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



## MJS (Jun 4, 2009)

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

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


----------



## just2kicku (Jun 4, 2009)

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


----------



## MJS (Jun 4, 2009)

just2kicku said:


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


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


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 4, 2009)

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

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


----------



## girlbug2 (Jun 4, 2009)

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


----------



## searcher (Jun 4, 2009)

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


----------



## geezer (Jun 4, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Whether you go straight for the weapon, the limb controling the weapon, or immediately disable the attacker themselves...in the end you're basically "controlling the weapon."
> 
> The important thing, I believe, is that you make sure that whatever strategy you use gives you the best opportunity and chance of avoiding harm.



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

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


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Jun 4, 2009)

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

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

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


----------



## zDom (Jun 4, 2009)

AND &#8212; a very important thing here to remember &#8212; even if you DO neutralize the attacker by knocking them unconcious or stunning them, the FIRST thing you should do is ...

(wait for it ...)

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

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

But regarding it as just an inanimate object that is no longer dangerous because it isn't in a human's hand doesn't take into account that the attacker might regain his/her ability to seize that weapon and begin using it again &#8212; or ANOTHER attacker might take possession and use it against you.


----------



## just2kicku (Jun 4, 2009)

zDom said:


> AND  a very important thing here to remember  even if you DO neutralize the attacker by knocking them unconcious or stunning them, the FIRST thing you should do is ...
> 
> (wait for it ...)
> 
> ...



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


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 4, 2009)

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


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 4, 2009)

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

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


----------



## Jenna (Jun 5, 2009)

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

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

Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna


----------



## mook jong man (Jun 5, 2009)

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


----------



## Carol (Jun 5, 2009)

MJS said:


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



Why do these have to be mutually exclusive? 

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


----------



## MJS (Jun 5, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Why do these have to be mutually exclusive?
> 
> Weapons are generally held in the hand, I can find vital areas on the hand and arm.


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

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


----------



## kior (Jun 5, 2009)

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


----------



## MJS (Jun 5, 2009)

Jenna said:


> I certainly agree with *the premise* of controlling the weapon first. And but it does not always work like that in reality. Anyone having a dogmatic view of weapon first and attacker second (or vice versa) is imo putting themselves in danger by ignorance. I have found this to be a chicken-and-egg situation and very much dependent upon the circumstances and it is certainly not always feasible to get the right lock to remove BOTH weapon and attacker simultaneously and which I am well aware of in reality.
> 
> I view an armed attack as again imposing a requirement on us for pragmatism. As I say, removal of the weapon is obviously paramount. And but if the we find ourselves in a fortunate position to render the attacker incapable of using the weapon, then we should absolutely take that opportunity and not wait until we are in the correct position to execute a subsequent disarm. That is just my opinion and I have had to adjust my formerly more dogmatic view of weapon disarm in light of reality.
> 
> ...


 
Good point Jenna. 

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## MJS (Jun 5, 2009)

kior said:


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


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

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


----------



## morph4me (Jun 5, 2009)

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


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jun 5, 2009)

Control, Immobilization that allows you to also strike, disarm and neutralize the opponent is what we are all striving for.  In the equation let's not forget the distance, angles and of course getting superior position in the process.  All of the above get factored in and more.  Now does that mean that you will get control or have to have it.  Absolutely not.  However, if I can minimize damage to myself while some how immobilizing their weapon/tool bearing hand and striking them in the same process then that is a pretty good sound way to go!  That immobilization or control of their tool/weapon bearing hand will hopefully in conjunction with strikes allow me to achieve a disarm so that the weapon cannot be used again against me.  While all of that is going on you would still want to have damaged the attacker enough physically that you can gain dominance and or they are incapable of continuing to attack you or your loved ones.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 5, 2009)

MJS said:


> There are 2 threads in the gun and knife section, regarding dealing with those weapons from a SD point of view. I'm posting this thread here, because I'm sure there're some members who do not frequent those areas, so I wanted to get the input from more of our valued members here.
> 
> A poll will be added to this thread as well. The question is simple....Do you, when dealing with an opponent with a weapon, work for control of the weapon, while at the same time, executing your defense and counterstrikes, or do you disregard the weapon and just attempt to overwhelm them, with strikes to vital areas?


I could not answer the poll because for me, it depends on the weapon.  If it is a knife, I will maintain distance and seek an exit.  If it is a gun,   descalation and talking him into holstering the weapon is my first choice, but I will be more inclined to consider controling the weapon if it is a gun, as distance is really more of a disadvantage in that scenario.

Also, I would rather be shot than slashed.   

Daniel


----------



## Jenna (Jun 5, 2009)

MJS said:


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



Goodness, personally I think that is foolish wisdom, do you not?  "Taking cuts is no biggie" is never a catchphrase I have heard in a RW dojo outside the internet.  Slash wounds in the right place can be fatal and that is not considering the simplest stab which we can be still fighting without knowing we are already dead.



MJS said:


> Sure, when working club and knife techs., I've had my partner give a real committed attack, and yes, I'd be lying if I said that I never got hit.  Difference is, is that I want to minimize as much damage to myself as possible, and IMO, that can be done by controlling the weapon.
> 
> As far as disarms go...I put them in the same category as an empty hand vs. empty hand situation.  I'm not looking to do something specific.  Someone is doing a roundhouse club to my head, I'm not going to be thinking of the X number of techs. for that situation to do.  I'm going to react.  The situation, environment and targets available to me, are going to dictate what I do.
> 
> ...


Mike, I absolutely agree and could not argue with your logic about controlling the weapon.  And I think if BOTH options are available to us (the attacker is unprepared, unaccompanied etc.) then of the two, your view is preferred.  And but how often is that really the case?

imo, I just do not think that it is prudent to have made a prior determination EITHER WAY on how we should defend an armed attack.  I think both views on this thread are valid.  If we take out the attacker then the weapon is inanimate, yes... and but yet the assumption is that we have MANAGED a 'permanent' single strike / single tech disabling of the attacker.  If we HAVE disabled him then we are vindicated in choosing "disarm the attacker" as our method.  If not, we may not get the second chance to rectify our error.  And but likewise if we choose to go after the weapon and miss, we are in exactly the same peril.  All I am saying is that imo, I think it is bad practice to have made that prior determination either way.  I think our response is dependent upon the circumstances.  

For example, generally, if the weapon presents itself first (drawn already) I choose the weapon.  And but if the blade is thrust, the attacker's unbalance is exactly what I would be looking for to pin him and control the weapon simultaneously.  If the attacker (by his hands) is going for the weapon, I choose the attacker pre-emptively.  Ah I think I am sounding argumentative.  I just mean that to me it depends on the circumstance and I would not advise anybody to make that decision before the facts or circumstances of the attack are known.

Sorry for rambling 
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna


----------



## Jenna (Jun 5, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> .
> 
> Also, I would rather be shot than slashed.
> 
> Daniel


Daniel, Can I ask please why you would have this preference?  Thank you 
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna


----------



## BLACK LION (Jun 5, 2009)

Injure to gain control of them entirely... not just the tool.  

The options for the poll are slim so I did not select one.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 5, 2009)

MJS said:


> There are 2 threads in the gun and knife section, regarding dealing with those weapons from a SD point of view. I'm posting this thread here, because I'm sure there're some members who do not frequent those areas, so I wanted to get the input from more of our valued members here.
> 
> A poll will be added to this thread as well. The question is simple....Do you, when dealing with an opponent with a weapon, work for control of the weapon, while at the same time, executing your defense and counterstrikes, or do you disregard the weapon and just attempt to overwhelm them, with strikes to vital areas?


Of course you control the weapon. Divert, sieze, control.
Sean


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 5, 2009)

Jenna said:


> Daniel, Can I ask please why you would have this preference? Thank you
> Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
> Jenna


The idea of long slashes is less appealing than a gunshot wound.  Not that that is particularly appealing.

Daniel


----------



## MJS (Jun 5, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I could not answer the poll because for me, it depends on the weapon. If it is a knife, I will maintain distance and seek an exit. If it is a gun, descalation and talking him into holstering the weapon is my first choice, but I will be more inclined to consider controling the weapon if it is a gun, as distance is really more of a disadvantage in that scenario.
> 
> Also, I would rather be shot than slashed.
> 
> Daniel


 
I agree with what you said regarding the knife.  For me, escape, an equalizer, ie: chair, belt, ashtray, rock, etc., then engaging the person, is the order that I would use.  While running is something that is certainly wise, and something that is always suggested, there are times when its not possible to do.  I'm no track star, so if this guy takes off after me, what happens when I lose my wind?  If my wife is with me, I'm certainly not going to leave her behind.  

Assess the situation and go from there.


----------



## MJS (Jun 5, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> Injure to gain control of them entirely... not just the tool.
> 
> The options for the poll are slim so I did not select one.


 
IMO, I didn't think the options were slim.  In those other thread, there were 2 views....control the weapon or dont control it and try to hit the throat, groin, etc.


----------



## MJS (Jun 5, 2009)

Jenna said:


> Goodness, personally I think that is foolish wisdom, do you not? "Taking cuts is no biggie" is never a catchphrase I have heard in a RW dojo outside the internet. Slash wounds in the right place can be fatal and that is not considering the simplest stab which we can be still fighting without knowing we are already dead.


 
Well, it wasn't just limited to cuts.  Its was suggested that it was no biggie to take a gun shot either.  




> Mike, I absolutely agree and could not argue with your logic about controlling the weapon. And I think if BOTH options are available to us (the attacker is unprepared, unaccompanied etc.) then of the two, your view is preferred. And but how often is that really the case?
> 
> imo, I just do not think that it is prudent to have made a prior determination EITHER WAY on how we should defend an armed attack. I think both views on this thread are valid. If we take out the attacker then the weapon is inanimate, yes... and but yet the assumption is that we have MANAGED a 'permanent' single strike / single tech disabling of the attacker. If we HAVE disabled him then we are vindicated in choosing "disarm the attacker" as our method. If not, we may not get the second chance to rectify our error. And but likewise if we choose to go after the weapon and miss, we are in exactly the same peril. All I am saying is that imo, I think it is bad practice to have made that prior determination either way. I think our response is dependent upon the circumstances.
> 
> ...


 
No worries, you're not rambling.   As for the situation...this is why I always say assess the situation.  In these cases, I'm not talking about an assassination, such as we'd see in a prison, where one inmate walks by another in the yard, and gets shanked.  I'm talking about a situation such as a mugging.  I'm at the ATM, guy comes up behind me, presses the knife into my back and asks for cash.  Or after I get the cash, he's standing there, waving the knife, demanding the money.  Nothing says that once I hand it to him, he won't kill me anyways, so I'd rather take my chances and defend myself.  

I still get the impression, not necessarily from you, that when people hear the word "control" that they think grappling.  I'm talking about gaining control, punish the person with strikes, break something, and get the hell out.  I'm not turning this into a 30min Royce Gracie grappling game.  

As I said, there is no reason why someone cant strike while at the same time, a hit/grab to the arm is done, a parry to control, etc.


----------



## thardey (Jun 5, 2009)

I chose "control" but with the caveat that "control" is a continuum.

I will first go for "enough control" what I mean is this:

So far we're assuming a unarmed response to an armed attacker. But let's assume equally-armed defense.

Gun vs. gun: No one in their right mind teaches to try and draw on someone who's got the drop on you. After the basic skills are taught for shooting, the next step is shooting while _moving_, or shooting from _cover_. Moving off-line of the shooter is a way of regaining a small amount of "control" over your opponent's weapong -- that is, in order to maintain the threat, you force him to move his gun. It's a little thing, but a huge part of fencing strategy. I'll get there in a minute.

