# Grabbing The Handgun During a Violent Encounter



## Brian R. VanCise (Nov 19, 2017)

If confronted with a handgun during a violent encounter and you have to engage then you want to be offline and gain control.  Grabbing the handgun gives you control of the weapon and it also can shut the weapon down by causing a malfunction if the opponent fires it.  Of course in IRT we are causing damage to the opponent during the engagement.  Following is link to a video from my blog demonstrating how the malfunction happens:

The Instinctive Edge


----------



## lklawson (Nov 20, 2017)

Depending on the ability to cause a malfunction is pretty sketchy, imo.  (no offense intended)

No one likes grappling at the gun.  The option to do so requires the bad guy to make several important mistakes that I'm not sure they often make.  They might, but I haven't seen much evidence one way or another.  The first mistake is that they must be hesitant in shooting.  If they're already popping rounds, the defender has lost a significant advantage.  The other is that they have to be close enough to be able to engage.  Basically Silver's "Time of the Hand."  How often do bad guys do this?  Not sure.  Doesn't look like it's very frequent but it might be.  Just no statistics I know of one way or another.  But one thing is sure, if they're intending to shoot, they shoot.

OTOH, it's a far better option than peeing my pants and crying like a little girl.  

If you are close enough to engage the weapon bearing limb, the best option is to treat the weapon as if it were a knife (or a light saber!) with an infinite range.  Its danger is greatest linearly extending from the muzzle.  Control the weapon/weapon-bearing-limb and don't let the front of it "sweep" your body.  Assume that it will discharge multiple times.

If you are that close, then this is better than just accepting you'll get shot.  No doubt.

If you are a few steps away (outside of quick grab range), then *MOVE*.  Move fast and laterally, seeking cover (or concealment if cover is not available).  If neither cover nor concealment is available, still movement is a "better" option.  Even experienced handgun shooters have difficulty hitting moving targets and the less experience the harder.  Inexperienced right-handed shooters tend to pull shots to their left, so moving left is a very slightly better direction to move.

On a side note, I've been thinking about a "rant" about the current general perception of "gun grappling."  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 20, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Depending on the ability to cause a malfunction is pretty sketchy, imo.  (no offense intended)
> 
> No one likes grappling at the gun.  The option to do so requires the bad guy to make several important mistakes that I'm not sure they often make.  They might, but I haven't seen much evidence one way or another.  The first mistake is that they must be hesitant in shooting.  If they're already popping rounds, the defender has lost a significant advantage.  The other is that they have to be close enough to be able to engage.  Basically Silver's "Time of the Hand."  How often do bad guys do this?  Not sure.  Doesn't look like it's very frequent but it might be.  Just no statistics I know of one way or another.  But one thing is sure, if they're intending to shoot, they shoot.
> 
> ...


I've looked through what video I can find of guns. It seems stepping close with a gun is reasonably common (within the population of gun robbery captured on YouTube). It's a given that they have to not be focused on shooting - I can't imagine why they'd get that close if their intention is actually to shoot. Even a bad shooter will feel comfortable taking their shot from beyond that range. IME, the less experienced they are, the more likely they are to overestimate their ability to hit a target (even a standing one, much less a moving one) at a distance.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 20, 2017)

lklawson said:


> On a side note, I've been thinking about a "rant" about the current general perception of "gun grappling."


I'd be interested in reading that rant, Kirk.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 20, 2017)

I started writing an article about how "Gun Culture 2.0" is combining BJJ and such to try to get "gun grappling" good along with my thoughts.  My thoughts are basically that thinking of it as "gun grappling" is both wrong and short sighted.  It's just "weapons grappling" because human bodies haven't changed and what you have to do with your body and the way the opponent's body moves and breaks is unchanged also.  It's just a weapon.  "Pass the point," control the weapon/limb, inflict damage.  Nothing particularly special.

I stopped writing it because, well, it's obvious.  If you can find a martial arts manual with "illustrations" that include unarmed vs. armed, it looks pretty much the same, going back for centuries.  Pass the point (void/move-out-of-the-way while moving inside the range), control the weapon/limb, inflict damage.  Kung fu, Marrozo, FMA, "gun grappling," it's all the same.  Boringly so, actually.

