Why its important for martial artists to be familiar with guns

[Dirty Dog]

If anything, I improperly relayed the story. Been some time ago. As for liars, no. They are stand up folks I train with a bit. Bottom line -- Don't trust a weapon you don't know.

While I certainly have more confidence in any of my own weapons, if the only gun I have to hand is one I've taken from the bad guy, I will not hesitate to use it.

 

[Midnight-shadow]

More knowledge is great, and people certainly shouldn't be ignorant of how guns work. However, I often find that gun defense skills are a waste of time if I'm honest. The chances of someone letting you get into a position to use those gun defense skills are pretty slim (and by slim I mean zero), so you are training for something that will most likely never happen. What is more likely is to have someone point a gun at you from range, at which point the only thing saving you is your communication and diplomacy skills, or failing that, relying on the other person's crap aim.

 

[elder999]

More knowledge is great, and people certainly shouldn't be ignorant of how guns work. However, I often find that gun defense skills are a waste of time if I'm honest. The chances of someone letting you get into a position to use those gun defense skills are pretty slim (and by slim I mean zero), so you are training for something that will most likely never happen. What is more likely is to have someone point a gun at you from range, at which point the only thing saving you is your communication and diplomacy skills, or failing that, relying on the other person's crap aim.

Kinda depends on who you are, where you spend time, and the company you keep, doesn't it, oh wise, and knowledgeable @Midnight-shadow?

I mean-what you've said sounds like you read a lot of action thrillers, but have never had a gun pointed at you....and makes some basic assumptions about the person with the gun that just might not be true:

I like this one, looks a lot like something a san soo guy showed me 30 years ago.

and this one-can you say "adrenaline dump?" I knew you could:

I search youtube for "disarms a robber," and I get about 27000 results (no exaggeration-go ahead and see for yourself.)

I could go on like this all day, but you get the idea.

However, I often find that gun defense skills are a waste of time if I'm honest..

Lots of people claim algebra is a waste of time, even though they use it every day.

I practice and teach handgun retention-I practice with firearms a lot. You'd be surprised how few people who train with them don't have basic retention skills.

You'd be surprised how many cops don't have basic retention skills.

I doubt many would-be armed robbers have any basic retention skills-or basic firearm skills. They just do what they learned on the street........

....or read in action thrillers, like you.

(Apologies to everyone else for the tone of this post....I woke up kinda cranky from chemo this morning-not in the mood for know-it-alls-nothing like spending a day with doctors bloviating to take away your taste for know-it-alls...."Harrumph! I often find that gun defense skills are a waste of time if I'm honest " that's some high-order, know-it-all bloviation right there.....

)

 

[Midnight-shadow]

Kinda depends on who you are, where you spend time, and the company you keep, doesn't it, oh wise, and knowledgeable @Midnight-shadow?

I mean-what you've said sounds like you read a lot of action thrillers, but have never had a gun pointed at you....and makes some basic assumptions about the person with the gun that just might not be true:

I like this one, looks a lot like something a san soo guy showed me 30 years ago.

and this one-can you say "adrenaline dump?" I knew you could:

I search youtube for "disarms a robber," and I get about 27000 results (no exaggeration-go ahead and see for yourself.)

I could go on like this all day, but you get the idea.



Lots of people claim algebra is a waste of time, even though they use it every day.

I practice and teach handgun retention-I practice with firearms a lot. You'd be surprised how few people who train with them don't have basic retention skills.

You'd be surprised how many cops don't have basic retention skills.

I doubt many would-be armed robbers have any basic retention skills-or basic firearm skills. They just do what they learned on the street........

....or read in action thrillers, like you.

(Apologies to everyone else for the tone of this post....I woke up kinda cranky from chemo this morning-not in the mood for know-it-alls-nothing like spending a day with doctors bloviating to take away your taste for know-it-alls...."Harrumph! I often find that gun defense skills are a waste of time if I'm honest " that's some high-order, know-it-all bloviation right there.....

)

Well thank you for the very passive aggressive post, and in future perhaps you would do well not to write things on the forums after a day at the docs. As for my earlier statement regarding the worth of gun defensive skills, I was under the impression that if you have a gun and intend on using it, you would have the common sense to stand at a range where someone can't just reach out and grab the gun from you. Surely that is gun retention 101.

