recent statistics that somewhat support that statement but not entirely. 
Check out 
Dr. Vincent J. Di Maio


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 30, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> You cant just get control... you have to take it.... maybe you are stronger than that guy that particualr time, maybe you are more trained than him...what about when he is stronger or better trained... can you still get control...maybe with luck...   Targeting gives me a guarantee... If I have to stop the action or cycle of the firearm or put it in a lock or strip it while I am doing that then so be it... I shouldnt NEED the gun to defeat any threat.
> 
> 
> As far as the statistic...it may have been incomplete or distorted a bit from the actual by the person who represented it...It could have also been dated. I have found more recent statistics that somewhat support that statement but not entirely.
> ...



You 'shouldn't' need the gun to defeat any threat......but in the real world things don't usually go as they 'should'. 

The gun is a game ender.......a punch or a kick or a knee not necessarily so.  Even if you lock in the PERFECT rear-naked choke, for example, and I have mere seconds of consciousness left...........I can negate that rear naked choke if i've gained control of the gun simply by pressing the barrel of the gun against the chokers femur, just for example, and pulling the trigger until he lets go.......which he'll do when I shatter his femur and the hot exhaust gases from the gun actually explode the meat of the thigh and create a huge contact wound entry hole........repeat as needed!


----------



## MJS (May 30, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> I see a lot of statements about getting the gun off line and then 'shutting down' the attacker with physical techniques........that's all well and good......but I see a minor problem.......some people don't shut down so easy.
> 
> Moreover, the fight is probably going to go to whoever gets control of that firearm first.....NOT who can punch the other person in the face the most times.
> 
> ...


 
Couldn't agree more, especially with the first 2 paragraphs.  I too, have seen this advocated in a few other threads, however, I have been saying that I personally do not want to rely on that alone.  I never have and never will be, a card carrying member of the 1 hit, 1 kill club.  Not saying it can't happen, but for me, control is more important than trying to KO the guy or overwhelm him with shots, while he has full control of the weapon.


----------



## MJS (May 30, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> You cant just get control... you have to take it.... maybe you are stronger than that guy that particualr time, maybe you are more trained than him...what about when he is stronger or better trained... can you still get control...maybe with luck... Targeting gives me a guarantee... If I have to stop the action or cycle of the firearm or put it in a lock or strip it while I am doing that then so be it... I shouldnt NEED the gun to defeat any threat.


 

However, the same can be said about empty hand SD as well.  Nothing says that if I hit this guy 4 times in the face, while we hope that as martial artists, we have an advantage, nothing says that those shots will do nothing more than piss the guy off.  IMO, I think its a bit risky saying that its a guarentee.  

Again, I will refer back to the DLO clip by the dog bros.  We repeatedly saw them gaining control, punsihing the guy, and working from there.


----------



## GBlues (May 30, 2009)

Let me refer to the clip and tell you the officer never got an injury until he shot the guy. Big difference here, big difference. Nobody is advocating a one shot kill. I haven't said that, and I'm relatively sure that Black Lion hasn't said that. What we have said, is get the injury. 

The deal is this, the human body can take a lot, a lot of non-specific trauma. You can beat a guy for an hour sometimes longer, before you knock him out, or cause an injury with non-specific blunt force trauma. Throwing blows wildly and crazy and just hitting whatever you can hit, is fine, if you want to drag it out as long as possible, increasing the chances of him getting the upper hand.

Now, what the body can't take is injury. Target specific injury. You hit a guy in the face, and yeah it hurts, but it didn't cause an injury unless you broke his jaw. What I think people are missing is the piling on of injuries. It's not about one strike one kill, it's about getting the first one and landing it so you can get more injuries.

A guy has a gun pointed at you and you decide to focus on the weapon. That is not your primary problem. The gun is useless without somebody to make it function. Your problem is the guy pointing the gun at you with the desire to kill you. If you go for the disarm and you don't get it, your wrestling with this guy for the gun. WHich, has no power of it's own to do you any harm, unless the trigger is activated by a finger. 

To do a disarm on a gun you have to move offline to begin with. While either grabbing the gun or then grabbing the gun. Why waste the effort on the gun hand, when you could just get an injury. A lot of people on here are confusing injuries with pressure point knockouts I think, or the good old fashioned just hit the guy. WHile yes it is as simple as just hit the guy, it's about where you hit. People who think they can take a shot, (i.e, a punch or kick), are stupid. You can not take a targeted strike to your body. It's not going to happen. The same way people swear that guys jacked up on pcp or cocaine can get up and walk with two broken legs. Not happening it's impossible. If he got up and started coming at you, it means you didn't break the legs, simple. There's no magic pill going to change that. THe same with rupturing testicles. If you get the injury and you rupture, he's not standing upright anymore. He's bent over and no longer thinking about shooting you, he's crying over his destroyed fun bags. Same with my thumb. I really think that if I shove my thumb 2 inches into an attackers or gunfighters eyeball socket, he's not gonna worry about shooting me anymore, he's going to worry about his missing eye. Injuries aren't a matter of a tough body. There is no way to strengthen those areas, because they are weak areas of the body for every single person walking this planet. 