Further, the people who are investing tons of time thinking they are merging BJJ (or whatever) with guns are not going to be swayed or impressed (or may already realize this).  Think they're going to be impressed if I tell them, "just go take a year or two of FMA to learn weapons defenses?"  They've either already figured that out for themselves or, like Dorothy and those Ruby Slippers, won't believe it anyway.  And the 2.0 folks who haven't gotten there yet?  They're either still stuck thinking that the gun will solve all the problems and don't want to try adding a "martial artsy" thing in, or they already got there.

In either case, except for a very small subset, I'm either preaching to the choir or talking to the deaf.  Talking to the deaf is just beating my head against a wall, and preaching to the choir is just an exercise in personal egotism so that people who already agree with me can congratulate me on how smart we both are.

So, when it comes to "gun grappling," well, it's just a weapon.  The "rules" <ahem> for grappling against one are pretty similar to the rules for grappling against many of the others.  Are there a few differences?  Sure.  But the differences are actually pretty small when you get down to brass tacks.

And what's more, at some point, it's not even "weapons grappling."  If you boil it down far enough, it's *just grappling*.  The other guy's body still moves and breaks the same whether or not he's holding a weapon.  

At the end of the day, if you want to include any weapon in your self defense training, learn to fight with it and against it (as well as any other common weapons you might face) at all applicable ranges.  It's not Rocket Surgery.

This is where someone quotes Bruce Lee about punching.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Danny T (Nov 20, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Kirk


Just thought I'd "...congratulate you on how smart we both are."


----------



## Steve (Nov 20, 2017)

lklawson said:


> I started writing an article about how "Gun Culture 2.0" is combining BJJ and such to try to get "gun grappling" good along with my thoughts.  My thoughts are basically that thinking of it as "gun grappling" is both wrong and short sighted.  It's just "weapons grappling" because human bodies haven't changed and what you have to do with your body and the way the opponent's body moves and breaks is unchanged also.  It's just a weapon.  "Pass the point," control the weapon/limb, inflict damage.  Nothing particularly special.
> 
> I stopped writing it because, well, it's obvious.  If you can find a martial arts manual with "illustrations" that include unarmed vs. armed, it looks pretty much the same, going back for centuries.  Pass the point (void/move-out-of-the-way while moving inside the range), control the weapon/limb, inflict damage.  Kung fu, Marrozo, FMA, "gun grappling," it's all the same.  Boringly so, actually.
> 
> ...


First, as usual, I appreciate your analysis and insights (maybe because I generally agree with you).

Second, I think this is actually where someone talks about how the philosophy of X is not in line with the core principles of Y.   It can be anything.  For example, it might be, "We are including gun grappling in BJJ because the principles of FMA are not consistent with the core principles of BJJ."  And so, we need to figure out how to do these things the "BJJ" way.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 20, 2017)

lklawson said:


> I started writing an article about how "Gun Culture 2.0" is combining BJJ and such to try to get "gun grappling" good along with my thoughts.  My thoughts are basically that thinking of it as "gun grappling" is both wrong and short sighted.  It's just "weapons grappling" because human bodies haven't changed and what you have to do with your body and the way the opponent's body moves and breaks is unchanged also.  It's just a weapon.  "Pass the point," control the weapon/limb, inflict damage.  Nothing particularly special.
> 
> I stopped writing it because, well, it's obvious.  If you can find a martial arts manual with "illustrations" that include unarmed vs. armed, it looks pretty much the same, going back for centuries.  Pass the point (void/move-out-of-the-way while moving inside the range), control the weapon/limb, inflict damage.  Kung fu, Marrozo, FMA, "gun grappling," it's all the same.  Boringly so, actually.
> 
> ...


Reasonable points. Like any weapon, there are some differences in dealing with it (not more than the difference between stick and knife, I think), but the basic principles are the same. Stick you can grab anywhere, knife you can't, gun you mostly can, etc.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 20, 2017)

Steve said:


> First, as usual, I appreciate your analysis and insights (maybe because I generally agree with you).
> 
> Second, I think this is actually where someone talks about how the philosophy of X is not in line with the core principles of Y.   It can be anything.  For example, it might be, "We are including gun grappling in BJJ because the principles of FMA are not consistent with the core principles of BJJ."  And so, we need to figure out how to do these things the "BJJ" way.


I think the valid part of that view is that there's a way of dealing with a gun (or knife, or stick, or punch, etc.) that's more easily learned from a BJJ foundation than other ways. It's more a matter of choosing techniques that will feel more familiar than of creating something new.


