# Understanding The Weapon Before Defending Against It



## MJS (Oct 3, 2011)

Pretty much every art has defenses against a gun and knife.  Of course, as we all know, or should know, some of these defenses range from excellent to poor.  So, that being said, how important do you feel, it is, to know about and understand the weapon, before you even begin to defend against it?

Lets look at a handgun.  There are many types of guns out there.  There are also people out there, who I'm sure have never held, let alone, actually fired a real gun.  Is someone going to be confident enough, having never studied a gun, to actually defend themselves?

The same could also be said about a knife.  Various sizes, grips, etc, will all come into play when executing your defense.  

So, what are your thoughts?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 3, 2011)

I think you not only have to understand the weapon but also be very good with that understanding if you want to take a person on with one.  Weapon/tool training in the Martial Sciences is super important.  That is if you wish to really study for personal protection!


----------



## Monroe (Oct 3, 2011)

I've never even seen a handgun irl. I've fired rifles at a shooting range and tried skeet shooting and paintball shooting if those count for handling weapons. 

A little familiarity could probably help.


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 3, 2011)

Im inclined to Agree.

In My Training, I was taught the Basics to handling a Double Bladed Knife.
Then taught how to Defend against one.

Same with Handguns.
Granted, they were Fakes.
I have, however, wielded both separately to My Current Training.

Id have a fairly inclusive Pistol Licence and Rifle Licence if the place I was Practitioning that didnt shut down.
Same for Knives.

The Center I was doing it at closed - And I wasnt interested enough in any of the Three to pursue it.
But hey - I can confidently use all Three


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 3, 2011)

I think it is absolutely critical to understand the function and employment of weapons before learning how to defend against them. I have seen some gun defenses that are nuts: for example, grabbing the barrel of the pistol "so that the pistol can't cycle through its recoil, and therefore can't fire". Yes, I have actually seen that taught. But even training with the proper moves won't prepare you for the sound a gun makes. If you freeze up because of the loud noise, the movements are useless. Only being near a gun prepares you for the sound.I could go on.


----------



## Monroe (Oct 3, 2011)

Josh Oakley - Are you saying it's important to be familiar with the sound or trained with the weapons or a bit of both?

With the gun laws where I live, it's never seemed like there was a point in owning and or training to use them. Gun and bullets to be locked away in separate places. Not much as a form of defence.


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 3, 2011)

Monroe said:


> Josh Oakley - Are you saying it's important to be familiar with the sound or trained with the weapons or a bit of both?
> 
> With the gun laws where I live, it's never seemed like there was a point in owning and or training to use them. Gun and bullets to be locked away in separate places. Not much as a form of defence.



In this Country, it is Illegal to Possess a Firearm as a Regular Civilian.

Alot of Criminals have Firearms.
Because Criminals dont CARE about Gun Laws.

Think about it.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 4, 2011)

However in Australia, the UK and a lot of other places you are unlikely to be attacked by a person with a gun, it's far more likely to be a knife, a broken bottle or glass etc. Guns are more likely to be used in major crimes still fairly rare, the danger most people will face is in pub/bar fights, muggings and football violence. Random violence without weapons happens a lot on our streets usually at kicking out time in our high streets and drunken youths ( male and female) are wandering around the streets. You may never see a gun here but the chances of you running into these drunken yobs and coming off worse are high if you go out in the evening to the same places as them. Most people that are hurt and are likely to be hurt are young males more often drunk themselves.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 4, 2011)

I think it woud have advantages.  Different people will perform the same attack with different variables in how they use a weapon.  Being exposed to that gives a defender a greater chance at survival.


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 4, 2011)

MJS said:


> Pretty much every art has defenses against a gun and knife.


 
Yeah, I've lost track of the number of times we've done pistol defence in my Iai class.... 

Sorry, I'll be serious now.



MJS said:


> Of course, as we all know, or should know, some of these defenses range from excellent to poor.  So, that being said, how important do you feel, it is, to know about and understand the weapon, before you even begin to defend against it?
> 
> Lets look at a handgun.  There are many types of guns out there.  There are also people out there, who I'm sure have never held, let alone, actually fired a real gun.  Is someone going to be confident enough, having never studied a gun, to actually defend themselves?
> 
> ...



An understanding of the principles and properties of the weapon is essential, most of all for the instructor teaching the defences. However it's simply not possible to be familiar with the particular idiosyncrasies of each different type, so a more general understanding is what is required.

When it comes to the confidence to defend against, as in your example, a handgun, I think that knowledge of the item itself certainly helps a great deal, particularly in preparing for the realities of it. But I don't think it's essential. Otherwise you'd be spending as much time learning the different weapons as you would learning the defences, and unless they are a part of the systems methods, that's just taking time out from where it's needed.



Cyriacus said:


> In this Country, it is Illegal to Possess a Firearm as a Regular Civilian.
> 
> Alot of Criminals have Firearms.
> Because Criminals dont CARE about Gun Laws.
> ...



Actually, that's not true. You can possess a firearm legally as a regular citizen, you just need the correct permits and a valid reason. And honestly, over here most of the criminal use of firearms is directed against other criminals... you'd be far more likely to come up against a knife, or a baseball bat than a gun.


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 4, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Actually, that's not true. You can possess a firearm legally as a regular citizen, you just need the correct permits and a valid reason. And honestly, over here most of the criminal use of firearms is directed against other criminals... you'd be far more likely to come up against a knife, or a baseball bat than a gun.



When I say Regular, I mean, really Regular. The People with Valid Reasons usually have damn Valid Reasons.

And of course, most Criminal use of Firearms is against Other Criminals.
The same goes for the UK, and the US.


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 4, 2011)

Bear in mind, a valid reason is "I like to shoot at a pistol range", not necessarily "I'm a security guard".


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 4, 2011)

MJS said:


> how important do you feel, it is, to know about and understand the weapon, before you even begin to defend against it?



Common martial arts class (except for a good Escrima, Kali, Silat, class) don't understand the weapons they teach. I define common martial artists as recreation or hobby arcane and archaic Asian martial art that doesn't train you like a Navy Seal.  But rather trains you as an interest. 

Now their isn't much to a sticks and poles to know about, a primitive weapon that have archaic movements that have developed into a song and dance routine for many martial arts. This goes for swords, and other weapons taught like Sai that are out dated as well as their methods. At best most people know a little of the weapons origin, and its intentional use. Rarely do they know their weapon like a Marine knows his weapon. 

That leaves us with modern weaponry, guns, tasers, and knifes (in design). Where the common martial artist as little or know knowledge of who the weapon works other than a knife with is pretty much evident.  Their understanding of these weapon is very limited to gross disarming techniques. Rarely, do people have the knowledge equally of those who take a gun or taser class, i.e. the mechanical anatomy, much less as it was said shoot it. 

In terms of self-defense against a gun, it is irresponsible on the behalf of the instructor not to have or teach proper knowledge of the weapon.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 4, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Bear in mind, a valid reason is "I like to shoot at a pistol range", not necessarily "I'm a security guard".



We have loads of gun clubs here because people love shooting not because they need to.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 4, 2011)

Self-Defense Against Hand Guns:

1) Keep the pointy bit away from thyself, lest the bullet inside jump out and smite thee mightily.
2) More important than how you do this is that you do it.

There are specific defenses that work on one type of handgun that don't work on another; like jamming the web of one's hand into the hammer mechanism of a revolver.  And I suppose if one knows the difference between the revolver and the semiautomatic pistol, one might employ such a defense.  But typically, the goal is to keep the weapon pointed away, immobilize it, and remove the ability of the person carrying the gun to fire it.  Pretty much in that order.  I have seen a variety of self-defense drills against handguns, and many of them seemed to me to be of some utility.  However, there is a high element of risk in any of them.  I haven't seen one yet that I felt was foolproof.  However, I also feel that the chances the average person is going to come into contact with a person carrying a firearm that allows it to get withing grabbing range is somewhat low.

