Open Hand techniques are just plain silly...

[searcher]

I have not read all of the posts, so please forgive me if this makes no sense with the current discussion.

There is one of Murphy's Laws that states, "If it looks stupid, but works. It is not so stupid." That is my take on any type of technique and its use. I use a variation on a palm heel in a hooking punch motion that has been very effective in the past.

I am still a firm believer that a firearm is a great equalizer, as long as you have training in it's use, practice regularly, are liscenced to carry, and you have it on you. BTW-when I say training, I mean training from a reputable tranining facility and not some backyard plinking.

 

[myusername]

A person who is attempting to mug you expects you to reach behind your back. How else would you get your wallet? They know you are pulling out a hidden object. They tend to be caught off guard when the wallet you just pulled out shoots them. Another trick is to do what stage magicians and con artistes do, take advantage of the fact that people watch the hand that's doing what they want to see. While you retrieve your wallet with one hand pull your gun with the other.

Maybe I'm being naive? or perhaps due to never holding a gun or attempting to draw one quickly I do not apreciate how quickly one can access one and point, aim and pull the trigger? But I'm assuming if the mugger has a gun he will already be pointing and aiming it at you whilst you reach behind your back, thus having the advantage, because as soon as he sees it is not a wallet but a gun he will pull the trigger. How confident can you be that you are faster than the mugger? You know nothing about him. Its not a question as to who is the quickest to draw as he doesn't need to as he has already done that. Also how confident are you that even when you have shot him he isn't going to shoot you back on the way down? (Remember that the gun is already pointed at your head!).

On Another note. I feel very sorry for all of you who live in places where the government expects you to die because a criminal doesn't want to be identified in a lineup. Hopefully we can maintain our rights here in the States, in spite of the ravenous anti-gun idiots.

The majority of muggings in the UK though often vicious do not involve guns. I can't help but feel that if the average Granny was packing a piece the muggers would up the ante and start using guns to level the playing field.

 

[sgtmac_46]

A person who is attempting to mug you expects you to reach behind your back. How else would you get your wallet? They know you are pulling out a hidden object. They tend to be caught off guard when the wallet you just pulled out shoots them. Another trick is to do what stage magicians and con artistes do, take advantage of the fact that people watch the hand that's doing what they want to see. While you retrieve your wallet with one hand pull your gun with the other.

On Another note. I feel very sorry for all of you who live in places where the government expects you to die because a criminal doesn't want to be identified in a lineup. Hopefully we can maintain our rights here in the States, in spite of the ravenous anti-gun idiots.

+1 to that!

 

[sgtmac_46]

Maybe I'm being naive? or perhaps due to never holding a gun or attempting to draw one quickly I do not apreciate how quickly one can access one and point, aim and pull the trigger? But I'm assuming if the mugger has a gun he will already be pointing and aiming it at you whilst you reach behind your back, thus having the advantage, because as soon as he sees it is not a wallet but a gun he will pull the trigger. How confident can you be that you are faster than the mugger? You know nothing about him. Its not a question as to who is the quickest to draw as he doesn't need to as he has already done that. Also how confident are you that even when you have shot him he isn't going to shoot you back on the way down? (Remember that the gun is already pointed at your head!).

It depends on how the handgun is carried....but modern concealment holsters are very fast. With training one can draw aim (point at close range) and fire in less than a second. Part of your movement should be to get yourself off line and draw while he's not pointing the gun at you....if he makes contact with your body, you clear his gun hand with one hand, and draw with the OTHER....EMPTYING the gun in to his body at point blank RANGE! Shoot until he drops!

This has been barred out where armed citizens HAVE successfull resisted armed robbers with their own guns. Yes, he already has his gun out.....but he does NOT know you are ARMED! The element of surprise means it's not exactly a 'draw' duel....he's not expecting you to have a gun.....when you draw yours, while distracting him simultaneously (say, by handing him your wallet with the other hand) you've got the advantage of surprise....add speed and violence of actions and you increase your advantage.

The trick is to get inside his OODA loop....reaction is NOT instantaneous as we believe, but involves a series of cycles of decision known as Boyd's Cycle....the OODA loop....or Observation (seeing the threat), Orientation (acknowledging the threat), Decision (making a plan to deal with the threat) and ACTION (actually ACTING on the threat). Action is NEVER instantaneous, and getting inside the muggers OODA loop and disrupting it, with sleight of hand, deceptive movements and actions, slows his OODA Loop down while giving you MORE time to ACT!

