Understanding The Weapon Before Defending Against It

[Cyriacus]

What's wrong with having a clean record?

...I dont quite understand your Question.

I was saying, You need to have a Clean, or Relatively Clean Record to successfully get a Firearms Licence...?

 

[Cyriacus]

Can anyone provide a situation where NOT being conversant (or knowledgable of) with an opponent's weapon would render someone less able to defend against it than someone else who IS conversant with that weapon?

I am not arguing the point, I am just wondering in practical terms how it makes any difference. Thank you.

Iaido VS... Eh... Praying Mantis Kung Fu.
Assuming the Iaido Practitioner has a Sword.
Even just understanding what the Sword can do would work marvels for circumventing it.

Sticks? Not really necessary. Theres only so much one can do with a Stick (Not a criticism).

Swords and Knives?
Knives can be held in so many ways, and wielded in so many ways, that if you just go in expecting to be able to respond generically, then youre forgetting that a Trained... say... Knifeman, will likely know to fend you with his free hand, or his legs, whilst he retains his Weapon. Or, he will retract the Stab/Slash before it can even be stopped to begin with.
Knowing how the Factor "Flows" could be crucial.

Optionally, Fencing VS Kali.
Would the Kali Practitioner not benefit from having some Idea of how the Sword is wielded, in order to Create the Openings he needs?
The Fencer, it isnt as much of an Issue. He just needs his Stance, and hes good to go, due to the Length of his... Lets say, Sabre.
The Stick could bat the Sword down - But do you bat it down at the End? Middle? Straight down or at an Angle?
How do you Retaliate to the Sword being Arced back up into Guarding Stance?
How do you prevent the Fencer from quickstepping out when you try something?
If you knew how the Quickstepping worked, you would have a benefit.
But now im starting to broaden the horizons of this too far.

You dont need to be Proficient with the Weapon. Just Familiar with how to properly wield it.
And even then, it isnt essential.
It just helps.
And opens new doors.
Now in My Tiredness, I will play with Emoticons. :s37:

 

[mook jong man]

Can anyone provide a situation where NOT being conversant (or knowledgable of) with an opponent's weapon would render someone less able to defend against it than someone else who IS conversant with that weapon?

I am not arguing the point, I am just wondering in practical terms how it makes any difference. Thank you.

In practical terms against a small bladed weapon , say in a overhead downward stabbing motion.
With that I can get away with making my defence close to the attackers wrist and keep my head up relatively exposed and the point of the weapon might not still reach me.

But with a long bladed weapon I will really have to dive and get my head down and make contact further up the forearm otherwise the point of the blade will likely be driven into my skull.

If you have not been trained in a specialist knife system and experienced these things then you might tend to think that a knife is just a knife and they are all the same.

 

[punisher73]

However in Australia, the UK and a lot of other places you are unlikely to be attacked by a person with a gun, it's far more likely to be a knife, a broken bottle or glass etc. Guns are more likely to be used in major crimes still fairly rare, the danger most people will face is in pub/bar fights, muggings and football violence. Random violence without weapons happens a lot on our streets usually at kicking out time in our high streets and drunken youths ( male and female) are wandering around the streets. You may never see a gun here but the chances of you running into these drunken yobs and coming off worse are high if you go out in the evening to the same places as them. Most people that are hurt and are likely to be hurt are young males more often drunk themselves.

I've only had one friend robbed at gunpoint and it was in England. Always train for the possiblity.

 

[Tez3]

...I dont quite understand your Question.

I was saying, You need to have a Clean, or Relatively Clean Record to successfully get a Firearms Licence...?

you said 'but you need ....' The word 'but' implied a lot lol!

 

[decepticon]

We have gun defense taught in our classes, in addition to knife/edged weapons, and stick. In my opinion, it is definitely a benefit to have a good knowledge of how the weapon works in order to prepare your defense against it.