The point that I'm trying to make is this. You take a gun away from somebody, your fingerprints are on it. You now have the weapon, if you continue any attack at that point you become the attacker, and if the cops show up, that is what they see. A bad guy pointing a gun at a citizen, and it could turn really bad. So you just pistol whipped the guy big deal, your prints are all over the gun, his blood is all over the pistol butt, and your going to jail for assault and battery. That gun is probably not going to be registered to the attacker, so you can't prove that it's his, and for all you know it could have been used in countless murders. Possession is 9/10th's of the law.  Guess what, your in possession of a weapon that has killed god knows how many people. On the other hand, if you beat the man to death with your barehands, well, his fingerprints are all over it and it's much easier to prove that he was the bad guy, than to prove that you weren't.

If your going to mess with the gun hand at all it should be to give you more room, slap it away from you and PLOW into this guy like your lineback for the Dallas Cowboys with your forearm leading aimed directly at his throat, or a fist at his xiphoid process,  or two fingers going for his eye, whatever you feel comfortable with. But make sure your weight is behind it, and your causing as much damage to that target as you possibly can. Once you get that injury you don't stop there you pile on more injuries, because you do not want to find out that he has another gun stashed in his pocket after you just blasted him in the throat. YOu can't give them time to recover. You start from the injury and continue to add more injury on top of more injury, and sytematically wreck his body. Till you feel comfortable enough that you can safely turn your back on him and walk away. Cause you never know, he may have buddies around that you have to deal with also, again you don't want him getting up.

Injury, injury, injury, injury, and more injury. The hell with taking the gun away, or hitting him in the face 4 times. Injure this man...life alteringly so. Even if you don't kill the guy, when he gets out of the hospital he's missing an eye, a nose, or he's limping for the rest of his life, or his arm doesn't work. He didn't pull a gun on you because he wants to show it to you and tell you how great you are as a martial artist. He pulled it on you because he wants to kill you. No other reason to pull a gun and point it at anybody.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 31, 2009)

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 (May 31, 2009)

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 (May 31, 2009)

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 (May 31, 2009)

MJS said:


> 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 (Jun 1, 2009)

MJS said:


> 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 (Jun 1, 2009)

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 (Jun 1, 2009)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> 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 (Jun 1, 2009)

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 (Jun 1, 2009)

MJS said:


> 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 (Jun 1, 2009)

MJS said:


> 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 (Jun 1, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> 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 (Jun 2, 2009)

*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 (Jun 2, 2009)

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 (Jun 2, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> *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 (Jun 3, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> 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 (Jun 3, 2009)

"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 (Jun 3, 2009)

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 (Jun 4, 2009)

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 (Jun 4, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> 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" &#8212; 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 &#8212; 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 (Jun 4, 2009)

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


----------



## jetboatdeath (Jun 5, 2009)

Going a bit off topic here but alot of people do alot of work trying to fight the anti-gun people and it pisses me off to see topics start off with "A firearm is a tool for killing plain and simple. "

It is not that plain and simple, yes it is a tool that COULD be used for killing, but then again so is a hammer.

Trust me anti's check out forums like this all the time and use this stuff to their advantage.

Sorry for the break in the topic just thought I needed to state that....
Thanks.


----------



## BLACK LION (Jun 5, 2009)

jetboatdeath said:


> Going a bit off topic here but alot of people do alot of work trying to fight the anti-gun people and it pisses me off to see topics start off with "A firearm is a tool for killing plain and simple. "
> 
> It is not that plain and simple, yes it is a tool that COULD be used for killing, but then again so is a hammer.
> 
> ...


 
Firearms were designed with one thing in mind...  killing...you cant build a home with one or plant trees or fix a gcar of anything of the such...    they were created to cause injury or great harm from a distance without any certain skill or physical prowess.... put a gun in a mans handds with no physical abilities or anything and they can kill just the same...    

hammers have many other uses and were not designed with only one... 


and your sig says "crime is my desert"... 





to each his own


----------



## jetboatdeath (Jun 5, 2009)

Black Lion i understand what you are saying but that is not what every firearm is designed for. I have a single shot .22 short can you tell me that a .22 short was made to kill?


----------



## thardey (Jun 5, 2009)

jetboatdeath said:


> Black Lion i understand what you are saying but that is not what every firearm is designed for. I have a single shot .22 short can you tell me that a .22 short was made to kill?