In taking cover, you gained more "control" over his weapon, in that you've limited the range and usefulness of the weapon. This should theoretically give you enough of an advantage to be able to bring your own gun to bear. 

So, control doesn't always mean "grappling" or having a hand on the weapon itself.

Sword vs. Sword: I know, it wasn't part of the original question, but this debate has been raging for millenia about swords, so some of the conclusions are pertinent here. The debate among swords is whether you parry/cover or bind your opponent's weapon before attacking, or whether you avoid/counterattack.

By a certain level of training, it becomes clear that they're not necessarily exclusive. That is, while avoiding, you have your sword in a place where it is covering you. This gains enough control over your opponent's sword (whether touching it or not) to allow you to attack with confidence. If you can get a bind, great! But the primary goal is to establish enough control to allow a counterattack. Attacking first, without moving, attempting a bind, attempting a parry, covering yourself or what not is considered suicidal. (I'm not counting olympic fencing, where there are few, if any "ties" -- that is both die.)

One style of sword fighting uses the idea that you take the small amount of control, then use that control to gain more, control, and so on, until you have "complete" control of the blade before you attempt the final kill. For another, it is enough to be out of the direct line of attack, to launch your own. Each style has a different place of control before the attack is launched.

Knife vs. Knife: If your opponent already has a knife "on guard" -- that is, between you and him, then if you first attack him, you will impale yourself on his knife, if he doesn't move. This is the point of being "on guard." It's designed to force your opponent to attempt something else before they can attack you. This gives them time to react. One way to gain "control" in knife fighting is to attack your opponents hand/forearm. The forces them to react, and move thier knife. You can't always control where they're moving it to, but you've forced it to move. That's a small measure of control.

Now, when dealing with empty hand counters, it becomes obvious that more control is needed before a counterattack can be attempted. The questions is then, how much control is needed?

Can it be enough that the gun is not pointing directly at you? Or is control of the forearm enough? Or much the gun itself be under your control, including some of the functioning parts (such as the hammer, or slide.) Each situation is going to need a different amount of control before a counterattack is appropriate.

The ultimate form of "control" is to influence your opponent's mind so that they no longer wish to harm you. (Discourage and De-escalate the attack verbally.) The next best is to position yourself so that they are unable to harm you (aka "run away"), next is to control the weapon itself (stripping and possesing it is ideal -- but often is not feasible until after the attacker has been weakened), next is control of the hand or forearm holding the weapon, next is control of the person holding the weapon, and finally, the bare minimum is to be able to force the weapon to move in some way, even if you can't control where it is moving. (Including moving off-line and forcing the gun to attempt to track you.)

We're all going to have different personal interpretations on how much is really "control" and that will vary within our personal ideas with regard to each situation. Also, we have to be able to attack the _attacker_ once we are comfortable with that level of control, and not an instant later, or we become hyper-focused on attacking the weapon only. The ultimate point is not to control the weapon, but to defeat the attacker _as soon as absolutely possible._


----------



## matt.m (Jun 6, 2009)

I will use a knife for example.....To be honest you will get cut.  At least once, expect it.  Then fight or flight will kick in, I guarantee it.  I saw in the case of a knife, controlling is the least of your worries.  Disarm is the utmost.  If the aggressor still has the blade then there is more opportunity for them to cut you.


----------



## Jenna (Jun 6, 2009)

MJS said:


> Well, it wasn't just limited to cuts.  Its was suggested that it was no biggie to take a gun shot either.


 
 Sure I understand, knife crime is significantly more prevalent than gun crime here.  I appreciate that is not the case all over.  I was just giving my experience   Knives are routinely carried in schools here.  I know that for fact.  Without wanting to deviate from your topic, I still cannot grasp the idea of having apathy towards a potential shooting??  I have never been shot with a firearm and but I have been cut once and hit once with a tazer type weapon and if I am honest I would say that I am terrified of either happening again.  And but sorry, I do not want to digress, I am just amazed that anyone would have suggested having such an apathetic disposition to weapons.



MJS said:


> No worries, you're not rambling.   As for the situation...this is why I always say assess the situation.  In these cases, I'm not talking about an assassination, such as we'd see in a prison, where one inmate walks by another in the yard, and gets shanked.  I'm talking about a situation such as a mugging.  I'm at the ATM, guy comes up behind me, presses the knife into my back and asks for cash.  Or after I get the cash, he's standing there, waving the knife, demanding the money.  Nothing says that once I hand it to him, he won't kill me anyways, so I'd rather take my chances and defend myself.
> 
> I still get the impression, not necessarily from you, that when people hear the word "control" that they think grappling.  I'm talking about gaining control, punish the person with strikes, break something, and get the hell out.  I'm not turning this into a 30min Royce Gracie grappling game.
> 
> As I said, there is no reason why someone cant strike while at the same time, a hit/grab to the arm is done, a parry to control, etc.



People who are knife wavers I think lack intent or wherewithal to engage and conclude the attack.  I see uncommitted threat and lack of handling capability in someone waving a knife in the air and would feel reasonable confidence at EITHER disarm or takedown, though weapon disarm presents itself sequentially first in that case and would be preferential.  To me, the more frightening prospect is the walk-by stab and which is a feature of gang-type initiations in parts of town here and does not necessarily need to be a direct assassination attempt.  It just happens.  That would be the situation that I would have no preplanned tactic in my head - to me it would be whichever presents itself first, the attacker or the weapon.  Grappling with an armed attacker would I think be foolish irrespective of the proficiency of the grappler.  I think if a single strike / lock & disarm is not possible then personally I would not stay for entertainment.  To me that is another reason for not being premeditated in our own defence.  For if the single strike is ineffective then we could find ourselves exactly in that grappling situation and which I think would be dire for us unarmed against the armed attacker.  And but again, as you say, with awareness and our ability to sprint, we would hope not to be there at all.

Thank you again my friend for your patience 
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna


----------



## MJS (Jun 6, 2009)

matt.m said:


> I will use a knife for example.....To be honest you will get cut. At least once, expect it. Then fight or flight will kick in, I guarantee it. I saw in the case of a knife, controlling is the least of your worries. Disarm is the utmost. If the aggressor still has the blade then there is more opportunity for them to cut you.


 
However, unless the arm or hand is struck in such a fashion as to make the badguy drop the knife, you're going to need control prior to the disarm, no?

Just another opinion of control....we dont need to spend 10min playing with the hand.  Once its grabbed, either the arm, hand, etc., we should start working for the disarm.


----------



## BLACK LION (Jun 6, 2009)

MJS said:


> IMO, I didn't think the options were slim. In those other thread, there were 2 views....control the weapon or dont control it and try to hit the throat, groin, etc.


 
No there was no clear line drawn. 

The best option is not to be there at all....  but its not always an option.

If evasion, escape or egress is not applicable or not available.... 

Then....

Cuts and blood are iminent so it wont be a big surprise.
My focus is the driver... If I control him... I control every weapon he has mind, body and tool(s).   Injuries get me compromise and control on the part of the threat.  Injuring him is the only thing keeping him from injuring me... not wrestling for control of a tool and disregarding a thinking brain and able body.  That does not mean that I wont grab the tool hand becuase there are a few situations that require a grab or at least a deflection but its accompanied by striking targets to injure.    

For example... A knife from behind to the esophagus and a handful of your hair....   you have to grab the knife hand while rotating in for the testicle injury and so forth.   Even here your neck or face may get knicked or cut but your throat wont be gouged or or slit ear to ear....    Try just grabbing the knife and knife hand and throwing them or something and see what happens... anyone agressive enough willsimply hop on your back and stab the lights out of you...   

Like a knife to the back...  If you put your hands up in neutral you can , upon rotation use the elbow to deflect the blade off track while injuring a target like the side of the neck then follow up and through... 


now take an icepick swing...  I wouldnt attempt any sort of maneuver on the tool arm but focus one pure agression and injury or evasion and escape...   I always maintain a check hand thats stays right on my heart becuase there are times when the swinging tool needs to be checked, most often in tight spaces or extreme close quarters...


----------



## MJS (Jun 6, 2009)

Jenna said:


> Sure I understand, knife crime is significantly more prevalent than gun crime here. I appreciate that is not the case all over. I was just giving my experience  Knives are routinely carried in schools here. I know that for fact. Without wanting to deviate from your topic, I still cannot grasp the idea of having apathy towards a potential shooting?? I have never been shot with a firearm and but I have been cut once and hit once with a tazer type weapon and if I am honest I would say that I am terrified of either happening again. And but sorry, I do not want to digress, I am just amazed that anyone would have suggested having such an apathetic disposition to weapons.


 
I was surprised as well.  You should check those threads out.  I'm sure your jaw will hit the floor a few times with what you're reading. 





> People who are knife wavers I think lack intent or wherewithal to engage and conclude the attack. I see uncommitted threat and lack of handling capability in someone waving a knife in the air and would feel reasonable confidence at EITHER disarm or takedown, though weapon disarm presents itself sequentially first in that case and would be preferential. To me, the more frightening prospect is the walk-by stab and which is a feature of gang-type initiations in parts of town here and does not necessarily need to be a direct assassination attempt. It just happens. That would be the situation that I would have no preplanned tactic in my head - to me it would be whichever presents itself first, the attacker or the weapon. Grappling with an armed attacker would I think be foolish irrespective of the proficiency of the grappler. I think if a single strike / lock & disarm is not possible then personally I would not stay for entertainment. To me that is another reason for not being premeditated in our own defence. For if the single strike is ineffective then we could find ourselves exactly in that grappling situation and which I think would be dire for us unarmed against the armed attacker. And but again, as you say, with awareness and our ability to sprint, we would hope not to be there at all.
> 
> Thank you again my friend for your patience
> Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
> Jenna


 
Again, don't misunderstand the term 'grapple' as in this case, I'm not referring to focusing all your energy on the weapon.  We as martial artists, have a wide array of things to do.  However, there is no magic hit.  I dont care what anyone says.  If there was a magic shot, everyone would just train that 1 shot.  This is why MMAists, laugh at TMAists, because they get a kick out of the TMA guy talking about "The Deadly" eye gouge, groin shot, etc.  Yes, those are good targets, but to think that they're fight enders...nope, I'm not buying it.  As I said in another post in another thread....its not the shot but the accumulation of hits that matters.  Additionally, target availability will dictate what we can do.  

Someone just waving the knife, yes, is probably doing it for intimidation purposes.  For me, I'm picking 1 of 2 options.  Option 1 is to block the attack, counter strike and get the hell out of there.  Option 2 would be to do the above, but gain control, and continue to strike.  I get the impression that people think that because we have control of the weapon, that striking can't be done.  Of course it can.  If someone is having a hard time seeing that, I can't help that, however, I can give my feedback from live drills that I've done.  

Back to option 1 for a moment.  I'm not a track star, so if I take off running, its possible, unless I really stunned this guy, he may come after me.  Now we're back to square 1 with having to deal with the blade.  Also, if I'm with someone who isn't capable of running or running as fast, I'm not leaving that person to save my own tail.  Therefore, I'm forced to stay and fight.  

As I've said in other threads...people are free to do what they want, and what they feel is best for them.  However, I don't think that its wise to totally disregard the weapon and try to overwhelm them with strikes, while this guy could pull away and shoot us or continue to slash with the blade.  We're taking a shot...no pun intended.......that we'll be able to overwhelm them and wont need to worry about the weapon.  

Now, I know I was talking about overwhelming them with hits, an accumulation of hits, etc.  Let me clarify.  When I'm speaking of this, I'm also incorporating control into the mix.  This guy probably isn't planning on me trapping his hand, just like he probably wouldn't if he had grabbed my shirt with both hands.  They're thinking that the defender will pull away, not marry the badguys hands to their chest, while punishing them with strikes.  That is the difference.  Yes, I'm striking back, but I take control of the weapon.  I dont want them to have that control.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Jun 6, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> No there was no clear line drawn.
> 
> The best option is not to be there at all.... but its not always an option.
> 
> ...