Self-Defense Against Knives:

1) Shoot the bastard.
2) If you have no gun, run away.  Really fast.


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 4, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Bear in mind, a valid reason is "I like to shoot at a pistol range", not necessarily "I'm a security guard".



Oh, I know.
But you need a Clean Criminal Record (Well, Relatively) to do that.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 4, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> Oh, I know.
> But you need a Clean Criminal Record (Well, Relatively) to do that.



What's wrong with having a clean record?


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 4, 2011)

***_Americanism; Clean Criminal Record? or at least an oxymoron._


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 4, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> ***_*Americanism*; Clean Criminal Record? or at least an oxymoron._



Ah one of them lol!


----------



## Jenna (Oct 4, 2011)

Can anyone provide a situation where NOT being conversant (or knowledgable of) with an opponent's weapon would render someone _less _able to defend against it than someone else who IS conversant with that weapon?

I am not arguing the point, I am just wondering in practical terms how it makes any difference.  Thank you.


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 4, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> What's wrong with having a clean record?



...I dont quite understand your Question.

I was saying, You need to have a Clean, or Relatively Clean Record to successfully get a Firearms Licence...?


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 4, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Can anyone provide a situation where NOT being conversant (or knowledgable of) with an opponent's weapon would render someone _less _able to defend against it than someone else who IS conversant with that weapon?
> 
> I am not arguing the point, I am just wondering in practical terms how it makes any difference.  Thank you.


Iaido VS... Eh... Praying Mantis Kung Fu.
Assuming the Iaido Practitioner has a Sword.
Even just understanding what the Sword can do would work marvels for circumventing it.

Sticks? Not really necessary. Theres only so much one can do with a Stick (Not a criticism).

Swords and Knives?
Knives can be held in so many ways, and wielded in so many ways, that if you just go in expecting to be able to respond generically, then youre forgetting that a Trained... say... Knifeman, will likely know to fend you with his free hand, or his legs, whilst he retains his Weapon. Or, he will retract the Stab/Slash before it can even be stopped to begin with.
Knowing how the Factor "Flows" could be crucial.

Optionally, Fencing VS Kali.
Would the Kali Practitioner not benefit from having some Idea of how the Sword is wielded, in order to Create the Openings he needs?
The Fencer, it isnt as much of an Issue. He just needs his Stance, and hes good to go, due to the Length of his... Lets say, Sabre.
The Stick could bat the Sword down - But do you bat it down at the End? Middle? Straight down or at an Angle?
How do you Retaliate to the Sword being Arced back up into Guarding Stance?
How do you prevent the Fencer from quickstepping out when you try something?
If you knew how the Quickstepping worked, you would have a benefit.
But now im starting to broaden the horizons of this too far.

You dont need to be Proficient with the Weapon. Just Familiar with how to properly wield it.
And even then, it isnt essential.
It just helps.
And opens new doors.
Now in My Tiredness, I will play with Emoticons. :s37:


----------



## mook jong man (Oct 4, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Can anyone provide a situation where NOT being conversant (or knowledgable of) with an opponent's weapon would render someone _less _able to defend against it than someone else who IS conversant with that weapon?
> 
> I am not arguing the point, I am just wondering in practical terms how it makes any difference.  Thank you.



In practical terms against a small bladed weapon , say in a overhead downward stabbing motion.
With that I can get away with making my defence close to the attackers wrist and keep my head up relatively exposed and the point of the weapon might not still reach me.

But with a long bladed weapon I will really have to dive and get my head down and make contact further up the forearm otherwise the point of the blade will likely be driven into my skull.

If you have not been trained in a specialist knife system and experienced these things then you might tend to think that a knife is just a knife and they are all the same.


----------



## punisher73 (Oct 4, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> However in Australia, the UK and a lot of other places you are unlikely to be attacked by a person with a gun, it's far more likely to be a knife, a broken bottle or glass etc. Guns are more likely to be used in major crimes still fairly rare, the danger most people will face is in pub/bar fights, muggings and football violence. Random violence without weapons happens a lot on our streets usually at kicking out time in our high streets and drunken youths ( male and female) are wandering around the streets. You may never see a gun here but the chances of you running into these drunken yobs and coming off worse are high if you go out in the evening to the same places as them. Most people that are hurt and are likely to be hurt are young males more often drunk themselves.



I've only had one friend robbed at gunpoint and it was in England.  Always train for the possiblity.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 4, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> ...I dont quite understand your Question.
> 
> I was saying, You need to have a Clean, or Relatively Clean Record to successfully get a Firearms Licence...?



you said 'but you need ....'  The word 'but' implied a lot lol!


----------



## decepticon (Oct 4, 2011)

We have gun defense taught in our classes, in addition to knife/edged weapons, and stick. In my opinion, it is definitely a benefit to have a good knowledge of how the weapon works in order to prepare your defense against it.

For example, I have seen students grab knives without realizing that if it had been edged, they would have cut their fingers off at the very beginning of their disarm plan. I have heard students say that they expect that the pistol would discharge into the attacker at a certain point in their disarm, but don't realize that they would be blocking the action with their hand and that it probably wouldn't fire and wouldn't be the help they imagined. And most of all, I see many students wrenching the practice gun away from the practice attacker and then point it at him, planning to shoot him to prevent further attack. It was not well received when I questioned how they would know if the pistol was actually loaded, whether the safety was on, how to disengage it if it was. I guess I ruined a few Rambo fantasies with my dedication to realism.


----------



## Jenna (Oct 4, 2011)

I still do not quite understand why must we be conversant with a weapon to be best able to defend against it?  I have zero experience with live handguns.  And so because I do not want to be complacent where my own defence is concerned, I would like to know how, armed with specific knowledge about handguns in general, will I be better placed to neutralise that threat.

For example, an assailant threatens you with a handgun.  You, being knowledgable in firearms, you spot he has his safety switch left on.  How does this temper your defence?  Or how has this increased your chances over someone not knowledgable in firearms?  Do you risk that you have in fact seen what you believe you have seen (his safety switch left on) and tackle him as though he were unarmed?  Or is your defence against a handgun not the same regardless of whether you yourself are expert in firearms?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 4, 2011)

Jenna said:


> I still do not quite understand why must we be conversant with a weapon to be best able to defend against it?  I have zero experience with live handguns.  And so because I do not want to be complacent where my own defence is concerned, I would like to know how, armed with specific knowledge about handguns in general, will I be better placed to neutralise that threat.
> 
> For example, an assailant threatens you with a handgun.  You, being knowledgable in firearms, you spot he has his safety switch left on.  How does this temper your defence?  Or how has this increased your chances over someone not knowledgable in firearms?  Do you risk that you have in fact seen what you believe you have seen (his safety switch left on) and tackle him as though he were unarmed?  Or is your defence against a handgun not the same regardless of whether you yourself are expert in firearms?



I can't say that a person must have in-depth knowledge, but consider that some firearm replicas look quite convincing; unless you happen to know a bit about firearms.  That would certainly temper my response.

Or if it was unloaded.  Of if I could just make someone think it was...

[video=youtube_share;nah_3vO0uhM]http://youtu.be/nah_3vO0uhM[/video]


----------



## Carol (Oct 4, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Can anyone provide a situation where NOT being conversant (or knowledgable of) with an opponent's weapon would render someone _less _able to defend against it than someone else who IS conversant with that weapon?
> 
> I am not arguing the point, I am just wondering in practical terms how it makes any difference.  Thank you.




