flashlight moves?

[MSUTKD]

Very good points, both of you. It is hard to separate ego when we work so hard to achieve in our respective disciplines. Thanks Terry and Edmund.

ron

 

[Bob Hubbard]

while modifying your technique for flashlight, don't forget to use the bright end -- blind 'em, them whomp 'em.

I think it would depend on the situation. In a dark environment, I can see the shining of a bright light to temporarily screw up someones night vision, or a moving light to possibly distract and throw off their senses. It might also give a gunman a solid target to aim for. If I'm in a knife or openhand situation, might work as a concussion or pressure point tool though.

 

[kickcatcher]

Serious question: If confronted by someone armed with a blade or gun, is shining a torch in their face more or less likely to result in them using the weapon?

 

[Phil Elmore]

What training with guns or knives do you have? On what knowledge base do you presume to make any conclusions about their use or their applications? What experience with either do you have in practical, real-world situations?

 

[Drac]

I am not familiar with Dan-Bong, could you elaborate a little?

A short wooden stick about the size of a Stiron flashlight...Good for strikes and joint locks..A Google search will reveal more...

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Serious question: If confronted by someone armed with a blade or gun, is shining a torch in their face more or less likely to result in them using the weapon?

I don't know. Good question.

Anyone have any crime statistics from reliable sources on such things? FBI profiler reports maybe?

 

[kickcatcher]

Phil, are you going to try an Ad Hominem attack on my posting a straightforward question? Unlike you I am not publishing how-do books/articles on such topics to the general public.

My training with firearms is mostly contained within my MTQ-1 qualification, which in my book is nothing to write home about, but almost certainly gives me first hand experience of weapons a Martialist would have wet dreams about.

 

[Edmund BlackAdder]

I dare say, I don't believe the lads quite understand things here. Any chance you gentlemen could take your personal problems somewhere else? I'm certain there is a forum out there which is geared towards such pointless drivel. Then again, perhaps flashlights at 10 paces would be more your sport?

 

[Phil Elmore]

Phil, are you going to try an Ad Hominem attack on my posting a straightforward question? Unlike you I am not publishing how-do books/articles on such topics to the general public.

My training with firearms is mostly contained within my MTQ-1 qualification, which in my book is nothing to write home about, but almost certainly gives me first hand experience of weapons a Martialist would have wet dreams about.

Whoever trained you couldn't have done a very good job, if in fact you are not lying. You are making implications about defense against armed assault based on the fear that whomever is already presenting you with lethal force might use that force if you make them upset. You are therefore basing your implications on the idea that one's defense against armed assault must be built on not upsetting one's attacker in the hope of avoiding the presented threat. This is absurd and betrays an ignorance of the whole topic.

 

[bydand]

That sounds like an attempt at a cutting personal attack that does Phil. How about answering my query as to where you learned the flashlight-fu moves you are selling in your book?

Sounds a lot like most of your own posts Kickcatcher toward Phil. Actually the techneques that are used with "palm sticks" could and DO translate very well for a small flashlight. Would you try it at a distance against an armed attacker? I would hope not! Just as you wouldnt try the palm sticks that it was adapted from at distance.

 

[MSUTKD]

A MTQ-1 is a standard qualification; I think that is at least something. What is the US equivalent of the MTQ-1?

ron

 

[Bob Hubbard]

It's basics from what I can tell.
http://www.army.mod.uk/uotc/liverpool/mtq_1.htm

 

[MSUTKD]

Well, military training is a solid foundation. I think law enforcement training would also be valid in this discussion. I think we should ask some expert military and or law enforcement individuals. I also reiterate Bob’s thought…There must be some statistics out there on this subject? Maybe some one can do some research on the subject.

ron

 

[kickcatcher]

I'm guessing people are googling "MTQ-1"; It's a British military qualification which basically qualifies me as cannon fodder, lol. It does not cover gun self-defence, beyond running away very fast in a zig-zag fashion, but it does give me a certain degree of awareness of what guns can do.

BUT, that whole question is missing the point. You don't need hours of weapons fetish survivalist training to appreciate the general nature of guns or blades. and the question of whether someone threatening you with a weapons is more or less likely tto initate the attack upon you producing your own less capable weapon is again not a question requiring gun training.

 

[terryl965]

All I know is if someone pulls a gun on me my response is simple here my wallet have fun and buy a round on me at the local watering hole.
Terry

 

[Phil Elmore]

My point is simply that you cannot evaluate the efficacy of a given methodology by saying, "Yeah, but you couldn't do that if someone was pointing a gun or a knife at you, because that might actually make him mad and then he'd use the weapon with which he's threatening lethal force." That's defeatism and also betrays a spectacular ignorance of weapons, regardless of the training the person expressing such an opinion claims to have.

To understand weapons and how they work, you do have to have training with them. You have to understand them in ways that preclude referring to those who do understand them as "fetishists." That kind of rhetoric paints you as a hoplophobe who is pontificating from ignorance; I don't care if the army did put a rifle in your hands while telling you where to march with it.

When you are presented with the threat of lethal force, you can comply with the aggressor's demands or you can take action. Any action you take this is not compliance could conceivably result in his execution of his threat. Judging the veracity of the threat is the first step you take in determining your response to that threat. To worry that someone with a gun might get annoyed and shoot you if you shine a light in his face is simply stupid; if you've made the decision not to comply and to take some action in response, irritating him with bright light is the least of your worries.

It's also a stupid scenario contrived specifically to make a logically spurious point -- if you're going to defend against someone threatening you with a firearm, you had better be close enough to touch him or have the means to get there fast. If that's the case, shining a light in someone's eyes is far and away a secondary concern -- because you should be beating the crap out of that person with the blunt end of the light.

If you're not close enough to touch someone and they're pointing a gun at you, you can rush or you can run. If you're doing either, blinding the shooter in low-light conditions might give you an advantage. It's a slim chance but better than nothing.

If you're not close enough to touch someone who is threatening you with a knife and you're not close enough for them to lunge at you and reach you with the blade, why are you shining lights? You should be doing just about anything else, up to and including simply running for it.

When people pursuing their own hostile agendas create contrived hypothetical scenarios in an effort to "prove" opinions built on ignorance and uninformed assumptions, they do nothing but parade their own lack of knowledge about the things they presume to condemn.

 

[shesulsa]

thread Locked Pending Admin Review

G Ketchmark / Shesulsa
Mt Senior Moderator