 
I eliminated escape and evasion, because while they are options to take, and good ones at that, they're not always a given.  In those threads you started, the main focus was on control, thus, the purpose ofmy thread here.  We're talking about whether or not to control, not whether or not to escape.  



> Cuts and blood are iminent so it wont be a big surprise.
> My focus is the driver... If I control him... I control every weapon he has mind, body and tool(s). Injuries get me compromise and control on the part of the threat. Injuring him is the only thing keeping him from injuring me... not wrestling for control of a tool and disregarding a thinking brain and able body. That does not mean that I wont grab the tool hand becuase there are a few situations that require a grab or at least a deflection but its accompanied by striking targets to injure.
> 
> For example... A knife from behind to the esophagus and a handful of your hair.... you have to grab the knife hand while rotating in for the testicle injury and so forth. Even here your neck or face may get knicked or cut but your throat wont be gouged or or slit ear to ear.... Try just grabbing the knife and knife hand and throwing them or something and see what happens... anyone agressive enough willsimply hop on your back and stab the lights out of you...
> ...


 
Dude, we're not talking about Ninjas here or military men.  I highly doubt the punk robbing me so he can get his next fix, is going to jump on my back.  Lets focus on reality here, not fantasy land. 

Back to your example above.  So, with the knife to you back, you said to turn, using the elbow to deflect and then counter strike.  And what do you think the other guy is going to do?  Stand there and let you hit him?  Interestingly enough, I do a similar defense to that, while gaining control and counter striking.  

As far as the knife to your neck with a hair grab...please explain what you would do in that case, because unless you gain control, any movement you make will result in a slit throat.

Icepick stab....so while this guy is hitting down, you're going to move in, with no regard to the weapon, and strike him?  Again, I do a similar move, however, I, while simultaneously blocking, I'm also striking and I gain control of the weapon.  

Your opening line tells me that you're still assuming that I'm going to focus just on control.  Thats not the case at all.  I think you're either missing that or ignoring it to keep pushing your theory.  If you can't control and counter strike, thats not my problem.  It works for me, it works for my teachers, thats all I'm worried about.   My Arnis inst. has worked in Corrections for over 20yrs.  He's seen alot, he still sees alot, so I put faith in what he has seen regarding knife attacks.  I train with aliveness and resistance.  Yes, I get 'cut' but as its been said, thats to be expected.  However, I eliminate additional 'cuts' due to the control.

If you choose not to control, thats fine.  If what you do works for you, thats fine.  What I do find interesting, is looking at the poll, and some of the replies here, many are advocating control.  Hmmm......


----------



## MJS (Jun 6, 2009)

Slightly off topic. I posted this thread. Guy did a disarm. He was faced with a gun. He didn't disregard the gun, and beat the **** out of him.


----------



## just2kicku (Jun 6, 2009)

I think the point is control is what we're after. 
Taking escape and evasion out of the picture your basically left to fight. Now if I cannot gain control right away, then yes, try to dish out as much punishment as you can before gaining control. ( I'm talking about a knife). 

Like others have said, you will get cut in a knife fight. Unless you're extremely lucky, you will get cut. So aside from learning disarm techs, I would suggest learning what part of the anatomy does not kill you when you get cut.

Once control is gained, you must take away the attackers will to fight. Alot of times this means mechanically disabling them. (break something important) 

If were talking about a gun, different story. Assuming the guy is idiot enough to actually get close you, I think there are a million factors to think about. i.e. other people around, other standing next to you. I say this because some techs take the gun to the left or to the right. If you have family members next to you, do you want to take the chance hitting one of them should the weapon discharge?

So I still say disarm and control the weapon. It may not present itself right away and you may have to fight before you gain control, but you still want control.


----------



## BLACK LION (Jun 6, 2009)

There is no way to explain this thru typing... it must be demonstrated and what works will show as well as what does not....  I end up getting frustrated over these threads becuase my position cannot be made clear thru physical evidence...  I am much better at physically showing than trying to articualte the physiology behind the action...  
We go over this stuff every week and we attempt everything that is discussed here and trust me... most things just dont work.   
I know what I type may not makes the best of sense to most but it does to some.... I do try but I do understand that these things must be physically expressed in order to show their true merit of lack thereof... 

I am ex-military... the guys I train with are either military affiliated or bunkinkan affiliated...   We train every imagineable approach with or without tools in hopes to dispell any myths associated...   the sole purpose of our training is to find what works and what does not...  
These topics help me get a better idea of where things are at in this realm of combat and I can calibrate and adjust accordingly....   

All I can say is wether or not it makes sense or translates into something practical here in this forum is irrelevant compared to wether it works on a living breathing resisting human....      
We try and test as many methods and approaches as we can muster... but only train the stuff that works


----------



## MJS (Jun 6, 2009)

How about youtube?  Perhaps a short clip would aid in what you're trying to describe.


----------



## MJS (Jun 6, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> There is no way to explain this thru typing... it must be demonstrated and what works will show as well as what does not.... I end up getting frustrated over these threads becuase my position cannot be made clear thru physical evidence... I am much better at physically showing than trying to articualte the physiology behind the action...
> We go over this stuff every week and we attempt everything that is discussed here and trust me... most things just dont work.
> I know what I type may not makes the best of sense to most but it does to some.... I do try but I do understand that these things must be physically expressed in order to show their true merit of lack thereof...
> 
> ...


 
Well, if most things don't work, then that tells me that the 1 and only true art that will ever works is what you do.  I'm sorry to say though, that there are many arts, as well as people, who are advocating the things that I am, but I suppose we're all wrong as well.  

If what YOU do works for YOU, that is fine.  What I do works for me. Put up a youtube clip showing your method, and how not taking any control of the weapon works, providing your partner is really trying to attack you, and perhaps I will reconsider my views.  Until then, I stand by what I train.  I just dont see how not controlling a weapon, and assuming that you're going to hit the magic spots, will work, all the while the BG is swinging a blade at you.

I still think that you're slightly misunderstanding here.  There is NO reason why you can't still take the person out, while you're controlling the arm, hand, etc.


----------



## Jenna (Jun 6, 2009)

Hey Mike  I want to thank you for your input and for the thread itself.  Also, I hope I am not sounding argumentative, if so I promise I do not mean to at all 



MJS said:


> Again, don't misunderstand the term 'grapple' as in this case, I'm not referring to focusing all your energy on the weapon.  We as martial artists, have a wide array of things to do.  However, there is no magic hit.  I dont care what anyone says.  If there was a magic shot, everyone would just train that 1 shot.  This is why MMAists, laugh at TMAists, because they get a kick out of the TMA guy talking about "The Deadly" eye gouge, groin shot, etc.  Yes, those are good targets, but to think that they're fight enders...nope, I'm not buying it.  As I said in another post in another thread....its not the shot but the accumulation of hits that matters.  Additionally, target availability will dictate what we can do.


I agree, there is no magic one-shot-kill strike.  If there were, it would be both lucky (to have ended the attack) and but also unfortunate for us (having to deal with the fallout non-Hollywood reality if eg. that trachea crush that we did manage to execute on our attacker was fatal).  And but I am not referring to such a deftly placed shuto-type strike or whatever, instead when I refer to a single strike / single lock, I mean that if we have set our mind ahead of time to disarm the opponent, AND WE FAIL with our first attempt, then we are left to deal with his counter(s).  He may be a "waver" and an idle threatener and we get another chance, and but to imagine for a minute that we can take a few slashes or punctures before we go down is to me, unrealistic.  Yes, of course we can strike and strike again, yet those are not odds I would care to play against the armed attacker.  

Mike, I am not disagreeing with you here, no sir, not at all.  I am just saying that the disarm may work.  And but it may not before we have sustained unrecoverable damage.  My view is simply NOT to have made a prior determination whether to disarm or take down.  I would just try to exhort everybody to maintain flexibility - as you say yourself, target availability dictates everything - we will not know that until we are right there in it.  If I make up my mind here and now to ALWAYS go for disarm, then I might miss the opportunity to lock down the attacker as he draws out the weapon.  And vice versa - if I make up my mind now to ALWAYS attempt to neutralise the attacker himself, then I might miss the simple trick of gaining his outstretched weapon off him.

Again, I promise I am not arguing with your disarm / follow-up methodology no sir, I am just saying that I choose not to have a plan EITHER WAY ahead of time and ahead of knowing what I am faced with 



MJS said:


> Back to option 1 for a moment.  I'm not a track star, so if I take off running, its possible, unless I really stunned this guy, he may come after me.  Now we're back to square 1 with having to deal with the blade.  Also, if I'm with someone who isn't capable of running or running as fast, I'm not leaving that person to save my own tail.  Therefore, I'm forced to stay and fight.


Yes, I am not exactly Flo-jo either  and I appreciate that it is not always possible, or even prudent to run from the scenario (esp if we are accompanied by a "non-lethal" friend etc).  Nonetheless, THAT would be my ultimate plan in an armed attack.  1.  Execute my single tech to EITHER disarm or disable and  2. extract myself by hook or by crook.  If I have failed #1 then #2 becomes even more crucial.  I am not a grappler in ANY sense.  Even were I, I would not trade blows with a knife carrier, no way, let alone chance it with a gunman.  I have not enough blood in me I think.  I am not a stand up toughass fighter.  My only aim is my safety and potentially someone I would be with.

And again, I am just trying to put my approach.  I am not for a minute suggesting it is right for anyone else  As you say, we all do what we think best based on our experience   Thank you again for putting your points so clearly 
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna


----------



## matt.m (Jun 6, 2009)

MJS said:


> However, unless the arm or hand is struck in such a fashion as to make the badguy drop the knife, you're going to need control prior to the disarm, no?
> 
> Just another opinion of control....we dont need to spend 10min playing with the hand. Once its grabbed, either the arm, hand, etc., we should start working for the disarm.


 

I see your point man, however, most people when looking for a disarm get too focused on the 1 particular knife or broken bottle, etc. etc. and it doesn't end well.  I did a research paper in college on it. I used sources from military tactics and law enforcement stuff.


----------



## MJS (Jun 6, 2009)

Jenna said:


> Hey Mike  I want to thank you for your input and for the thread itself. Also, I hope I am not sounding argumentative, if so I promise I do not mean to at all


 
No worries Jenna. You're not sounding like that at all. 




> I agree, there is no magic one-shot-kill strike. If there were, it would be both lucky (to have ended the attack) and but also unfortunate for us (having to deal with the fallout non-Hollywood reality if eg. that trachea crush that we did manage to execute on our attacker was fatal). And but I am not referring to such a deftly placed shuto-type strike or whatever, instead when I refer to a single strike / single lock, I mean that if we have set our mind ahead of time to disarm the opponent, AND WE FAIL with our first attempt, then we are left to deal with his counter(s). He may be a "waver" and an idle threatener and we get another chance, and but to imagine for a minute that we can take a few slashes or punctures before we go down is to me, unrealistic. Yes, of course we can strike and strike again, yet those are not odds I would care to play against the armed attacker.


 
Seeing that we're dealing with deadly force, we'd probably be justified in using it against the other person, but then again, no matter what we do, this guy could hire a lawyer to paint him as a fine, upstanding citizen, and attempt to sue us. But thats another thread. 

As for the disarm...I see what you're saying. For me, thats secondary to control, but again, thats just me.  As for whatever the BG is doing to us...I suppose the same can apply to empty hand attacks as well. If someone grabs us, and we begin our tech. for that grab, but he suddenly punches with the other hand or lets go, etc., we should hopefully be able to just adapt to that situation. IMO, thats the ultimate goal.