----------



## Steve (Nov 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I think the valid part of that view is that there's a way of dealing with a gun (or knife, or stick, or punch, etc.) that's more easily learned from a BJJ foundation than other ways. It's more a matter of choosing techniques that will feel more familiar than of creating something new.


I think if you are at a point where you are competent in Kali or Eskrima, and also competent in BJJ, synthesizing the two would be easier than if you were competent in BJJ and making a BJJ-centric gun solution.


----------



## wab25 (Nov 20, 2017)

lklawson said:


> If you are a few steps away (outside of quick grab range), then *MOVE*. Move fast and laterally, seeking cover (or concealment if cover is not available). If neither cover nor concealment is available, still movement is a "better" option. Even experienced handgun shooters have difficulty hitting moving targets and the less experience the harder. Inexperienced right-handed shooters tend to pull shots to their left, so moving left is a very slightly better direction to move.


I just wanted to share a training experience I had years ago. We got a bunch of martial arts guys, brown belt and up, who had trained gun take aways in our art and we got a bunch of experienced shooters together. We had a police handgun instructor, teaching the class. (he also had rank in our system.) We paired the martial arts guys with the gun guys and trained our take aways. We learned a bunch of things. People who shoot guns a lot, do not let go of the gun. After a bit, we switched to using loaded air soft guns, to see if it really worked.

Towards the end of the class, someone brought up the statistic that when someone pulls a gun, if you run you will have a 90% or greater chance of surviving. Its hard to hit a moving target, the more distance you make, the harder the shot will be and you have to hit something vital, not just get hit. So, we decided to run our own test. We had the police handgun instructor pull a gun on one of the guys. That guy had to run and we marked out a distance of 10 yards to get to, thinking that would be a safe distance, where you should find cover or at least make the shot much harder. The shooter would wait until the other guy made the first move, before he opened fire. The the that ran, got hit about ten times, before he cleared the 10 yard line... We tried again, having the guy run side to side, random lateral movement. He got hit even more times, because it took longer to get passed the line. So, then, we said, most shooters won't have the same experience as this guy. We got one of the martial artists, who had only ever used a fake gun in his martial arts classes. This was the first time he ever held a real gun in his hand. (part of the earlier instruction) We made him the shooter. He missed once or twice, but was able to hit the running guy with at least 80% of the shots, one each trial. He was only hitting him 3 or 4 times before the guy crossed the line... on the first trial, he kept shooting the guy well after he crossed the line, because he was excited. 

To sum up. We tried having the guy run, and the runner got shot quite a few times before he got 10 yards away. This happened with both a very experienced shooter and a very inexperienced shooter. Running straight away, or side to side did not make much difference in our tests.

We figure, it has to do with how the statistics are gathered. If a guy goes into a movie theater with 250 people and shoots 20 of them dead, while everyone runs... that says 90% of the time, running will save you, if the shooter is not trying to shoot you. If you go to a mall or school, with even more people... again, you get a pretty good survival rate, from running... as long as the shooter is not trying to shoot you.

I don't know if we did our testing right. But, I do think I got enough to know that when the gun comes out, if the guy wants to shoot you, whatever you do, is going to have a low percentage of success. There is not a simple answer. The worst thing you can do is freeze or be indecisive. But, is running better than trying a take away? Its hard to say. 

Note: I am not arguing with the suggestion to move. I am just trying to share what we learned when we tried it. What we found was that running was not a "Get of Jail Free" card.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 20, 2017)

Steve said:


> I think if you are at a point where you are competent in Kali or Eskrima, and also competent in BJJ, synthesizing the two would be easier than if you were competent in BJJ and making a BJJ-centric gun solution.


That's pretty easy to agree with.


----------



## Steve (Nov 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That's pretty easy to agree with.


If you guys would just agree with me at the beginning, we'd all save a lot of time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 20, 2017)

wab25 said:


> I just wanted to share a training experience I had years ago. We got a bunch of martial arts guys, brown belt and up, who had trained gun take aways in our art and we got a bunch of experienced shooters together. We had a police handgun instructor, teaching the class. (he also had rank in our system.) We paired the martial arts guys with the gun guys and trained our take aways. We learned a bunch of things. People who shoot guns a lot, do not let go of the gun. After a bit, we switched to using loaded air soft guns, to see if it really worked.
> 
> Towards the end of the class, someone brought up the statistic that when someone pulls a gun, if you run you will have a 90% or greater chance of surviving. Its hard to hit a moving target, the more distance you make, the harder the shot will be and you have to hit something vital, not just get hit. So, we decided to run our own test. We had the police handgun instructor pull a gun on one of the guys. That guy had to run and we marked out a distance of 10 yards to get to, thinking that would be a safe distance, where you should find cover or at least make the shot much harder. The shooter would wait until the other guy made the first move, before he opened fire. The the that ran, got hit about ten times, before he cleared the 10 yard line... We tried again, having the guy run side to side, random lateral movement. He got hit even more times, because it took longer to get passed the line. So, then, we said, most shooters won't have the same experience as this guy. We got one of the martial artists, who had only ever used a fake gun in his martial arts classes. This was the first time he ever held a real gun in his hand. (part of the earlier instruction) We made him the shooter. He missed once or twice, but was able to hit the running guy with at least 80% of the shots, one each trial. He was only hitting him 3 or 4 times before the guy crossed the line... on the first trial, he kept shooting the guy well after he crossed the line, because he was excited.
> 
> ...


Good write-up. How far from the shooter was the "shootee" when he started running? Did any of them try Hollywood moves (diving rolls, etc.)? I could see this being a bit confounded by the fact that the shooter knows what's coming. He's not watching for other stuff going on, or trying to intimidate with the gun's motion, etc. And there would be some aim loss due to stress/adrenaline. All that said, I'd expect the numbers to have been quite different, so those notes (the kind of observations usually found from almost any study) don't mean the results aren't significant. It would be interesting to see what the numbers were if running was only one option, and the shooters hadn't been told it was an option.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 20, 2017)

Steve said:


> If you guys would just agree with me at the beginning, we'd all save a lot of time.


Yeah, but how would I keep my post count up??


----------



## wab25 (Nov 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Good write-up. How far from the shooter was the "shootee" when he started running? Did any of them try Hollywood moves (diving rolls, etc.)? I could see this being a bit confounded by the fact that the shooter knows what's coming. He's not watching for other stuff going on, or trying to intimidate with the gun's motion, etc. And there would be some aim loss due to stress/adrenaline. All that said, I'd expect the numbers to have been quite different, so those notes (the kind of observations usually found from almost any study) don't mean the results aren't significant. It would be interesting to see what the numbers were if running was only one option, and the shooters hadn't been told it was an option.


We started from the same position we did for the gun take aways. We did expect that the first shot or two would hit, but the shots kept hitting out to and beyond the 10 yard range. We did not expect that. 

We did not try rolls, or dives, since we were only using eye protection and did not want to risk a air soft pellet up the nose or mouth. My gut says, it would not make much difference.

You bring up excellent points about faults in our test, especially where the shooter knows what is going to happen. If I get the opportunity, I would love to try some more variations. And like you said, it was a small sample size. But, it was not what we expected. And I still think, even with the small sample size, that running and movement is not the "Get Out of Jail Free" card. It is an option. It does have a lot of risk, especially if you are targeted. I do not have enough info to say, which is better.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 20, 2017)

lklawson said:


> I started writing an article about how "Gun Culture 2.0" is combining BJJ and such to try to get "gun grappling" good along with my thoughts.  My thoughts are basically that thinking of it as "gun grappling" is both wrong and short sighted.  It's just "weapons grappling" because human bodies haven't changed and what you have to do with your body and the way the opponent's body moves and breaks is unchanged also.  It's just a weapon.  "Pass the point," control the weapon/limb, inflict damage.  Nothing particularly special.
> 
> I stopped writing it because, well, it's obvious.  If you can find a martial arts manual with "illustrations" that include unarmed vs. armed, it looks pretty much the same, going back for centuries.  Pass the point (void/move-out-of-the-way while moving inside the range), control the weapon/limb, inflict damage.  Kung fu, Marrozo, FMA, "gun grappling," it's all the same.  Boringly so, actually.
> 
> ...



Same game as standing restraints.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 20, 2017)

wab25 said:


> We started from the same position we did for the gun take aways. We did expect that the first shot or two would hit, but the shots kept hitting out to and beyond the 10 yard range. We did not expect that.
> 
> We did not try rolls, or dives, since we were only using eye protection and did not want to risk a air soft pellet up the nose or mouth. My gut says, it would not make much difference.
> 
> You bring up excellent points about faults in our test, especially where the shooter knows what is going to happen. If I get the opportunity, I would love to try some more variations. And like you said, it was a small sample size. But, it was not what we expected. And I still think, even with the small sample size, that running and movement is not the "Get Out of Jail Free" card. It is an option. It does have a lot of risk, especially if you are targeted. I do not have enough info to say, which is better.