Also, for your average lay person, what are the chances of you actually making use of these skills? I'm guessing not very high. So, you are learning skills that are potentially very dangerous to you to perform (as well as those around you) that you may never even be able to use even when faced with a gun if the person holding the gun has enough sense to stand beyond your reach. I personally believe there are better ways of spending your time. But what do I know, I'm just an ignorant know-it-all.

 

[elder999]

I'm just an ignorant know-it-all.

That's apparent.

You know who used to draw their weapons, and find themselves within arms reach-and sometimes still do?

Cops

You know who else does, as is apparent from the numerous security camera downloads on youtube?

Robbers

You know who spouts stuff like this:

However, I often find that gun defense skills are a waste of time if I'm honest.

Ignorant, Tom Clancy-reading, waste of breath, not enough time on the planet, six-foot not enough, moronic know it alls.....

I'll just ask here-using your words-"if you're honest" Just how often do you find a gun pulled on you, or aimed at you, or both? How often do you find gun defense skills a waste of time?

How often are you "honest?"

BTW, there was nothing at all "passive-aggressive" about my post-it was purely aggressive-stupidity does that to me. And now, with the benefit of the proper amount of coffee, I can say how wrong I was to blame my crankiness on yesterday-as anyone familiar with my eleven years of posts here will tell you, I'm always cranky.....

I'll take it as a sure sign that I'm getting better!

 

[Dirty Dog]

Well thank you for the very passive aggressive post, and in future perhaps you would do well not to write things on the forums after a day at the docs. As for my earlier statement regarding the worth of gun defensive skills, I was under the impression that if you have a gun and intend on using it, you would have the common sense to stand at a range where someone can't just reach out and grab the gun from you. Surely that is gun retention 101. But what do I know, I'm just an ignorant know-it-all.

Except that, in this case, Elder999 is correct. And not particularly passive-aggressive either. You wrote something that was pretty ignorant, and got called on it.
Best response: learn from it.

Common sense isn't.

And history shows us that most criminals don't exactly go in for a lot of training with their weapons.

Consider this: It's kind of hard to take my wallet if you're not in arms reach. And although I would always assume that the armed bad guy is willing to use their weapon, their first priority is, generally speaking, robbery. Unless they're one of the hitmen in those action-thrillers. And since I'm not wealthy, a powerful politician or businessman, nor a spy, I tend to not worry about assassins in my closet.

Speaking as one who, like Elder999, has actually been faced with an armed assailant, and who, again like Elder999 has spent a fair bit of time on weapons training, I will say this:
Robbery relies heavily on intimidation. Intimidation is most effective when the weapon is up close and personal. The further away you are, the more likely it is to occur to me that running is an option, and the more viable that option is, the less likely you are to succeed in robbing me.

While I would always assume that the armed baddie is willing to use the weapon, I also think it's reasonable to say that in most cases, they're not exactly enamored of the possibility of a murder charge for the cell phone and $18 in my pocket.

You might also wish to clear up some confusion I have about what you wrote. You used the words "slim" "zero" and "most likely never" to describe the chances of facing an armed assailant.

The use of both 'unlikely' and 'zero chance' to describe the same situation is self-contradictory. Which did you mean?

I'll agree with "unlikely" while pointing out that there are a number of us here who have, in fact, been in precisely that unlikely situation. Which makes it worth training for.

I'll just laugh at you for being foolish if you stick with "zero" as your position.

 

[Instructor]

I would say learning how to safely use firearms is always a good idea, provided you are of sound mental health and have no prior felony convictions. The world has changed a lot, when I was growing up we had a representative from the NRA give us safety training for rifle, shotgun, and various handguns in middle school.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I would say learning how to safely use firearms is always a good idea, provided you are of sound mental health and have no prior felony convictions. The world has changed a lot, when I was growing up we had a representative from the NRA give us safety training for rifle, shotgun, and various handguns in middle school.

We had a competitive rifle team. We shot bullseye competitions with .22 rifles.

 

[Midnight-shadow]

Except that, in this case, Elder999 is correct. And not particularly passive-aggressive either. You wrote something that was pretty ignorant, and got called on it.
Best response: learn from it.

Common sense isn't.

And history shows us that most criminals don't exactly go in for a lot of training with their weapons.