As far as getting cut...like I said before, we probably will, but for me, I want to minimize as much as possible and I dont feel that can be done without control.



> Mike, I am not disagreeing with you here, no sir, not at all. I am just saying that the disarm may work. And but it may not before we have sustained unrecoverable damage. My view is simply NOT to have made a prior determination whether to disarm or take down. I would just try to exhort everybody to maintain flexibility - as you say yourself, target availability dictates everything - we will not know that until we are right there in it. If I make up my mind here and now to ALWAYS go for disarm, then I might miss the opportunity to lock down the attacker as he draws out the weapon. And vice versa - if I make up my mind now to ALWAYS attempt to neutralise the attacker himself, then I might miss the simple trick of gaining his outstretched weapon off him.


 
Please dont feel as if you have to agree with me.  If everyone agreed with each other, this place would be pretty darn boring. LOL.  Like I said, I'm looking for control, counter strikes and then, a break, disarm, whatever. Just like empty hand techs., there are many weapon techs as well. IMO, as we progress in our training, we shouldn't be focused so much on techniques, but instead the principles and concepts that they're teaching us. I may choose to parry/block/strike the arm and counter strike, turn around and get the heck out of there. If thats the case, then no disarm is done. 



> Again, I promise I am not arguing with your disarm / follow-up methodology no sir, I am just saying that I choose not to have a plan EITHER WAY ahead of time and ahead of knowing what I am faced with


 
Agreed.  Its pretty hard to predict whats going to happen, so thats why I suggested just rolling with whatever is presented to you at the moment, and be flexable enough to roll with the changes. 




> Yes, I am not exactly Flo-jo either  and I appreciate that it is not always possible, or even prudent to run from the scenario (esp if we are accompanied by a "non-lethal" friend etc). Nonetheless, THAT would be my ultimate plan in an armed attack. 1. Execute my single tech to EITHER disarm or disable and 2. extract myself by hook or by crook. If I have failed #1 then #2 becomes even more crucial. I am not a grappler in ANY sense. Even were I, I would not trade blows with a knife carrier, no way, let alone chance it with a gunman. I have not enough blood in me I think. I am not a stand up toughass fighter. My only aim is my safety and potentially someone I would be with.


 




> And again, I am just trying to put my approach. I am not for a minute suggesting it is right for anyone else  As you say, we all do what we think best based on our experience  Thank you again for putting your points so clearly
> Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
> Jenna


 
You're welcome and thank you for posting your thoughts as well.


----------



## BLACK LION (Jun 8, 2009)

MJS said:


> Well, if most things don't work, then that tells me that the 1 and only true art that will ever works is what you do. I'm sorry to say though, that there are many arts, as well as people, who are advocating the things that I am, but I suppose we're all wrong as well. *Inaccurate statement and somewhat cheap. I read and understand what you type and respectfully request you do the same.  In reference to what we are discussing and that is bonafide mortal combat... it doesnt matter what you do to get the injury... it could be rock-fu it could be whatever on earth equates to you getting the injuries on them becuase thats the only guarantee...  it has zero to do with this art or that art, this technique or that technique... its has to do with injury which is seperating brain from body to deny function and incapacitate completely...     violence gets you injury... if you arent the one doing it you are the one its being done to... *
> 
> *simple*
> 
> ...


 *I understand completely. If an injury gives me that portion to control then take advantage. If it does not, I am still continuing injuries... on the same token, an injury gives me a bonafide spinal reflex that is predictable and allows me to set up the chain of injuries that will lead to their incapacitation.  *

If you read my posts you will find accordance with what I am saying and the control you refer to.  

I am nost misunderstanding. My posts are not being read and understood before commented on.  

And no, its not about what I do that only works... Its about basic principles applicable to all things related to unarmed and armed combatives.... its an enhancement not a substitute....  no one is telling you to adpot a single doctrine as truth...  only stressing the principles behind what it takes to get the job done.  

I am not a camera jockey with ability to upload video streams to the net in order to prove something.  We have gone through this before and this can be misconceived as a challenge.   

It gets hashed out here or not at all... since this is what we are here for. 
Using internet tools to further complicate the already complicated is not a viable option.  

Its a about keeping it universal and dealing the only hand that is applicable.... violence


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 8, 2009)

Gee... I guess it's all our fault.  Many of us have this silly idea that the situation is radically different if there's time to draw and fire (ideally from a position of cover or at least concealment), whatever the attacker has, than if we are forced to deal with a weapon attack while unarmed or unable to deploy a firearm or other weapon.


----------



## BLACK LION (Jun 8, 2009)

thats not whats being discussed here. If you can draw down and shoot them...why not do it.  It wont be the gun you are trying to shoot but the body of the threat.... correct???  

I carry a blade all the time... I can draw down and get to stabbing vitals in a heartbeat if someone pulls a gun on me... but again, thats not whats being discussed here...   

in that case...  if a man pulls a gun on me I am going to stab him to death...   is that a better answer.    

injury is the goal of violence... they want to injure you to get what they want by using violence to get there...   or vice versa...
the goal of injury is to seperate mind from body...they cant think or move they are done...  however you have to get there, just do it.  
 it gets no more clear cut than that...


----------



## BLACK LION (Jun 8, 2009)

_"Dude, we're not talking about Ninjas here or military men. I highly doubt the punk robbing me so he can get his next fix, is going to jump on my back. Lets focus on reality here, not fantasy land."  _

I dont know about you but I dont train for the least educated criminal... I train and combat as if they know just as much as me...if not more...  them knowing less is a bonus that is not computed in the equation for me until after its all said and done.  Always assume they know more and bring it to them 300%


----------



## MJS (Jun 9, 2009)

_"Well, if most things don't work, then that tells me that the 1 and only true art that will ever works is what you do. I'm sorry to say though, that there are many arts, as well as people, who are advocating the things that I am, but I suppose we're all wrong as well. *Inaccurate statement and somewhat cheap. I read and understand what you type and respectfully request you do the same. In reference to what we are discussing and that is bonafide mortal combat... it doesnt matter what you do to get the injury... it could be rock-fu it could be whatever on earth equates to you getting the injuries on them becuase thats the only guarantee... it has zero to do with this art or that art, this technique or that technique... its has to do with injury which is seperating brain from body to deny function and incapacitate completely... violence gets you injury... if you arent the one doing it you are the one its being done to... "*_


I'm sorry, but I'm calling it like I see it. Here is the difference. I am stating what I prefer and what makes the most sense to me. Yet, I have also said that if someone feels their method is better, more power to them. You are coming across as if your methods are superior to anyone and everyone. As I have said before, and I'll say again, I find it interesting that the majority are going with the control aspect. Additionally, I can also refer to another forum, with 2 very similar threads to this, in which the majority of people also agree with the control. Yes, there are some comments....1 or 2, in which people do not focus on that, but again, the majority do. IMHO, that speaks volumes.


_*simple*_

_"If what YOU do works for YOU, that is fine. What I do works for me. Put up a youtube clip showing your method, and how not taking any control of the weapon works, providing your partner is really trying to attack you, and perhaps I will reconsider my views. Until then, I stand by what I train. I just dont see how not controlling a weapon, and assuming that you're going to hit the magic spots, will work, all the while the BG is swinging a blade at you. *I control the threats mental and physical function, I control everything that makes that tool a weapon. I he has a gun and I have a gun I should shoot his gun instead of center mass right... becuase the gun is the threat right? If I have a knife and he has a gun I should stab the gun instead of stabbing him right??? If I have a bat and he has a gun , I should hit his arm holding the gun instead of hitting him in his head right??? no... thats silly. Same is applicable if your body is the only weapon at your disposal...why is it ok to wrestle over the tool instead of ending him where he stands. *_
_*Having to change to threat or tool specific techniques is the same as above "shooting the gun". *_
_*instead of waiting to see which specific technique you are going to use then trying to counter or defend whatever hes doing , keep it simple and universal by doing the only thing that means anything in the situations and thats is VIOLENCE. "*_

As I said, put up a youtube clip. That would probably not only end all this, but help us to better understand your views. You said it yourself, that you're better at showing, vs. typing. Well, ok, then show us. You are banking on the assumption that by overwhelming the guy with shots, that the weapon will be taken out of the picture. I disagree. IMO, you do not have a backup plan, in the event that your supposed superior method fails. 

The situation you describe above is moot, due to the fact that you are now changing the scenario, putting both the BG and the defender on equal terms, with both having weapons. Yes, of course you're going to use the weapon. However, in the empty hand scenario, you are not on equal terms, therefore, given the fact that your 'weapons' ie: empty hands, are not superior to his weapon, you need to control, taking his weapon out of the picture, then following thru as I've described in other posts. 



_"I still think that you're slightly misunderstanding here. There is NO reason why you can't still take the person out, while you're controlling the arm, hand, etc._
*I understand completely. If an injury gives me that portion to control then take advantage. If it does not, I am still continuing injuries... on the same token, an injury gives me a bonafide spinal reflex that is predictable and allows me to set up the chain of injuries that will lead to their incapacitation. "*

Again, you're assuming that your shots will take him out, and that he will not be capable of using the weapon. What if that fails? What if you dont get the desired results? What is your plan b?




> If you read my posts you will find accordance with what I am saying and the control you refer to.


 
Your version of control and my version differ. 



> I am nost misunderstanding. My posts are not being read and understood before commented on.


 
No, your posts are being read, and many are saying the same thing as I am. DIfference is, is that you dont want to see anything else other than your supposed superior methods.



> And no, its not about what I do that only works... Its about basic principles applicable to all things related to unarmed and armed combatives.... its an enhancement not a substitute.... no one is telling you to adpot a single doctrine as truth... only stressing the principles behind what it takes to get the job done.


 
Umm...if you say so.



> I am not a camera jockey with ability to upload video streams to the net in order to prove something. We have gone through this before and this can be misconceived as a challenge.


 
How is posting a clip so that people can better understand, going to be a challenge? The explaination of a challenge is posted in the rules.  Is there anyone that you train with that is capable of filming?



> It gets hashed out here or not at all... since this is what we are here for.
> Using internet tools to further complicate the already complicated is not a viable option.


 
Then I guess we'll be hashing until the cows come home.  BTW, YOU are the one that commented on seeing something vs. reading something. My idea was simply a suggestion. 

Sir, I wish you and whomever you teach the best.


----------



## MJS (Jun 9, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> thats not whats being discussed here. If you can draw down and shoot them...why not do it. It wont be the gun you are trying to shoot but the body of the threat.... correct???
> 
> I carry a blade all the time... I can draw down and get to stabbing vitals in a heartbeat if someone pulls a gun on me... but again, thats not whats being discussed here...
> 
> ...


 
Umm...are you reading what you're saying here?  YOU are the one that brought up weapon vs. weapon, not I or anyone else.  If you want to start a topic on that, then do so, otherwise, we're discussing the badguy having the weapon, and the defender being empty handed.


----------



## MJS (Jun 9, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> _"Dude, we're not talking about Ninjas here or military men. I highly doubt the punk robbing me so he can get his next fix, is going to jump on my back. Lets focus on reality here, not fantasy land." _
> 
> I dont know about you but I dont train for the least educated criminal... I train and combat as if they know just as much as me...if not more... them knowing less is a bonus that is not computed in the equation for me until after its all said and done. Always assume they know more and bring it to them 300%


 
Neither do I, however, you're starting to sound like the Gracie nutriders, who think that everyone is a Royce Gracie clone, capable of the same feats that he is.  While I do not discredit the street punk, I think you're making them out to be a bit more than they all are.  