For example, I have seen students grab knives without realizing that if it had been edged, they would have cut their fingers off at the very beginning of their disarm plan. I have heard students say that they expect that the pistol would discharge into the attacker at a certain point in their disarm, but don't realize that they would be blocking the action with their hand and that it probably wouldn't fire and wouldn't be the help they imagined. And most of all, I see many students wrenching the practice gun away from the practice attacker and then point it at him, planning to shoot him to prevent further attack. It was not well received when I questioned how they would know if the pistol was actually loaded, whether the safety was on, how to disengage it if it was. I guess I ruined a few Rambo fantasies with my dedication to realism.

 

[Jenna]

I still do not quite understand why must we be conversant with a weapon to be best able to defend against it? I have zero experience with live handguns. And so because I do not want to be complacent where my own defence is concerned, I would like to know how, armed with specific knowledge about handguns in general, will I be better placed to neutralise that threat.

For example, an assailant threatens you with a handgun. You, being knowledgable in firearms, you spot he has his safety switch left on. How does this temper your defence? Or how has this increased your chances over someone not knowledgable in firearms? Do you risk that you have in fact seen what you believe you have seen (his safety switch left on) and tackle him as though he were unarmed? Or is your defence against a handgun not the same regardless of whether you yourself are expert in firearms?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I still do not quite understand why must we be conversant with a weapon to be best able to defend against it? I have zero experience with live handguns. And so because I do not want to be complacent where my own defence is concerned, I would like to know how, armed with specific knowledge about handguns in general, will I be better placed to neutralise that threat.

For example, an assailant threatens you with a handgun. You, being knowledgable in firearms, you spot he has his safety switch left on. How does this temper your defence? Or how has this increased your chances over someone not knowledgable in firearms? Do you risk that you have in fact seen what you believe you have seen (his safety switch left on) and tackle him as though he were unarmed? Or is your defence against a handgun not the same regardless of whether you yourself are expert in firearms?

I can't say that a person must have in-depth knowledge, but consider that some firearm replicas look quite convincing; unless you happen to know a bit about firearms. That would certainly temper my response.

Or if it was unloaded. Of if I could just make someone think it was...

[video=youtube_share;nah_3vO0uhM]http://youtu.be/nah_3vO0uhM[/video]

 

[Carol]

Can anyone provide a situation where NOT being conversant (or knowledgable of) with an opponent's weapon would render someone less able to defend against it than someone else who IS conversant with that weapon?

I am not arguing the point, I am just wondering in practical terms how it makes any difference. Thank you.

One aspect, the misconceptions, particularly with firearms. For example, regardless of what is said in the media, guns don't just accidentally go off. Nor do they accidentally shoot people when being cleaned. There are no accidents with firearms, only negligence.

Any training is better than none, and "blue guns" play an essential part of training. However the fake guns don't account for the variables of the firearms, such as the slide of the barrel or how it can be quite hot if just discharged

I personally think one of the most important aspects to defense is knowing how guns sound in real life. I would occasionally have my shift partners over for pizza and a movie after we wrapped up our work around midnight. One night around 2AM, we're watching a movie when I hear two loud bangs from outside. It spooks all of us, and while fireworks are legal in our state -- the sounds were definitely not fireworks, and they sound VERY close. I mention aloud it sounds more like gunshots than anything else. One of my colleagues agrees, the other wants to go outside to check things out. Um....maybe going outside isn't such a wise thing at that time? (Fortunately, we learned in a short period of time that the two loud bangs weren't from gunfire, they were two arcs from a failing electrical transformer).

Finally, a perp threating a person with a knife, a gun, or similar weapon is an attempt on one's life and should be treated with serious regard. If someone holds a gun or knife to a cashier and insists on the cash in the drawer, that is violent. It doesn't become "not violent" if the perp never fires, or never lunges or never strikes. It is violent because the perp is saying with their weapon that they think your life is worth nothing and they are prepared to end your life if you don't give them what they want. One's life is worth something. Defend it fiercely.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

On the one hand, there's an intellectual appeal to understanding the weapon. I've spent my fair share of time training on -- and teaching about -- street weapons.

