Boxing/Muay Thai and head trauma

[FriedRice]

Krav Maga (up to around Level 3) is probably the best for your needs and to avoid full KO shots to the head as part of training. Just realize that full contact is what really test out your abilities to defend yourself in a real situation.....and in general, a Muay Thai or full MMA fighter, will wreck you as their type of training is above yours (w/the exception of gun disarming).

 

[lklawson]

Krav Maga (up to around Level 3) is probably the best for your needs and to avoid full KO shots to the head as part of training. Just realize that full contact is what really test out your abilities to defend yourself in a real situation.....and in general, a Muay Thai or full MMA fighter, will wreck you as their type of training is above yours (w/the exception of gun disarming).

99.9% of all "gun disarming" is bull crap and will get you shot.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[FriedRice]

99.9% of all "gun disarming" is bull crap and will get you shot.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Says you. Lloyd Irvin actually disarmed a home invader using some Chinese MA training. That's why he's able to have a CCW in Maryland, which is like winning the lottery....due to this incident. He talks about it here:

Knife disarming is the much more questionable, IMO, but I still train that too, as well as fighting w/blades. But gun disarming, certainly is legit. I didn't say it wasn't risky as hell. And yes, I have been in a firefight, although that really doesn't prove anything towards my argument about gun disarming.

If they haven't shot you yet, then they want something or may shoot you after they get it. It's up to your instincts to decide. But I'd rather have my chopsocky, gun disarming training then none at all. I train 5-6 days a week, 2-3 classes per day....doing something different with guns & knives are quite a welcomed changed, if anything.

 

[lklawson]

Says you.

Yup. And the vast host of firearms experts.

And yes, I have been in a firefight,

I don't remember asking you about your credentials. Or is this you asking me about mine?

although that really doesn't prove anything towards my argument about gun disarming.

In the same way that Mr. Irvin's single success doesn't "prove" anything about the greater data set.

But I'd rather have my chopsocky, gun disarming training then none at all.

Well, I agree that it's better than peeing your pants and crying like a little girl. But the fact is that most of the "gun disarms" I've seen taught are BS and only "work" under an extremely narrow set of circumstances which require the person with the gun to have done some very dumb things which contradict logic and are in opposition with firearms, arrest, and "prisoner transport" training going back to at least WWII (in my research, but possibly much farther). The two most egregious being 1) being far to close to the victim and 2) sticking the gun out where it's within easy reach, even from "behind."

I train 5-6 days a week, 2-3 classes per day....doing something different with guns & knives are quite a welcomed changed, if anything.

I didn't ask about your training regiment. I prefer to restrict my discussion (and arguments, if I'm having an argument) to the subject matter or claims being made, rather than trying to dissect or discredit the person making the argument. So I don't care if you're a white belt with no more experience than watching WWE/WWF, if your claims and arguments hold up to scrutiny, I'll say that.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[jks9199]

Unarmed disarming techniques whatever the weapon they're dealing with, are techniques of desperation with a fairly low probability of success. They beat simply standing there and dying, certainly, but they all rely on the armed person making dumb moves, or not seriously intending to hurt you.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[FriedRice]

Yup. And the vast host of firearms experts.

I don't remember asking you about your credentials. Or is this you asking me about mine?

In the same way that Mr. Irvin's single success doesn't "prove" anything about the greater data set.

Well, I agree that it's better than peeing your pants and crying like a little girl. But the fact is that most of the "gun disarms" I've seen taught are BS and only "work" under an extremely narrow set of circumstances which require the person with the gun to have done some very dumb things which contradict logic and are in opposition with firearms, arrest, and "prisoner transport" training going back to at least WWII (in my research, but possibly much farther). The two most egregious being 1) being far to close to the victim and 2) sticking the gun out where it's within easy reach, even from "behind."

I didn't ask about your training regiment. I prefer to restrict my discussion (and arguments, if I'm having an argument) to the subject matter or claims being made, rather than trying to dissect or discredit the person making the argument. So I don't care if you're a white belt with no more experience than watching WWE/WWF, if your claims and arguments hold up to scrutiny, I'll say that.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

You even admit that your argument is based on just reading whatever. I'm merely arguing that what you said about "99.9% of all "gun disarming" is bull crap and will get you shot."....is bull crap.

If the guy is 10 feet away with a gun, no duh that it's not a wise move to try out whatever gun disarming training. And did I tell you that I was in a firefight?

 

[FriedRice]

Unarmed disarming techniques whatever the weapon they're dealing with, are techniques of desperation with a fairly low probability of success. They beat simply standing there and dying, certainly, but they all rely on the armed person making dumb moves, or not seriously intending to hurt you.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Totally agree. It's like training MMA to the best of my ability, but if one day I'm locked in prison w/Connor McGregor for life and he's feeling horny....then my best bet is to try out what I've been training for all of these years....why not?

