Active shooter self defense

[vic]

If there is nowhere to run or hide will these techniques work as a last resort? How can these moves be improved?

 

[drop bear]

It is almost rugby mauling.

 

[Rich Parsons]

As with all Gun type work.
Check it with water guns and super soakers.
If you get wet you are shot.

 

[lklawson]

If there is nowhere to run or hide will these techniques work as a last resort?

Within the extremely limited context of what he is proposing, they kinda sorta "work." ...for him.

How can these moves be improved?

Getting control of the weapon-bearing limb is a fine idea. It's as old as cave-man and clubs. There might be better ways to do so, but in the single-context entry that he's showing that will usually work for a second or two and allows a person to engage some of their strongest muscles. But it is 100% strength based. If the person with the weapon is stronger, the person attempting to take control of the weapon-bearing limb in this way is going to have a much harder time.

I also have a problem with his takedown. Look, the dude is, literally, a head taller than either of his assistants and he significantly out-masses the person he's taking down. His takedown is 100% a mass-based takedown. Ask that small woman assistant to try that takedown against him. If he's actually resisting, then it ain't happening. He talks about the takedown breaking arms and stuff. Well, for him dropping his 200+ lbs weight on a 175 lb person, maybe. That woman isn't going to break anyone arms but a toddler if she tries this.

How to improve it? I hate it when I have to agree with Drop Bear, but honestly, use leverage properly. In this very narrow context that the original video is presenting, this is a grappling issue. And I'm not sure how much grappling the gent in the original video really knows.

I get that he wants it to be simple. OK. You know what's simple? Grab that 6 lb textbook and smash it into the back of the assailant's head with all your strength. Even that 120 lb woman in the video can do that. Yes, she can because the gent in the video is already talking about this in the context of an Ambush. The attacker is focused on the intended victim and the "rescuer" is ambushing from the side. Don't fixate on the weapon. It's just a thing. Take away the attacker's ability to use it; Smash his freaking head in with the Algebra II textbook.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[mograph]

So ... in the first video, the woman is just there to be the victim? The target? Oh, FFS. For this guy to have any credibility, he should let the woman demonstrate the technique on the shooter. Otherwise, it's just a big guy showing off.

(I'm all for the textbook-as-weapon technique, but I prefer Swokowski's Calculus. Heavy.)

 

[lklawson]

So ... in the first video, the woman is just there to be the victim? The target?

Yes.

Oh, FFS. For this guy to have any credibility, he should let the woman demonstrate the technique on the shooter.

Why? The technique being taught is a side ambush, not a defense. The person doing the technique attacks the person while his attention is on some other victim.

Otherwise, it's just a big guy showing off.

I don't think that's it at all. The issues are that he's limited it down to a pretty narrow set of circumstances and he's using technique that won't work as well for people who aren't strong and larger than the opponent.

(I'm all for the textbook-as-weapon technique, but I prefer Swokowski's Calculus. Heavy.)

And, well, it's calc.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[drop bear]

So ... in the first video, the woman is just there to be the victim? The target? Oh, FFS. For this guy to have any credibility, he should let the woman demonstrate the technique on the shooter. Otherwise, it's just a big guy showing off.

(I'm all for the textbook-as-weapon technique, but I prefer Swokowski's Calculus. Heavy.)

Which going back to the rugby analogy. I would assume everyone just dog piles the guy.

Hoping that you change the dynamics from everyone gets shot to mabye a few less get shot.

 

[lklawson]

Which going back to the rugby analogy. I would assume everyone just dog piles the guy.

A class full of 8-year olds? I wouldn't expect them to be aware enough. Heck, an office full of grown adults and I would still doubt they'd dogpile the downed murderer.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[drop bear]

A class full of 8-year olds? I wouldn't expect them to be aware enough. Heck, an office full of grown adults and I would still doubt they'd dogpile the downed murderer.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Yeah. But you can't say something won't work. You need to say something will work better.

And by the time Mr gun has burst in to the room. You are running out of options.

And I kind of recently pulled this off on a dude with a bow and arrow in a shopping centre.

 

[drop bear]

It is the self defence version of CPR. You are already dead so try this thing.

 

[lklawson]

Yeah. But you can't say something won't work. You need to say something will work better.

Sure I can. Just because I know something doesn't work doesn't necessarily mean I have to know that something else will. You don't have to know how to build an atomic bomb to know that you can't use asphalt as the fissile material. It won't work.

And by the time Mr gun has burst in to the room. You are running out of options.

Doing "something" is not always better than doing nothing. If the "something" makes matters worse then doing "something" isn't better. Throwing gasoline on a fire is doing "something" but it sure as heck won't put out the fire.

But, as I've already stated, the technique that the gentleman in the video shows can work under certain limits of circumstances, particularly for him or if the person is larger, stronger, and has the element of surprise. If someone is much smaller and less strong then they're going to have a lot of trouble making this one work.

And, I did agree with you that using leverage in the proper way can actually affect a better outcome. The video you posted is one example but there are other leverage options as well.

And I kind of recently pulled this off on a dude with a bow and arrow in a shopping centre.

That's a good thing. Did you use the technique that the gentleman in the original video showed? Or did you use a leveraging technique that went against his joints, most likely against his thumb?

 

[drop bear]

Sure I can. Just because I know something doesn't work doesn't necessarily mean I have to know that something else will. You don't have to know how to build an atomic bomb to know that you can't use asphalt as the fissile material. It won't work.



Doing "something" is not always better than doing nothing. If the "something" makes matters worse then doing "something" isn't better. Throwing gasoline on a fire is doing "something" but it sure as heck won't put out the fire.

But, as I've already stated, the technique that the gentleman in the video shows can work under certain limits of circumstances, particularly for him or if the person is larger, stronger, and has the element of surprise. If someone is much smaller and less strong then they're going to have a lot of trouble making this one work.

And, I did agree with you that using leverage in the proper way can actually affect a better outcome. The video you posted is one example but there are other leverage options as well.



That's a good thing. Did you use the technique that the gentleman in the original video showed? Or did you use a leveraging technique that went against his joints, most likely against his thumb?

Nah. I just ripped it out of his hands rugby style.

 

[drop bear]

Sure I can. Just because I know something doesn't work doesn't necessarily mean I have to know that something else will. You don't have to know how to build an atomic bomb to know that you can't use asphalt as the fissile material. It won't work.

Yeah. But in this case it means it is the best possible option so far. Regardless whether adults or 8 year olds can pull it off very successfully.

 

[jks9199]

And, well, it's calc.

Which causes enough tears on its own...

Unarmed against a gun, even armed against a gun... fighting is a last resort option. Rich Parsons's comment about testing with squirt guns, paintball guns, or Airsoft-type stuff is a good idea.

 

[O'Malley]

Airsoft might get you injured, though.

 

[Argus]

Airsoft might get you injured, though.

Wear goggles. Also cut away the trigger guard.

 

[drop bear]

Wear goggles. Also cut away the trigger guard.

They do it. It's called gun games or something.

 

[Argus]

They do it. It's called gun games or something.

You mean regular force on force airsoft games?

I've done it. Many might laugh because it's super nerdy, and Airsoft guns are obviously nothing like real guns, but I found that it really does validate a lot of what I learned with regards to actual gun fights.

 

[drop bear]

You mean regular force on force airsoft games?

I've done it. Many might laugh because it's super nerdy, and Airsoft guns are obviously nothing like real guns, but I found that it really does validate a lot of what I learned with regards to actual gun fights.

Almost. These are simunitions which are the totally not nerdy form of airsoft because tactical.

But they also allow contact. So you can grab the guy and man handle him.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Almost. These are simunitions which are the totally not nerdy form of airsoft because tactical.

But they also allow contact. So you can grab the guy and man handle him.

Almost any kind of simulation ammo (even paintballs from guns that don’t operate much like real guns) will change how folks view their defensive approach to guns. Allow contact, and you get a much better simulation than most of us got when training “disarms”.