On the other, most of the info from street attacks tells us that you won't even know there's a weapon in the hand until after the first exchange. This seems to imply that spending time on understanding knives is less well spent than spending time ingraining reflexes that are appropriate to any incoming attack -- armed or not.

This applies less to guns, and more to knives and beer bottles. But you get what I'm saying.

Thoughts?

 

[Carol]

On the one hand, there's an intellectual appeal to understanding the weapon. I've spent my fair share of time training on -- and teaching about -- street weapons.

On the other, most of the info from street attacks tells us that you won't even know there's a weapon in the hand until after the first exchange. This seems to imply that spending time on understanding knives is less well spent than spending time ingraining reflexes that are appropriate to any incoming attack -- armed or not.

This applies less to guns, and more to knives and beer bottles. But you get what I'm saying.

Thoughts?

I agree with the idea of presuming there is a weapon in the attacker's hand (regardless) and defending appropriately.

However, these aren't the only types of attacks. I think if you ask convenience store workers, pharmacists, jewlery store owners or other victims of armed robbery (or other forms of armed assault, such as carjacking), they'd say they saw the weapon first.

During the horrible VA Tech massacre, some students said they heard "banging on the walls." Would they have reacted differently (ie: tried to escape, etc) if they had recognized the sound as gunfire? Its a hypothetical question -- not trying to blame victims here.

 

[Buka]

I've had a concealed carry permit for over 35 years. I was a Federal Cop who taught DT, handgun retention and close quarter weapons disarming to several departments for 25 years. I've fired a hundred thousand rounds in training over the course of my career.

But you know what? I'd bet my life I don't know any better about disarming a gun than any of you that train because I've never done it for real. Good training and luck mean a lot. May we all have it if the need arises.

 

[Cyriacus]

you said 'but you need ....' The word 'but' implied a lot lol!

Ah, I see.
Bare in mind, it was about 2am when I wrote that.

 

[Chris Parker]

I still do not quite understand why must we be conversant with a weapon to be best able to defend against it? I have zero experience with live handguns. And so because I do not want to be complacent where my own defence is concerned, I would like to know how, armed with specific knowledge about handguns in general, will I be better placed to neutralise that threat.

For example, an assailant threatens you with a handgun. You, being knowledgable in firearms, you spot he has his safety switch left on. How does this temper your defence? Or how has this increased your chances over someone not knowledgable in firearms? Do you risk that you have in fact seen what you believe you have seen (his safety switch left on) and tackle him as though he were unarmed? Or is your defence against a handgun not the same regardless of whether you yourself are expert in firearms?

Hi J,

I'll see if I can help here. Honestly, under the stress of having a gun put in your face, or pressed against your back, you most likely won't be able to think or see clearly enough to see that amount of detail (safety, whether it's loaded etc) thanks to the amount of adrenaline suddenly running through you. It's more a matter of understanding how things will react when you perform certain actions, such as what is likely to discharge the weapon, what happens when it does go off (kickback, flashburn, sound etc), and so on. If you don't have some experience, or at least the instructor teaching defence against it doesn't have some experience with the weapon, then certain tactics and actions can be taught which would result in the gun being discharged when you don't want it to. Additionally, being familiar with the sound (and it's effects) can help you be prepared for it when the gun does go off.

I was taking my guys through pistol defence this last month, actually, and decided to do a little experiment. I had one of my senior students (who has never fired a gun) run through a technique a number of times, starting slow, then building up to a realistic pace, ensuring that he was doing it properly and safely. Then I had him go through it one more time, but this time, once the gun was off line (and he wouldn't be "hit"), I shouted "BANG!!!" very loudly next to his ear. He froze, his mind just stopped, and he had no idea for a second what he was doing. He let go of control of the gun, and had it turned back on him. In this instance, not understanding the realities of what the effect of such a loud noise would have on him changed how could perform his defence.

