# Handgun Disarms



## MJS

This question was asked on another forum, however, it didn't get as many replies as I thought, so I figured I'd ask here.  

The question is as follows:

1) What are some often neglected points when working gun disarms?

2) Did you ever notice any impractical methods of application?  If so, explain.

For the sake of discussion, we can use the Parker 'rod' techniques as a base.  If there are any Tracy Kenpo and Kaju folks that would like to chime in, please feel free to do so.


----------



## l_uk3y

Possible area of neglected point?!?!

Whilst I have little experience with gun disarms and almost no real life gun experience compared to a lot of you. Our old Wing Chun teacher whom was in the army at one point in his life explained that it isn't just the bullet you need to to worry about. But the Force around it as well (Don't know the word I need)

E.G    You move sideways out of the path of a shotgun from point blank. It fires. The shot misses. However unless you get your head infront of the barrels exit then there is a soundwave/air disturbance with enough force to cause concussion.

As I said I can't confirm this. However I would love to hear from those more experienced to confirm or dismiss this. 

Luke


----------



## LawDog

The most often over looked part of gun disarms are,
*type of firearm, revolver, semi auto, long gun,
*height of weapon on opponent and you,
*distance from weapon,
*opponents body language, confident vs nervous,
*muzzle flash, extrem high temp's, kept away from eyes, face, burn skin,
*sound, can blow out your ear drums,
*concussion, can destroy your eyes, hearing,
**Instructors with no street experience teaching "in the street" this will happen and that will happen,
** Instructors with little or no knowledge of the weapon.
:ultracool


----------



## Drac

LawDog said:


> The most often over looked part of gun disarms are,
> *type of firearm, revolver, semi auto, long gun,
> *height of weapon on opponent and you,
> *distance from weapon,
> *opponents body language, confident vs nervous,
> *muzzle flash, extrem high temp's, kept away from eyes, face, burn skin,
> *sound, can blow out your ear drums,
> *concussion, can destroy your eyes, hearing,
> **Instructors with no street experience teaching "in the street" this will happen and that will happen,
> ** Instructors with little or no knowledge of the weapon.
> :ultracool


 
What he said..


----------



## Carol

Why is it that martial arts schools teach gun disarms, while making absolutely no attempt to get a student on the range, learning safety, etiquette and live fire?   

There are many MA students that have never been around a gun before, yet they are being taught to grapple with it while someone else's finger is on the trigger, leading to a situation where the firearm will discharge *inches from their head? * That's a dangerous situation even for a trained marksman, is it not?


----------



## Shin71

Carol said:


> Why is it that martial arts schools teach gun disarms, while making absolutely no attempt to get a student on the range, learning safety, etiquette and live fire?
> 
> There are many MA students that have never been around a gun before, yet they are being taught to grapple with it while someone else's finger is on the trigger, leading to a situation where the firearm will discharge *inches from their head? *That's a dangerous situation even for a trained marksman, is it not?


 
Carol makes a good point; but overall keep it simple, get out of the line of fire and if you are in this situation remember that if you do need to go hands on against a gun, ending the threat as fast as possible is your first goal. Now is not the time to hold back and try something fancy.


----------



## MJS

Nice replies so far.  Hopefully we can keep this thread going longer than it was, when it was posted by someone else on the KN. LOL!  

Anyways...Lawdog made some damn good points, IMHO.  In addition, I'd say that taking the other hand into consideration is important as well.  When you grab onto the weapon, its possible that a) the badguy isn't going to think you'd do that and try to pull the weapon away, or b) in addition to doing A, use his free hand to strike you.

For me, I like to K.I.S.S.....Keep it Short and Simple.   To be honest, I've pretty much abandoned the Kenpo gun techs, mainly due to them not following the principle that I just mentioned....short and simple.   Control is my first concern, of course taking into consideration bystanders.  From that point, my goal is to go on the offensive.  Still maintaining control, using strikes, kicks, knees, elbows, etc.  The disarm is not an immediate concern.


----------



## MJS

Carol said:


> Why is it that martial arts schools teach gun disarms, while making absolutely no attempt to get a student on the range, learning safety, etiquette and live fire?
> 
> There are many MA students that have never been around a gun before, yet they are being taught to grapple with it while someone else's finger is on the trigger, leading to a situation where the firearm will discharge *inches from their head? *That's a dangerous situation even for a trained marksman, is it not?


 
Couldn't agree more with this Carol!!   Of course, the same thing can be said about so many other things in the system as well.


----------



## jks9199

Carol said:


> Why is it that martial arts schools teach gun disarms, while making absolutely no attempt to get a student on the range, learning safety, etiquette and live fire?
> 
> There are many MA students that have never been around a gun before, yet they are being taught to grapple with it while someone else's finger is on the trigger, leading to a situation where the firearm will discharge *inches from their head? * That's a dangerous situation even for a trained marksman, is it not?


A gun disarm is almost by definition a tactic of desperation; it's something you shouldn't even consider unless you think that it's your only way to get out of the situation.  Just like there's a good chance any knife disarm may get you cut, there's a good chance that the gun will go off.  Primary emphasis needs to be on moving off of the line of fire -- or moving it away from you.  Or -- even better -- doing both.  The advantage you have with a gun is that bullets only travel in one direction... and you can predict that direction.

Another thing that's very important to remember about gunshot wounds is that they are very often very survivable.  Especially if you're anywhere near the emergency medicine facilities of most US cities and populous areas.  I'm not suggesting getting shot if you can help it -- but that getting shot shouldn't stop you from fighting!  If you can somewhat choose where you get shot, like by deflecting the gun a bit, the odds stack in your favor to survive.


----------



## Drac

Purchase or borrow some AirSoft pistols. We use them in the academy. the slight sting you get from one is a reminder that no firearm disarm is foolproof. Even teaching disarms can be dangerous, we constantly remind the students NOT to have their fingers on the trigger. A finger can suffer some serious damage if the Tori does a quick and violent movement to the Uke.


----------



## LawDog

"Self Defense" by nature is an act of desperation.
*We all should have read the situation prior to it starting so that we would not have to "defend" ourselves. When we "defend" ourselves our opponent will usually have the upper hand from the initial onset. We must then defend untill we can equalize the situation then to eventualy take control of it.
*When you read a situation correctly, after it starts, you will have the option to,
A) run away,
B) defend yourself,
C) if the situation warrants it, you can execute a pre-emptive strike then "attack" instead of "defend".
Your goal is to neither win or lose, it is simple to get home safely.
:ultracool


----------



## MJS

Dont know how many Kenpo gun techs. are floating around online, but I did find this one.

[yt]3yUPqN5l8rw[/yt]


----------



## Master Dan

MJS said:


> This question was asked on another forum, however, it didn't get as many replies as I thought, so I figured I'd ask here.


 
The question is as follows:

1) What are some often neglected points when working gun disarms?

2) Did you ever notice any impractical methods of application? If so, explain.

I went to a related thread called close comabt defense.com I purchased his 3 dvd set his verbal explanation alone was worth it to me realted to Adrenalin drop or as it raltes to true combat experience. I will reserve judgement on techinque after reviewing the DVD's I like his terminolgy and verbalization related to what I already teach. There is a dfference between being taught by people who have fought close quarters life and death many times and survived and those who have only theory and sport. My father Master as you would call your main life long GM was FBI and CIA security force instructor as well as Unarmed combat instructor in Veitnam. He always talked about don't forget your illegal techiques and practice in your mind. He also talked about some of the consultants in thier combat training were ex World War II war criminals which was supprising based on where they came from?

