Which, I think, is exactly what the OP intended.so the whole thing about a gun, becomes a academic discussion
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Which, I think, is exactly what the OP intended.so the whole thing about a gun, becomes a academic discussion
don't disagree with any of that!
but the proposition in the op , is that 7 yards say 3 seconds isn't enough to draw your gun and fire , so you need ma to give you more time, there fore it follows that what ever ma you choose will need to gie you more than 3 seconds breathing space, ie , you knock them out for 5 seconds, knock them over, break a leg of some,such or put them in a hold of some sort. Any of which if you achieve mean there is no longer a need to draw and fire, and if you don't achieve means you get stabbed,, so the whole thing about a gun, becomes a academic discussion
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
There is a bit of a difference. I assumed the OP was talking civilian.Are we talking civilian scenarios or police work?
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.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.
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.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.
Practice your draw from concealment. The faster you can draw from concealment, the less time you have to buy.
The 21 foot rule is for a police officer, meaning gun is on the hip, not concealed. It also requires the officer to stand his ground. If the officer backs up turning (L shape path) that buys him enough time to draw and fire.
too)
Watching under cars
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.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.
Depends on the situation. If it's only one, I definitely agree. If you can tie him up (BJJ, Judo, and wrestling seem good candidates for that), then the gun may not be necessary. I'd be inclined toward BJJ and Judo along those thought lines, because I know how they approach hand/arm control. There may be an analog in wrestling, but I know less about it, so can't speak to that.
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.
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.
There is a bit of a difference. I assumed the OP was talking civilian.
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.
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.