There is also the detail of having respect for the weapon and it's potential. A while back MJS posted a Kenpo gun defence, which features the following clip:

Honestly, this clip tells me that he doesn't get the realities of a gun, or how it works, as the defences don't have sufficient control over the weapon, and are rather impractically complex in a number of cases. But the biggest thing, to me, is that he is completely unaware (or ignorant may be a better word) of the way a gun affects the psychology of a situation. Joseph starts from a relaxed, hands down position, which, frankly, shows a complete lack of respect for the weapons potential.

So that would be an example of how not having some understanding, and preferably experience with a weapon, can lead to some rather flawed responces.

 

[Cyriacus]

Hi J,

I'll see if I can help here. Honestly, under the stress of having a gun put in your face, or pressed against your back, you most likely won't be able to think or see clearly enough to see that amount of detail (safety, whether it's loaded etc) thanks to the amount of adrenaline suddenly running through you. It's more a matter of understanding how things will react when you perform certain actions, such as what is likely to discharge the weapon, what happens when it does go off (kickback, flashburn, sound etc), and so on. If you don't have some experience, or at least the instructor teaching defence against it doesn't have some experience with the weapon, then certain tactics and actions can be taught which would result in the gun being discharged when you don't want it to. Additionally, being familiar with the sound (and it's effects) can help you be prepared for it when the gun does go off.

I was taking my guys through pistol defence this last month, actually, and decided to do a little experiment. I had one of my senior students (who has never fired a gun) run through a technique a number of times, starting slow, then building up to a realistic pace, ensuring that he was doing it properly and safely. Then I had him go through it one more time, but this time, once the gun was off line (and he wouldn't be "hit"), I shouted "BANG!!!" very loudly next to his ear. He froze, his mind just stopped, and he had no idea for a second what he was doing. He let go of control of the gun, and had it turned back on him. In this instance, not understanding the realities of what the effect of such a loud noise would have on him changed how could perform his defence.

There is also the detail of having respect for the weapon and it's potential. A while back MJS posted a Kenpo gun defence, which features the following clip:

Honestly, this clip tells me that he doesn't get the realities of a gun, or how it works, as the defences don't have sufficient control over the weapon, and are rather impractically complex in a number of cases. But the biggest thing, to me, is that he is completely unaware (or ignorant may be a better word) of the way a gun affects the psychology of a situation. Joseph starts from a relaxed, hands down position, which, frankly, shows a complete lack of respect for the weapons potential.

So that would be an example of how not having some understanding, and preferably experience with a weapon, can lead to some rather flawed responces.

He definintely is at fault.
I can see a Trigger Reflex happening the second he reaches up.

I conclude so far, that moving yourself out of the Firearms Area of Effect is a good first step.

 

[mook jong man]

He definintely is at fault.
I can see a Trigger Reflex happening the second he reaches up.

I conclude so far, that moving yourself out of the Firearms Area of Effect is a good first step.

I'd say getting your hands up into a pleading type gesture so that they are closer to the gun so that you have economy of movement in your defence would be a good first step.

The gunman will be expecting you to get your hands up and start pleading for your life , to start from a hands down position will seem very unnatural and just make the gunman more wary and give him more time to react to any telegraphic movement as you launch your defence.

 

[Chris Parker]

Tell you what, as this clip is getting some responce, here's my original critique, showing the issues with a lack of knowledge on both the gunman and defenders sides. First, the clip again:

Now, the critique. For reference, the thread is found here:http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?89945-Handgun-Disarms

Hey Mike,

First off, I want to make it clear that this is not an appraisal of the system, or even the instructor, simply of the techniques as presented. To begin with, some positive aspects. Well, he moves pretty fast, and once he gets hold of the wrist, he doesn't let it go, so that's good.