At the very least, the results seem to reinforce the idea that controlling the gun is the best resistance approach if the gun is in range for grappling.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 20, 2017)

Next experiment I'd like to see: what if the gun is not in range for grappling? If you see the shooter approaching at distance, what is the minimum range at which running and evading gives you a greater than 50% chance of escaping without getting hit? That would make a cool experiment.

Possible confounding factor - how does the accuracy of airsoft weapons compare with that of real guns? Any opinions from the firearms experts in the crowd?


----------



## pgsmith (Nov 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> At the very least, the results seem to reinforce the idea that controlling the gun is the best resistance approach if the gun is in range for grappling.


  Makes me think about my old jujutsu instructor. When he was teaching us mutodori (facing a swordsman when you are unarmed) he said that if you were unarmed and facing a decent swordsman, you would die. However, If it was a decent swordsman and he was that close, you would die if you tried to run away also. Since it was considered preferable to die attacking rather than trying to run away, we would learn mutodori.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 20, 2017)

wab25 said:


> I just wanted to share a training experience I had years ago. We got a bunch of martial arts guys, brown belt and up, who had trained gun take aways in our art and we got a bunch of experienced shooters together. We had a police handgun instructor, teaching the class. (he also had rank in our system.) We paired the martial arts guys with the gun guys and trained our take aways. We learned a bunch of things. People who shoot guns a lot, do not let go of the gun. After a bit, we switched to using loaded air soft guns, to see if it really worked.
> 
> Towards the end of the class, someone brought up the statistic that when someone pulls a gun, if you run you will have a 90% or greater chance of surviving. Its hard to hit a moving target, the more distance you make, the harder the shot will be and you have to hit something vital, not just get hit. So, we decided to run our own test. We had the police handgun instructor pull a gun on one of the guys. That guy had to run and we marked out a distance of 10 yards to get to, thinking that would be a safe distance, where you should find cover or at least make the shot much harder. The shooter would wait until the other guy made the first move, before he opened fire. The the that ran, got hit about ten times, before he cleared the 10 yard line... We tried again, having the guy run side to side, random lateral movement. He got hit even more times, because it took longer to get passed the line. So, then, we said, most shooters won't have the same experience as this guy. We got one of the martial artists, who had only ever used a fake gun in his martial arts classes. This was the first time he ever held a real gun in his hand. (part of the earlier instruction) We made him the shooter. He missed once or twice, but was able to hit the running guy with at least 80% of the shots, one each trial. He was only hitting him 3 or 4 times before the guy crossed the line... on the first trial, he kept shooting the guy well after he crossed the line, because he was excited.
> 
> ...


I know that moving directly away to "increase distance" is popular and "zigzagging" seems to still (for some unknown reason) get some love, but I don't really recommend it.  

Ask any shotgunner, for instance, hitting targets moving more-or-less directly away is easy.  Hitting targets that are moving laterally is harder.  You have to lead and know your lead (which may be next to nothing at effective pistol distances).  Further, my experience is that inexperienced shooters don't maintain their movement when they press the trigger. IOW, they halt the movement of the gun when the press the trigger.  If the target is moving more-or-less directly away (even if "zigzagging"), then the chances of hitting are still pretty good.  When moving laterally, the shooter has to keep moving with the moving target to hit.  

Is this a "get out of jail free card?"  Not even close.  You're just trying to make it a bit harder.

Again, to reiterate, as much as possible that lateral movement should be toward cover, or concealment if cover is unavailable.

Thanks for sharing your experiment.  It reinforces my observations about moving directly away or "zigzagging."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Nov 20, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Possible confounding factor - how does the accuracy of airsoft weapons compare with that of real guns? Any opinions from the firearms experts in the crowd?


Depends on the distance and the quality of the airsoft.  A decent quality airsoft at 30 or 40 feet it's not going to be significantly inaccurate enough to make a training difference in most cases.  

And they sting too.  If you really want motivation while doing airsoft "live" or "force on force" <cough> training, wear a T-Shirt (and goggles/safety-glasses of course).  Those rascals can draw blood and will almost always welt you.  The pain is a motivation to move.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Nov 20, 2017)

pgsmith said:


> Makes me think about my old jujutsu instructor. When he was teaching us mutodori (facing a swordsman when you are unarmed) he said that if you were unarmed and facing a decent swordsman, you would die. However, If it was a decent swordsman and he was that close, you would die if you tried to run away also. Since it was considered preferable to die attacking rather than trying to run away, we would learn mutodori.