The majority of muggings in the UK though often vicious do not involve guns. I can't help but feel that if the average Granny was packing a piece the muggers would up the ante and start using guns to level the playing field.

That's not how it works, actually.....MUGGERS are emboldened by their victims being UNARMED. The balance of power goes ONE WAY! That's why there are MORE MUGGINGS in Europe than in the United States.....our murder rate is higher, but only because of inner-city gang on gang violence. We have less muggings, burglaries and robberies PRECISELY because of the risk is inherently greater!

You see, criminals will ALWAYS have guns....and a gang member or street thug does NOT NEED a gun to enact violence on other citizens....a gun is an EQUALIZER to youth, however.....a gun allows an 80 year old man parity with a gang of street thugs! An 80 year old man armed with a shotgun can take on 10 or 15 gang members! It's irrelavent the assertion 'What if they have guns too' because the 80 year old man being unarmed does not mean the 10 or 15 gang members will be UNARMED!

Moreover, the recidivism rate is LOWER in a society where muggers actually get shot and KILLED for their efforts.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Is it really true that most altercations involve weapons? quote]
I seriously doubt it.
Sean

 

[MJS]

Is it really true that most altercations involve weapons? quote]
I seriously doubt it.
Sean

Really? Just to expand on this a little:
http://www.courant.com/news/custom/topnews/hcu-hrtfrdrobberies0312,0,4724733.story

 

[MJS]

And another
http://www.courant.com/news/custom/topnews/hcu-hfdrob-0317,0,3317247.story

 

[myusername]

It depends on how the handgun is carried....but modern concealment holsters are very fast. With training one can draw aim (point at close range) and fire in less than a second. Part of your movement should be to get yourself off line and draw while he's not pointing the gun at you....if he makes contact with your body, you clear his gun hand with one hand, and draw with the OTHER....EMPTYING the gun in to his body at point blank RANGE! Shoot until he drops!

This has been barred out where armed citizens HAVE successfull resisted armed robbers with their own guns. Yes, he already has his gun out.....but he does NOT know you are ARMED! The element of surprise means it's not exactly a 'draw' duel....he's not expecting you to have a gun.....when you draw yours, while distracting him simultaneously (say, by handing him your wallet with the other hand) you've got the advantage of surprise....add speed and violence of actions and you increase your advantage.

The trick is to get inside his OODA loop....reaction is NOT instantaneous as we believe, but involves a series of cycles of decision known as Boyd's Cycle....the OODA loop....or Observation (seeing the threat), Orientation (acknowledging the threat), Decision (making a plan to deal with the threat) and ACTION (actually ACTING on the threat). Action is NEVER instantaneous, and getting inside the muggers OODA loop and disrupting it, with sleight of hand, deceptive movements and actions, slows his OODA Loop down while giving you MORE time to ACT!

I stand corrected! My apologies, I was being naive as there is obviously more theory and practical technique to handling a gun than I was assuming. I still can't help but feel its a risky game though! What have you to lose by handing over the wallet? A few credit cards you cancel before they are used, a bit of cash, maybe a photograph, a drivers licence that you can replace? Is it really worth risking death for? What if the mugger is aware of the OODA loop and slows yours down first?

That's not how it works, actually.....MUGGERS are emboldened by their victims being UNARMED. The balance of power goes ONE WAY! That's why there are MORE MUGGINGS in Europe than in the United States.....our murder rate is higher, but only because of inner-city gang on gang violence. We have less muggings, burglaries and robberies PRECISELY because of the risk is inherently greater!

You see, criminals will ALWAYS have guns....and a gang member or street thug does NOT NEED a gun to enact violence on other citizens....a gun is an EQUALIZER to youth, however.....a gun allows an 80 year old man parity with a gang of street thugs! An 80 year old man armed with a shotgun can take on 10 or 15 gang members! It's irrelavent the assertion 'What if they have guns too' because the 80 year old man being unarmed does not mean the 10 or 15 gang members will be UNARMED!

Moreover, the recidivism rate is LOWER in a society where muggers actually get shot and KILLED for their efforts.

I don't want to hijack the thread too much as I can see that this discussion can end up making me seem like a member of the ban the gun lobby! Which I can assure you I'm not. As far as I'm concerned you live in the US and it is your culture and your right to carry firearms. I also feel that in the case of the US because guns are a part of the culture banning them now would not lead to criminals suddenly disarming themselves also. However, I respond merely to your assertion that the UK is more unsafe as a result of our gun control laws and that posters such as Scarey and your self feel sorry that we live in a country where we are unable to carry firearms.