On the other hand....

I'm not particularly impressed with these gun defences, or, honestly, the way they appear to be being trained here. To begin with, there is very little in the way of moving his head off the line of fire, and his immediate action (the rising cover with his elbow and forearm) is rather dangerous, in that it allows no real control over the gun-hand. That is then followed with a rather complicated control (involving switching hands, and a fine-motor lock on the elbow and wrist, then turning it back again, changing hands again, and moving into a different control). A bit too difficult under stress, I feel.

When done against a gun to the back of the head, there is even less movement away from the line of fire, with the same raising cover being used, then a sweep down to catch with the second control (again requiring changing of your hands as you go), and finish. In this instance, if he didn't get shot with his first movement, he certainly makes a good attempt of getting his foot or leg shot as he passes the barrel of the gun straight past his own lower body.

Leaving off such things as "... now, I'm going to slap him with his own gun....", let's look at how this is trained here, and see how realistic it is. The set-up, to begin with, is a good enough place to start. Sifu Joseph Simonet is, as he says at the beginning, "just standing there". Now, that's good, actually, as moving from a "posture", as in training, is not very likely in an actual situation. However, even with a gun to the side or back of his head, he still just stands there.... The natural (and expected from the bad-guys side) response to that would be to raise your hands in some sort of "submissive", or surrendering gesture. If I was a gunman, and had my gun pointed at someones' head, and they didn't get their hands up, I'd start to wonder what was going on with them.... and you don't want a gunman starting to worry about you doing something, especially when you're going to do something! Add to this the way he remains calm (not showing any signs of stress in any form, again an expected and normal response). So not a good set-up, psychologically speaking.

The first movement (both against the gun to the side, and behind) involves bringing both arms up in a form of a high cover, but with no movement to get your head out of the line of fire first. As Sifu Joseph is starting with his hands relaxed down at his sides, that actually increases the amount of time it will take to get his cover up, and that actually leaves him more open to being shot. Again, add to that his little telegraphing habit of tensing his shoulders, and he may be in trouble... If he started with his hands up (as above), this may have a much better chance, but he would still be well advised to get his head out of the way first and foremost. The actual movement itself (the rising cover) is also something I wouldn't place huge amounts of trust in, as it knocks the gun-arm to the side (possibly discharging the weapon while it is still very close to your head), while gaining no control over the weapon at all. He waits until the second movement for that, and if the gunman moved or pulled back in response to his sudden action (which would be again natural and normal), his reach for his control isn't really guaranteed. And I'd want something with higher return and lower risk.

The gunman here isn't really helping the reality of the training himself, it must be said. Starting from his set-up, he is standing with his feet evenly, and the gun extended forwards in his right hand. This isn't really realistic, and shows that he doesn't really have experience with a handgun. There is no bracing to the footwork, and no real threat or confidence in his holding of the weapon. When the techniques are applied to him, he simply moves his arm as much as it is pushed, allowing the Sifu to simply keep positioning him as he wants to. Every human being has an inbuilt "flinch" response, and things such as Tony Blauers' SPEAR use that in their approach, but of those that use such understandings in their training, most only think about how that is used in the defensive actions, rather than remembering that it exists in the attacker as well. It is especially important to remember it when dealing with weapon defences, as it comes into play there quite a bit.

As soon as you grab someone's weapon, or even look like you are trying to, they will do what they can to stop you from getting it, and that means pulling back in a lot of cases. And that could have a very bad effect on techniques such as this, as there is no real control straight away, so if the gunman was to pull away as soon as the first movement was telegraphed, you could suddenly find yourself facing a gunman now far more agitated (you'd raised their adrenaline by trying to move), further away, and still with a gun trained on your head. If he went for the control straight away, as the gunman pulled back, you could still keep him in control, and this would be a far safer technique.