I have always stressed realistic stress tested self defense because real life is real life ugly and visious no rules. You also need to read people and situations because doing nothing, saying exactly 
the right thing or moving exactly the right way has either saved my life or at least saved alot of effort and injury.

I very much like Kiysho Jitsu which is small circle fighting and the looking for targets of oportunity all situations are fluid and all people are diffent what works on one may not on another. I have been in those situation where you are sick or just out of surgery and bang there it is right in front of you and you have to deal? 

Universal to all is the heart rate and fight or flight issues. I also teach my students by video for decades due to some just to remote to get to and I review thier video and comment now with vidio streaming we can do it live. If these DVD's are good I will definately publish a review.


----------



## Drac

I know I posted this before somewhere on here, but it never hurts to repreat good information. When practicing firearms disarms please insure that* EVERY* student has his/her own firearm. The repetition of handing a weapon back to the attacker can become ingrained.

There is a *TRUE* story of the cop that was surprized by an armed suspect. The officer did a great disarm and then *HANDED* the weapon back to the suspect. The suspect backed away with his hands up as he throught it was a trap in order for the officer to shoot him. Thankfully the officer realized what he was doing and stopped.


----------



## jks9199

Drac said:


> I know I posted this before somewhere on here, but it never hurts to repreat good information. When practicing firearms disarms please insure that* EVERY* student has his/her own firearm. The repetition of handing a weapon back to the attacker can become ingrained.
> 
> There is a *TRUE* story of the cop that was surprized by an armed suspect. The officer did a great disarm and then *HANDED* the weapon back to the suspect. The suspect backed away with his hands up as he throught it was a trap in order for the officer to shoot him. Thankfully the officer realized what he was doing and stopped.


There're other options -- each repetition isn't over until it's stabilized, and then "broken" and the training gun is either handed over in some awkward manner that you wouldn't replicate on the street or simply dropped for the partner to pick up.  Or you can simply trade techniques one-for-one where I disarm you, then you disarm me... repeat.

In fact, you should overlap at least going through the stabilization/break with whatever other technique you'll use.    What I mean by stabilize or break is something like this: Drac holds a gun on me, and I disarm him, move to a safe distance, and begin giving appropriate commands like "get on the ground."  At that point -- consciously STOP the exercise and reset as needed.  (Incidentally, this is something that is good to do in any partner training!)


----------



## Chris Parker

MJS said:


> Dont know how many Kenpo gun techs. are floating around online, but I did find this one.
> 
> [yt]3yUPqN5l8rw[/yt]


 
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.

On the other hand....

I'm not particularly impressed with these gun defences, or, honestly, the way they appear to be being trained here. To begin with, there is very little in the way of moving his head off the line of fire, and his immediate action (the rising cover with his elbow and forearm) is rather dangerous, in that it allows no real control over the gun-hand. That is then followed with a rather complicated control (involving switching hands, and a fine-motor lock on the elbow and wrist, then turning it back again, changing hands again, and moving into a different control). A bit too difficult under stress, I feel.

When done against a gun to the back of the head, there is even less movement away from the line of fire, with the same raising cover being used, then a sweep down to catch with the second control (again requiring changing of your hands as you go), and finish. In this instance, if he didn't get shot with his first movement, he certainly makes a good attempt of getting his foot or leg shot as he passes the barrel of the gun straight past his own lower body.

Leaving off such things as "... now, I'm going to slap him with his own gun....", let's look at how this is trained here, and see how realistic it is. The set-up, to begin with, is a good enough place to start. Sifu Joseph Simonet is, as he says at the beginning, "just standing there". Now, that's good, actually, as moving from a "posture", as in training, is not very likely in an actual situation. However, even with a gun to the side or back of his head, he still just stands there.... The natural (and expected from the bad-guys side) response to that would be to raise your hands in some sort of "submissive", or surrendering gesture. If I was a gunman, and had my gun pointed at someones' head, and they didn't get their hands up, I'd start to wonder what was going on with them.... and you don't want a gunman starting to worry about you doing something, especially when you're going to do something! Add to this the way he remains calm (not showing any signs of stress in any form, again an expected and normal response). So not a good set-up, psychologically speaking.

The first movement (both against the gun to the side, and behind) involves bringing both arms up in a form of a high cover, but with no movement to get your head out of the line of fire first. As Sifu Joseph is starting with his hands relaxed down at his sides, that actually increases the amount of time it will take to get his cover up, and that actually leaves him more open to being shot. Again, add to that his little telegraphing habit of tensing his shoulders, and he may be in trouble... If he started with his hands up (as above), this may have a much better chance, but he would still be well advised to get his head out of the way first and foremost. The actual movement itself (the rising cover) is also something I wouldn't place huge amounts of trust in, as it knocks the gun-arm to the side (possibly discharging the weapon while it is still very close to your head), while gaining no control over the weapon at all. He waits until the second movement for that, and if the gunman moved or pulled back in response to his sudden action (which would be again natural and normal), his reach for his control isn't really guaranteed. And I'd want something with higher return and lower risk.

The gunman here isn't really helping the reality of the training himself, it must be said. Starting from his set-up, he is standing with his feet evenly, and the gun extended forwards in his right hand. This isn't really realistic, and shows that he doesn't really have experience with a handgun. There is no bracing to the footwork, and no real threat or confidence in his holding of the weapon. When the techniques are applied to him, he simply moves his arm as much as it is pushed, allowing the Sifu to simply keep positioning him as he wants to. Every human being has an inbuilt "flinch" response, and things such as Tony Blauers' SPEAR use that in their approach, but of those that use such understandings in their training, most only think about how that is used in the defensive actions, rather than remembering that it exists in the attacker as well. It is especially important to remember it when dealing with weapon defences, as it comes into play there quite a bit.

As soon as you grab someone's weapon, or even look like you are trying to, they will do what they can to stop you from getting it, and that means pulling back in a lot of cases. And that could have a very bad effect on techniques such as this, as there is no real control straight away, so if the gunman was to pull away as soon as the first movement was telegraphed, you could suddenly find yourself facing a gunman now far more agitated (you'd raised their adrenaline by trying to move), further away, and still with a gun trained on your head. If he went for the control straight away, as the gunman pulled back, you could still keep him in control, and this would be a far safer technique.

These aren't the only issues I'm seeing, but this is getting long as it is, so I'll deal with it in a few bullet points. Here is how we deal with gun defence, and in brackets how I see this example in comparison:

First, get off the line of fire (something that is not done here at all, to my mind).

Second, get control of the weapon and weapon hand (the first action against the gun itself should get control of it, rather than as a one-two action seen here).

Third, keep control and position the weapon in a safe position (Sifu Joseph moves the gun away from himself in the first technique, but passes it past himself on the second. And when controlling it, he is pointing the barrel in many different directions, regardless of who it may be pointing at. For me, I would point the gun at the safest possible place, the ground if I have to, or straight back at them for preference).

Whenever possible, the disarm should end with you in control of the weapon (In both techniques the end had the gun falling to the ground, even closer to the gunman in the first one. Falling and hitting the ground may discharge the weapon, and it being on the ground is leaving control of it up to chance to a great degree, as you both struggle in the ensuing chaos).

Finally, with control of the gun, get distance from the gunman, with the gun aimed at them, in order to discourage them trying the same type of thing on you (Needless to say, that didn't happen once here, and really should be trained every time)!