For starters, in 1998 - just after the UK banned handguns in the wake of The Dunblane tragedy - the police changed the way that they counted crimes. Crimes like common assault and harassment were reclassified as violent crimes; the underlying crime rates stayed the same, but the recorded crime rate almost doubled overnight. Further changes came in 2002, when police introduced a national standard for recording crime; the Home Office estimates the move inflated violent crime figures by at least another 20%.

According to the British crime survey, which combines police records with a large-scale survey of UK residents and is acknowledged as the gold standard of British crime statistics, the people of Britain are at less risk of being the victim of a crime today than at any point since the survey began in 1981. Violent crime rates have fallen by 43% since 1995; burglary and car thefts have both fallen by more than half. It’s true that murder rates have been running high in recent years - partly due to the retrospective inclusion of Harold Shipman’s victims - but last year they fell back to about the same level as in 1997, even including the 52 victims of the July bombings.

Even the violent crimes we suffer aren’t usually all that violent. Well over a third of the "violent crimes" recorded in Britain last year were crimes like common assault or harassment that involved no physical injury to the victim. A further 43% of cases involved "less serious woundings" like bruises, grazes or black eyes. These may have been traumatic experiences for their victims, but they were scuffles, not shootings. In the vast majority of these cases, the presence of a gun would only - could only - have made matters worse.

Would banning guns in the USA reduce gun crime? I doubt it.

Would allowing the carrying of guns in the UK make the average Brit safer? I doubt that too.

Back to the point of the thread. I think guns and weapons are fine if you are fighting for your life but they are not always availiable, so empty hand techniques are good to know also.

 

[thardey]

I stand corrected! My apologies, I was being naive as there is obviously more theory and practical technique to handling a gun than I was assuming. I still can't help but feel its a risky game though! What have you to lose by handing over the wallet? A few credit cards you cancel before they are used, a bit of cash, maybe a photograph, a drivers licence that you can replace? Is it really worth risking death for? What if the mugger is aware of the OODA loop and slows yours down first?

If it is only about losing your wallet and/or credit cards, then no, toss the wallet and run. However, common perception is that "simple muggings" are not as common as they used to be. Fewer criminals are actually starving, so you have less of the "I just want money to eat with, I don't really want to hurt anybody" type of crime.

Now it's either about paranoia coming from meth -- They might be thinking: "Now that I've taken his wallet he'll be out to get me, so I should shoot him anyway." If that sound outlandish, consider this: My wife's family lost a good friend because his son came home high on meth. When the Dad tried to talk to his son, the son shot and killed him, then left. When they found him days later, after the high had worn off, he didn't even remember. The had to tell him that he had shot his own father.

Or, criminals are mugging/raping people for the rush of power and danger, which often translates to shooting the victim whether they cooperated or not.

After you toss them the wallet, it doesn't mean that they'll leave. If someone's already pointing a gun at me, he's made the decision to use it, as far as I'm concerned.

But Sgtmac isn't exaggerating on the quick-draw. Even though the guns are now concealed, and we don't carry pearl-handled revolvers, the idea of the "quick draw" is still very much alive. If I have my hand on my gun, which is carried over my right-hip pocket (where most men carry their wallets), I can easily draw and hit a target 10 ft. away three times in under a second, and I'm just starting to train. It's not uncommon for people to be able to start with their hands on their head, draw and fire in about 7/10ths of a second. Check out this thread for more detail on that.

I don't want to hijack the thread too much as I can see that this discussion can end up making me seem like a member of the ban the gun lobby! Which I can assure you I'm not. As far as I'm concerned you live in the US and it is your culture and your right to carry firearms. [snipped]

Back to the point of the thread. I think guns and weapons are fine if you are fighting for your life but they are not always availiable, so empty hand techniques are good to know also.

That's pretty much where I'm at, as well. It's more than just changing laws, you'd have to reprogram an entire culture. And no, I don't think the U.K. would be safer if you re-introduced guns. Some of the stuff that people are trying to ban, though, just make me scratch my head.

 

[navyvetcv60]

Bold is mine.

I think I understand what you are saying however, does everyone really believe that you would have opportunity to use those techniques to disarm and be successful in doing so without causing yourself or others bodily harm from the weapon in question?

