Which, I think, is exactly what the OP intended.
Good arts for getting to your gun
- Thread starter skribs
- Start date
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
Not really. You can pull out weapons mid scramble. It is the difference between fighting and drilling. When you drill you do a self defence move and it works. When you fight you do a self defence move and get an inch of advantage.
Take that inch of advantage and go for a weapon.
So the priority of the scramble may not be for a dominant hold. It may be you are going for a weapon or he is.
Last edited:
CB Jones
Senior Master
IMHO, Drawing your weapon while engaged with an opponent should be the last ditch effort. Instead I would rather try and disengage, create distance and draw my weapon.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
Exept his aim is going to be engage and stay engaged. Because as soon as you create that space he is boned. Again it is a fight. He isn't just going to let go of you.
CB Jones
Senior Master
What?
I realize that and am prepared to fight my way out of it....but I'm not drawing my weapon until I know I can't get disengaged....thats when it becomes last ditch.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
OK. So he knows as soon as you get space he is going to get shot. So he is going to be on you like a fat kid on cake.
Now during that scramble you will be attacking something, escaping or going for a weapon.
Now the issue you tend to get in fighting is escapes don't work. But what they do is create just enough space to to try another another escape, attack, something or go for a weapon. Or they force him to stop what he is doing so if he is hitting you he can't hit you and defend an escape at the same time.
Except you are only going for one thing. Which is to get clear. So he only has to deal with your one strategy.
Unless of course you reach some point of desperation where you go screw it. You are now going for a weapon.
My counter suggestion is you go for all of it at once by blending escaping ,attacking and accessing a weapon.
Rather than fighting from what seems to be one mode to another.
Something as simple as if I get an undertook and hip escape. That becomes my hip. Now I could continue to escape. Then fight to stand up then fight to get clear then pull a weapon. Or I can pull the weapon from there and end the fight.
Last edited:
If the weapon is a gun, it's safer to have it in the holster, IMO, when it's not clear (well away from them). If you can't create the space/time to draw and deploy with reasonable expectation of getting it on target without interference, you are safer not drawing it. If he goes for it in the holster (assuming a decent holster), he becomes easier to deal with (he's focused on a single target) and retention is easier than if it's out of the holster.
There is a bit of a difference. I assumed the OP was talking civilian.
hoshin1600
Senior Master
Using MMA strategies that have a finite ending and a win/ lose result is in my opinion the wrong thing to do. Real life violent interactions are not a finite game it is an infinite one. BJJ tactics work really well when used at the appropriate time. Nothing wrong with BJJ skills. There is a difference between strategy and tactics or skills and the when and how to apply them.
The number one goal for a civilian in a violent encounter is the get out of the danger zone. That is it period. Unless there are other people you are trying to protect and that is a different conversation really.
I repeatedly see people trying to apply a finite game strategy like MMA to the street. If you account for all the variables and follow each of those to their respective conclusion it becomes obvious that using the "win the fight" mentality will fail more often than not.
For those interested, Google "game theory the prisoners dilemma " and you will see how to logically calculate out the best strategy.
The longer you are in the danger zone and in contact with the assailant the greater your chances of being injured or killed. For those that want to wrestle with a gun or knife wielding assailant be my guest, ,it won't be my first choice. And as Buka pointed out LEO have a completely different end goal then civilian you really cannot use one to validate the other.
The number one goal for a civilian in a violent encounter is the get out of the danger zone. That is it period. Unless there are other people you are trying to protect and that is a different conversation really.
I repeatedly see people trying to apply a finite game strategy like MMA to the street. If you account for all the variables and follow each of those to their respective conclusion it becomes obvious that using the "win the fight" mentality will fail more often than not.
For those interested, Google "game theory the prisoners dilemma " and you will see how to logically calculate out the best strategy.
The longer you are in the danger zone and in contact with the assailant the greater your chances of being injured or killed. For those that want to wrestle with a gun or knife wielding assailant be my guest, ,it won't be my first choice. And as Buka pointed out LEO have a completely different end goal then civilian you really cannot use one to validate the other.