BTW, I'm still waiting for your answers to the questions I asked you, from the post in which you quoted the above portion from.


----------



## MJS (Jun 9, 2009)

http://www.kajukenbocafe.com/smf/index.php?topic=907.0

http://www.kajukenbocafe.com/smf/index.php?topic=513.0

Hmm...well will ya look at that....2 similar threads, yet the majority are claiming control of the weapon.  But I suppose all those folks are wrong, I suppose weapon oriented systems are all wrong, such as those taught by the late Remy Preses, Leo Gaje, and other FMA masters.  I suppose people who have used these methods in RL are also wrong, because they controlled, vs. attempting to overwhelm the BG with strikes.


----------



## BLACK LION (Jun 9, 2009)

Did you call me a gracie nutrider???  You my friend sound like a bully....and have used some very cheap tactics in displaying that fact.  
You are on a quest to disprove something while saying we agree... I agree, to each his own... do what works for you... I have never said otherwise. I have yet to say I have themagic pill and the only true way...
I have my convictions and I will stand by them regardless of the picture you paint....   it has nothing to do with whos stick is bigger and better... or whos way is right or wrong...  you have yet to step into my boots and I have yet to step into yours...  I asked you to prove zero to me becuase I could care less... I have nothing to prove to you becuase I again could care less... if you think, feel or wish to treat me like I am FOS then set my posts to ignore... I am not here to cross swords in a pissing contests over your logic vs mine...    there is way too much time spent on doubt -objection and contempt rather than getting to the meat of the matter and accomplishing something so everyone understands.

But it seems like you feel high and mighty up there with 20k posts and all the adornments about your profile... so  I should be suckling every morsel you spill onto the forum... sorry bro... not me...   I may come off a certain way but never has it been my wat or the highway...  I am not hiding who I am behind subtle verbage...  you however are not fooling me.  



conversation over...  next topic please.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 9, 2009)

I am not a mod, so I will not get into any of the rest of the discussion between the two of you.  You each seem to have very defined ideas of control.

But must there be namecalling?

I would like to point out that Lion's posts have never indicated him being a nutrider of the Gracies and I have never found MJS to be a bully.

Also, outside of that other site, I have never seen the term nutrider.  Until now, that is.  One of the reasons that I do not participate there all that much is because I really do not like the name calling.  The lack of such behavior is one of the things I happen to like about MT.  

In any case, I think that as one of you stated, your definitions of control may differ.

Daniel


----------



## MJS (Jun 9, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> Did you call me a gracie nutrider???


 
Re-read what I said.  I said you're starting to sound like one.  I didn't say you were one.  



> You my friend sound like a bully....and have used some very cheap tactics in displaying that fact.


 
I'm a member and an Asst. Admin of this forum.  I, like everyone else, am not above and beyond the forum rules.  If you have an issue with one of my posts, please feel free to report it, using the red triangle in the upper right hand corner of each post.  

Cheap tactics...lol..sure, yeah, ok.  Not quite sure what you're talking about, but feel free to point them out.




> You are on a quest to disprove something while saying we agree... I agree, to each his own... do what works for you... I have never said otherwise. I have yet to say I have themagic pill and the only true way...
> I have my convictions and I will stand by them regardless of the picture you paint.... it has nothing to do with whos stick is bigger and better... or whos way is right or wrong... you have yet to step into my boots and I have yet to step into yours... I asked you to prove zero to me becuase I could care less... I have nothing to prove to you becuase I again could care less... if you think, feel or wish to treat me like I am FOS then set my posts to ignore... I am not here to cross swords in a pissing contests over your logic vs mine... there is way too much time spent on doubt -objection and contempt rather than getting to the meat of the matter and accomplishing something so everyone understands.


 
I'm simply asking what makes your methods so superior to everyone else, due to the fact that is the way your posts come across.  I'm curious as to what art(s) you study that advocate what you preach, or is this some creation of your own?  As I've said in many posts, you're free to do as you wish.  But, as I've pointed out, your posts are coming across just the way I describe.



> But it seems like you feel high and mighty up there with 20k posts and all the adornments about your profile... so I should be suckling every morsel you spill onto the forum... sorry bro... not me... I may come off a certain way but never has it been my wat or the highway... I am not hiding who I am behind subtle verbage... you however are not fooling me.


 
LMAO!!  High and mighty.  My friend, I've been a member of this forum for many years.  My posts have nothing to do with it.  I'm not here to prove anything to anyone.  My training is legit, verifiable, and I have nothing to hide.  Many have complemented me on my posts, so that must say something.   Who said that I was hiding?  Hiding where?  However, you come off as a know it all, with some superior skill above and beyond everyone else.  The arts in my profile...Kenpo and Arnis are ones that I actively train in.  I'm ranked in both.  BJJ...its been a while since I've been on the mat, however, I roll when I can.  Not ranked in that art.  Krav Maga...no rank, no active training.  A few private lessons, but I do not claim to teach that nor do I claim to be an expert in it.  

Seeing that we're talking about ranks and stuff....share some about yourself.  What rank and branch of the military were you in?  Whats arts do you train in?  What ranks are you?  

If you're going to talk a big game sir, back up what you say.  This forum is open to anyone, but if you're not happy here, you're free to go if you choose. As I said, I'm staff and a member here.  I am not above anything, so if you have an issue, feel free to report my posts or speak to Bob Hubbard.  

Good day.





> conversation over... next topic please.


 
I did not invite you to this thread, you came yourself.  If you want to debate, thats fine.  If you want to run to the corner and cry foul, feel free.


----------



## MJS (Jun 9, 2009)

To clarify the Gracie comment...I was referring to the Gracie fans who think that the Gracie way is "THE" only way.  BL has made it clear that his way is superior to everyone else.  I'm simply asking questions.  Seems like he's reading more into it, for some odd reason.  As I've said many times in my posts, I do not claim that my way is the best.  I've said that anyone is free to do what they want.  However, it makes you wonder, when direct quesitons are asked, and suddenly people clam up...why?  Something to hide?  People ask questions.  I did that, and there is nothing wrong with that.


----------



## MJS (Jun 9, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I am not a mod, so I will not get into any of the rest of the discussion between the two of you. You each seem to have very defined ideas of control.
> 
> But must there be namecalling?
> 
> ...


 
IMHO Dan, I think that you're right, and I've said it before...there are differing opinions of control.  BL seems to think that when I speak of control, that I'm doing nothing else BUT controlling.  That is not the case.  The control is for nothing more than a few seconds.  I either block/strike/redirect the weapon while counter striking and then getting away or I do the above but work for a disarm, break, etc.  Again, the control factor is pretty short.


----------



## morph4me (Jun 10, 2009)

If you don't control the weapon just begging to have it used on you. Control the weapon in order to get to and control the attacker and you increase your chances of surviving the encounter.


----------



## BLACK LION (Jun 10, 2009)

I have remained respectful despite the badgering being done becuase of my postition... It seems to rear its ugly head in every thread. 
I have thanked you several times in several posts for a reason MJS... There is no reason for you to approach me in the manner you are.  
This is not about deuling over verbage or terminology. Its about intel and info.  
I understand where you are coming from. However, I choose to bypass all of the things outside and work from the meat...rather than going outside in by working through the tool and getting to the real task at hand...I would rather work from the inside out and get to the real threat which is a thinking moving person....    the brain and body behind the function... not the tool front.  
Clearly, this is my approach and I am not the only one but its my cross to bear... likewise, there are others with a different approach and that is thiers cross to bear...  to me its just a man effected by serial injuries that happened to be weilding a tool.... I would rather focus on crushing his throat, breaking his knee and cracking his spine than what technique I can use to get that tool...  
I have accepted being cut or stabbed from the get go and infact I may not even know it when it happens...it may have already happened... regardless... my focus shouldnt change or shift to the tool or even bypassing the tool... the focus is serial injury to a non-functional state. 


focus on injury to control the function of the brain and body... not focus on controling the tool itself...  injury is the deciding factor on either side... if you are not doing it... it will be done to you...   

I have never represented my opinion as superior... but when it comes to the game of life and death I will not accept anything less than my success in dropping them where they stand...  not with some magic voodoo prowess or some super spec ops secret fighting technique...but with the tool of violence... which declares no technique or style.  

I am most concerned with what I can do buck-naked rather than what I can do with snap on tools... likewise I am more concerned with what they can do as a moving thinking human than what they can do with snap on tools...   


you like apples...I like oranges... 

lets agree we disagree and move on... but dont goad and taunt people becuase they disagree...  we are here to learn not spread infection... 

Once again... I post here for a reason and its not becuase of anything other than the professionalism of most of its member base...  If I want childish mouth frothing rants I can log-in to warriortalk and throw rocks at the angry mob with pitch forks and torches...   I dont come on here to contribute and do my part in that regard and no more, no less. I expect to receive the same courtesy as I give no more, no less.    typing posts defaming people or downsizing them to mall-ninja wannabees that extracted all thier knowledge from magazines is not a judgement anyone here is in a position to make. Regardless of what your perception of ones experience is...or wether or not you feel thier background or lack of is substantial enought to destroy meat in the face of danger...   It doesnt matter...  wether a seasoned killer on the battlefield or life long practicioner who has never been positioned to take a life...it doesnt matter...  respect everyone equally... regardless... there is no excuse to behave otherwise short of plain ignorance... 

  Of course this statement is entirely generalized and applicable to all who apply...if any apply.   

I respect everyone and carry myself in that fashion...  no need to condesend or disrespect me because I wont just sit and take it.... 
I get to the point without the sugary toppings... if I agreed with everyone and everything... well then, that would be very substantial in terms of my individuality... 

In the end.. you do what you train... 



and again...   



to each his own...  


I wish everyone the best in their endeavors


----------



## MJS (Jun 10, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> I have remained respectful despite the badgering being done becuase of my postition... It seems to rear its ugly head in every thread.
> I have thanked you several times in several posts for a reason MJS... There is no reason for you to approach me in the manner you are.
> This is not about deuling over verbage or terminology. Its about intel and info.
> I understand where you are coming from. However, I choose to bypass all of the things outside and work from the meat...rather than going outside in by working through the tool and getting to the real task at hand...I would rather work from the inside out and get to the real threat which is a thinking moving person.... the brain and body behind the function... not the tool front.
> ...


 
I feel that while things have been a bit heated, I've been civil. Likewise, I've thanked you in a few of your posts as well. I've said many times, while talking about my take on these subjects, that people are free to do as they choose. I don't claim that my methods are superior. However, I do find it interesting that I've pointed to many sources, all of which are in line with what I've been saying. But again, to each his own. Perhaps its just in the reading, vs. seeing things real time, but I can't help but to interpret many of your posts as hinting that your methods are the only ones that will work.

In an effort to better understand your views, let me ask you this question. Going on what you've said in many posts, I am reading that you focus more on taking out the person instead of controlling the weapon. Your theory is if you take out the person, the weapon can't hurt you. Am I correct so far?

Going on what you've said, I'm picturing an entry such as a straightblast, to overwhelm the opponent with strikes to various areas, ie: eyes, throat, groin, etc. Am I correct in this? If not, please clarify your exact method of how you enter.

Assuming that I'm correct with the straightblast theory, I will agree that this is a good method, as I've used it during sparring sessions and it does open up the chance to clinch and work close range strikes, ie: elbows, knees, headbutts, etc. If we do take any strikes on the way into the SB, they're nothing more than empty handed strikes.