Consider this: It's kind of hard to take my wallet if you're not in arms reach. And although I would always assume that the armed bad guy is willing to use their weapon, their first priority is, generally speaking, robbery. Unless they're one of the hitmen in those action-thrillers. And since I'm not wealthy, a powerful politician or businessman, nor a spy, I tend to not worry about assassins in my closet.

Speaking as one who, like Elder999, has actually been faced with an armed assailant, and who, again like Elder999 has spent a fair bit of time on weapons training, I will say this:
Robbery relies heavily on intimidation. Intimidation is most effective when the weapon is up close and personal. The further away you are, the more likely it is to occur to me that running is an option, and the more viable that option is, the less likely you are to succeed in robbing me.

While I would always assume that the armed baddie is willing to use the weapon, I also think it's reasonable to say that in most cases, they're not exactly enamored of the possibility of a murder charge for the cell phone and $18 in my pocket.

You might also wish to clear up some confusion I have about what you wrote. You used the words "slim" "zero" and "most likely never" to describe the chances of facing an armed assailant.

The use of both 'unlikely' and 'zero chance' to describe the same situation is self-contradictory. Which did you mean?

I'll agree with "unlikely" while pointing out that there are a number of us here who have, in fact, been in precisely that unlikely situation. Which makes it worth training for.

I'll just laugh at you for being foolish if you stick with "zero" as your position.

Thank you for the half-decent response. You are right that I haven't had to face an assailant armed with a gun, nor do I know anyone who has (I live in the UK, where you are much more likely to face a knife or broken bottle than a gun). There is always the chance of facing it, but it a very slim chance, at least in the UK. Like I said before, you are putting in all this training on the very slim chance or someone a) pulling a gun on you, and b) being close enough for you to use the techniques. Not only that but the techniques themselves (at least the ones I've seen) put not only you at risk, but anyone nearby at risk too. Let's say you are faced with an armed robber, and you have nothing on you but your cell phone and some small amount of cash. Is it worth putting your life at risk to try and disarm that person? You said yourself they probably aren't actually going to shoot you, so why not just give them what they want and move on?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

At what age do feel a martial artist should be learning to be familiar with guns, the different types of guns, and how they function? At what age is a student martial artist mature enough to start to understand how to defend against a firearm?

To what level of competence with and against a firearm should the average martial artist be in order to defend themselves? At what range are you concerned with? Point blank, 2 yards, 5 yards or less/more, 10 yards, longer…? Pistol or rifle? And again at what range?

What specifically do you find important to know about a firearm to be able to defend yourself in an active shooter situation?

I personally deal only with situations where the shooter gets within a step or two. Of course, I teach the usual "gun touching" situations, because those are easy. I also teach some techniques for guns at a bit more distance. Most anything other than seeking cover is useless, beyond a distance of a step or two, IMO.

As for when to teach it, I only teach "adult" students (16 and up), and all get the same material. When I taught kids, they didn't get weapon defenses.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Except that, in this case, Elder999 is correct. And not particularly passive-aggressive either. You wrote something that was pretty ignorant, and got called on it.
Best response: learn from it.

Common sense isn't.

And history shows us that most criminals don't exactly go in for a lot of training with their weapons.

Consider this: It's kind of hard to take my wallet if you're not in arms reach. And although I would always assume that the armed bad guy is willing to use their weapon, their first priority is, generally speaking, robbery. Unless they're one of the hitmen in those action-thrillers. And since I'm not wealthy, a powerful politician or businessman, nor a spy, I tend to not worry about assassins in my closet.

Speaking as one who, like Elder999, has actually been faced with an armed assailant, and who, again like Elder999 has spent a fair bit of time on weapons training, I will say this:
Robbery relies heavily on intimidation. Intimidation is most effective when the weapon is up close and personal. The further away you are, the more likely it is to occur to me that running is an option, and the more viable that option is, the less likely you are to succeed in robbing me.

While I would always assume that the armed baddie is willing to use the weapon, I also think it's reasonable to say that in most cases, they're not exactly enamored of the possibility of a murder charge for the cell phone and $18 in my pocket.

You might also wish to clear up some confusion I have about what you wrote. You used the words "slim" "zero" and "most likely never" to describe the chances of facing an armed assailant.

The use of both 'unlikely' and 'zero chance' to describe the same situation is self-contradictory. Which did you mean?

I'll agree with "unlikely" while pointing out that there are a number of us here who have, in fact, been in precisely that unlikely situation. Which makes it worth training for.