Hoshin, I'm not sure I follow the main point of your post. The finite vs. infinite doesn't make much sense to me - probably just something I'm not getting. For the most part, it's not about whether we want to wrestle with a gun or knife wielding assailant, but whether there's a gun or knife present when the grappling occurs. As with anything in SD, if you can avoid getting into the grappling (or punching), then you do. When you can't, you don't get to determine what they brought. So, will I wrestle with a weapon-wielding assailant? Yep. I don't want to, but that might be where I end up.
hoshin1600
Senior Master
so yes i agree with the concept of if your in the crap , you got to get out, if you have to grapple then that is what you got to do. but that is the skills or tactics. but the mistake is to use the normal strategy of BJJ like : taking the back, getting your underhooks, setting your heels in as hooks as an objective. this is the MMA mentality and yes it works but it only works in a finite game.
so let me explain and define.
a finite game is defined as :known players, fixed rules and an agreed upon objective. in an infinite game there are known and unknown players, the rules are changeable and the objective can be different for each player and change over time.
ok back to a violent encounter, the clip that drop bear posted was beautiful. yes beautiful for LEO. that wouldnt work for most civilian circumstances. imagine instead of the second officer coming to to help the first, it was the second bad guy. the objective of the officer is to detain and arrest. so yes he has to use that strategy and those tactics. but a civillian would be dead. in most cases when an officer is arresting someone like that you dont have others jumping in to save their buddy. it happens but not often. it happens all the time with civilian encounters. its well known most assailants work in pairs so we have to account for that. we know most assailants use weapons we have to account for that.
the OP was asking about creating distance. this is in my mind the correct response , not close the distance. closing the distance should only be done when there is no choice, the assailant closed the distance for you and you need to get out. if you close the distance you are ignoring the outcome that the other player brings.
hoshin1600
Senior Master
we need to start with the violent encounter and maintain that frame work as we logically think things thru here. what seems to happen is we start with the encounter and get side tracked with the typical MMA mind set of winning the fight as if we were in the octagon.
here is a question; if the assailant has a gun why would he close the distance? how about a knife?
its quite easy to look up real life video's of this stuff on YouTube. how many cases do you see where the assailant closes the distance when he has a gun and if so why?
if you think you are going to close the distance between you and the assailant , how much distance are we talking about here? can it be done without putting yourself in more danger?
my point is you have to logically think thru the variables until you reach their conclusion and that conclusion is not where most people think. it doesnt stop at getting someone in an armbar. did you injury the person? did you kill the person? are you know having to lose your job and your house being in debt to pay lawyer fees because of court costs?
it is an infinte game.
EDIT: another thought.. what is the % ratio of potential injury to yourself if you close the distance and grapple vs the % ratio of injury where you gained distance and fired your weapon and the assailant went into the FIBS factor....(fudge im being shot at) and his brain told him this just aint worth it, and ran off.
here is a question; if the assailant has a gun why would he close the distance? how about a knife?
its quite easy to look up real life video's of this stuff on YouTube. how many cases do you see where the assailant closes the distance when he has a gun and if so why?
if you think you are going to close the distance between you and the assailant , how much distance are we talking about here? can it be done without putting yourself in more danger?
my point is you have to logically think thru the variables until you reach their conclusion and that conclusion is not where most people think. it doesnt stop at getting someone in an armbar. did you injury the person? did you kill the person? are you know having to lose your job and your house being in debt to pay lawyer fees because of court costs?
it is an infinte game.
EDIT: another thought.. what is the % ratio of potential injury to yourself if you close the distance and grapple vs the % ratio of injury where you gained distance and fired your weapon and the assailant went into the FIBS factor....(fudge im being shot at) and his brain told him this just aint worth it, and ran off.
Last edited:
stonewall1350
Blue Belt
This right here. I’m a carrier as well. Don’t practice a fast draw though. Practice a smooth draw. And if at any point your holster comes with your gun...you need to change holster or belt or both. Ideally you should do this drill every time you take your gun off (AFTER unloading of course). My Galco holster is solid plastic and holds its frame and has never come with the gun when I pulled it. It took me a bit to learn that. I also use a thick belt too.
Anyway. I say this remembering the saying from Wyatt Earp (I think): “take your time in a hurry.” If you can’t get the gun out clean and smooth...it won’t be fast. The old West gun fighters weren’t completely useless for advice. They drew guns to kill.
As for “which art?” I would say practice “gun fu.” Any art that involves drawing from concealment and contending with attackers while using your weapon. A lot of gun stores will have references to trainers. Be careful with who is selected of course. Make sure they are not a Barney fife trying to teach you judo (if you get that reference). And anything that keeps in mind that your first weapon is your brain. I like the “gray man” philosophy. Which means trying to avoid being a Target first and being aware of WHO is around you. Watching under cars and blind corners and so on. Just generally having a presence of mind. But also doing so without meeting anyone’s eyes.
Anyway.
Personally? If I were to learn gun related self defense here? I would take it from a guy who was fired from the police department who was a former gang unit cop. He (from all known sources) was one scary SOB with guns, knives, and sticks. Regardless of being fired...he is the kinda guy you learn from. The guy who knows what he is doing and is experienced.