One aspect, the misconceptions, particularly with firearms.  For example, regardless of what is said in the media, guns don't just accidentally go off.  Nor do they accidentally shoot people when being cleaned.  There are no accidents with firearms, only negligence.  

Any training is better than none, and "blue guns" play an essential part of training.  However the fake guns don't account for the variables of the firearms, such as the slide of the barrel or how it can be quite hot if just discharged

I personally think one of the most important aspects to defense is knowing how guns sound in real life. I would occasionally have my shift partners over for pizza and a movie after we wrapped up our work around midnight.   One night around 2AM, we're watching a movie when I hear two loud bangs from outside.  It spooks all of us, and while fireworks are legal in our state -- the sounds were definitely not fireworks, and they sound VERY close.  I mention aloud it sounds more like gunshots than anything else.  One of my colleagues agrees, the other wants to go outside to check things out.  Um....maybe going outside isn't such a wise thing at that time?  (Fortunately, we learned in a short period of time that the two loud bangs weren't from gunfire, they were two arcs from a failing electrical transformer).

Finally, a perp threating a person with a knife, a gun, or similar weapon is an attempt on one's life and should be treated with serious regard.  If someone holds a gun or knife to a cashier and insists on the cash in the drawer, that is violent.  It doesn't become "not violent" if the perp never fires, or never lunges or never strikes.  It is violent because the perp is saying with their weapon that they think your life is worth nothing and they are prepared to end your life if you don't give them what they want.  One's life is worth something.  Defend it fiercely.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Oct 4, 2011)

On the one hand, there's an intellectual appeal to understanding the weapon. I've spent my fair share of time training on -- and teaching about -- street weapons.

On the other, most of the info from street attacks tells us that you won't even know there's a weapon in the hand until after the first exchange. This seems to imply that spending time on understanding knives is less well spent than spending time ingraining reflexes that are appropriate to any incoming attack -- armed or not.

This applies less to guns, and more to knives and beer bottles. But you get what I'm saying.

Thoughts?


----------



## Carol (Oct 4, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> On the one hand, there's an intellectual appeal to understanding the weapon. I've spent my fair share of time training on -- and teaching about -- street weapons.
> 
> On the other, most of the info from street attacks tells us that you won't even know there's a weapon in the hand until after the first exchange. This seems to imply that spending time on understanding knives is less well spent than spending time ingraining reflexes that are appropriate to any incoming attack -- armed or not.
> 
> ...



I agree with the idea of presuming there is a weapon in the attacker's hand (regardless) and defending appropriately.

However, these aren't the only types of attacks.   I think if you ask convenience store workers, pharmacists, jewlery store owners or other victims of armed robbery (or other forms of armed assault, such as carjacking), they'd say they saw the weapon first.

During the horrible VA Tech massacre, some students said they heard "banging on the walls."  Would they have reacted differently (ie: tried to escape, etc) if they had recognized the sound as gunfire?  Its a hypothetical question -- not trying to blame victims here.


----------



## Buka (Oct 4, 2011)

I've had a concealed carry permit for over 35 years. I was a Federal Cop who taught DT, handgun retention and close quarter weapons disarming to several departments for 25 years. I've fired a hundred thousand rounds in training over the course of my career.

But you know what? I'd bet my life I don't know any better about disarming a gun than any of you that train because I've never done it for real. Good training and luck mean a lot. May we all have it if the need arises.


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 4, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> you said 'but you need ....'  The word 'but' implied a lot lol!



Ah, I see.
Bare in mind, it was about 2am when I wrote that.


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 4, 2011)

Jenna said:


> I still do not quite understand why must we be conversant with a weapon to be best able to defend against it?  I have zero experience with live handguns.  And so because I do not want to be complacent where my own defence is concerned, I would like to know how, armed with specific knowledge about handguns in general, will I be better placed to neutralise that threat.
> 
> For example, an assailant threatens you with a handgun.  You, being knowledgable in firearms, you spot he has his safety switch left on.  How does this temper your defence?  Or how has this increased your chances over someone not knowledgable in firearms?  Do you risk that you have in fact seen what you believe you have seen (his safety switch left on) and tackle him as though he were unarmed?  Or is your defence against a handgun not the same regardless of whether you yourself are expert in firearms?



Hi J,

I'll see if I can help here. Honestly, under the stress of having a gun put in your face, or pressed against your back, you most likely won't be able to think or see clearly enough to see that amount of detail (safety, whether it's loaded etc) thanks to the amount of adrenaline suddenly running through you. It's more a matter of understanding how things will react when you perform certain actions, such as what is likely to discharge the weapon, what happens when it does go off (kickback, flashburn, sound etc), and so on. If you don't have some experience, or at least the instructor teaching defence against it doesn't have some experience with the weapon, then certain tactics and actions can be taught which would result in the gun being discharged when you don't want it to. Additionally, being familiar with the sound (and it's effects) can help you be prepared for it when the gun does go off. 

I was taking my guys through pistol defence this last month, actually, and decided to do a little experiment. I had one of my senior students (who has never fired a gun) run through a technique a number of times, starting slow, then building up to a realistic pace, ensuring that he was doing it properly and safely. Then I had him go through it one more time, but this time, once the gun was off line (and he wouldn't be "hit"), I shouted "BANG!!!" very loudly next to his ear. He froze, his mind just stopped, and he had no idea for a second what he was doing. He let go of control of the gun, and had it turned back on him. In this instance, not understanding the realities of what the effect of such a loud noise would have on him changed how could perform his defence.

There is also the detail of having respect for the weapon and it's potential. A while back MJS posted a Kenpo gun defence, which features the following clip:






Honestly, this clip tells me that he doesn't get the realities of a gun, or how it works, as the defences don't have sufficient control over the weapon, and are rather impractically complex in a number of cases. But the biggest thing, to me, is that he is completely unaware (or ignorant may be a better word) of the way a gun affects the psychology of a situation. Joseph starts from a relaxed, hands down position, which, frankly, shows a complete lack of respect for the weapons potential.

So that would be an example of how not having some understanding, and preferably experience with a weapon, can lead to some rather flawed responces.


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 4, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Hi J,
> 
> I'll see if I can help here. Honestly, under the stress of having a gun put in your face, or pressed against your back, you most likely won't be able to think or see clearly enough to see that amount of detail (safety, whether it's loaded etc) thanks to the amount of adrenaline suddenly running through you. It's more a matter of understanding how things will react when you perform certain actions, such as what is likely to discharge the weapon, what happens when it does go off (kickback, flashburn, sound etc), and so on. If you don't have some experience, or at least the instructor teaching defence against it doesn't have some experience with the weapon, then certain tactics and actions can be taught which would result in the gun being discharged when you don't want it to. Additionally, being familiar with the sound (and it's effects) can help you be prepared for it when the gun does go off.
> 
> ...



He definintely is at fault.
I can see a Trigger Reflex happening the second he reaches up.

I conclude so far, that moving yourself out of the Firearms Area of Effect is a good first step.


----------



## mook jong man (Oct 5, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> He definintely is at fault.
> I can see a Trigger Reflex happening the second he reaches up.
> 
> I conclude so far, that moving yourself out of the Firearms Area of Effect is a good first step.



I'd say getting your hands up into a pleading type gesture so that they are closer to the gun so that you have economy of movement in your defence would be a good first step.

The gunman will be expecting you to get your hands up and start pleading for your life , to start from a hands down position will seem very unnatural and just make the gunman more wary and give him more time to react to any telegraphic movement as you launch your defence.


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 5, 2011)

Tell you what, as this clip is getting some responce, here's my original critique, showing the issues with a lack of knowledge on both the gunman and defenders sides. First, the clip again:






Now, the critique. For reference, the thread is found here:http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?89945-Handgun-Disarms




Chris Parker said:


> Hey Mike,
> 
> First off, I want to make it clear that this is not an appraisal of the system, or even the instructor, simply of the techniques as presented. To begin with, some positive aspects. Well, he moves pretty fast, and once he gets hold of the wrist, he doesn't let it go, so that's good.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jenna (Oct 5, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I can't say that a person must have in-depth knowledge, but consider that some firearm replicas look quite convincing; unless you happen to know a bit about firearms.  That would certainly temper my response.
> 
> Or if it was unloaded.  Of if I could just make someone think it was...
> 
> [video=youtube_share;nah_3vO0uhM]http://youtu.be/nah_3vO0uhM[/video]


Yes! I like this movie, especially the silly JPG costumes  So then my question is, when you know about firearms and using your knowledge (assuming you have this level of Bruce Willis composure when it is pointed at you), you determine that a weapon is not loaded, do you take the risk and trust your knowledge that it is not loaded and tackle your assailant as though he were unarmed?  

Is there never any doubt: hey if I have got something wrong in my assessment as someone knowledgable of firearms, then I may still get dead.  

All I mean is, in a situation like that is there advantage in knowing about the weapon?  Or would we not defend the same whether we knew it was loaded or not?  Even knowledge of firearms is still an insufficient condition to extrapolate to "I know ALL firearms", no?  I am assuming firearms they are similar and but have differences in mechanism and construction??


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 5, 2011)

What do you mean, "silly JPG costumes"? Apparently Jean Paul came up with some rather outrageous ones initially, in order to shock the cast into agreeing to whatever he did afterwards, thinking "well, at least we got out of those first ones!"... brilliant strategy, really!

As to the more serious side, not wanting to speak for Bill, but I'm sure he'd agree here, a gun should always be treated as loaded and ready to fire. And, as I said, under the stress of adrenaline, you probably wouldn't notice or recognise where the safety catch was, or if it was on or not. The advantages to knowing about the weapon are more to do with understanding things like the muzzle flash, where you're still likely to get a powder burn, what a bullet will ricochet off, and what it won't, what type of kickback can be expected when it does off, and so on. Knowing all guns, and their intimate differences? No, not necessary. Knowing how a gun acts and reacts? Highly advantageous.


----------



## Jenna (Oct 5, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> On the other, most of the info from street attacks tells us that you won't even know there's a weapon in the hand until after the first exchange. This seems to imply that spending time on understanding knives is less well spent than spending time ingraining reflexes that are appropriate to any incoming attack -- armed or not.



BIG +1

This is my experience.  There are those that wave around a weapon and for whom it is a threat which will not be acted upon.  they are those who make big of shouting and staring down posturing behaviour.  

I have less fear from these types.  Those whom I fear in my area are those that do not make eye contact and walk by with their faces enclosed in their hoods as though they are paying no heed.  These I know from young students of mine are the ones that carry concealed and will do you becasue you are not their kind.  Their weapons are not fancy and showy, they are taken from tool sheds and kitchen drawers.  

I agree with your thinking.


----------



## Jenna (Oct 5, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> What do you mean, "silly JPG costumes"? Apparently Jean Paul came up with some rather outrageous ones initially, in order to shock the cast into agreeing to whatever he did afterwards, thinking "well, at least we got out of those first ones!"... brilliant strategy, really!
> 
> As to the more serious side, not wanting to speak for Bill, but I'm sure he'd agree here, a gun should always be treated as loaded and ready to fire. And, as I said, under the stress of adrenaline, you probably wouldn't notice or recognise where the safety catch was, or if it was on or not. The advantages to knowing about the weapon are more to do with understanding things like the muzzle flash, where you're still likely to get a powder burn, what a bullet will ricochet off, and what it won't, what type of kickback can be expected when it does off, and so on. Knowing all guns, and their intimate differences? No, not necessary. Knowing how a gun acts and reacts? Highly advantageous.


Christopher, how does a gun act?  It shoots bullets (I am sorry if that is not the correct term and but you know what I mean!) Guns are designed to inflict damage.  I am not following how knowledge of firearm mechanisms and recoils and physics and operation affect your ow my defence against it.  YES! Absolutely I would treat all firearms as potentially real (not knowing which is replica) and loaded.  And for me I would defend the same way even if I suspected it was not loaded or the assailant was not going to discharge it.

I would love to know about firearms and but I still do not see how that knowledge would alter my defence against them? I think I am being stupid.

As for JPG, nice fragrance, shame about the outfits lol


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 5, 2011)

By understanding why you keep hearing "squeeze, don't pull" on the trigger, you can start to see how a minor change in the aim of the gun can rather drastically alter it's aim. By being familiar with the recoil when the gun is fired (this would be how it "acts", in responce to the stimulus of being fired) you will know how it will try to kick out of you grip while you are attempting to control it, by being familiar with a discharged shell you may not get surprised by a hot metal casing hitting your face as you're struggling for it, by understanding the moving parts (such as the slide) you can structure your defence around not grabbing it, and having it take off the inside of your hand if/when it goes off, possibly taking part of your thumb with it etc etc.

Then you get into the psychology of those that use such items, as mentioned by yourself and bushidomartialarts (the difference between someone trying to scare you, and someone trying to injure or kill you).

But really, the idea of a gun "acting" comes down to the physical changes when it is fired, and the more you know about that, the easier it is to design defences that take such things into account, or recognise whether or not the defences you have actually have a realistic chance or not. It won't make the gun easier to take off someone, by you can understand what will and what won't work... and I've seen a lot of gun (and knife) defences that basically are invitations to get killed... including some that get taught to the police force.


----------



## Jenna (Oct 5, 2011)

Christopher, On psychology I understand what you are saying and but I think a knowledge of firearms would not make any difference to understanding the psychology of a gun-toting assailant? It would be to understand the gun and not the person, is this not correct?  I think that would be a different lesson no?

And I follow the points regarding the principle of operation of the firearm and but still I do not understand how this knowledge would in a practical sense alter your defence - specifically as contrasted with someone who has no knowledge of that weapon?

On the point that *bushidomartialarts *raised, I think all the knowledge in the world will only help when there is sufficient time to analyse the data, expert or not.  These opportunities I would argue come when there is weapon showiness which can sometimes indicate that the assailant does not intend to discharge or deploy the weapon.  Of course that can still happen accidentally and might happen anyway if he becomes agitated or flustered so it is not an assumption to base a defence off. I think the point there is how often would hard-earned weapons knowledge be of benefit?


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 5, 2011)

mook jong man said:


> I'd say getting your hands up into a pleading type gesture so that they are closer to the gun so that you have economy of movement in your defence would be a good first step.
> 
> The gunman will be expecting you to get your hands up and start pleading for your life , to start from a hands down position will seem very unnatural and just make the gunman more wary and give him more time to react to any telegraphic movement as you launch your defence.



Point.

In some of our Self Defense Drills, its advised that if youre unsure of the Volatility of a Situation, to put your Hands Up. It makes you look Submissive. And less likely to Disarm and Incapacitate the Person who likely feels in Control.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 5, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Yes! I like this movie, especially the silly JPG costumes  So then my question is, when you know about firearms and using your knowledge (assuming you have this level of Bruce Willis composure when it is pointed at you), you determine that a weapon is not loaded, do you take the risk and trust your knowledge that it is not loaded and tackle your assailant as though he were unarmed?
> 
> Is there never any doubt: hey if I have got something wrong in my assessment as someone knowledgable of firearms, then I may still get dead.
> 
> All I mean is, in a situation like that is there advantage in knowing about the weapon?  Or would we not defend the same whether we knew it was loaded or not?  Even knowledge of firearms is still an insufficient condition to extrapolate to "I know ALL firearms", no?  I am assuming firearms they are similar and but have differences in mechanism and construction??



I had a person aim a revolver at me once.  It was a H&R breaktop revolver, .22 caliber.  I recognized it because I was once a gun collector.  While he threatened me, I acted nonchalant and told him that I didn't even think it was loaded (actually, I could not tell).  He responded by saying "Oh, yeah?" and he broke the weapon open to show me the cylinder was full of bullets.  Since I knew the weapon was a breaktop, I knew he'd use two hands to open it.  As soon as he placed both hands on the weapon and the action opened, I took him.







I'm not saying everybody has to know everything about guns.  In my case, it helped.

I've also had toy guns pointed at me.  Some of them are quite realistic unless you know guns.  When someone points a toy gun at me and I know it's a toy, there is going to be an ***-whupping commencing.  And that's before I started training in martial arts.

So, I think it helps.  Certainly doesn't hurt.


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 5, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Christopher, On psychology I understand what you are saying and but I think a knowledge of firearms would not make any difference to understanding the psychology of a gun-toting assailant? It would be to understand the gun and not the person, is this not correct?  I think that would be a different lesson no?
> 
> And I follow the points regarding the principle of operation of the firearm and but still I do not understand how this knowledge would in a practical sense alter your defence - specifically as contrasted with someone who has no knowledge of that weapon?



Yes and no, really. By knowing the dominant psychologies and the way they affect the usage of weapons (by knowing when it is an attempt to scare, and when a threat of injury or death), by understanding the types of people and reasons a gun may be involved, all tie in together. You are understanding the psychology of a gunman, not a gun and a man separately.



Jenna said:


> On the point that *bushidomartialarts *raised, I think all the knowledge in the world will only help when there is sufficient time to analyse the data, expert or not.  These opportunities I would argue come when there is weapon showiness which can sometimes indicate that the assailant does not intend to discharge or deploy the weapon.  Of course that can still happen accidentally and might happen anyway if he becomes agitated or flustered so it is not an assumption to base a defence off. I think the point there is how often would hard-earned weapons knowledge be of benefit?



I'll put it this way. In running through pistol defence, I was constantly going around correcting the students from putting their hands around the barrel, due to the fact that if it was a slide action (as many semi-automatic pistols are), then they could be quite injured if and or when it went off. In fact, one of my students, who is in the Army here, pulled me aside at one point to say he wasn't comfortable grabbing the barrel due to that very reason. So I showed him again that he wasn't meant to, as his partner had tried "correcting" him to do (the partner thought it would be more secure that way...).

When it comes to "how often would it be of benefit", hopefully never! But if an instructor is being in any way responsible about what they teach, such awareness and knowledge is essential.


----------



## decepticon (Oct 5, 2011)

In an attack situation, I always assume that the gun is loaded and the safety off. In our class disarm drills, we often have more than one attacker and one or more of them may be armed. My previous comment was based on the fact that many students plan to use the gun that they have taken from the first attacker to defend against or neutralize the other attackers. In such a split second situation, IMO, it is impossible to check a gun with which you are not familiar to see if it is loaded, where it is in its cycle (eg, does another round need chambered), or if the safety is on. I fear that many students who plan to grab the gun and pop the next attacker may well find themselves going "click", and nothing happening. So no, my basic gun defense would not change for the first attacker, but unless I am very familiar with the confiscated weapon, I would be more likely to use the gun as a club to the next attacker's head rather than take the time to take my eyes off the situation to examine the unfamiliar gun.

Regarding gun knowledge, I do think it is important to understand how the weapon operates and fires.  Knowing how slides and hammers move on a pistol, understanding that there can still be a round in the chamber if the magazine has been ejected, that basic operation information can help guide a person to select the most effective way to grip the gun during the disarm (I'd rather jam a slide with my hand than try to stop a bullet with my head. Sure, there will be carnage, the question is how much.) and also how to expect the gun to perform now that you are the one in posession of it.

I had to smile when you all mentioned the sound of a gunshot. We live in a very rural area where we hear gunfire all the time during hunting season and can often tell what kind of gun and sometimes even which hunter and which gun by the sound.  Also my12yo daughter participates in competitive shooting sports (rifle, pistol, just added shotgun to the mix). It never occurred to me that anyone would be unfamiliar with the sound. You are very right - it can be very unnerving if you're not expecting it.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 5, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I had a person aim a revolver at me once.  It was a H&R breaktop revolver, .22 caliber.  I recognized it because I was once a gun collector.  While he threatened me, I acted nonchalant and told him that I didn't even think it was loaded (actually, I could not tell).  He responded by saying "Oh, yeah?" and he broke the weapon open to show me the cylinder was full of bullets.  Since I knew the weapon was a breaktop, I knew he'd use two hands to open it.  As soon as he placed both hands on the weapon and the action opened, I took him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



One problem with that plan...  You're lucky he didn't show you it was loaded by pulling the trigger.  It's a great example of a little knowledge and luck coming together... but you have to recognize the issue.

As to toy guns vs. real guns...  Some toy guns and Airsoft or other replicas are VERY realistic.  When I was a rookie, I stopped off in a Mcdonalds for a moment.  I was approached by someone, who told me that some kids had a bb gun and were showing it to each other.  At the same time, the "man with a gun" call came out.  I separated the kid with the gun, and he's got it in the front pocket of his hoodie.  I asked him "do you have a gun?" and got a "Oh, it's a toy..." coupled with starting to pull it out.  I saw the back strap of what looked a whole lot like a Glock Model 22.  Kid suddenly found me controlling him, and taking it out.  Until I handled it -- it looked real.  It was too light, and there were some minor details missing, but had he pointed it at me -- I'd have shot him.

Then there are these...  I just did a quick search on pink guns, but there're companies out there that will refinish or recoat a gun in whatever color you want.  And there are reports (and I've seen pictures, though I can't dig one up quickly now) of real guns with the tip of the barrel painted red or orange like a toy.

On the general topic of whether or not you need to understand the weapon to practice defenses -- I definitely land on the side of needing some basic understanding and familiarity with the weapon.  More than the "pointy end goes in the other guy" level -- but not necessarily mastery of it.  You need to know enough about guns to understand how they work, what can stop them from working, and how to make it safe if you take it away.  (As well as the little legal issue that know YOU are the one with the deadly weapon!)  With edged weapons, you need to know how and where they cut (is it cutting, thrusting, cutting on the backstroke like a kerambit...), what the realistic paths of attack are, and so on.


----------



## ATACX GYM (Oct 5, 2011)

MJS said:


> Pretty much every art has defenses against a gun and knife.  Of course, as we all know, or should know, some of these defenses range from excellent to poor.  So, that being said, how important do you feel, it is, to know about and understand the weapon, before you even begin to defend against it?
> 
> Lets look at a handgun.  There are many types of guns out there.  There are also people out there, who I'm sure have never held, let alone, actually fired a real gun.  Is someone going to be confident enough, having never studied a gun, to actually defend themselves?
> 
> ...