I'll just laugh at you for being foolish if you stick with "zero" as your position.

Just a note: my biggest concern is that the attacker has seen too many movies (bad gun control, finger perpetually on the trigger) and will get nervous and shoot me accidentally. Accidental shootings are at least as common as purposeful ones.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Well thank you for the very passive aggressive post, and in future perhaps you would do well not to write things on the forums after a day at the docs. As for my earlier statement regarding the worth of gun defensive skills, I was under the impression that if you have a gun and intend on using it, you would have the common sense to stand at a range where someone can't just reach out and grab the gun from you. Surely that is gun retention 101.

Also, for your average lay person, what are the chances of you actually making use of these skills? I'm guessing not very high. So, you are learning skills that are potentially very dangerous to you to perform (as well as those around you) that you may never even be able to use even when faced with a gun if the person holding the gun has enough sense to stand beyond your reach. I personally believe there are better ways of spending your time. But what do I know, I'm just an ignorant know-it-all.

There are plenty of videos showing robbers getting well within technique range. YouTube has actually been a benefit to self-defense instruction, in that it lets us see what happens in at least some situations, to make sure we're teaching valid applications. As for the danger to those around the defender, I actually teach techniques that have a high chance of moving the gun away from collateral damage targets, rather than at them.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Thank you for the half-decent response. You are right that I haven't had to face an assailant armed with a gun, nor do I know anyone who has (I live in the UK, where you are much more likely to face a knife or broken bottle than a gun). There is always the chance of facing it, but it a very slim chance, at least in the UK. Like I said before, you are putting in all this training on the very slim chance or someone a) pulling a gun on you, and b) being close enough for you to use the techniques. Not only that but the techniques themselves (at least the ones I've seen) put not only you at risk, but anyone nearby at risk too. Let's say you are faced with an armed robber, and you have nothing on you but your cell phone and some small amount of cash. Is it worth putting your life at risk to try and disarm that person? You said yourself they probably aren't actually going to shoot you, so why not just give them what they want and move on?

You're very unlikely to ever be attacked by an unarmed assailant, so why train at all?
I lost an eye to a mugger with a knife, who attacked me AFTER I gave him my wallet.
I have no more spare parts. If you approach me with a weapon, I am going to do everything in my power to make sure that you're the one heading to the hospital - or the morgue - when the conflict is over.

 

[elder999]

Thank you for the half-decent response. You are right that I haven't had to face an assailant armed with a gun, nor do I know anyone who has (I live in the UK, where you are much more likely to face a knife or broken bottle than a gun). There is always the chance of facing it, but it a very slim chance, at least in the UK.

So, what you're saying then, is that you haven't found what you've said you often find at all?

Seriously, now-my dad was quite the avid gun enthusiast...he got it from his dad, who wrote articles for Field&Stream magazine.....(not that it matters, but they were both Episcopal priests, so some people kinda found their enthusiasm and expertise a little.....anachronistic?

)

Anyway...I was exposed to firearms from an early age-started shooting and got taken hunting from the age of 8.....around the same age I started martial arts, though formal training didn't really begin until I was 11...of course, back then, there were no "children's classes...." as unusual as my upbringing may sound to someone from the UK, it was rather common for kids in the country (or even upstate NY, as I was...)...by the time I was 13, I had multiple patches from the NRA for shooting...well, very, very many clay pigeons in a row in trap competition....saddens me to see what's become of that organization.

Like I said before, you are putting in all this training on the very slim chance or someone a) pulling a gun on you, and b) being close enough for you to use the techniques. Not only that but the techniques themselves (at least the ones I've seen) put not only you at risk, but anyone nearby at risk too. Let's say you are faced with an armed robber, and you have nothing on you but your cell phone and some small amount of cash. Is it worth putting your life at risk to try and disarm that person? You said yourself they probably aren't actually going to shoot you, so why not just give them what they want and move on?

As I've preached elsewhere it comes down to some mental calculations, and your mindset.

Short version: if you believe, have reason to believe, or know for certain that the person with the gun is going to shoot you, and you can do anything ab out it, you should. Otherwise, of course, there's nothing that I possess that's worth dying for, and I imagine that's true for most people.

Just so ya know, though, by the time I was your age, I'd had a gun pointed at me several times-I kept company in some pretty low places, and guns have always been more available here, even in low places....