 

I know this is probably not the direction you indended to go, but a firearm isn't good for much more that _violently_ putting holes in things. 

I've never, when the battery on my drill died, considered using a gun to replace the drill.

Yes, they both holes in things, but guns are specifically designed to do it violently. Larger calibers are for killing larger things, smaller calibers are for either killing smaller things, or to simulate through practice the killing of things, even if those things are pieces of paper or tin cans.

Target shooting is a game of skill, and doesn't require the desire to cause death, pain, or physical harm, but at the root of it, the guns used for it are copies of guns designed to kill. The game imitates life.

It's like sparring: you can certainly spar for sporting's sake, but you have to admit that the design of sparring was for training in situations where you would be trying to protect yourself.

Same thing: firearms were designed for killing. If you modify and use them for different purposes, the original design is still the same.

Swords and Bows are in the same boat, they're designed to kill.

Knifes are starting to cross over -- they are designed to cut meat and flesh and vegetable, but for most uses that is limited to preparing food. They are also useful for cutting the "meat" of an attacker.

This is why debates about firearm rights are more hotly contested than the right drive cars, which are much more dangerous. Cars were designed to transport us, with a side effect of being dangerous. Guns were designed to kill animals, (two, or four legged ones) with the side effect of being a downright fun sport! (Target shooting, I mean.)


----------



## zDom (Jun 8, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> they were created to cause injury or great harm from a distance without any certain skill or physical prowess....



I would beg to differ. They take some skill and the required skill increases with distance.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Jun 9, 2009)

Blah Blah Blah. Fantasy Warrior nonsense from someone who mishmashes his training, and won't ID talking out his *** at those who will. WhoppidyDoDo-do. I read lots of talk, but where's the video's BL? Where's the creds to back it all up? Ex Military? last unit & duty station. I like to know if I'm mistasking someone with a clue, or a tired wannabe desk jockey who's swallowed too much fake SF crap from the back of crapbelt rag.


----------



## BLACK LION (Jun 10, 2009)

The Last Legionary said:


> Blah Blah Blah. Fantasy Warrior nonsense from someone who mishmashes his training, and won't ID talking out his *** at those who will. WhoppidyDoDo-do. I read lots of talk, but where's the video's BL? Where's the creds to back it all up? Ex Military? last unit & duty station. I like to know if I'm mistasking someone with a clue, or a tired wannabe desk jockey who's swallowed too much fake SF crap from the back of crapbelt rag.


 I appreciate your candid disrespect my good man. 
And you feel so entitled becuase??? It took a comp and a keyboard for you to type post after post and gain those adornments on your profile so whos jockeying a desk???  
Call it what you will. Call me what you want. It changes nothing nor does it favor your position. Talking s--- becuase you disagree with typing says nothing of your character.Likewise,  me obliging your frothing at the mouth says nothing of mine.  
It seems your issues are elsewhere and not with me.  

I find these posts amusing becuase a little training and one can clearly see where the focus should be when facing an armed threat. I dont care to spoon feed anyone.... consider it as an option or dont... you dont pay my bills or feed and protect my family so ultimately what does all the slack jawed gabber amount to...  zero. 
Thank you for another great post that was so full of relative info to the topic....   maybe next time you can post contrary knowledge and experience or something regarding the topic.  

I cordially welcome you to train here in San Diego on any of the days we are out there.  You can make your determination in the flesh.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Jun 10, 2009)

Adornments? What adornments? You keep mentioning those, and I have no idea what kinda a weed you might be smoking to see them. Oh, wait.
You mean 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





? That costs me $10 a month, lets the bald guy running the joint pay the server rent.
You mean 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




? I got that one because I know what button to push.

Learn the software and contribute to the cause little man. You too can have shiney badges, unless you don't need no stinking badges, just like you don't need to show any actual credentials to post your dangerous and vacuous processed cow feed. Stop in and train with you? Right. Tell me who you are, and why you matter and I might care mate. Because the anonymous "Special Forces Wanker WannaBe" pap you toss around here looks like any article that slips through the non existant quality control at the martial art soap rags.

As to me posting content, I've seen little from you to merit an exchange. I prefer to do so with equals, not pretenders and liars and wannabes. So, which one are you again? Never mind. It's obvious. Oh look, I trod in a Black Lion, got to find a stick and scrape it off. Tally Ho.

Now to go see if someone has stopped grinning inanely or if they got butt hurt again.

Oh yeah, Ride that Nut GracieFan! Whee!


----------



## MJS (Jun 10, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> 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...
> 
> ...


 
Well, hopefully we can get back to some good debate.  As for this post....IMO, the control of the weapon while at the same time striking the BG, would be the best option.  Initially, I'm not looking for a disarm of the weapon, but again, a simultaneous control and counter strikes.  