Now, lets put a blade into the picture. Let us assume that the badguy is slashing at us, alternating between inward and outward slashes. Obviously there is now more to worry about than just an empty handed hit. So, going on this, how do YOU enter in on the person? Do you consider the knife at all? Do you consider that your strikes may not take the person out as planned? Do you have a backup plan? If so, what is it? Do you take into consideration that the BG still has a weapon, still has control over it, and can still use it against you? I think its safe to say that he will probably not stand there and let you attack him, without attempting to use his weapon.

I look forward to your reply.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 11, 2009)

All I can add from my experience with Japanese swordsmanship is that, even when similarly armed, the times when we 'lay hands' on the other swordsman involve controlling the sword to our advantage.

"What about Aikido?" I hear the cry - aye, I think that is the art that shows us that when facing an armed opponent then the thing that is formost is to control the weapon whilst you work on disabling the wielder.

Aside: Mind you, at the risk of upsetting every Aikidoka in the world, I have said before and still maintain that Aikido is a last ditch defensive art which depends for it's success upon the swordsman being less skilled than the Aikido practitioner. If no openings are presented then there is nothing to work with.


----------



## morph4me (Jun 11, 2009)

> Aside: Mind you, at the risk of upsetting every Aikidoka in the world, I have said before and still maintain that Aikido is a last ditch defensive art which depends for it's success upon the swordsman being less skilled than the Aikido practitioner. If no openings are presented then there is nothing to work with.


 
Speaking as an Aikidoka, if you have a sword and I'm empty handed, and provided there's and opportunity availiable. You're going to have to catch me before you can cut me, and I'm going to depend on my adreneline, and the fact that you'll be slipping in the trail that I'm leaving, to help me survive.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 11, 2009)

:lol:  I think that's what is known as a most sensible and pragmatic attitude :tup:.


----------



## MJS (Jun 11, 2009)

I'm going to slightly change the focus of this thread.  Until now, we've been talking about attacks in which there is alot of movement.  In other words, someone trying to hit you with a club, someone trying to slash or stab at you with a blade.  The weapon, whatever it may be, is moving.

What I'd like to focus on for a moment is a static attack.  Now, before anyone thinks that I'm talking about moving like some robot, I'm talking about a mugging scenario.  You're at the ATM, guy comes up behind you, and presses a blade into your back, demanding cash.  You turn around, badguy is there, he grabs you, slams you into a wall, and with his other hand, presses the blade against your throat.

I have my own theories, which I will share later.  I'm interested in hearing from those who do not advocate as much control of the weapon as I have been talking about in my posts.  

Looking forward to your replies.


----------



## BLACK LION (Jun 11, 2009)

MJS said:


> I feel that while things have been a bit heated, I've been civil. Likewise, I've thanked you in a few of your posts as well. I've said many times, while talking about my take on these subjects, that people are free to do as they choose. I don't claim that my methods are superior. However, I do find it interesting that I've pointed to many sources, all of which are in line with what I've been saying. But again, to each his own. Perhaps its just in the reading, vs. seeing things real time, but I can't help but to interpret many of your posts as hinting that your methods are the only ones that will work.  *My purpose here is not to solidify some preaching into doctrine. I do have confidence and a particular combative mindset that stands out but it should not be mistaken for some sort of force feeding...especially in an internet forum.  I understand your position and I have been there and trained in that fashion but I chose a different path. I know there are many references that line up with what you convey and I understand that is the path you are on.  Let it serve you well. *
> *I am only a vessel and in no way the ultimate source in these facets of combat.  I am not the source. However I am an instrument and clearly I play a different tune.  I offer my perception which is based on factual data... not fantasy warrior mumbo jumbo. You offer your perception which is based on factual data and not some fantasy warrior mumbo jumo.   So lets learn... and understand...  as students...  as warriors...  *
> 
> In an effort to better understand your views, let me ask you this question. Going on what you've said in many posts, I am reading that you focus more on taking out the person instead of controlling the weapon. Your theory is if you take out the person, the weapon can't hurt you. Am I correct so far? *I have to assume I will be whacked,stabbed or shot but what I cannot allow is it to be repeated. I can not remain in an effected state or I will be blugeoned-stabbed or shot to death. Can it hurt me...sure...but if I can still think and move hes done. Most often a person who has been stabbed doesnt realize it becuase they never saw the balde...they report that they were punched.*
> ...


 
Thank you for lining it up so I can respond accordingly.... the format helps a great deal in articulating.  I appreciate the response and the feedback. 

standing by.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 11, 2009)

MJS said:


> I'm going to slightly change the focus of this thread. Until now, we've been talking about attacks in which there is alot of movement. In other words, someone trying to hit you with a club, someone trying to slash or stab at you with a blade. The weapon, whatever it may be, is moving.
> 
> What I'd like to focus on for a moment is a static attack. Now, before anyone thinks that I'm talking about moving like some robot, I'm talking about a mugging scenario. You're at the ATM, guy comes up behind you, and presses a blade into your back, demanding cash. You turn around, badguy is there, he grabs you, slams you into a wall, and with his other hand, presses the blade against your throat.
> 
> ...


Take hold of weapon arm's wrist quickly with the opposite hand so as to move it away from my throat and firmly grip the weapon hand with my other hand, gripping the thumb with my fingers and applying pressure with my thumb to the hand below the pinky knuckle.  Turn quickly in the opposite direction of their weapon hand (if right, left, if left, then right), twisting the hand away from his body and downward sharply.  This should force him to the ground.  Place forward foot firmly in the armpit area, pull up and twist the wrist sharply, breaking it, possibly tearing other things.  This will hopefully disarm him.  If he still has the fortitude to hang on to the knife, pull up on the arm and stomp kick the trachea.

Remain cognizant of the off hand through this; I do not want to be shot or stabbed by the other hand.  If the other hand produces a knife, he is already on the ground, so I can disengage.

At this point, I have my ATM card (none of the machines around here eat them; they all just have you slide them or insert partway and remove).  If I did not yet withdraw my cash, I refrain from doing so.  If I already have it out and in my pocket, then fine.  I simply exit quickly and dial 911 as soon as I have some distance.

Daniel


----------



## BLACK LION (Jun 11, 2009)

MJS said:


> I'm going to slightly change the focus of this thread. Until now, we've been talking about attacks in which there is alot of movement. In other words, someone trying to hit you with a club, someone trying to slash or stab at you with a blade. The weapon, whatever it may be, is moving.
> 
> What I'd like to focus on for a moment is a static attack. Now, before anyone thinks that I'm talking about moving like some robot, I'm talking about a mugging scenario. You're at the ATM, guy comes up behind you, and presses a blade into your back, demanding cash. You turn around, badguy is there, he grabs you, slams you into a wall, and with his other hand, presses the blade against your throat. *Well its not an assassination by stabbing becuase as soon as he pressed the blade to my back and demanded copitulation he lost his chance. In this scenario the hands immediately go up in neutral and while we are feining the victim and telling them its coming we have already accquired a target through the peripheral vision...  rotate with arms still up in neutral whish will naturally knock the blade off track while projecting through and smashing the nearest target... could be a handful of testes , an elbow to the neck a thumb throgh the eye, a brken clavicle, a ruptured ear drum or an elbow to the mandible for an electric knockout....    take the one available and that will open up others...proceed in a serial fashion until satisfied.   *
> 
> ...


 
I tried my best to respond to eveything and forgive me for not proof reading it first.  ... I appreciate you formatting it to ease articulation.  

Standing by.


----------



## MJS (Jun 11, 2009)

_I feel that while things have been a bit heated, I've been civil. Likewise, I've thanked you in a few of your posts as well. I've said many times, while talking about my take on these subjects, that people are free to do as they choose. I don't claim that my methods are superior. However, I do find it interesting that I've pointed to many sources, all of which are in line with what I've been saying. But again, to each his own. Perhaps its just in the reading, vs. seeing things real time, but I can't help but to interpret many of your posts as hinting that your methods are the only ones that will work. *My purpose here is not to solidify some preaching into doctrine. I do have confidence and a particular combative mindset that stands out but it should not be mistaken for some sort of force feeding...especially in an internet forum. I understand your position and I have been there and trained in that fashion but I chose a different path. I know there are many references that line up with what you convey and I understand that is the path you are on. Let it serve you well. *
*I am only a vessel and in no way the ultimate source in these facets of combat. I am not the source. However I am an instrument and clearly I play a different tune. I offer my perception which is based on factual data... not fantasy warrior mumbo jumbo. You offer your perception which is based on factual data and not some fantasy warrior mumbo jumo. So lets learn... and understand... as students... as warriors... "*_

Ok. 
_

"In an effort to better understand your views, let me ask you this question. Going on what you've said in many posts, I am reading that you focus more on taking out the person instead of controlling the weapon. Your theory is if you take out the person, the weapon can't hurt you. Am I correct so far? *I have to assume I will be whacked,stabbed or shot but what I cannot allow is it to be repeated. I can not remain in an effected state or I will be blugeoned-stabbed or shot to death. Can it hurt me...sure...but if I can still think and move hes done. Most often a person who has been stabbed doesnt realize it becuase they never saw the balde...they report that they were punched.*
*It only becomes a weapon when a driving body utilizes it with violent intent. If it sits there untouched it is an in-animate object. I focus on taking them out, yes. I focus on certified injuries. I focus on disconnecting the brain from the body and severing the ability to think and move. If I injure them, they are too busy with that injury to put the tool to use. My goal is serial injuries to keep them in an serially effected state until they are non-funtional. no motor function no tool... no brain function no tool. In the end he is just a man who whas beaten to non-functional while holding a tool."*_

Ok, so going on what you said in your first line...that while you probably will be hit, that you can't allow it to continue, I'd think that by controlling the arm, that would eliminate that moreso than rushing in on them with strikes.  Maybe I'm looking at this differently again.
_

"Going on what you've said, I'm picturing an entry such as a straightblast, to overwhelm the opponent with strikes to various areas, ie: eyes, throat, groin, etc. Am I correct in this? If not, please clarify your exact method of how you enter. *Agression utilizing the length of ones inseam is stressed regardless of the angle. The available targets will determine the angle of entry. There is always rotation and we are always looking to get through thier base and replace thier body with ours when striking. A straight blast is a bit different as it is not designed to pull fthier foundation out from under them by stepping through them when striking. I am not seeking to overwhelm them with punches or a flurry of any kind. I am looking for slow, smooth methodical targeting to ensure success in activating the reflex reaction associated with bonafide injury. I trained speed for many years based on what I was taught... I became very successful in being faster than my opponent. Things have changed and I understand speed to equal fear. The fear that the very last thing I did wasnt good enough. I had the perception that violence is chaos and it isnt... its simple..its deliberate..its injury."*_

For the sake of understanding your method better, lets use an overhead club attack as a reference point.  The person swings down on your head.  If you're not using the straight blast, at what point are you entering in on them?  As they're drawing back to swing?  Or do you wait until the swing is completed?  
_

"Assuming that I'm correct with the straightblast theory, I will agree that this is a good method, as I've used it during sparring sessions and it does open up the chance to clinch and work close range strikes, ie: elbows, knees, headbutts, etc. If we do take any strikes on the way into the SB, they're nothing more than empty handed strikes. *I strike with my body weight behind my body weapons. I line up my hard parts with thier soft parts and smash through them. Once again. I am not seeking speed combos or a flurry. I am seeking deliberate targets to destroy so set them up for the next and the next... I am looking for destruction... not to compete with speed and technique. "*_

Ok.
_

"Now, lets put a blade into the picture. Let us assume that the badguy is slashing at us, alternating between inward and outward slashes. Obviously there is now more to worry about than just an empty handed hit. So, going on this, how do YOU enter in on the person? *Knife is moving faster than his body...pick the nearest target and wreck it."*_

_So basically wait until the strike goes by, and if you can reach the eyes, hit them, if the knee is closer, target that?  _


_"Do you consider the knife at all?*I consider his body in relation to it, working inside out."*_

_Ok._


_" Do you consider that your strikes may not take the person out as planned?*I have faith in injuries but not singular ones... I must remain in a serial cause state and them in a serial effect state until non-functionality is achieved. *Do you have a backup plan? If so, what is it? *Repeat injury till satisfied... this can equate to me stabbing them with my own blade(carry without fail everyday)*Do you take into consideration that the BG still has a weapon, still has control over it, and can still use it against you? I think its safe to say that he will probably not stand there and let you attack him, without attempting to use his weapon. *Not if I am the one causing injuries... he has no choice over his reactions... its not a concious thought.... the spine has the first say and it will react to stimulus before the brain has a chance to reason.... if this wasnt so... we would all be missing fingers and have burned up hands. If I put my hand on a hot iron... my spine is the governing vessel in retracting my arm immediately... not my brain. *
*Injury is the same concept... if he is injured, he may very well still be armed but he is busy with that injury and vulnerable for the next and the next... so there we have an injured man who happens to have a tool. "*_

Ok.