Obviously, I'm not a Kenpo practitioner, so I hope these comments aren't taken as a critique of the art, as they are in no way intended to be. Just some observations from an outsider.


----------



## Drac

jks9199 said:


> In fact, you should overlap at least going through the stabilization/break with whatever other technique you'll use. What I mean by stabilize or break is something like this: Drac holds a gun on me, and I disarm him, move to a safe distance, and begin giving appropriate commands like "get on the ground." At that point -- consciously STOP the exercise and reset as needed. (Incidentally, this is something that is good to do in any partner training!)


 
Bravo, well said..Disarm, take down, cuff and stuff..


----------



## jks9199

Drac said:


> Bravo, well said..Disarm, take down, cuff and stuff..


Or, if it's a more civilian oriented self-defense -- disarm, control the weapon, and escape!  Yes, you can practice making the first step or two of an escape, too.  Or holding the person at gunpoint and calling for the cops...


----------



## Bruno@MT

To add something to Chris' post, I am going to say that there is no reason at all to switch from onikudaki (the figure 4) to something else that involves a lot of 'handling'. onikudaki is a perfect example of a good lock: it can be applied using only gross motor skills, it is painful and damaging, the gun is already pointing down...

From there you can go straight to the ground while keeping the gun pointed away from you. Imo you don't go horsing around to prove to everyone just how good a technician you are.


----------



## MJS

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.
> 
> On the other hand....
> 
> I'm not particularly impressed with these gun defences, or, honestly, the way they appear to be being trained here. To begin with, there is very little in the way of moving his head off the line of fire, and his immediate action (the rising cover with his elbow and forearm) is rather dangerous, in that it allows no real control over the gun-hand. That is then followed with a rather complicated control (involving switching hands, and a fine-motor lock on the elbow and wrist, then turning it back again, changing hands again, and moving into a different control). A bit too difficult under stress, I feel.
> 
> When done against a gun to the back of the head, there is even less movement away from the line of fire, with the same raising cover being used, then a sweep down to catch with the second control (again requiring changing of your hands as you go), and finish. In this instance, if he didn't get shot with his first movement, he certainly makes a good attempt of getting his foot or leg shot as he passes the barrel of the gun straight past his own lower body.
> 
> Leaving off such things as "... now, I'm going to slap him with his own gun....", let's look at how this is trained here, and see how realistic it is. The set-up, to begin with, is a good enough place to start. Sifu Joseph Simonet is, as he says at the beginning, "just standing there". Now, that's good, actually, as moving from a "posture", as in training, is not very likely in an actual situation. However, even with a gun to the side or back of his head, he still just stands there.... The natural (and expected from the bad-guys side) response to that would be to raise your hands in some sort of "submissive", or surrendering gesture. If I was a gunman, and had my gun pointed at someones' head, and they didn't get their hands up, I'd start to wonder what was going on with them.... and you don't want a gunman starting to worry about you doing something, especially when you're going to do something! Add to this the way he remains calm (not showing any signs of stress in any form, again an expected and normal response). So not a good set-up, psychologically speaking.
> 
> The first movement (both against the gun to the side, and behind) involves bringing both arms up in a form of a high cover, but with no movement to get your head out of the line of fire first. As Sifu Joseph is starting with his hands relaxed down at his sides, that actually increases the amount of time it will take to get his cover up, and that actually leaves him more open to being shot. Again, add to that his little telegraphing habit of tensing his shoulders, and he may be in trouble... If he started with his hands up (as above), this may have a much better chance, but he would still be well advised to get his head out of the way first and foremost. The actual movement itself (the rising cover) is also something I wouldn't place huge amounts of trust in, as it knocks the gun-arm to the side (possibly discharging the weapon while it is still very close to your head), while gaining no control over the weapon at all. He waits until the second movement for that, and if the gunman moved or pulled back in response to his sudden action (which would be again natural and normal), his reach for his control isn't really guaranteed. And I'd want something with higher return and lower risk.
> 
> The gunman here isn't really helping the reality of the training himself, it must be said. Starting from his set-up, he is standing with his feet evenly, and the gun extended forwards in his right hand. This isn't really realistic, and shows that he doesn't really have experience with a handgun. There is no bracing to the footwork, and no real threat or confidence in his holding of the weapon. When the techniques are applied to him, he simply moves his arm as much as it is pushed, allowing the Sifu to simply keep positioning him as he wants to. Every human being has an inbuilt "flinch" response, and things such as Tony Blauers' SPEAR use that in their approach, but of those that use such understandings in their training, most only think about how that is used in the defensive actions, rather than remembering that it exists in the attacker as well. It is especially important to remember it when dealing with weapon defences, as it comes into play there quite a bit.
> 
> As soon as you grab someone's weapon, or even look like you are trying to, they will do what they can to stop you from getting it, and that means pulling back in a lot of cases. And that could have a very bad effect on techniques such as this, as there is no real control straight away, so if the gunman was to pull away as soon as the first movement was telegraphed, you could suddenly find yourself facing a gunman now far more agitated (you'd raised their adrenaline by trying to move), further away, and still with a gun trained on your head. If he went for the control straight away, as the gunman pulled back, you could still keep him in control, and this would be a far safer technique.
> 
> These aren't the only issues I'm seeing, but this is getting long as it is, so I'll deal with it in a few bullet points. Here is how we deal with gun defence, and in brackets how I see this example in comparison:
> 
> First, get off the line of fire (something that is not done here at all, to my mind).
> 
> Second, get control of the weapon and weapon hand (the first action against the gun itself should get control of it, rather than as a one-two action seen here).
> 
> Third, keep control and position the weapon in a safe position (Sifu Joseph moves the gun away from himself in the first technique, but passes it past himself on the second. And when controlling it, he is pointing the barrel in many different directions, regardless of who it may be pointing at. For me, I would point the gun at the safest possible place, the ground if I have to, or straight back at them for preference).
> 
> Whenever possible, the disarm should end with you in control of the weapon (In both techniques the end had the gun falling to the ground, even closer to the gunman in the first one. Falling and hitting the ground may discharge the weapon, and it being on the ground is leaving control of it up to chance to a great degree, as you both struggle in the ensuing chaos).
> 
> Finally, with control of the gun, get distance from the gunman, with the gun aimed at them, in order to discourage them trying the same type of thing on you (Needless to say, that didn't happen once here, and really should be trained every time)!
> 
> Obviously, I'm not a Kenpo practitioner, so I hope these comments aren't taken as a critique of the art, as they are in no way intended to be. Just some observations from an outsider.


 
Hey Chris,

Sorry I didn't get back to ya sooner.   Anyways....we've talked about this before, so you know my thoughts on gun techs.  And by all means, your opinion is always welcome.  I dont limit my discussions to art specific people.   You made some good points and I agree.  Personally, I didn't think there was much movement to remove yourself from the line of fire, in this clip.  Personally, I like to incorporate my moving myself out of the line of fire, redirecting the weapon, and control of the weapon, as 1 move if possible.  I wasn't seeing that here, but again, I could be missing something he's trying to get across in this clip.  For what its worth, I dont know if this is a typical Tracy gun tech. or something else.

I also feel that taking others into consideration is important.  I'd hate to end up taking out a bystander during the course of my disarm, thus the reason why I've made changes to what I do.  

Good discussion as always. 

Hopefully a Tracy member or 2, will chime in as well to lend some clarification.


----------



## Sigung86

Just a thought or two.  

Practice the techniques against a variety of guns (mentioned before).  Use more realistic attacks than those used in most Kenpo Schools.  Maybe find out how the bad guys really do it on the street.  then work to a reasonable defense if it's possible.

One more thing... Try to find guns to defend against that are actual (or very close) the weight of a live gun of the type being used.


----------



## Drac

Sigung86 said:


> Just a thought or two.
> 
> Practice the techniques against a variety of guns (mentioned before). Use more realistic attacks than those used in most Kenpo Schools. Maybe find out how the bad guys really do it on the street. then work to a reasonable defense if it's possible.


 
Yup, try for a varity of attack simulations.Weapon to side of head, in the gut, back of head,etc...etc...



Sigung86 said:


> One more thing... Try to find guns to defend against that are actual (or very close) the weight of a live gun of the type being used.


 
Yes. I have attended some police seminars where we used our on duty weapons for techniques, and IMHO I believe it was some of the most realistic training I have had. It requires* extra safety measures* to insure that the mags and weapons were empty and stayed that way, make sure to check their back up weapons. Once again stress the point to the *students* to *keep their fingers out of the trigger guard.*


----------



## jks9199

Drac said:


> Yes. I have attended some police seminars where we used our on duty weapons for techniques, and IMHO I believe it was some of the most realistic training I have had. It requires* extra safety measures* to insure that the mags and weapons were empty and stayed that way, make sure to check their back up weapons. Once again stress the point to the *students* to *keep their fingers out of the trigger guard.*



It can be done this way, but it is very dangerous.  I'm a big fan of using blue gun replicas of duty guns.  If you're going to use duty guns, I like to use things like Blade Tech's training barrel or a similar product that runs through the breech and down the barrel.  Both make it impossible to accidentally chamber a round.  Even then -- I believe in double safety checking before you enter the training area.  Everyone should be checked TWICE for live rounds, and unauthorized weapons.


----------



## Drac

jks9199 said:


> It can be done this way, but it is very dangerous. I'm a big fan of using blue gun replicas of duty guns. If you're going to use duty guns, I like to use things like Blade Tech's training barrel or a similar product that runs through the breech and down the barrel. Both make it impossible to accidentally chamber a round. Even then -- I believe in double safety checking before you enter the training area. Everyone should be checked TWICE for live rounds, and unauthorized weapons.


 
Yes, safety *MUST* be top priority...The seminar I attended had a Range Officer at the door. Mags were checked upon arrival to insure they were empty and any ankle holster weapon was removed and checked, I believe a pat down was preformed. In addidtion all weapons were checked *EVERYTIME *any officer left and re-entered the room. Yes, the Blade Tech Training Barrel is an *EXCELLENT* device.

If you opt to go with a training weapon then use the Blueguns.. For LEO training they make/made a training gun in black that was only available to LEO's, I had mine sent to the department.Prolly the realistic looking trainer I ever saw.For schools the blueguns will suffice..


----------



## jks9199

Drac said:


> Yes, safety *MUST* be top priority...The seminar I attended had a Range Officer at the door. Mags were checked upon arrival to insure they were empty and any ankle holster weapon was removed and checked, I believe a pat down was preformed. In addidtion all weapons were checked *EVERYTIME *any officer left and re-entered the room. Yes, the Blade Tech Training Barrel is an *EXCELLENT* device.
> 
> If you opt to go with a training weapon then use the Blueguns.. For LEO training they make/made a training gun in black that was only available to LEO's, I had mine sent to the department.Prolly the realistic looking trainer I ever saw.For schools the blueguns will suffice..


There are various blue gun type products.  For example, one company is making the same product in red -- but much more accurate in weight.  Or you can get (or make, if you're an armorer) real guns or replicas that cannot fire, for example without a firing pin.  As you said -- safety is the first concern.


----------



## Drac

jks9199 said:


> Or you can get (or make, if you're an armorer) real guns or replicas that cannot fire, for example without a firing pin. As you said -- safety is the first concern.


 
Now *THAT* would be the ideal solution.


----------



## jks9199

Drac said:


> Now *THAT* would be the ideal solution.


Glock sells two non-firing models; I think they're government purchase only as I recall, and cost just about the same as the real thing.  Not surprising, since they ARE the real thing, slightly modified.  One version essentially just lacks a firing pin, and the other is modified to allow the trigger to reset without the slide moving.  If I had a spare several hundred -- I'd buy one of those just for dry fire practice!


----------



## Drac

jks9199 said:


> Glock sells two non-firing models; I think they're government purchase only as I recall, and cost just about the same as the real thing. Not surprising, since they ARE the real thing, slightly modified. One version essentially just lacks a firing pin, and the other is modified to allow the trigger to reset without the slide moving. If I had a spare several hundred -- I'd buy one of those just for dry fire practice!


 
WOW!!! $700.00 for a non-firing Glock..


----------



## Flying Crane

MJS said:


> Hopefully a Tracy member or 2, will chime in as well to lend some clarification.


 
I'm at work and youtube is blocked, but I'll try to take a moment at home and see what this is.  I'll let you know if I recognize it from our curriculum.

I'll go on record in saying that I do not have much faith in my own abilitiy to successfully pull off our gun defenses.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

*I like blue guns as well as the manufactured ones in red.* (definitely the way to go in my book)  Bladetech is also a very good product and ensures safety.


----------



## Flying Crane

Flying Crane said:


> I'm at work and youtube is blocked, but I'll try to take a moment at home and see what this is.  I'll let you know if I recognize it from our curriculum.
> 
> I'll go on record in saying that I do not have much faith in my own abilitiy to successfully pull off our gun defenses.



I got a chance to watch the video.  It's not a tech that I'm familiar with.  it's possible that it's from the Tracy curriculum above shodan, but I've not seen it before.

Mr. Simonet works material from other sources, besides kenpo.  I don't know where these particular one's come from.

I do feel like, once he's got that figure-4, he's got control.  I don't see any reason to give that up, in order to *****-slap him with his own gun and throw in some other strikes.


----------



## MJS

Flying Crane said:


> I'll go on record in saying that I do not have much faith in my own abilitiy to successfully pull off our gun defenses.


 
Ditto.  Thus the reason I've worked on other stuff.



Flying Crane said:


> I got a chance to watch the video. It's not a tech that I'm familiar with. it's possible that it's from the Tracy curriculum above shodan, but I've not seen it before.


 
Ok, thanks. 



> Mr. Simonet works material from other sources, besides kenpo. I don't know where these particular one's come from.


 
Hopefully he wont get sent to hell by the Kenpo Gods. LOL.  I can see it now...Clyde will be standing at the pearly gates, wicked smile on his face, banishing Joe to hell, because he looked outside of Kenpo. LOL.  Sorry, couldn't resist. 



> I do feel like, once he's got that figure-4, he's got control. I don't see any reason to give that up, in order to *****-slap him with his own gun and throw in some other strikes.


 
*shrug* I have no idea either.  IMO, if ya got control, I dont wanna give it up.


----------



## Drac

I am letting my own personal prejudices influence my posting. Red, Blue, Yellow,etc..etc..is not a real issue. As long as it *looks* like a real firearm and is *NOT *made of wood or foam rubber then its all good. Train hard and smartly.

We at GCSD do a variety of firearm defenses. Try it from a seated positon or with your back against the wall.


----------



## Flying Crane

MJS said:


> *shrug* I have no idea either. IMO, if ya got control, I dont wanna give it up.


 
this is actually something I've seen in a lot of youtube kenpo, from various people.  They set up an elaborately long SD tech, which includes putting the bad guy into an effective restraint.  ANd then they let him go so they can hit him another dozen times.  It's really weird.  It's a problem with a lot of kenpo in the mainstream.


----------



## Chris Parker

Hmm, if you don't mind an outsiders positing here, I may have a theory as to why that is the way it is.

I personally hate not knowing things. If something doesn't make sense, I keep approaching it from as many angles as I can until it does. So when I hear that this is a common aspect of many techniques, I figure there has to be a reason. After all, if there wasn't, I'd be rather concerned about the system (and really don't think that's needed here!).

Within our traditions, there are a number of kata (techniques) that have a built-in resistance (and responces against that resistance). An example would be the second kata from our Gyokko Ryu tradition, known as Renyo. It has several parts, but the end of the kata has the defender applying an inside wrist lock to hold the attacker in place (bent over forwards), then he releases this hold to change his grip entirely and apply an outside wrist lock to take the opponent down. And the question is the same; why release a perfectly good lock with the potential to damage the attacker then and there, just to apply something comletely different (loosing your grip in the meantime, making it not only unnecessary, but dangerous as well)?

Simply, it's teaching you to continue should the attacker resist or escape the hold. By resisting, the attacker would move back against the direction of the hold, which leads perfectly into the outside lock. So it's basically a form of fail-safe built into the kata from the beginning (of course, it helps to have an instructor that understands that that is part of the lessons of the technique....).

Within the Katori Shinto Ryu tradition of swordsmanship, the kata are much longer than typically found in other systems. This is achieved by being slightly out of distance, and substituting your sword (in a blocking action) for the body part that would have been "cut" in the technique. There are a number of reasons for this (including hiding the actual lessons of the kata and Ryu from prying eyes watching them be exercised...), but one of the main ones is that it allows the kata to be extended, building endurance, fitness, and spirit over a longer period, as would be needed in application on a battlefield in armour.

Both of these approaches could be, at least in part, aspects of the Kenpo methodology. By extending the techniques, the student is exposed to a greater range of technical "answers" to the scenario, they develop greater skills in flowing from one movement to another, and gain an understanding of how to respond should a normally "finishing" hold not work completely, and another one is needed. The problem, of course, occurs when instructors don't recognise those reasons, and therefore don't pass them on, or pass the constantly changing actions on as a realistic responce, when what it is is a learning tool.

At least, that's my take on things.


----------



## Flying Crane

HI Chris,

I understand your point and I agree in a way.

I don't know what kind of interaction or experience you've had with the Parker derived kenpo methods.  In case it's been minimum, i'll try to give you a brief description.  

Their curriculum typically centers around a body of what we refer to as Self Defense Techniques, which are prescribed responses to specific types of attack.  If a guy punches you like THIS, you step to evade HERE and block LIKE THIS and punch him HERE and HERE and HERE, and kick him LIKE THIS and then get away...  Most of these methods have a fairly extensive body of these techniques, and there are typically numerous of these SD techs against each type of attack imaginable.  Some lineages of Parker derived kenpo use a larger curriculum, others a smaller curriculum.  The Tracy lineage, which Mr. Simonet and myself belong to, has what may be the largest of these curriculum.

You may have noticed discussions on these forum about these techs, and what role they ought to play in training.  Some people feel the techs are literally an answer to an attack.  Other people feel the techs are simply mini-laboratories in which you use the components of the tech to explore the options and lessons that it presents, and understand what is possible in dealing with an attack.  Some of these techs can be rather extensive, hitting the enemy over and over and over, issuing great bodily harm and mayhem, multiple bone breaks, etc.  Most people will agree that, particularly with the more lengthy techs, you would never actually complete the entire tech on an attacker.  You might get 2-4 shots into it and the situation will be resolved.  You don't get to pick the bad guy up off the ground because, "I didn't finish the technique, I've still got to hit him 8 more times!!!"

I personally feel that a well-designed tech should fill both roles.  On some level it ought to be logical and practical and useable as it is, right out of the box.  If it isn't, then my BS sniffer goes off and I begin to question what lessons the tech has to teach if it contains some fundamentally flawed concepts.  It is my personal opinion that there are some techs that were simply poorly designed and are bad ideas.  

However, I also understand the need to look at the technique as a greater exploration of the possibilities, and the micro-lessons that the individual components have to teach.  In that respect, the flow of the tech from begining to end is less important as a whole, and more important on the level of incremental examination.

So yes, I agree that these techs can contain lessons like, how to switch something up when things don't go the way I planned, as you describe.

In my view, I question how well this type of examination gets done.  Granted, I cannot speak for everyone out there and how they do their training.  But the typical examples that I see on places like Youtube, has people blazing thru the tech from start to finish, and whipping thru all the elements as if it is THE answer for this attack.  I think if you want to look at the micro lessons, you need to do that deliberately.  You cannot whip thru the entire technique as if you are defending for real, and pretend that those micro lessons will be absorbed.  I think there needs to be a pointed examination of each portion, a discussion of, "So here we are working into this restraining hold, but if I lose my grip or the bad guy wriggles free, or his resistance is stronger than I expected, or I don't quite get his arm lined up properly and I realize I'm not going to get the hold, well then I can switch directions and work him into this one instead and his struggling helps push him into the next idea..."  We don't see that kind of consideration in the typical demonstration seen online.  Maybe when they teach their own students they do discuss this.  But online, I don't usually see that as an element of what's happening.  Instead, it's "Now hit him here, now hit him there, now put him into the arm lock, now let the arm lock go so we can hit him here and hit him there..."  Often the techs are done with blazing speed, and the uke sort of just stands there and lets it all happen to him, absorbing what sometimes can be dozens of strikes.  In my opinion, that approach to practice is decidedly NOT the "mini-lab" approach.

So I just question what the hell people are thinking, when they do this, and I question how well some of these techs are designed, and maybe some of them incorporate fundamentally flawed ideas, or at least the real lessons in the tech are unexplored and the wrong notions can be built from it thru inappropriate context.

Hope that helps.


----------



## MJS

Flying Crane said:


> this is actually something I've seen in a lot of youtube kenpo, from various people. They set up an elaborately long SD tech, which includes putting the bad guy into an effective restraint. ANd then they let him go so they can hit him another dozen times. It's really weird. It's a problem with a lot of kenpo in the mainstream.


 
K.I.S.S.  This is something, that as of late, I've really been focusing on.  I mean, yeah, there may be a chance that we have to extend a tech, for various reasons, but IMO, especially when you're dealing with a weapon, its gotta be simple.  Redirect yourself, gain control of the weapon and/or weapon hand, and begin punishment.   From there disarm is possible.  But, once I get control, I'm going to hang on like my life depended on it...literally. LOL.  Why let go to try something fancy?


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> Hmm, if you don't mind an outsiders positing here, I may have a theory as to why that is the way it is.
> 
> I personally hate not knowing things. If something doesn't make sense, I keep approaching it from as many angles as I can until it does. So when I hear that this is a common aspect of many techniques, I figure there has to be a reason. After all, if there wasn't, I'd be rather concerned about the system (and really don't think that's needed here!).
> 
> Within our traditions, there are a number of kata (techniques) that have a built-in resistance (and responces against that resistance). An example would be the second kata from our Gyokko Ryu tradition, known as Renyo. It has several parts, but the end of the kata has the defender applying an inside wrist lock to hold the attacker in place (bent over forwards), then he releases this hold to change his grip entirely and apply an outside wrist lock to take the opponent down. And the question is the same; why release a perfectly good lock with the potential to damage the attacker then and there, just to apply something comletely different (loosing your grip in the meantime, making it not only unnecessary, but dangerous as well)?
> 
> Simply, it's teaching you to continue should the attacker resist or escape the hold. By resisting, the attacker would move back against the direction of the hold, which leads perfectly into the outside lock. So it's basically a form of fail-safe built into the kata from the beginning (of course, it helps to have an instructor that understands that that is part of the lessons of the technique....).
> 
> Within the Katori Shinto Ryu tradition of swordsmanship, the kata are much longer than typically found in other systems. This is achieved by being slightly out of distance, and substituting your sword (in a blocking action) for the body part that would have been "cut" in the technique. There are a number of reasons for this (including hiding the actual lessons of the kata and Ryu from prying eyes watching them be exercised...), but one of the main ones is that it allows the kata to be extended, building endurance, fitness, and spirit over a longer period, as would be needed in application on a battlefield in armour.
> 
> Both of these approaches could be, at least in part, aspects of the Kenpo methodology. By extending the techniques, the student is exposed to a greater range of technical "answers" to the scenario, they develop greater skills in flowing from one movement to another, and gain an understanding of how to respond should a normally "finishing" hold not work completely, and another one is needed. The problem, of course, occurs when instructors don't recognise those reasons, and therefore don't pass them on, or pass the constantly changing actions on as a realistic responce, when what it is is a learning tool.
> 
> At least, that's my take on things.


 
HI Chris,

I may be misunderstanding here, but doesnt this post, contradict what you said earlier, about this tech?  

I do agree with what you said about making sure the students have other options, should something go wrong.  In Arnis, we have a lock-flow series.  We start with 1 lock, and transition thru a long series.  Obviously the goal isn't for the student, should they find themselves using one, to use all the others, but to give them options, as you said, should something go wrong, ie: the persons resisting, the lock isn't having any effect, etc.


----------



## Chris Parker

Hi Michael,



Flying Crane said:


> HI Chris,
> 
> I understand your point and I agree in a way.
> 
> I don't know what kind of interaction or experience you've had with the Parker derived kenpo methods. In case it's been minimum, i'll try to give you a brief description.
> 
> Their curriculum typically centers around a body of what we refer to as Self Defense Techniques, which are prescribed responses to specific types of attack. If a guy punches you like THIS, you step to evade HERE and block LIKE THIS and punch him HERE and HERE and HERE, and kick him LIKE THIS and then get away... Most of these methods have a fairly extensive body of these techniques, and there are typically numerous of these SD techs against each type of attack imaginable. Some lineages of Parker derived kenpo use a larger curriculum, others a smaller curriculum. The Tracy lineage, which Mr. Simonet and myself belong to, has what may be the largest of these curriculum.


 
Thanks for the breakdown there. I have some passing familiarity with Kenpo as a more generic form, but not much knowledge on the different lineages. The methods seem fairly similar to Koryu systems in that way (specific pre-set responces to specific pre-set attacking methods [or occasionally simply specific pre-set attacking methods against someone who is in the way!]). These are what we refer to as "kata", rather than the more popular usage of the term as found in arts such as Karate (and this is what I meant when I refered to kata earlier). 



Flying Crane said:


> You may have noticed discussions on these forum about these techs, and what role they ought to play in training. Some people feel the techs are literally an answer to an attack. Other people feel the techs are simply mini-laboratories in which you use the components of the tech to explore the options and lessons that it presents, and understand what is possible in dealing with an attack. Some of these techs can be rather extensive, hitting the enemy over and over and over, issuing great bodily harm and mayhem, multiple bone breaks, etc. Most people will agree that, particularly with the more lengthy techs, you would never actually complete the entire tech on an attacker. You might get 2-4 shots into it and the situation will be resolved. You don't get to pick the bad guy up off the ground because, "I didn't finish the technique, I've still got to hit him 8 more times!!!"


 
Ha, yeah, I'd hope that no-one actually thought such over-kill was actually what should happen if pressed for real! Realistically, I don't think there are any such things as definate answers for attacks in any martial art, it'd just be far too limiting. What there are are possibilities demonstrated through the formal techniques, expressions of the principles.



Flying Crane said:


> I personally feel that a well-designed tech should fill both roles. On some level it ought to be logical and practical and useable as it is, right out of the box. If it isn't, then my BS sniffer goes off and I begin to question what lessons the tech has to teach if it contains some fundamentally flawed concepts. It is my personal opinion that there are some techs that were simply poorly designed and are bad ideas.


 
Well, I can think of a number of arts that teach quite a few things that I wouldn't think of as being "logical and practical and useable as it is, right out of the box". And I'm not even talking about old systems here, training against attacks that don't exist in a modern world. One of the first techniques taught in Krav Maga is a defence against a double-handed choke from the front (think like a zombie attack, both arms reaching straight out in front). The defence involves bringing your arm high, then knocking the arms down and off by bringing your arm down and turning your body, following up with some strikes, and escaping. The issue is, of course, that this technique is against an uncommon (and unrealistic) attack, and the defence is flawed in a number of ways. However it continues to be taught as part of the initial Krav Maga training.

The question I always ask when I come across something that isn't really what I may think of as being "practical" is "Why is it here?" I fervently believe that everything (in a legit martial art) is there for a purpose, although that purpose may not necessarily be absolute combative excellence, or even effectiveness. It may be teaching motor skills, teaching mind-set, teaching familiarity with different physical weapons, or anything else. The trick is to be able to recognise what the reasons for something are, and to be able to differentiate them. And that isn't the easiest thing in the world...



Flying Crane said:


> However, I also understand the need to look at the technique as a greater exploration of the possibilities, and the micro-lessons that the individual components have to teach. In that respect, the flow of the tech from begining to end is less important as a whole, and more important on the level of incremental examination.
> 
> So yes, I agree that these techs can contain lessons like, how to switch something up when things don't go the way I planned, as you describe.


 
Really, those were just possibilities I put up. I'm not saying that they are definately there, just that that is how I would begin to view something that, on the surface at least, doesn't really make sense. And flow from beginning to end can be just as important, provided the reason is understood (which may be as simple as giving a student confidence at multiple chained sequences, giving them the attitude of "never stop until it's over", working on precision combined with speed over a longer sequence with a moving target, or any other reason).



Flying Crane said:


> In my view, I question how well this type of examination gets done. Granted, I cannot speak for everyone out there and how they do their training. But the typical examples that I see on places like Youtube, has people blazing thru the tech from start to finish, and whipping thru all the elements as if it is THE answer for this attack. I think if you want to look at the micro lessons, you need to do that deliberately. You cannot whip thru the entire technique as if you are defending for real, and pretend that those micro lessons will be absorbed. I think there needs to be a pointed examination of each portion, a discussion of, "So here we are working into this restraining hold, but if I lose my grip or the bad guy wriggles free, or his resistance is stronger than I expected, or I don't quite get his arm lined up properly and I realize I'm not going to get the hold, well then I can switch directions and work him into this one instead and his struggling helps push him into the next idea..." We don't see that kind of consideration in the typical demonstration seen online. Maybe when they teach their own students they do discuss this. But online, I don't usually see that as an element of what's happening. Instead, it's "Now hit him here, now hit him there, now put him into the arm lock, now let the arm lock go so we can hit him here and hit him there..." Often the techs are done with blazing speed, and the uke sort of just stands there and lets it all happen to him, absorbing what sometimes can be dozens of strikes. In my opinion, that approach to practice is decidedly NOT the "mini-lab" approach.


 

I think this may come to the nub of the matter. I have noticed a tendancy, particularly with Western students, to want an "answer" to the "questions", and get stuck on thinking that the techniques are the answers, without looking at the techniques as more of an answer key. They aren't answers. But if you view them as such, then you expect them to "work" in their plain form. They are really more like the concept of what "plus" is versus what "multiplication" is, rather than "one plus one equals..." which will only let you get an answer of "two".

When someone has the idea that the technique is the answer itself, there is a tendancy to assume that the only way it works is the one way. And that precludes such exploration of the technique in more detail, unfortunately. This seems to be the approach of the you-tube variants, where there is only the one way it works, and it doesn't change. Oh, and doing things fast is always impressive, and isn't that the point of you-tube in the first place?



Flying Crane said:


> So I just question what the hell people are thinking, when they do this, and I question how well some of these techs are designed, and maybe some of them incorporate fundamentally flawed ideas, or at least the real lessons in the tech are unexplored and the wrong notions can be built from it thru inappropriate context.
> 
> Hope that helps.


 
This is probably the best thing that anyone training with you can hear, really. I'd be thrilled to hear that someone was not just accepting "well, it's done this way, and it works". However if I encounter what I consider a "flaw", then that usually just means that I haven't looked at it hard enough yet...

Hi Mike,



MJS said:


> HI Chris,
> 
> I may be misunderstanding here, but doesnt this post, contradict what you said earlier, about this tech?


 
Hmm, I don't think so. Earlier I was talking about the approach to the technique itself from a practical and realistic point of view, here I am offering a potential alternate reasoning for a standard training methodology. I'd think that by the time you were dealing with something like a gun threat, such training aids as suggested by my post would not be required, and as such for a more "realistic" technique I would have expected them to have been dropped there. 



MJS said:


> I do agree with what you said about making sure the students have other options, should something go wrong. In Arnis, we have a lock-flow series. We start with 1 lock, and transition thru a long series. Obviously the goal isn't for the student, should they find themselves using one, to use all the others, but to give them options, as you said, should something go wrong, ie: the persons resisting, the lock isn't having any effect, etc.


 
There are similar things in some Jujutsu systems, flowing from one lock or pin to another. You don't actually change once you have someone held (in actual application), but they are taught as a sequence so you can train all of them in a formal method.



MJS said:


> K.I.S.S. This is something, that as of late, I've really been focusing on. I mean, yeah, there may be a chance that we have to extend a tech, for various reasons, but IMO, especially when you're dealing with a weapon, its gotta be simple. Redirect yourself, gain control of the weapon and/or weapon hand, and begin punishment.  From there disarm is possible. But, once I get control, I'm going to hang on like my life depended on it...literally. LOL. Why let go to try something fancy?


 
Absolutely agreed. That is the main difference between the focus of my two posts.


----------



## LawDog

Not all Kempo/Kempo systems have long preset techniques.
In an earlier post I had mentioned, in my opinon/experence what is usually over looked in weapons defence techniques.
The biggest errors, again in my opinon, are,
*failing to break the center line of fire properly,
*working out of the strong point of a firearm and that is its range.
One must remember that when you go after a firearm your opponents free hand,elbow and/or knee will not stay in a static position, they will strike hard or grab at you.
If you grab the weaponed hand his free hand might vary well reach over and grab it then he will either shoot you or beat you to death with this one pound of steel.
On weapons defence an instructor must be as realistic as he can becaust this is lethal not just pain. With weapons one should use the K.I.S.S. line of thought because death itself is simple, you either are or you are not.
:uzi:


----------



## First Action

You might enjoy reading this blog post. http://www.freeselfdefencetips.com/2010/10/training-with-and-against-hand-guns.html


----------



## Flying Crane

Chris Parker said:


> Hi Michael,
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the breakdown there. I have some passing familiarity with Kenpo as a more generic form, but not much knowledge on the different lineages. The methods seem fairly similar to Koryu systems in that way (specific pre-set responces to specific pre-set attacking methods [or occasionally simply specific pre-set attacking methods against someone who is in the way!]). These are what we refer to as "kata", rather than the more popular usage of the term as found in arts such as Karate (and this is what I meant when I refered to kata earlier).
> 
> .....
> 
> I think this may come to the nub of the matter. I have noticed a tendancy, particularly with Western students, to want an "answer" to the "questions", and get stuck on thinking that the techniques are the answers, without looking at the techniques as more of an answer key. They aren't answers. But if you view them as such, then you expect them to "work" in their plain form. They are really more like the concept of what "plus" is versus what "multiplication" is, rather than "one plus one equals..." which will only let you get an answer of "two".
> 
> When someone has the idea that the technique is the answer itself, there is a tendancy to assume that the only way it works is the one way. And that precludes such exploration of the technique in more detail, unfortunately. This seems to be the approach of the you-tube variants, where there is only the one way it works, and it doesn't change. Oh, and doing things fast is always impressive, and isn't that the point of you-tube in the first place?


 
Hi Chris,  thanks for getting back on this.

I'll ask you a question:  In the Kata that you refer to in the Koryu systems, how many are there?  How big is that body of material?  The reason I bring that up is because I believe that in order to get the benefits from the material, you need to be able to work it over and over, building proficiency with the material, and having time to dig in and look more deeply into it.  With some of the kenpo lineages, the curriculum list can be so large that it makes that repetition and deeper study difficult to manage.  Quite frankly, there is just too much there and it's impossible to give much attention to any of it.  This leads to an approach that is more like simply memorizing the tech, without that deeper study and repetition.  It's all the student has time for because one can feel spread too thin.  I think this encourages the mentality that the tech really is THE answer, or at least AN answer, as written.  



> This is probably the best thing that anyone training with you can hear, really. I'd be thrilled to hear that someone was not just accepting "well, it's done this way, and it works". However if I encounter what I consider a "flaw", then that usually just means that I haven't looked at it hard enough yet...


 
This has actually been a source of frustration for me for many years.  I have a weird love-hate relationship with kenpo, and I've become a pretty harsh critic of it in some ways, including aspects of my own lineage.  I suppose that's part of the process of really owning the material.  But I question a lot of it much of the time.


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, I don't think so. Earlier I was talking about the approach to the technique itself from a practical and realistic point of view, here I am offering a potential alternate reasoning for a standard training methodology. I'd think that by the time you were dealing with something like a gun threat, such training aids as suggested by my post would not be required, and as such for a more "realistic" technique I would have expected them to have been dropped there.


 
Hey Chris,

Sorry about that.  Chalk that up to me not reading the other post as well as I should've. 





> There are similar things in some Jujutsu systems, flowing from one lock or pin to another. You don't actually change once you have someone held (in actual application), but they are taught as a sequence so you can train all of them in a formal method.


 
Agreed.   The only time I might consider a transition, is if things aren't going well with that original lock. Of course, during that transition, I'd have to find some sort of punishment to fit in, along the way...you know..to give them something else to think about, while I attempt something else. 





> Absolutely agreed. That is the main difference between the focus of my two posts.


----------



## Chris Parker

Flying Crane said:


> Hi Chris, thanks for getting back on this.


 
My pleasure.



Flying Crane said:


> I'll ask you a question: In the Kata that you refer to in the Koryu systems, how many are there? How big is that body of material? The reason I bring that up is because I believe that in order to get the benefits from the material, you need to be able to work it over and over, building proficiency with the material, and having time to dig in and look more deeply into it. With some of the kenpo lineages, the curriculum list can be so large that it makes that repetition and deeper study difficult to manage. Quite frankly, there is just too much there and it's impossible to give much attention to any of it. This leads to an approach that is more like simply memorizing the tech, without that deeper study and repetition. It's all the student has time for because one can feel spread too thin. I think this encourages the mentality that the tech really is THE answer, or at least AN answer, as written.


 
Ah, now that's not such an easy question to answer, as it depends on the Koryu in question. Some examples:

Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu contains 12 Long Sword kata, 7 Short Sword kata, 5 Two Sword kata, 20 Staff kata, as well as some Jutte and Jujutsu at a high level. These kata are very short, for example the first Long sword kata is basically an evasion against a downward cut and thrust to the throat.

Katori Shinto Ryu also has relatively few few kata, but they are very long (for the most part), being made up of some 20 to 30 movements in some cases. The kata list is (in the "public" side of the art) includes 4 kata in the Omote no Tachi, 5 in the Gogyo no Tachi, 3 in the Shichijo no Tachi, and more in the "secret" teachings, 6 kata in the Omote no Iai, 5 in the Tachiai Battojutsu, 5 in the Gokui no Iai, 4 kata in the Ryoto Jutsu, 3 in the Kodachijutsu, 6 kata in the Omote no Bojutsu, another 6 in the Gogyo no Bojutsu, 4 kata in the Omote no Naginatajutsu, 3 in the Gokui Shichijo no Naginatajutsu, 6 kata in the Omote no Yari, and another 2 in the Hiden Yari Gata, and 36 Jujutsu kata. That then gets expanded with a section on Shurikenjutsu, strategy, tactics, castle fortification, Ninjutsu, esoteric Buddhism, and much more. So it's a big school in the end.

The Takagi lineages boast between 120 and over 300 kata for Jujtusu depending on lineage.

Shinto Muso Ryu features 64 formal kata for Jo, as well as 12 to 18 kata for sword (Kasumi Shinto Ryu), Tanjo (Uchida Ryu), Jutte (Ikkatsu Ryu), Kusarigama (Isshin Ryu), and 36 ties for Hojojutsu (Ittatsu Ryu).  

If we look at the lineages in the Ninjutsu systems, they range from less than 30 kata (Togakure Ryu), to around 50 (Gyokko and Koto Ryu), and up to the above mentioned Takagi Ryu.

Some systems are very "short", others are quite involved. As to repetition, yep it absolutely is necessary. The way that is dealt with in Koryu is to only move onto the next section once sufficient skill and experience is attained in the section you are going through. So while there may be many many kata in a particular Ryu, you may not see some of them until you've been training in the system for 10, 15 years or more. If you are just interested in collecting the kata, you really won't get anywhere, and you typically won't be learning in a Koryu school anyway, as that is not the way you'll be taught.



Flying Crane said:


> This has actually been a source of frustration for me for many years. I have a weird love-hate relationship with kenpo, and I've become a pretty harsh critic of it in some ways, including aspects of my own lineage. I suppose that's part of the process of really owning the material. But I question a lot of it much of the time.


 
That, to my mind, means you're more likely to truly "own" the material then. Very cool.



MJS said:


> Hey Chris,
> 
> Sorry about that. Chalk that up to me not reading the other post as well as I should've.


 
 Hey Mike,

Ha, not a problem. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify!



MJS said:


> Agreed.  The only time I might consider a transition, is if things aren't going well with that original lock. Of course, during that transition, I'd have to find some sort of punishment to fit in, along the way...you know..to give them something else to think about, while I attempt something else.


 
Yeah, same with us. If changing direction, it is either because we're using the opponents momentum (ie their resistance), or if it's a direction we're choosing, then we need them to  not resist... and that means "distracting" them enough for us to apply what we need to! And there's little better in terms of distracting than a good solid hit to take their attention....


----------



## BloodMoney

Id watched a bunch of stuff online and on DVD about handgun disarm, American and British LE stuff. It was pretty cool, some of it was good, but most of it seemed not simple enough, or too dangerous (as was said, muzzle flash in the face isnt nice).

Then I ordered some Krav Maga DVDs off Ebay (totally legitimate ones, nevermind that they came direct from Israel on blank DVDs with "Krav Maga" written messily with pen on top  ).

The whole mindset is different. Its brutal. Its desperate. Its effective and realistic. One opens with a guy talking about how in Israel because of mandatory military service you must prepare to fight another soldier at any time on the street etc. They would end techniques by discharging the gun into the opponents head as he lay on the ground, or turning it on himself to make him shoot himself. The "nice" LE ones id seen had none of this. 

I also noticed that the mechanics behind the technique were clearly shown and explained (in some). It enabled me, with no Krav Maga training, to quickly figure it out with a plastic gun and one of my instructors (okay but im not exactly going to start teaching it now though). Im a keen shooter so I know how to handle a gun, though here in NZ its very hard to get a handgun so I'm looking at focusing on long rifle disarming instead, cant seem to find much on that though.

But yeah, Israeli Krav Maga for the win. If im not mistaken its what a lot of LE training in the States is based off anyway isnt it?


----------



## Yondanchris

1) Often the basics of observation and knowledge of firearms is neglected, 
    such as the basics of knowing if a firearm is loaded or cocked and locked! 
    once while working security I was able to disarm a thug because I knew the 
    weapon was not loaded (no magazine in the weapon) and the safety was ON!

2) Application of Handgun disarms usually assume that you are quicker than a bullet!
    I highly stress verbal de-escalation techniques before physical techniques can be 
    applied. Each of my students must attempt to de-escalate the situation before they
    practice the physical technique! 







MJS said:


> This question was asked on another forum, however, it didn't get as many replies as I thought, so I figured I'd ask here.
> 
> The question is as follows:
> 
> 1) What are some often neglected points when working gun disarms?
> 
> 2) Did you ever notice any impractical methods of application? If so, explain.
> 
> For the sake of discussion, we can use the Parker 'rod' techniques as a base. If there are any Tracy Kenpo and Kaju folks that would like to chime in, please feel free to do so.


----------



## Doc

Drac said:


> Yes, safety *MUST* be top priority...The seminar I attended had a Range Officer at the door. Mags were checked upon arrival to insure they were empty and any ankle holster weapon was removed and checked, I believe a pat down was preformed. In addidtion all weapons were checked *EVERYTIME *any officer left and re-entered the room. Yes, the Blade Tech Training Barrel is an *EXCELLENT* device.
> 
> If you opt to go with a training weapon then use the Blueguns.. For LEO training they make/made a training gun in black that was only available to LEO's, I had mine sent to the department.Prolly the realistic looking trainer I ever saw.For schools the blueguns will suffice..



In my advanced officer classes it depends upon the training and environment what weapon we use to train. Simulated are great for outdoors on hard surfaces and role play. However I start everyone on a matted surface utilizing their own duty weapon because they are familiar with it, and the weight is important. 

No ammo or magazines are are allowed in the training area, and everyone is searched. Each weapon is then inspected by me, and like a technique line by everyone else in the room after me as well. The magazine well is sealed with red tape to prevent a mag being inserted, and the bright red tape is wrapped around the grip to be visible. Lastly a strip of tape is place around the front of the slide for visibility and to seal the slide. 

Before each session we check the seals to make sure they are not broken and the magazine well is secure and empty. I am the only one with the tape, and I often change colors.


----------