It is essential to learn as much as possible about the weapon you're defending against,both as defender and attacker. If you know how to properly deploy a knife and say a gun? The better your chances of assessing the skill level of your assailant should you be caught without said weapon and they DO have the weapon in question,the better your ability to defend against the weapon,and should you disarm your opponent? You could completely turn the tables on him/her/them by siezing the weapon and using it (SKILLFULLY) against your assailant(s). I have people tell me that you don't have to know how to use a gun to disarm a guy using a gun.True indeed. However,your chances of disarming the weapon increase dramatically if you know what to do with a gun. You know where people will store the gun,the optimal methods of drawing aiming retaining...and thus halting avoiding and disarming...the gun toting assailant. I compare it to someone saying that you don't need to mandatorily know how to...say...box,or kickbox...to avoid a jab or knee or elbow strike. Or you don't have to know how to wrestle or subwrestle in order to defend the takedown and sublocks. True again. However,being proficient in grappling arts featuring takedowns pins and subs and striking arts comprising and using body weapons functionally dramatically increases your ability to defend against said attacks,and since we're talking about a weapon (with a much lower margin for error than you have vs empty hand attacks)? We should be that much more insistent upon informing our defenses with the knowledge of skilled knife and/or firearm instructors and their tactics. Imho.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 5, 2011)

decepticon said:


> In an attack situation, I always assume that the gun is loaded and the safety off. In our class disarm drills, we often have more than one attacker and one or more of them may be armed. My previous comment was based on the fact that many students plan to use the gun that they have taken from the first attacker to defend against or neutralize the other attackers. In such a split second situation, IMO, it is impossible to check a gun with which you are not familiar to see if it is loaded, where it is in its cycle (eg, does another round need chambered), or if the safety is on. I fear that many students who plan to grab the gun and pop the next attacker may well find themselves going "click", and nothing happening. So no, my basic gun defense would not change for the first attacker, but unless I am very familiar with the confiscated weapon, I would be more likely to use the gun as a club to the next attacker's head rather than take the time to take my eyes off the situation to examine the unfamiliar gun.
> 
> Regarding gun knowledge, I do think it is important to understand how the weapon operates and fires.  Knowing how slides and hammers move on a pistol, understanding that there can still be a round in the chamber if the magazine has been ejected, that basic operation information can help guide a person to select the most effective way to grip the gun during the disarm (I'd rather jam a slide with my hand than try to stop a bullet with my head. Sure, there will be carnage, the question is how much.) and also how to expect the gun to perform now that you are the one in posession of it.
> 
> I had to smile when you all mentioned the sound of a gunshot. We live in a very rural area where we hear gunfire all the time during hunting season and can often tell what kind of gun and sometimes even which hunter and which gun by the sound.  Also my12yo daughter participates in competitive shooting sports (rifle, pistol, just added shotgun to the mix). It never occurred to me that anyone would be unfamiliar with the sound. You are very right - it can be very unnerving if you're not expecting it.



Even if you are familiar with them -- it can be hard to assess a gun's condition in a split second.  I've seen well-trained, experienced officers freeze during a course of fire when they have a malfunction, especially if it isn't quickly and easily cleared.  I'd never trust a gun I took off a "bad guy" to be safe to use, unless I had no other choice.

And there's a big legal issue.  You take the gun they were threatening you with away... and they now are (potentially; if there's one, I assume there's another) unarmed.  If you take the gun away, and shoot them -- you may have moved out of justifiable self-defense and moved into assault.  Possibly murder.  Kind of important to understand that, no?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 5, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Hi J,
> 
> I'll see if I can help here. Honestly, under the stress of having a gun put in your face, or pressed against your back, you most likely won't be able to think or see clearly enough to see that amount of detail (safety, whether it's loaded etc) thanks to the amount of adrenaline suddenly running through you. It's more a matter of understanding how things will react when you perform certain actions, such as what is likely to discharge the weapon, what happens when it does go off (kickback, flashburn, sound etc), and so on. If you don't have some experience, or at least the instructor teaching defence against it doesn't have some experience with the weapon, then certain tactics and actions can be taught which would result in the gun being discharged when you don't want it to. Additionally, being familiar with the sound (and it's effects) can help you be prepared for it when the gun does go off.



To Chris's point about adrenaline and reaction:

The first time I had a gun pointed in my face from about 4 or 5 feet away, the barel of the gun looked HUGE! The frame and slide was the size of standard 9mm, but looking down the barrel made the perspective change. 

Another time someone tried to be "FUNNY" while I was carrying $2,000 in USD of Quarters. That is four (4) large bags of quarters with two in each hand. I was going to fill a bill to coin changer up. Someone stuck something into my back and said hands up! Up went my hands and the coins with them. He then said drop the bags. I did. Two of them fell on his foot and ankle. When I heard him scream I cringed and waited for the shot. Nothing happened. I turned and he was in lots of pain, with a broken ankle and yelling at me, " Why did you hurt me? " I replied, I thought it was a gun and did what you asked. If someone was willing to pull a gun in the middle of a full arcade (Coin Operated Video Games) I was not going to argue with them. He said he was going to bring suit against me. I told one of my employees to call the police and they can decide if he needs an ambulance or not. I pressed charges. Because I believed it to be a weapon and it was over $1000, it staged the felonies up. 

Yet another I was outside a building, and I saw the gun come out of the window of a passing car. I saw the flash and then heard the bang in front and behind me at the same time. The car was gone and I checked myself for any injuries. It had gone between my legs. 

If the shooter had truly understood the weapon he would not have locked his arm out (* which is why I believe I saw it so clearly *) with his wrist pointing down. That is the only way I can imagine with the geomotry for the bullet to have gone between my knees. 

Now that being said, Chris is trying to make the point that those who do not understand that knives can cut, stab, and peel and ..., just need to train with an aluminum trainer to feel the metal and realize that wrestling with a knife is not a good thing. Understanding that the barrel is where the bullet comes out is important so you go off line, but it is also important so you do not point it at your spouse and kids while doing a technique. 

One does not need to be an expert shooter in all classes of guns, nor a master knife fighter to train defenses, but they need to learn about the weapon and respect what it can and cannot do it for you and your opponent.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 5, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> One problem with that plan...  You're lucky he didn't show you it was loaded by pulling the trigger.  It's a great example of a little knowledge and luck coming together... but you have to recognize the issue.



I was lucky, but I had a certain level of confidence that he'd respond that way; he was 'monologuing' me.


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 6, 2011)

Rich Parsons said:


> To Chris's point about adrenaline and reaction:
> 
> The first time I had a gun pointed in my face from about 4 or 5 feet away, the barel of the gun looked HUGE! The frame and slide was the size of standard 9mm, but looking down the barrel made the perspective change.
> 
> ...



Thanks for these examples, Rich, that's what I was getting at.

In regards to the training with an aluminium knife, or recognising that the barrel is always pointed somewhere, so ensure it's pointing in the safest direction possible, you weren't in my class, hiding in the corner, were you? 

With the aluminium knife, an interesting trick is to put it in the fridge or freezer for a short time beforehand (not so much that it's painful to hold, but enough that you instantly feel the "cool" when the blade portion touches your skin). As to the pointing of the gun, I'd go through our principles of gun defence one by one, showing how they are all needed. The first thing is to get yourself off the line of fire, and the second is to control the weapon/weapon hand. To demonstrate why they were both needed, I'd move off line, but end with the gun pointing straight at someone in the class, then look at them, and say "Oops... sorry....", followed by a demonstration of how to avoid that. And I pointed out that, if I'm with friends/family when a gun is pulled, and I can't take it off line without pointing it at one of them, I'd rather it was pointed at me. I think that caught them by surprise when I said that... But essentially, the ideal "safest" place for the gun is pointed at the bad guy, then a clear space (down, so you don't hit an office building, don't have a ricochet off walls or street sign poles, as well as extend the opponent, weakening their grip) away from other people, then finally to myself, where I am not putting anyone else in danger. I didn't advise anyone else to take that attitude, but did point out that that was how I treated such a situation.