_

"I look forward to your reply._
Thank you for lining it up so I can respond accordingly.... the format helps a great deal in articulating. I appreciate the response and the feedback. 

standing by. "

Sorry for the delayed reply.  Net access is limited from work.  Thanks for your replies.


----------



## MJS (Jun 12, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Take hold of weapon arm's wrist quickly with the opposite hand so as to move it away from my throat and firmly grip the weapon hand with my other hand, gripping the thumb with my fingers and applying pressure with my thumb to the hand below the pinky knuckle. Turn quickly in the opposite direction of their weapon hand (if right, left, if left, then right), twisting the hand away from his body and downward sharply. This should force him to the ground. Place forward foot firmly in the armpit area, pull up and twist the wrist sharply, breaking it, possibly tearing other things. This will hopefully disarm him. If he still has the fortitude to hang on to the knife, pull up on the arm and stomp kick the trachea.
> 
> Remain cognizant of the off hand through this; I do not want to be shot or stabbed by the other hand. If the other hand produces a knife, he is already on the ground, so I can disengage.
> 
> ...


 


BLACK LION said:


> I tried my best to respond to eveything and forgive me for not proof reading it first. ... I appreciate you formatting it to ease articulation.
> 
> Standing by.


 
Ok, make sure you all are sitting before reading this, because what I'm about to say may shock some...  I think that these 2 replies are pretty much in line with what I'd do as well.  Dans is a bit closer, but BL is not far behind.

Knife from behind....I'm either keeping my hands down or slightly raising them.  Doesn't matter which direction I choose to go in, but I use either the left or right arm to strike their knife hand, and then turn.  From there, depending on which direction I choose, I can either lock their arm or do what would be called a backward throw, in Arnis.  Of course, strikes can be added.

Knife to the throat...I want control here.  The rest is pretty much spot on with what Dan said.  Once I grab the weapon hand, I can strike to their face, or go into the wrist lock/takedown and finish as needed.


----------



## K-man (Jun 12, 2009)

I have read through all the animated discussion and in reality I think that BL and MJS are both right.  The problem is in the definition of control.  
If *control* means to grab the hand holding the weapon and apply some form of restraint, or even go further and suggest an aikido style manipulation and disarm, then I do not believe that that is a physical practicality against a frenzied attack, particularly when the adrenalin dump sends all the fine motor skills out the window.
If *not to control* means totally ignore the weapon, just get in there and beat the crap out of the attacker regardless of what he is trying to do to you, then that also, IMHO, is not a classy option either.
So let's look for a compromise.  I am willing to concede that *control* could mean to deflect the attack or evade the attack to enable you to attack the attacker's  body, as long as it prevents the attacker from getting another shot.  What this means is that the weapon is out of the way long enough for you to strike. To do this you don't have to focus on the weapon, peripheral vision will enable you to see that, and if you get lucky you might even have hold of the arm or wrist.  Then you smash him with everything you have. Only then would I be looking for a disarm.
If you watch some of the Krav Maga defence against bottles, sticks or knives they never go for the weapon.  If you get into a wrestle for control it is likely that the strongest will win.


----------



## MJS (Jun 12, 2009)

K-man said:


> I have read through all the animated discussion and in reality I think that BL and MJS are both right. The problem is in the definition of control.
> If *control* means to grab the hand holding the weapon and apply some form of restraint, or even go further and suggest an aikido style manipulation and disarm, then I do not believe that that is a physical practicality against a frenzied attack, particularly when the adrenalin dump sends all the fine motor skills out the window.
> If *not to control* means totally ignore the weapon, just get in there and beat the crap out of the attacker regardless of what he is trying to do to you, then that also, IMHO, is not a classy option either.
> So let's look for a compromise. I am willing to concede that *control* could mean to deflect the attack or evade the attack to enable you to attack the attacker's body, as long as it prevents the attacker from getting another shot. What this means is that the weapon is out of the way long enough for you to strike. To do this you don't have to focus on the weapon, peripheral vision will enable you to see that, and if you get lucky you might even have hold of the arm or wrist. Then you smash him with everything you have. Only then would I be looking for a disarm.
> If you watch some of the Krav Maga defence against bottles, sticks or knives they never go for the weapon. If you get into a wrestle for control it is likely that the strongest will win.


 
Lets use an over head attack as an example.  Now, we could do one of two things.  1) we could wait until the attack has passed us, or 2) we could move into them during the initial phase of the attack.  So badguy starts to draw back.  That is when I move in.  Not only am I jamming him up, but I'm slamming into him.  Think about the SPEAR from Tony Blauer.  We also saw something similar in a few of those clips I linked on the Krav Maga.  I gain control and follow up with knees, elbows, hits to the face, whatever.  I'm not trying for a fancy method of control.  Simply wrapping their arm gives me enough control, as well as control of them.  

Any locks that I may use, if they present themselves, are prefaced by a shot which serves as a distraction.  Its no different than someone grabbing your wrist.  To think that you'd be able to just go into some lock is foolish, IMO.  Instead, preface that lock with a hit to the face, a kick to the shin.  Then you go into the lock.  I'm taking their mind off of the grab and making them think, "Oh crap, his hand is coming at my face."  

Back to the control.  I can think of a few Kenpo club techs. off the top of my head, in which a simple pin is used.  Kenpo is full of checks and pins, all done with the body, the legs, and the hands/arms.  So yes, its possible to control simply by using a check.  

I like to work these various techniques as alive as possible.  We'll break out a padded stick and go at it.   The person holding the stick is really trying to hit us, and yes, I've been hit, and yes it hurts like hell, despite the padding. LOL!  I remember one morning while I was getting dressed, my wife asked what all the red marks were on my chest.  Needless to say, when she remembered the workout from the day before her reply was, "Nevermind, I know where you got them." LOL!  And yes, many times, when I've gone for control, it either hasn't happened, or it took a second or two.  Training like this, IMHO, is what keeps those who are serious about SD, on their toes.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 12, 2009)

MJS said:


> I'm going to slightly change the focus of this thread. Until now, we've been talking about attacks in which there is alot of movement. In other words, someone trying to hit you with a club, someone trying to slash or stab at you with a blade. The weapon, whatever it may be, is moving.
> 
> What I'd like to focus on for a moment is a static attack. Now, before anyone thinks that I'm talking about moving like some robot, I'm talking about a mugging scenario. You're at the ATM, guy comes up behind you, and presses a blade into your back, demanding cash. You turn around, badguy is there, he grabs you, slams you into a wall, and with his other hand, presses the blade against your throat.
> 
> ...


I would also like to mention that I deal with this very scenario preemptively.  I never use an ATM that is not inside of a public building (like a service station or convenience store).  I also will only use them during the day unless unavoidable.  I use my debit card in lieu of cash most of the time in order to reduce the amount of cash that I carry and to avoid having to go to an ATM.  On the very rare occasion that I do need to use an ATM, regardless of its location or time of day, I do take stock of who is around and whether or not I am being watched by anyone else.

Thus the likelihood of the scenario that you describe has been reduced to virtually nill before it ever takes place.  Self defense encompasses a great deal of skill sets outside of just defending against physical attacks, and most of those skills are not physical.  Lifestyle choices, habits, awareness, interpersonal skills and a whole host of mental skills comprise the majority of one's self defense.  

Sad thing is, very few people are really aware of that.  For most, self defense begins with the encounter.  Many exercise some habits that will keep them out of trouble, but are woefully unaware and even less able to defend themselves after an encounter begins.

Daniel


----------



## BLACK LION (Jun 12, 2009)

Very good point Daniel. 
Even though we train to combat these sorts of threat.We cannot forsake ourselves the habit of being aware of all our surroundings and who or what is in them.  If we are suprised or cuaght off gaurd then we were clearly asleep on watch which is a big no no.  The best way to combat a threat is not to be there at all. And thats really jsut about habituating awareness and assertiveness in normal behavior.    We must always position ourselves to have the advantage, even if our back is turned or our attention occupied.  We should have the advantage regardless if we are ordering food in a drive thru or changing a diaper in the backseat or carrying an arm full of groceries...    we are on call 24/7 365 and there is not a moment that passes that we should not be on watch.  
Its not paranoia... its preparation.  

Thank you for that post.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 12, 2009)

It's why they call destroying the weapon hand 'Defanging the snake'........because it's not the poisonous snake's BODY that can do you damage.......it is the FANG!  The same with the knife (or gun).......damaging the body is all well and good, but a single stab or shot can be lethal, just like a single bite from the snake.


----------



## BLACK LION (Jun 12, 2009)

*"Sorry for the delayed reply. Net access is limited from work. Thanks for your replies."  *

This is my problem. I do not have a computer at home nor do I have a cell phone.   Work comp is the only option when it is one.  

We have more in common than we know MJS


----------



## K-man (Jun 13, 2009)

MJS said:


> Lets use an over head attack as an example. Now, we could do one of two things. 1) we could wait until the attack has passed us, or 2) we could move into them during the initial phase of the attack. So badguy starts to draw back. That is when I move in. Not only am I jamming him up, but I'm slamming into him. Think about the SPEAR from Tony Blauer. We also saw something similar in a few of those clips I linked on the Krav Maga. I gain control and follow up with knees, elbows, hits to the face, whatever. I'm not trying for a fancy method of control. Simply wrapping their arm gives me enough control, as well as control of them.
> 
> Any locks that I may use, if they present themselves, are prefaced by a shot which serves as a distraction. Its no different than someone grabbing your wrist. To think that you'd be able to just go into some lock is foolish, IMO. Instead, preface that lock with a hit to the face, a kick to the shin. Then you go into the lock. I'm taking their mind off of the grab and making them think, "Oh crap, his hand is coming at my face."
> 
> Back to the control. I can think of a few Kenpo club techs. off the top of my head, in which a simple pin is used. Kenpo is full of checks and pins, all done with the body, the legs, and the hands/arms. So yes, its possible to control simply by using a check.


Interesting scenario. My karate training sees me coming in, as long as there is a high enough backlift and I can get in early, jam, strike and take down. My Aikido training sees the weapon deflected down, strike and control, then take down. Both difficult at full pace, but then, that's why we train constantly. :asian:


----------



## MJS (Jun 13, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I would also like to mention that I deal with this very scenario preemptively. I never use an ATM that is not inside of a public building (like a service station or convenience store). I also will only use them during the day unless unavoidable. I use my debit card in lieu of cash most of the time in order to reduce the amount of cash that I carry and to avoid having to go to an ATM. On the very rare occasion that I do need to use an ATM, regardless of its location or time of day, I do take stock of who is around and whether or not I am being watched by anyone else.
> 
> Thus the likelihood of the scenario that you describe has been reduced to virtually nill before it ever takes place. Self defense encompasses a great deal of skill sets outside of just defending against physical attacks, and most of those skills are not physical. Lifestyle choices, habits, awareness, interpersonal skills and a whole host of mental skills comprise the majority of one's self defense.
> 
> ...