Granted, the gun is only going to harm us when its pointed at us, however, I don't want the BG to dictate where its pointed, I want to.

As for where to strike....the options are unlimited.  Punches to the face, strikes to the eyes, the nose, the throat, the groin, whatever.


----------



## BLACK LION (Jun 10, 2009)

The Last Legionary said:


> Adornments? What adornments? You keep mentioning those, and I have no idea what kinda a weed you might be smoking to see them. Oh, wait.
> You mean
> 
> 
> ...


 
That sure was a mouthful wasnt it... dont sacrifice your blood pressure for this wannabe... 
What credit do I need with a bumbling windbag especially if I am one if not all of the things you stated above.

All this superiority and expertise you exude is oozing from my monitor... 
if it were only air between us you my friend would not have disrespect and dcontempt as an option.  I dont know...maybe where you are from thats how people talk to each other...   not here....  

 I wish you the best in all your exchanges with those who are worthy to exchange with you. 

 I will now politely use the ignore feature for the first time ever as a means of damage control becuase I could easily get myself banned right here and now.  

Tootles big man....


----------



## lklawson (Jun 11, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> I find these posts amusing becuase a little training and one can clearly see where the focus should be when facing an armed threat.


Sorry, but this doesn't seem to be true at all.  Many of the people taking exception with your strategy have more than "a little training" and yet disagree with you on certain fundamentals of your strategy here.

Further, it seems that your specific strategy for dealing with a firearms encounter mirrors your specific strategy for dealing with a knife encounter as you already elucidated in a nearly identical thread on the knife sub-forum which you titled "Understanding the knife encounter."  There again, many people with more than "a little training" disagreed with key elements of your specific strategy.

QED, the statement "a little training and one can clearly see where the focus should be when facing an armed threat" is false.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jun 11, 2009)

The Last Legionary said:


> Oh yeah, Ride that Nut GracieFan! Whee!


Huh?  Never once in either this thread or his similar knife thread has he advocated Gracie grappling, BJJ/GJJ, or implied any such method.  His stated strategy in both cases has been, essentially, close past the weapon then ignore it in favor of doing as much "damage" as possible.

I'm not sure where you are seeing Gracie promotion, or is this a reference to some other argument you had with someone else?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## The Last Legionary (Jun 11, 2009)

It's a reference to one of the other threads where mr. make believe here touted his unverifiable, uncredible and dangerous expertise. Seems whenever one asks him his credentials he clams up, changes the subject, or tries to twist it as an attack. Hence he seems just another internet "expert" who got his ideas from whoever bought themselves some ad space, err, I mean "article" space in one of the martial arts soap rags. But as I don't want to cross the fraud busting line here, I'll shut up.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 12, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> 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.



I box.......and when I throw a punch at a guys head (and i'm a powerful guy) I punch THROUGH the target......and though i've knocked folks unconscious on occasion.......most of the time I don't knock people out with one or several punches, and i've never broken anyone's neck.

While those things CAN happen, the idea that they are going to happen while i'm struggling to keep his gun from coming in line with my soft pink body sounds more like imaginative theory than practical tactics.......again, if someone can point to REAL WORLD examples where this has happened, i'm willing to listen.......but it's only likely you're going to crush your opponents trachea if you have a very great physical advantage over him.....NOT if he's (as is likely) bigger and stronger.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 12, 2009)

zdom said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



exactly!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 12, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> 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...
> 
> ...



All those things are great.......BUT, if I have two hands on my gun, and you grab my jewels.......i'm going to be pain and you're going to dead!  It's not an equitable trade........I can take a testicle twist for the period of time it takes to get my barrel back in line.


Here's the problem....it's a problem of objectives......mine is simpler.  You're objective is to cause me enough damage to make me unable to fight........my objective is simple to get the barrel of my gun back in line with your body and then pull the trigger until it stops booming.  Simpler objective will win out.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 12, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> Firearms were designed with one thing in mind...  killing...you cant build a home with one or plant trees or fix a gcar of anything of the such...    they were created to cause injury or great harm from a distance without any certain skill or physical prowess.... put a gun in a mans handds with no physical abilities or anything and they can kill just the same...
> 
> hammers have many other uses and were not designed with only one...
> 
> ...


 Guns are inanimate objects.......without a human mind it's weird shaped rock.....that's the point he's trying to make.  The designers intention is irrelevant once it leaves his hand.

To illustrate how the design of a thing is irrelevant to it's use, let me remind you that 9/11 was perpetrated with box-cutters and jet airlines, neither of which were designed to commit mass-murder.  Likewise a Ryder truck, diesel fuel and fertilizer aren't designed for mass-murder, but they were better suited for it than any gun.

All 'weapons' are merely tools.......the only real weapon is the human mind.


----------