Distance.  If you are withing one step, roughly, and gain gain the initiative, you've got a chance.  Human reaction time is such that most people can pass the point before the swordsman can react.  If you are within arms reach, then you have a much better chance.  It is nearly impossible for human reaction to occur.

This is the essence of Silver's "True Times," particularly the last one I mentioned which would be his "Time of the Hand."

This also has applications to the OODA Loop.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 20, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Next experiment I'd like to see: what if the gun is not in range for grappling? If you see the shooter approaching at distance, what is the minimum range at which running and evading gives you a greater than 50% chance of escaping without getting hit? That would make a cool experiment.
> 
> Possible confounding factor - how does the accuracy of airsoft weapons compare with that of real guns? Any opinions from the firearms experts in the crowd?


Airsoft don’t have the same recoil, which should make for improved aim on follow-up shots. I suspect their accuracy is much lower, but probably not a huge difference at the distances in question.


----------



## geezer (Nov 20, 2017)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> If confronted with a handgun during a violent encounter and you have to engage then you want to be offline and gain control.  Grabbing the handgun gives you control of the weapon and it also can shut the weapon down by causing a malfunction if the opponent fires it.  Of course in IRT we are causing damage to the opponent during the engagement.  Following is link to a video from my blog demonstrating how the malfunction happens:
> 
> The Instinctive Edge



Our group in Texas has also experimented with this and came up with the same results. Some of us were a bit surprised that you could stop the slide from cycling with your bare hand and not suffer injury. But repeated attempts confirmed your conclusions.

Secondly, regarding whether or not grabbing the gun and attempting a disarm is wise, I think _we all agree_ that normally grappling with an armed attacker is  strictly a last resort. so I'm not sure where all the blowback was coming from.

Regarding Kirk's comments on weapons grappling being "just grappling" ....well yes and no. Grappling to gain control of a weapon,_ using any and all means possible_, is different than grappling "mano a mano" to submit or defeat an opponent. For one thing, a lot of striking will be involved. And as Bruce Lee famously said about punching....


----------



## pgsmith (Nov 20, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Distance. If you are withing one step, roughly, and gain gain the initiative, you've got a chance. Human reaction time is such that most people can pass the point before the swordsman can react. If you are within arms reach, then you have a much better chance. It is nearly impossible for human reaction to occur.


  That's very true. However, if you are unarmed and within one step of a decent swordsman, he'd have already cut you.  
  Of course, someone that is pointing a pistol at you that you might be forced to take away from them, are not likely to be the most experienced at actually using a firearm. Those living the thug life aren't given much to practicing, they tend to rely more on intimidation.


----------



## geezer (Nov 20, 2017)

pgsmith said:


> ...However, if you are unarmed and within one step of a decent swordsman, he'd have already cut you.
> Of course, someone that is pointing a pistol at you that you might be forced to take away from them, are not likely to be the most experienced at actually using a firearm. Those living the thug life aren't given much to practicing, they tend to rely more on intimidation.



Right, and if a guy is right in front of you with a pistol, maybe even pressing it to your head or up under your chin, he's using intimidation. Clearly, he's not going to shoot you ....at least till he gets what he wants, or you'd already be dead.

So you have to weigh your options. Which will give you the best chance of survival ...giving him what he wants, trying to run away, or going for the disarm? Depending on the circumstances, any one or the above might be the safest choice.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 21, 2017)

pgsmith said:


> That's very true. However, if you are unarmed and within one step of a decent swordsman, he'd have already cut you.
> Of course, someone that is pointing a pistol at you that you might be forced to take away from them, are not likely to be the most experienced at actually using a firearm. Those living the thug life aren't given much to practicing, they tend to rely more on intimidation.


More than you might think.

Criminal Firearm Training | Second Call Defense

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## hoshin1600 (Nov 21, 2017)

wab25 said:


> Towards the end of the class, someone brought up the statistic that when someone pulls a gun, if you run you will have a 90% or greater chance of surviving.


 i think this "statistic" is an urban legend.    if by chance it was correct i would want to know if the percentage was due to the fact that 
(A)  most criminals are not out to kill you but have other motives and do not fire due this fact.
(B) your test gives me the impression that it was done in an open environment, most shooting happen in a closed environment where concealment and cover are more available. more obstacles for the shooter to get past for a clean sight.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 21, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i think this "statistic" is an urban legend.    if by chance it was correct i would want to know if the percentage was due to the fact that
> (A)  most criminals are not out to kill you but have other motives and do not fire due this fact.
> (B) your test gives me the impression that it was done in an open environment, most shooting happen in a closed environment where concealment and cover are more available. more obstacles for the shooter to get past for a clean sight.


A third possibility - in cases where a real firearm is in play, the adrenaline levels are likely much higher than in a training environment. That adrenaline could make a major difference in accuracy - especially for a shooter without professional experience.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 21, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i think this "statistic" is an urban legend.    if by chance it was correct i would want to know if the percentage was due to the fact that
> (A)  most criminals are not out to kill you but have other motives and do not fire due this fact.
> (B) your test gives me the impression that it was done in an open environment, most shooting happen in a closed environment where concealment and cover are more available. more obstacles for the shooter to get past for a clean sight.


I think the biggest problem with that stat (if it is even a statistic) is that we don't have the comparable statistic for not running, nor for struggling. If those are 95% and 92% (making them up), then the 90% for running is somewhat worse than the alternatives. If they are 75% and 50%, then the 90% is a much better option. That all, of course, assumes the 90% is valid.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 21, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I think the biggest problem with that stat (if it is even a statistic) is that we don't have the comparable statistic for not running, nor for struggling. If those are 95% and 92% (making them up), then the 90% for running is somewhat worse than the alternatives. If they are 75% and 50%, then the 90% is a much better option. That all, of course, assumes the 90% is valid.


Article and advice from Sergeant Jim Wagner.

Black Belt

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 21, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Article and advice from Sergeant Jim Wagner.
> 
> Black Belt
> 
> ...


According to that article, the 90% is the chance of surviving being shot. Some good discussion in there of some of the problems - both physical and psychological. I can feel some training coming on.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 21, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> According to that article, the 90% is the chance of surviving being shot. Some good discussion in there of some of the problems - both physical and psychological. I can feel some training coming on.


Medical technology being available, of course...

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Buka (Nov 21, 2017)

wab25 said:


> I just wanted to share a training experience I had years ago. We got a bunch of martial arts guys, brown belt and up, who had trained gun take aways in our art and we got a bunch of experienced shooters together. We had a police handgun instructor, teaching the class. (he also had rank in our system.) We paired the martial arts guys with the gun guys and trained our take aways. We learned a bunch of things. People who shoot guns a lot, do not let go of the gun. After a bit, we switched to using loaded air soft guns, to see if it really worked.
> 
> Towards the end of the class, someone brought up the statistic that when someone pulls a gun, if you run you will have a 90% or greater chance of surviving. Its hard to hit a moving target, the more distance you make, the harder the shot will be and you have to hit something vital, not just get hit. So, we decided to run our own test. We had the police handgun instructor pull a gun on one of the guys. That guy had to run and we marked out a distance of 10 yards to get to, thinking that would be a safe distance, where you should find cover or at least make the shot much harder. The shooter would wait until the other guy made the first move, before he opened fire. The the that ran, got hit about ten times, before he cleared the 10 yard line... We tried again, having the guy run side to side, random lateral movement. He got hit even more times, because it took longer to get passed the line. So, then, we said, most shooters won't have the same experience as this guy. We got one of the martial artists, who had only ever used a fake gun in his martial arts classes. This was the first time he ever held a real gun in his hand. (part of the earlier instruction) We made him the shooter. He missed once or twice, but was able to hit the running guy with at least 80% of the shots, one each trial. He was only hitting him 3 or 4 times before the guy crossed the line... on the first trial, he kept shooting the guy well after he crossed the line, because he was excited.
> 
> ...



Great post. Sounds like a great place to train, too.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 21, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Medical technology being available, of course...
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Yeah, I assume that's the condition.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 21, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> A third possibility - in cases where a real firearm is in play, the adrenaline levels are likely much higher than in a training environment. That adrenaline could make a major difference in accuracy - especially for a shooter without professional experience.



Get the shooter to do a 100m sprint. Then re do the drill.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 21, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Get the shooter to do a 100m sprint. Then re do the drill.


Or set off the fire alarm. It's amazing what those things do to my nerves when they go off.


----------