----------



## Buka (Oct 6, 2011)

There's so much to weapon disarming, and it's probably a higher stakes game than any other in the Arts we all train. Great points by all, we all know how difficult it is with words - in fact it's probably harder here on a computer screen than it is on the Dojo floor.

For Jenna - training with firearms can only help with disarming. Is it necessary? No, I don't believe it is. But when you train in shooting you'll train in various stances (Weaver and Isosceles) and grips of the handgun. That grip will also change slightly with various weapons. It gives you a certain feel for things you might not otherwise have. And when you're already a Martial Artists going into that training, you're more likely to notice weaknesses in other people's stances and grips than a lay person ever could.
If the instructor and range you get to use is well equipped, you might get a chance to use various holsters, both outside holsters, concealed holsters and from pockets. The bad guy doesn't always start with the gun already in your face. Drawing the weapon gives you a better sense of time. And nobody (IMO) has a better understanding of timing than a Martial Artist. I don't think anyone even comes close. This will give you a better sense of disarming than if you never drew a real handgun. It may give you a better sense of what options you have. (and it might not)

As others have already mentioned, there is the knowledge of noise of the weapon when it goes off. Even with ear protection on the range, different guns have vastly different volumes. Again, it can only add to your toolbox when you've been around that noise. And there is the subject of weight. Big "hand cannons" are much different than smaller pistols. If your assailant is a small person holding a long barreled .357, or a really big man holding a two shot derringer, it may influence you in your response - but only if you have first hand experience with both. (Bad guys don't have pistols custom made for themselves, most guns used in street crime are stolen or bought from other bad guys.)

Revolvers and semi-automatics are vastly different animals. Yes, either will kill you, but their grips and mechanical workings can almost be like night and day. When you handle a smooth, wooden handled pistol and a rubberized combat grip you'll find a completely different feel to the whole thing. Can that make a difference to your disarm? It might. Maybe not in your initial movement, but in beats two and three, because nothing goes as planned in combat. Again, you can only get that feeling by hands on use of firearms.
There's the trigger guard to consider. (the oval or rectangle shaped frame around the trigger, where you put your finger through). In beats two and three (IF there are beats two and three) you can sometimes rip a persons finger off with certain ones (assuming you didn't get shot on beat one ) This can be a very nice thing to regain control and end the threat. But realistically, you can better utilize that information if you've actively trained with firearms. 

There is so much more to this. A lot more. But training with firearms, with a certified instructor, can only help you. I wouldn't go asking one about disarms, though. Unless you already know him it will send up a red flag and he might not want to train you because of liability issues and all. They already think Martial Artists are crazy.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 7, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Thanks for these examples, Rich, that's what I was getting at.
> 
> In regards to the training with an aluminium knife, or recognising that the barrel is always pointed somewhere, so ensure it's pointing in the safest direction possible, you weren't in my class, hiding in the corner, were you?
> 
> With the aluminium knife, an interesting trick is to put it in the fridge or freezer for a short time beforehand (not so much that it's painful to hold, but enough that you instantly feel the "cool" when the blade portion touches your skin). As to the pointing of the gun, I'd go through our principles of gun defence one by one, showing how they are all needed. The first thing is to get yourself off the line of fire, and the second is to control the weapon/weapon hand. To demonstrate why they were both needed, I'd move off line, but end with the gun pointing straight at someone in the class, then look at them, and say "Oops... sorry....", followed by a demonstration of how to avoid that. And I pointed out that, if I'm with friends/family when a gun is pulled, and I can't take it off line without pointing it at one of them, I'd rather it was pointed at me. I think that caught them by surprise when I said that... But essentially, the ideal "safest" place for the gun is pointed at the bad guy, then a clear space (down, so you don't hit an office building, don't have a ricochet off walls or street sign poles, as well as extend the opponent, weakening their grip) away from other people, then finally to myself, where I am not putting anyone else in danger. I didn't advise anyone else to take that attitude, but did point out that that was how I treated such a situation.



Chris,

Nope I was not hiding in your class. Yet, as I have said before, good technique and practices and principals should not be unique to a system / style or art. 

I agree with the cold. It is very effective. 

I also agree with your last about pointing it at you. If it is pointed at you you know where it is. You can talk, keep eye contact and keep the bad guys focused on you, so the threrat to others is minimized. This is something that just is not taught. If you have it, and I do not recommend you go out and try to find out if you do or do not, then one can optimize and or fine tune your options. 

There is nothing wrong with giving the bad guy your wallet and letting them run away. You are out money and cards and time to cancel them. A pain in the butt time wise and emotionally. But a whole lot less pain than being in the hospital for you and or your family if the have to attend services for you. 

Understanding the weapon, and your training can give you a perspective on what options you have and do not have.

"Knowledge is Power". And "Knowing is half the battle".  To quote two (2) blurbs from TV shows and messages in the 1980's.


----------



## MJS (Oct 7, 2011)

WOW! Lots of great replies.  Thank you!   My apologise for not responding sooner.  To answer my own question:  Yes, IMHO, I think that its very important to understand the weapon if you want to be fully capable of defending it and also using it.  Many times, especially in my art (Kenpo) people say that you should be able to just put the weapon into your hand, and apply the same movements from the art.  I disagree.  Sure, that could be done, but IMO, those movements will be sloppy, and not as productive as if you really knew the weapon.  

I'm not suggesting that one abandons their art, to take up a weapon based art.  But, that doesnt mean that you can't devote time to bettering yourself and expanding your own knowledge, by crosstraining or working with someone who has knowledge.


----------



## MJS (Oct 7, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Can anyone provide a situation where NOT being conversant (or knowledgable of) with an opponent's weapon would render someone _less _able to defend against it than someone else who IS conversant with that weapon?
> 
> I am not arguing the point, I am just wondering in practical terms how it makes any difference.  Thank you.



Blades: Given the different sizes, grips, I think its good to know how the weapon could be used.  In Kenpo, we have defenses against the typical overhead stab and straight thrust.  Yes in the FMAs, you'll see numerous ways to hold the blade and be very effective with different methods of slashing, poking, etc.

Guns:  Again, various sizes, auto/semi, etc.


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 8, 2011)

MJS said:


> Blades: Given the different sizes, grips, I think its good to know how the weapon could be used.  In Kenpo, we have defenses against the typical overhead stab and straight thrust.  Yes in the FMAs, you'll see numerous ways to hold the blade and be very effective with different methods of slashing, poking, etc.
> 
> Guns:  Again, various sizes, auto/semi, etc.


Furthermore, many FMAs like Escrima, will also teach using your Free Limbs to strike and grapple if your Weapon Arm is at risk.
I consider it quintessential to take this into account, since someone trained in such an Art wont for a second remain still if you catch their Weapon.


----------



## mook jong man (Oct 8, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> Furthermore, many FMAs like Escrima, will also teach using your Free Limbs to strike and grapple if your Weapon Arm is at risk.
> I consider it quintessential to take this into account, since someone trained in such an Art wont for a second remain still if you catch their Weapon.



That is true , but is that the type of person that is likely to be bailing you up for your mobile phone and your wallet?
Or is it more likely the attacker will be a desperate junkie with no training at all but just an intense desire to get money for the next hit.

Training time is a finite resource that must be spent wisely , I think the bulk of the training should be spent in preparing for what is the most likely scenario to occur.

It would be a bit like saying everybody must gear their training defences against being simultaneously punched and low kicked at close range whilst one of their arms is being controlled in case they happen to run into a Wing Chun guy thats a drug addict , the chances are extremely remote of that happening.

Just going by news reports it would seem to indicate that most of the people doing the attacking would be far too lazy and lacking in character to pursue any martial art for any length of time. 
They want to do things the easy way , that's why they turn to crime in the first place.


----------



## chinto (Oct 8, 2011)

look if he knows what he is doing with a pistol or rifle or shotgun... defense??? he will be well out of reach and not talking but shooting!  People who are trained with guns do not talk ( unless its a cop arresting and then they are supposed to bring them in alive for trial.) they shoot! they do not do so if they can help it at knife range but farther out. besides that if you are trying to beat a trigger squeeze you will loose, beating the man that is different.  against an idiot with a gun you may have a chance...


----------



## MJS (Oct 8, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> Furthermore, many FMAs like Escrima, will also teach using your Free Limbs to strike and grapple if your Weapon Arm is at risk.
> I consider it quintessential to take this into account, since someone trained in such an Art wont for a second remain still if you catch their Weapon.



Very good point! Many of the knife drills that we do, incorporate the other hand.  I think that alot of times, when people are working weapon defense, they often forget about that.  The badguy stands there, when in reality, he just may start resisting, grabbing, punching, etc.



mook jong man said:


> That is true , but is that the type of person that is likely to be bailing you up for your mobile phone and your wallet?
> Or is it more likely the attacker will be a desperate junkie with no training at all but just an intense desire to get money for the next hit.
> 
> Training time is a finite resource that must be spent wisely , I think the bulk of the training should be spent in preparing for what is the most likely scenario to occur.
> ...



Also valid points, however, I dont want to assume that the person I'm facing isn't versed with the weapon he's using.


----------



## mook jong man (Oct 8, 2011)

MJS said:


> Very good point! Many of the knife drills that we do, incorporate the other hand.  I think that alot of times, when people are working weapon defense, they often forget about that.  The badguy stands there, when in reality, he just may start resisting, grabbing, punching, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Also valid points, however, I dont want to assume that the person I'm facing isn't versed with the weapon he's using.



You are going to realise long before you get to the stage of capturing his weapon arm whether he is trained or not .
But if you do manage to capture his arm , the timing from arm capture to when you start your counter attack has to be almost simultaneous.

If there is a gap between those two critical stages then you give him time to start doing things like passing his knife to his other hand or hitting with his free limbs.

Do not give him time to do anything , let him be distracted by the amount of pain he is in as you blast his quads and groin with your knee strikes.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 8, 2011)

The danger of assuming a skilled opponent is that you can be unprepared for an amateur. Think Jim Carey's "you attacked me WRONG!" skit. 

Sent from my Ally using Tapatalk


----------



## Buka (Oct 8, 2011)

While certainly possible, i believe the likelihood of an attacker passing a knife to his other hand in the middle of an encounter, is unlikely. Not to say we shouldn't be aware of it, or train for that eventuality, but I believe it's a real long shot.


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 9, 2011)

Buka said:


> While certainly possible, i believe the likelihood of an attacker passing a knife to his other hand in the middle of an encounter, is unlikely. Not to say we shouldn't be aware of it, or train for that eventuality, but I believe it's a real long shot.


The attacker switching between Front Hold, Side Hold, and Reverse Grip is completely possible though.


----------



## frank raud (Oct 9, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> ...I dont quite understand your Question.
> 
> I was saying, You need to have a Clean, or Relatively Clean Record to successfully get a Firearms Licence...?


How is that different from most places?


----------



## frank raud (Oct 9, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> The attacker switching between Front Hold, Side Hold, and Reverse Grip is completely possible though.



Why?Is he just brandishing the knife to intimidate you? Or are you saying that in the middle of an actual attack upon your physical self, the attacker will switch grips during the time it is most critical for him to have a solid grip on his weapon?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 9, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> The danger of assuming a skilled opponent is that you can be unprepared for an amateur. Think Jim Carey's "you attacked me WRONG!" skit.
> 
> Sent from my Ally using Tapatalk



How true!!!


----------



## MJS (Oct 9, 2011)

mook jong man said:


> You are going to realise long before you get to the stage of capturing his weapon arm whether he is trained or not .
> But if you do manage to capture his arm , the timing from arm capture to when you start your counter attack has to be almost simultaneous.
> 
> If there is a gap between those two critical stages then you give him time to start doing things like passing his knife to his other hand or hitting with his free limbs.
> ...



Agreed, and this is the same principle that Krav Maga uses when they do weapon disarms.....the simultaneous block and counter strike.  As for knowing whether or not he's skilled...true...if he's facing you, sure, it should be easy to tell, of course, I'd say it'd also depend on whether or not the intended victim knows what to look for, thus the purpose of this thread.


----------



## MJS (Oct 9, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> The attacker switching between Front Hold, Side Hold, and Reverse Grip is completely possible though.



Agreed!!!


----------



## Buka (Oct 10, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> The attacker switching between Front Hold, Side Hold, and Reverse Grip is completely possible though.



Yes, I believe that to be correct. And switching hands is also a correct possibility. I have to constantly remind myself that assailants (oh, those pesky bad guys) have not taken the same courses of study that I have, so they don't know how they're _supposed_ to react/attack/move. I think as instructors, that's always important to keep in mind. While teaching, I try to refrain from "he can't do anything from here" or "he can no longer generate any force once you are in this position." But, alas, I still fall into that trap from time to time.


----------



## jasonb (Oct 19, 2011)

Yes, in order to defend against weapons, you will be able to do so MUCH better if you understand the weapon. I'd actually say it is almost impossible to defend yourself properly against a weapon if you don't understand it. Otherwise, you don't even know what you are trying to counter.

There is second hand information and then there is doing and understanding based on doing. Like they say about many things, it takes one to know one. It takes knowing how someone fights with a weapon in order to be able to defend against it. Wasn't the founder of Aikido a swordsman?

This guy knows what will happen when he grabs a gun that isn't a plastic training gun.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 19, 2011)

Actually, it all depends.  A SIG P226 won't fire if it's out of battery.  So if you can grab the barrel and shove the gun out of battery, it won't fire.  But a Glock WILL fire.  (Short of concrete down the barrel or seriously errors in assembly, a Glock is going to go BANG if the trigger is pulled and there is a round in the chamber.)  Other guns are different.  Grab the barrel of a revolver, and unless you stop the cylinder -- the gun will shoot.  Shotgun or other long-arm?   Yeah, grab the barrel, but for leverage!


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 19, 2011)

I didnt notice these until now, so...




frank raud said:


> Why?Is he just brandishing the knife to intimidate you? Or are you saying that in the middle of an actual attack upon your physical self, the attacker will switch grips during the time it is most critical for him to have a solid grip on his weapon?


Yes.
Find me someone who will accost you with a Knife on the Street who is more than some thug.
Unless youre among those who thing thugs are Street Warrior Ninjas. (Only partial sarcasm there)
Also, an Experienced Criminal will formulate their own Methods. They are not Martial Artists, and they can do some strange stuff.




frank raud said:


> How is that different from most places?


Its different to Germany.
Its different to England.
Its different to China.
Its different to Canada.
Its different to the Netherlands.

Most Places =/= All Places. And if the Majority is the most important thing, well; Go Live in China.
They have the Most People. Therefore they must be the Important Majority.
I Rest My Logic


----------



## frank raud (Nov 4, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> I didnt notice these until now, so...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Indie12 (Nov 4, 2011)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I think you not only have to understand the weapon but also be very good with that understanding if you want to take a person on with one. Weapon/tool training in the Martial Sciences is super important. That is if you wish to really study for personal protection!



I would add that Weapon/Tool Training is/should be apart of Martial Sciences! But more importantly the study of the hand that holds the weapon, is even more important! Learning to control the hand is what will make weapons defense attainable.


----------