These aren't the only issues I'm seeing, but this is getting long as it is, so I'll deal with it in a few bullet points. Here is how we deal with gun defence, and in brackets how I see this example in comparison:

First, get off the line of fire (something that is not done here at all, to my mind).

Second, get control of the weapon and weapon hand (the first action against the gun itself should get control of it, rather than as a one-two action seen here).

Third, keep control and position the weapon in a safe position (Sifu Joseph moves the gun away from himself in the first technique, but passes it past himself on the second. And when controlling it, he is pointing the barrel in many different directions, regardless of who it may be pointing at. For me, I would point the gun at the safest possible place, the ground if I have to, or straight back at them for preference).

Whenever possible, the disarm should end with you in control of the weapon (In both techniques the end had the gun falling to the ground, even closer to the gunman in the first one. Falling and hitting the ground may discharge the weapon, and it being on the ground is leaving control of it up to chance to a great degree, as you both struggle in the ensuing chaos).

Finally, with control of the gun, get distance from the gunman, with the gun aimed at them, in order to discourage them trying the same type of thing on you (Needless to say, that didn't happen once here, and really should be trained every time)!

Obviously, I'm not a Kenpo practitioner, so I hope these comments aren't taken as a critique of the art, as they are in no way intended to be. Just some observations from an outsider.

 

[Jenna]

I can't say that a person must have in-depth knowledge, but consider that some firearm replicas look quite convincing; unless you happen to know a bit about firearms. That would certainly temper my response.

Or if it was unloaded. Of if I could just make someone think it was...

[video=youtube_share;nah_3vO0uhM]http://youtu.be/nah_3vO0uhM[/video]

Yes! I like this movie, especially the silly JPG costumes So then my question is, when you know about firearms and using your knowledge (assuming you have this level of Bruce Willis composure when it is pointed at you), you determine that a weapon is not loaded, do you take the risk and trust your knowledge that it is not loaded and tackle your assailant as though he were unarmed?

Is there never any doubt: hey if I have got something wrong in my assessment as someone knowledgable of firearms, then I may still get dead.

All I mean is, in a situation like that is there advantage in knowing about the weapon? Or would we not defend the same whether we knew it was loaded or not? Even knowledge of firearms is still an insufficient condition to extrapolate to "I know ALL firearms", no? I am assuming firearms they are similar and but have differences in mechanism and construction??

 

[Chris Parker]

What do you mean, "silly JPG costumes"? Apparently Jean Paul came up with some rather outrageous ones initially, in order to shock the cast into agreeing to whatever he did afterwards, thinking "well, at least we got out of those first ones!"... brilliant strategy, really!

As to the more serious side, not wanting to speak for Bill, but I'm sure he'd agree here, a gun should always be treated as loaded and ready to fire. And, as I said, under the stress of adrenaline, you probably wouldn't notice or recognise where the safety catch was, or if it was on or not. The advantages to knowing about the weapon are more to do with understanding things like the muzzle flash, where you're still likely to get a powder burn, what a bullet will ricochet off, and what it won't, what type of kickback can be expected when it does off, and so on. Knowing all guns, and their intimate differences? No, not necessary. Knowing how a gun acts and reacts? Highly advantageous.

 

[Jenna]

On the other, most of the info from street attacks tells us that you won't even know there's a weapon in the hand until after the first exchange. This seems to imply that spending time on understanding knives is less well spent than spending time ingraining reflexes that are appropriate to any incoming attack -- armed or not.

BIG +1

This is my experience. There are those that wave around a weapon and for whom it is a threat which will not be acted upon. they are those who make big of shouting and staring down posturing behaviour.

I have less fear from these types. Those whom I fear in my area are those that do not make eye contact and walk by with their faces enclosed in their hoods as though they are paying no heed. These I know from young students of mine are the ones that carry concealed and will do you becasue you are not their kind. Their weapons are not fancy and showy, they are taken from tool sheds and kitchen drawers.

I agree with your thinking.