[VIDEO]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
hoshin1600
Senior Master
"The sequential assessment game (SAG) was the ÂŽ first model to investigate the temporal
organization of contest behaviour (Enquist and Leimar, 1983, 1987; Enquist et al., 1990;
Leimar and Enquist, 1984). The SAG envisioned an aggressive contest as a means
through which rivals gradually assess relative ÂŽ fighting abilities (i.e. the difference between
contestant A and contestant B with respect to physical prowess). The decision to continue
to Ž fight or flee is based on each rival’s assessment of its opponent’s Ž fighting ability relative
to its own. An individual will retreat when it assesses its own ÂŽ fighting ability to be
considerably lower than its opponent’s. More speciŽfcally, the SAG predicts that retreats
will occur when the costs of continuing outweigh the beneÂŽ ts of obtaining the contested
resource"
organization of contest behaviour (Enquist and Leimar, 1983, 1987; Enquist et al., 1990;
Leimar and Enquist, 1984). The SAG envisioned an aggressive contest as a means
through which rivals gradually assess relative ÂŽ fighting abilities (i.e. the difference between
contestant A and contestant B with respect to physical prowess). The decision to continue
to Ž fight or flee is based on each rival’s assessment of its opponent’s Ž fighting ability relative
to its own. An individual will retreat when it assesses its own ÂŽ fighting ability to be
considerably lower than its opponent’s. More speciŽfcally, the SAG predicts that retreats
will occur when the costs of continuing outweigh the beneÂŽ ts of obtaining the contested
resource"
hoshin1600
Senior Master
good post @stonewall1350
this statement however, as innocuous as it is caught my attention.
i believe it comes from the old (and ill thought out) advise for women to look under their cars because assailants will hide under the car and grab their ankles... and pull them under it and down into the burning fires of the seven layers of hell ..like all the monster movies.
i mean seriously there are no boogie men under the bed and rapists dont hide under cars. anyone who has tried to work under their car to change the oil or something will tell you that there is only about room for a 5 yo under there.
the better advise is to look in the back seat before getting in.
unless of course your intended thought was to look for feet on the other side of the car. but then of course you would have to just about lay on the ground to see that.
this statement however, as innocuous as it is caught my attention.
i believe it comes from the old (and ill thought out) advise for women to look under their cars because assailants will hide under the car and grab their ankles... and pull them under it and down into the burning fires of the seven layers of hell ..like all the monster movies.
i mean seriously there are no boogie men under the bed and rapists dont hide under cars. anyone who has tried to work under their car to change the oil or something will tell you that there is only about room for a 5 yo under there.
the better advise is to look in the back seat before getting in.
unless of course your intended thought was to look for feet on the other side of the car. but then of course you would have to just about lay on the ground to see that.
Okay, that made more sense to me that way. Without quibbling on small points, I agree with the overall concept. There are reasons we might avoid some of the tactics used in competition, though they are quite useful in the right street encounter, too.
OP
OP
skribs
Grandmaster
So let's say I use wrestling moves to pin an attacker down. What then? As soon as I let go, he's free to try and punch or stab me again.
"Opponent" isn't the word I'd use here. "Attacker" is. The goal would be to get to my gun, and use it as a means of convincing him to stop the attack. If that means he runs away and I can then call the police? Good. If that means he surrenders and I call the cops and then wait for the cops to show up, good. If that means he continues to attack me and I have to actively use the gun to defend myself, then that's bad, but at least I am able to defend myself.
There's a quote I've read (and it's on the internet, so it must be true) that Chuck Norris was once asked if someone broke into his house, if he'd round-house kick them in the face. He said "no, I'd grab my 10-gauge". My opinion is that martial arts training is good, but if your goal is to survive a violent attack, a gun is often the best choice, if available.
I think there's too many pronouns in here. Who is trying to stay engaged? Who is creating space and who is boned? Who isn't letting go?
Civilian, yes.
stonewall1350
Blue Belt
Yes. Looking to the other side of the car lol. Not checking under the car I’m going too. I could have worded it better lol. But you only have to do that if your close to them. SUVs would easily allow you to look past them. And big trucks. As your walking toward them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
stonewall1350
Blue Belt
BJJ/judo is good if they are right on top of you. If you can win the situation without using your gun? Good. If you choke someone out...you don’t need to worry about the gun. Or Americana then and tear their shoulder so badly they can’t use it...let them swing away with one arm. Good luck.
With “gun fu” you want to be able to win the fight before the gun even comes into play. You win by not getting involved FIRST, then secondly by being able to escape. Which should be your goal. Knocking them down let’s you use the nike defense (or ASICS or Reebok). But let me ask you...if you are able to pin the person...why would you let the go? Are they trying to bite you? Are you losing control of them?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