 
I agree...being aware is more than half the battle.  Likewise, I prefer to use the indoor one at my bank as well.  There is a drive up one, however it is in the rear of the building, so while you still have the protection of your vehicle, its still out of sight.  I also prefer to use them either during the day but like you said, if I need to use one at night, I do check the area.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jun 14, 2009)

MJS said:


> I agree...being aware is more than half the battle.  Likewise, I prefer to use the indoor one at my bank as well.  There is a drive up one, however it is in the rear of the building, so while you still have the protection of your vehicle, its still out of sight.  I also prefer to use them either during the day but like you said, if I need to use one at night, I do check the area.



I definitely prefer to be mobile and in a car at the ATM.  First sign of danger good bye. (vroom, vroom)


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 15, 2009)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I definitely prefer to be mobile and in a car at the ATM. First sign of danger good bye. (vroom, vroom)


Just a point of clarification, I was thinking specifically of walk up ATM machines, not the drive throughs, though I also tend to avoid the drive up ones at night as well.

Daniel


----------



## BLACK LION (Jun 15, 2009)

In reference to the "knife to the throat" from the front scenario... We went over it this Sunday and found that from the hands up in neutral position the scooping/pulling strike to the inner "knife hand" elbow joint while simultaneously striking the throat/neck or eyes was a viable intro...whereas the knife from behind utilized a pull/grab of the knife hand while rotating ans striking the groin or even the neck...    we assumed that in these positions the threats non tool hand would be grabbing or clenching some portion of the upper body....   

The impact device scenarios required getting in and stiking either before or after the swing. Focusing on the threats torso in relation to thier arms. 

I have some pics for reference I will upload once I get them.    

I found that ultimate control comes by striking deliberate targets to set thier body up for the next and the next... essentially controlling time and space...

Even whith the gun to the head or to the back...with the hands up in neutral striking the elbow joint of the gun hand with the forearm (looks like a side block)then striking the ear or the neck was a viable option... with the gun to your back utilizing the elbow from the neutral position upon rotation to strike the gun side forearm or hand depending coupled with an elbow tot he neck or a forearm to the throat to complete the rotation then continue striking accordingly...    also, simply rotating to the side and behind the muzzle and striking the neck or the groin or even raking the eyes was also a viable option...     it comes down to what instinctively comes at that moment based on that situation...   keeping everything universal helps a great deal becuase its transferable no matter what...  its not threat specific...    
Of course this is my perception from my training and practice... we are all individuals that think-feel-see-smell-taste- and act differently...cleraly everyone is entitled to their own path. 

One thing was for sure and that is nothng came without striking targets and getting that rotation and projecting through...


----------



## MJS (Jun 15, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> In reference to the "knife to the throat" from the front scenario... We went over it this Sunday and found that from the hands up in neutral position the scooping/pulling strike to the inner "knife hand" elbow joint while simultaneously striking the throat/neck or eyes was a viable intro...whereas the knife from behind utilized a pull/grab of the knife hand while rotating ans striking the groin or even the neck... we assumed that in these positions the threats non tool hand would be grabbing or clenching some portion of the upper body....


 
For myself, I'd rather grab closer to the hand that has the weapon, rather than the elbow joint.  I do agree with the simultaneous strike though. 




> I have some pics for reference I will upload once I get them.


 
Looking forward to seeing them. 




> Even whith the gun to the head or to the back...with the hands up in neutral striking the elbow joint of the gun hand with the forearm (looks like a side block)then striking the ear or the neck was a viable option... with the gun to your back utilizing the elbow from the neutral position upon rotation to strike the gun side forearm or hand depending coupled with an elbow tot he neck or a forearm to the throat to complete the rotation then continue striking accordingly... also, simply rotating to the side and behind the muzzle and striking the neck or the groin or even raking the eyes was also a viable option... it comes down to what instinctively comes at that moment based on that situation... keeping everything universal helps a great deal becuase its transferable no matter what... its not threat specific...
> Of course this is my perception from my training and practice... we are all individuals that think-feel-see-smell-taste- and act differently...cleraly everyone is entitled to their own path.


 
Again, as with the knife variation above, I'd prefer to strike closer to the hand.  Question...with what you describe here, are you going to the inside or outside of the weapon hand?  Just trying to picture this better. 



> One thing was for sure and that is nothng came without striking targets and getting that rotation and projecting through...


 
Agreed.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jun 16, 2009)

I too am a firm believer in striking targets and projecting. (on this we I think all agree)  Were we differ is on the control aspect as I do not want the knife/stick/gun coming back on me. :erg:  Real world experience has proven to me that control is essential in conjunction with strikes to soften the opponent.  I have also seen the opposite side where control did not happen and walla the tool was brought back to bear on the defender.


----------



## MJS (Jun 16, 2009)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I too am a firm believer in striking targets and projecting. (on this we I think all agree) Were we differ is on the control aspect as I do not want the knife/stick/gun coming back on me. :erg: Real world experience has proven to me that control is essential in conjunction with strikes to soften the opponent. I have also seen the opposite side where control did not happen and walla the tool was brought back to bear on the defender.


 
My thoughts exactly!


----------



## BLACK LION (Jun 16, 2009)

With a knife from the front to the throat or side of neck we struck the inner crrok of the elbow joint instead of the metatarsels or radial nerve because the downward-rotating-pulling motion actually brings them closer to thier own blade and away from your neck and likewise draws them into the simultaneous strike. You can then secure the arm completely while striking them repeatedly until they drop.  Try it.... especially if there are guys there with high pain tolerance you want to get them where they cant control it.  Basically the same concept as a human standing up and you coming up and striking the back of the knee joint....the legs buckle. So in essence you are buckling the knife arm and drawing them closer while forcing theblade down and away from your neck while striking them as they come forward.    We tried the grab strike...and we tride striking the forearm and the knife hand but nothing was as profound and predictable as the strike to the elbow crook.  


With the gun to the face or head or neck we struck the outer portion of the elbow joint(hard part) from the outside and away with the forearm or hammer fist...this method knocks the gun out of the way and puts them in a compromising position becuase they have to backtrack and rotate the torso back to where they were in order to put you back in line with the muzzle...  if you strike the inner arm all they have to do to line you up with the muzzle is naturaly bend the arm towards you... striking the outside of the arm and sending it sideways denies them the natural motor function and natural bend of the arm. We attempted a grab which equated to being shot in the face or torso and we also attemted radial nerve and hand strikes to no avail.....   We also attempted to just rotate and project beyond the muzzle which also had positive results but could equate to a blown eardrum from a discharge next to the ear or being grazed....  nothing fatal though....   

I am trying my best to articulate so please bear with me. I do plan on providing picture and video media for reference here in the near future. 


Respectfully
Broderick


----------



## BLACK LION (Jun 16, 2009)

I do see your side of the coin as well Brian and MJS. It would be easier to train more esoteric techniques to guys like you becuase you are wired for it as are most people on here.  I try to keep it simple and universal becuase it is transferable from tool to tool... its easier to retain and execute.  When I get into the nifty strips and disarms(especially the ones where you make them shoot or stab themselves) the lights go off and they are like whaaaa??? how?? but????    so I leave them be.   This comes from a training others perspective and not necessarily my own ability or that of other trained martialists...  I hope that makes sense as well. 

Respectfully
Broderick


----------



## MJS (Jun 22, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> With a knife from the front to the throat or side of neck we struck the inner crrok of the elbow joint instead of the metatarsels or radial nerve because the downward-rotating-pulling motion actually brings them closer to thier own blade and away from your neck and likewise draws them into the simultaneous strike. You can then secure the arm completely while striking them repeatedly until they drop. Try it.... especially if there are guys there with high pain tolerance you want to get them where they cant control it. Basically the same concept as a human standing up and you coming up and striking the back of the knee joint....the legs buckle. So in essence you are buckling the knife arm and drawing them closer while forcing theblade down and away from your neck while striking them as they come forward. We tried the grab strike...and we tride striking the forearm and the knife hand but nothing was as profound and predictable as the strike to the elbow crook.
> 
> 
> With the gun to the face or head or neck we struck the outer portion of the elbow joint(hard part) from the outside and away with the forearm or hammer fist...this method knocks the gun out of the way and puts them in a compromising position becuase they have to backtrack and rotate the torso back to where they were in order to put you back in line with the muzzle... if you strike the inner arm all they have to do to line you up with the muzzle is naturaly bend the arm towards you... striking the outside of the arm and sending it sideways denies them the natural motor function and natural bend of the arm. We attempted a grab which equated to being shot in the face or torso and we also attemted radial nerve and hand strikes to no avail..... We also attempted to just rotate and project beyond the muzzle which also had positive results but could equate to a blown eardrum from a discharge next to the ear or being grazed.... nothing fatal though....
> ...


 


BLACK LION said:


> I do see your side of the coin as well Brian and MJS. It would be easier to train more esoteric techniques to guys like you becuase you are wired for it as are most people on here. I try to keep it simple and universal becuase it is transferable from tool to tool... its easier to retain and execute. When I get into the nifty strips and disarms(especially the ones where you make them shoot or stab themselves) the lights go off and they are like whaaaa??? how?? but???? so I leave them be. This comes from a training others perspective and not necessarily my own ability or that of other trained martialists... I hope that makes sense as well.
> 
> Respectfully
> Broderick


 
Almost forgot about these 2 posts, so I wanted to address them.   First, any luck with the pics/vid that you mentioned?  In another thread, I had posted these clips, which all contain some sort of control of the weapon.  I would also like to point to these clips as well.  Here.  In this clip, around the 50sec mark, we see a knife to the throat.  Seems like Dave is using both methods that we each described.  He is controlling the hand as well as striking in the crook of the elbow.  Its also interesting about 1:20, where he talks about the risks of not controlling the blade.  This next clip features Dave again, about 2min in.  Another clip with Dave, which contains a few gun disarms.  

On a side note, I was at a seminar a few years ago.  Dave was there and I had the chance to work with him for a short time.  Nice guy, strong as hell and knows his stuff.


----------



## BLACK LION (Jun 22, 2009)

I cant view videos thru flashplayer at work(firewall is tight)...so it sucks I cant see the visual reference you are making...   I went through all the pics but I didnt find any that were really applicable... I dont know if some were deleted or not fully downloded since the camera we used was not mine...     I am however working on getting video from a more professional source which I met with on sunday and demoed a lil bit... he used pro equipment and is stellar at production and editing in video and music...  

I am working on it and not just blowing hot smoke up your arses ...     I am also looking to purchase a domain name and set up a web site that will have a constand video feed to make reference to....   

Its coming...


----------



## MJS (Jun 22, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> I cant view videos thru flashplayer at work(firewall is tight)...so it sucks I cant see the visual reference you are making... I went through all the pics but I didnt find any that were really applicable... I dont know if some were deleted or not fully downloded since the camera we used was not mine... I am however working on getting video from a more professional source which I met with on sunday and demoed a lil bit... he used pro equipment and is stellar at production and editing in video and music...
> 
> I am working on it and not just blowing hot smoke up your arses ... I am also looking to purchase a domain name and set up a web site that will have a constand video feed to make reference to....
> 
> Its coming...


 
No prob.   I can't watch video at work either.  Youtube is on the no-no list. LOL.  Check them out when you can.  As for the other stuff...whenever you can put it up is fine, no rush. 

As for the domain and website...maybe Bob H can help you with that.


----------