Lisa: I feel comfortable in saying that if an individual pulled a gun or knife on me in close proximity, and they hesitated for even a second, i think i could disarm them, I've trained on this technique a lot. Don't under estimate the power of an unarmed martial artist, cause were really never unarmed.

 

[Balrog]

Why do I shoot? Because a firearm is most likely to save my butt. Why do I train in martial arts? Because I don't always have a gun on me.

There it is.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I stand corrected! My apologies, I was being naive as there is obviously more theory and practical technique to handling a gun than I was assuming. I still can't help but feel its a risky game though! What have you to lose by handing over the wallet? A few credit cards you cancel before they are used, a bit of cash, maybe a photograph, a drivers licence that you can replace? Is it really worth risking death for? What if the mugger is aware of the OODA loop and slows yours down first?

If you're facing a 'mugger' with a knowledge of the concept of Boyd's Cycle and 'OODA' loops per se.....you're not facing a mugger, you're facing someone who has come to kill you, and you've got a serious problem! Of course that kind of person is going to shoot you before know what's going on! Of course it's kind of like saying 'What if I don't have the Flu, what if it's EBOLA!'

If someone walks up and shoots you in the head before you know they are there, there's nothing you can do.....if they hesitate and give you an opening, there's much you can do. Life's imperfect, the best you can do is train to exploit any opening.

But I hear far too often the refrain 'What have you to lose by handing over your wallet?'.....it's based on a false assumption....that if you COOPERATE he WILL NOT SHOOT YOU! It's a risky GAME simply having a robber pointing a gun at you, and the risk to your life is REAL whether you cooperate or not! Because it is dangerous the assumption that all he wants is your money and your wallet, and that he won't shoot you after he gets what he wants to eliminate witnesses of armed robbery.....and the HISTORY of armed robbery doesn't really inspire me with confidence. What you've done is to put your LIFE under the good will of some jackass who robs people with a GUN!

I don't like having to rely on the good will of a criminal to ensure my safety. You're risking DEATH as much or MORE by doing NOTHING! I can make a LIST of robberies where the victim was COMPLETELY COOPERATIVE and ended up murdered as a result of their cooperation! You CANNOT read the mind of the robber, but the fact that he's armed shows that his INTENT is pretty clear!

So it's not as SIMPLE as 'Your money OR your life'.......cooperation very well COULD mean your money AND your life! But there is a mindset that, well if you don't resist and get killed anyway, at least that's better than resisting and getting killed!

I don't want to hijack the thread too much as I can see that this discussion can end up making me seem like a member of the ban the gun lobby! Which I can assure you I'm not. As far as I'm concerned you live in the US and it is your culture and your right to carry firearms. I also feel that in the case of the US because guns are a part of the culture banning them now would not lead to criminals suddenly disarming themselves also. However, I respond merely to your assertion that the UK is more unsafe as a result of our gun control laws and that posters such as Scarey and your self feel sorry that we live in a country where we are unable to carry firearms.

For starters, in 1998 - just after the UK banned handguns in the wake of The Dunblane tragedy - the police changed the way that they counted crimes. Crimes like common assault and harassment were reclassified as violent crimes; the underlying crime rates stayed the same, but the recorded crime rate almost doubled overnight. Further changes came in 2002, when police introduced a national standard for recording crime; the Home Office estimates the move inflated violent crime figures by at least another 20%.

According to the British crime survey, which combines police records with a large-scale survey of UK residents and is acknowledged as the gold standard of British crime statistics, the people of Britain are at less risk of being the victim of a crime today than at any point since the survey began in 1981. Violent crime rates have fallen by 43% since 1995; burglary and car thefts have both fallen by more than half. It’s true that murder rates have been running high in recent years - partly due to the retrospective inclusion of Harold Shipman’s victims - but last year they fell back to about the same level as in 1997, even including the 52 victims of the July bombings.

Even the violent crimes we suffer aren’t usually all that violent. Well over a third of the "violent crimes" recorded in Britain last year were crimes like common assault or harassment that involved no physical injury to the victim. A further 43% of cases involved "less serious woundings" like bruises, grazes or black eyes. These may have been traumatic experiences for their victims, but they were scuffles, not shootings. In the vast majority of these cases, the presence of a gun would only - could only - have made matters worse.

Would banning guns in the USA reduce gun crime? I doubt it.

Would allowing the carrying of guns in the UK make the average Brit safer? I doubt that too.