 

[lklawson]

You even admit that your argument is based on just reading whatever.

No, I didn't. I wrote that the disarming techniques which I've seen are easily negated by techniques and training which I can document go back to at least WWII; meaning that the techniques being referenced are easy, well known, and widely distributed. That's not the same thing as "based on just reading whatever." Check your logic chain.

I'm merely arguing that what you said about "99.9% of all "gun disarming" is bull crap and will get you shot."....is bull crap.

And your statement is still wrong.

If the guy is 10 feet away with a gun, no duh that it's not a wise move to try out whatever gun disarming training.

There are several things that are easily done which negate 99.9% of the gun disarms which I've seen taught. All of them easy. Again, as I've already written, the unarmed gun disarming techniques which I've seen all DEPEND on the person with the gun doing dumb things which we've all known are dumb for, literally, generations now. So, yes, the statement stands: they're BS.

And did I tell you that I was in a firefight?

Twice now. The first time you mentioned it you also said that it doesn't "prove" anything.

 

[FriedRice]

No, I didn't. I wrote that the disarming techniques which I've seen are easily negated by techniques and training which I can document go back to at least WWII; meaning that the techniques being referenced are easy, well known, and widely distributed. That's not the same thing as "based on just reading whatever." Check your logic chain.

And your statement is still wrong.

There are several things that are easily done which negate 99.9% of the gun disarms which I've seen taught. All of them easy. Again, as I've already written, the unarmed gun disarming techniques which I've seen all DEPEND on the person with the gun doing dumb things which we've all known are dumb for, literally, generations now. So, yes, the statement stands: they're BS.

Twice now. The first time you mentioned it you also said that it doesn't "prove" anything.

You're "99.9%" figure is what's full of BS.

I already told you that disarming a gun wielder is very risky. Obviously, the only time to ever dare to try disarming them is when they make the mistake of holding the gun within arms reach.

 

[lklawson]

You're "99.9%" figure is what's full of BS.

I already told you that disarming a gun wielder is very risky. Obviously, the only time to ever dare to try disarming them is when they make the mistake of holding the gun within arms reach.

Ten inches.

 

[drop bear]

No, I didn't. I wrote that the disarming techniques which I've seen are easily negated by techniques and training which I can document go back to at least WWII; meaning that the techniques being referenced are easy, well known, and widely distributed. That's not the same thing as "based on just reading whatever." Check your logic chain.

And your statement is still wrong.

There are several things that are easily done which negate 99.9% of the gun disarms which I've seen taught. All of them easy. Again, as I've already written, the unarmed gun disarming techniques which I've seen all DEPEND on the person with the gun doing dumb things which we've all known are dumb for, literally, generations now. So, yes, the statement stands: they're BS.

Twice now. The first time you mentioned it you also said that it doesn't "prove" anything.

Both sides working from appeals to authority?

So say gun experts say no chance and krav experts say reliable method. Going to suggest neither actually looked at the stats. And will lean more towards confirmation bias.

For me by the way disarming success depends on how strong the other guys arms are.

 

[lklawson]

Both sides working from appeals to authority?

So say gun experts say no chance and krav experts say reliable method.

I am a "gun expert."

Going to suggest neither actually looked at the stats

You've got stats on self defense gun disarms? By all means, share them. I'd love to see the source and methodology.

And will lean more towards confirmation bias.

Show me the statistical evidence. Otherwise, ten inches.

 

[ballen0351]

Both sides working from appeals to authority?

i guess you learned a new term since you run all over the forum spouting this nonsense.

So say gun experts say no chance and krav experts say reliable method. Going to suggest neither actually looked at the stats. And will lean more towards confirmation bias.

how do you know what info the gun experts looked at to make their opinion?

For me by the way disarming success depends on how strong the other guys arms are.

that's your contribution to the topic

 

[Steve]

Says you. Lloyd Irvin actually disarmed a home invader using some Chinese MA training. That's why he's able to have a CCW in Maryland, which is like winning the lottery....due to this incident. He talks about it here:

Knife disarming is the much more questionable, IMO, but I still train that too, as well as fighting w/blades. But gun disarming, certainly is legit. I didn't say it wasn't risky as hell. And yes, I have been in a firefight, although that really doesn't prove anything towards my argument about gun disarming.

If they haven't shot you yet, then they want something or may shoot you after they get it. It's up to your instincts to decide. But I'd rather have my chopsocky, gun disarming training then none at all. I train 5-6 days a week, 2-3 classes per day....doing something different with guns & knives are quite a welcomed changed, if anything.

I wouldn't believe a word Lloyd Irvin says. Not the most credible guy around.

 

[FriedRice]

I wouldn't believe a word Lloyd Irvin says. Not the most credible guy around.

Despite his major, ethical problems...you still have to admit that his skills are legit...producing many UFC fighters, top contenders and UFC Champions. And this home invasion was true, that's why he was able to get a CCW in Maryland.