Back to the point of the thread. I think guns and weapons are fine if you are fighting for your life but they are not always availiable, so empty hand techniques are good to know also.

Except for the inner-cities of the United States, crime is much like it is in Britain....minor assaults and much property crime.

It should be noted, however, that Scotland leads the industrialized world in violent crimes, including rape and serious assault.



As you're probably away, the US' tradition of firearms ownership is less about crime (though a tradition of dealing with frontier crime is a component) and more about GENERAL distrust of STRONG government. The United States is a unique phenomenon in the world, and perhaps the most individualist industrialized society in history. Even those who oppose guns understand that banning guns in America is a futile endevor at best!

 

[searcher]

the US' tradition of firearms ownership is less about crime (though a tradition of dealing with frontier crime is a component) and more about GENERAL distrust of STRONG government.

Close. We have a general distrust of any government at all.


We need to remember, a man with a gun in his hand is a citizen and a man with no gun in his hand is a subject.

 

[kidswarrior]

So it's not as SIMPLE as 'Your money OR your life'.......cooperation very well COULD mean your money AND your life! But there is a mindset that, well if you don't resist and get killed anyway, at least that's better than resisting and getting killed!

Thanks for articulating something that's been in the back of my mind for a long while.

It should be noted, however, that Scotland leads the industrialized world in violent crimes, including rape and serious assault.

:erg: I thought the British Isles (are they even called that anymore? ) were peaceful and genteel--since the Angles and the Saxons calmed down, anyway, and notwithstanding the whole Braveheart episode. :idunno:

 

[DArnold]

Great post Kenpotex,

I have trained with police and watched them being asaulted by someone with a knife. I could cut you up and leave you for dead, within 50 feet, before you could get your gun drawn and fire!

But your question is not all or nothing, there are varied options. When I am in my house I have arms. If someone comes in my house I am not going to try and fight them. They will be dead!

Many people also have this misconception of Police. When police are in a confrontation... they will win! It's not lets spar and see who can win.

Ignorance of weapons is not bliss...

The statistics show of women attacked 0 are raped when the women are armed.

On the other side of the coin is that people owning guns are unstable and domestic violence of these gun owners is drastically up.

 

[Scarey]

Great post Kenpotex,

I have trained with police and watched them being asaulted by someone with a knife. I could cut you up and leave you for dead, within 50 feet, before you could get your gun drawn and fire!

But your question is not all or nothing, there are varied options. When I am in my house I have arms. If someone comes in my house I am not going to try and fight them. They will be dead!

Many people also have this misconception of Police. When police are in a confrontation... they will win! It's not lets spar and see who can win.

Ignorance of weapons is not bliss...

The statistics show of women attacked 0 are raped when the women are armed.

On the other side of the coin is that people owning guns are unstable and domestic violence of these gun owners is drastically up.

What? I'm sorry, could you you clarify what you're trying to say there? I'm not sure I quite understand where you're coming from.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Close. We have a general distrust of any government at all.


We need to remember, a man with a gun in his hand is a citizen and a man with no gun in his hand is a subject.

To quote Thomas Paine, 'government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one'.

 

[Sanchin-J]

Open hand techniques are actually quite feasible in almost any confrontation due to the versatility your granted by the technique. As an example, we use open shutos and palm strikes which tie into what we call the Sanchin fist. Basically, what this does is allows us to go from an intended palm strike to a grab, rake or trapping technique.

 

[thardey]

Open hand techniques are actually quite feasible in almost any confrontation due to the versatility your granted by the technique. As an example, we use open shutos and palm strikes which tie into what we call the Sanchin fist. Basically, what this does is allows us to go from an intended palm strike to a grab, rake or trapping technique.

I think the O.P. was referring to "Empty Hand" vs. weapon, rather than "Open hand" vs. "Closed fist."

 

[Xue Sheng]

in this day and age, right? I mean really, most altercations these days involve some sort of weapon. A mugger isn't going to mug you by coming up to you and saying "I have lethal hands, now give me all your money" no, he is going to be yielding a knife or a gun or some other form of weaponry that is going to make him feel he has the upper hand on you.

So, isn't it safe to safe if you train empty hand techniques for self defense that it is silly? Cause what you really need is some fire power or weapon techniques to really save your butt?

hmmmm

I think the O.P. was referring to "Empty Hand" vs. weapon, rather than "Open hand" vs. "Closed fist."

yup... your right :uhyeah: