Self Defense article

[glock glockler]

It's funny - how many posts start with some guy, saying "I'm 6'6" and 250 and most folks don't mess with me". Are they a touch overconfident as compared to a little guy with a knife?

Excellent point.



Nobody is going to reliably disarm me because I will not draw a weapon until I have made up my mind to use it

What makes you think you’ll be able to get to it in time? What makes you think you’ll be able to draw it while someone is punching/pushing/pulling you?



I don't believe a 250lb man could learn enough to be effective at disarming someone in such a situation either

Suppose someone has a gun to my head, I step out of the way while grabbing his gun, and then give him a nice kick to his shin/ankle, do you think he’ll let go of the gun and cease thinking about doing me harm? If that does happen would it be considered a disarm?



If its so effective then let's disarm the police and just teach them unarmed martial arts

Guns are tools, but not a replacement for skill. If one has skill and also has a gun they have capabilities the skilled guy without the gun doesn’t have. Also, many people out there foolishly equate the gun with power, and if they see that the cop has a gun they’ll be more likely to behave.

[Justme]

What part of the term reliably do you not understand? Virtually anyone can be disarmed in certain circumstances, reliability is a whole different matter. This is a good thing since if a person could be reliably disarmed a firearm would be worthless.

Trying to disarm an aggressor does several things, some good some bad. The bad outweighs the good. The good is that you give yourself a tiny chance of success, the bad is that you increase your chance of getting shoot a whole order of magnitude. It's simply not a good risk reward move.

The only scenario where disarming someone comes into play is when they have pulled a gun on you but haven't pulled the trigger yet. The number one thing we should be teaching people is how to prevent that person from pulling the trigger. Assaulting the gun holder is not the best way to prevent them from pulling the trigger. The real Mas Ayoob knows this.

[glock glockler]

Virtually anyone can be disarmed in certain circumstances, reliability is a whole different matter. This is a good thing since if a person could be reliably disarmed a firearm would be worthless

So you're saying that you don't want "disarms" to work because that would nullify the power you think you have because of your gun?

[pax]

Originally Posted by Justme

What part of the term reliably do you not understand? Virtually anyone can be disarmed in certain circumstances, reliability is a whole different matter. This is a good thing since if a person could be reliably disarmed a firearm would be worthless.

If it's a choice between maybe getting a gun away from an assailant, or definitely getting killed, I would take the maybe.

Since I decided that I'd gamble on the maybe, I then sought out training to make the maybe more possible.

Maybe becomes a lot more likely with Lindell-based training, to the point where it is almost certainly.

It does not turn the maybe into a definitely.

Originally Posted by Justme

Trying to disarm an aggressor does several things, some good some bad. The bad outweighs the good. The good is that you give yourself a tiny chance of success, the bad is that you increase your chance of getting shoot a whole order of magnitude. It's simply not a good risk reward move.

Any reputable instructor teaches that the only reason you'd ever try a gun grab is if you are definitely going to get killed or worse if you don't Do Something Right Now.

Originally Posted by Justme

The only scenario where disarming someone comes into play is when they have pulled a gun on you but haven't pulled the trigger yet.

False, actually. In Ayoob's LFI-2 class, for example, students learn disarms that begin to come into play before the bad guy has even cleared leather. And they learn disarms as the last chance to recover from a failed retention.

Originally Posted by Justme

The number one thing we should be teaching people is how to prevent that person from pulling the trigger. Assaulting the gun holder is not the best way to prevent them from pulling the trigger. The real Mas Ayoob knows this.

What the real Mas Ayoob knows is what he teaches in his classes: that there are no guarantees, but if the choice is between definitely getting killed or maybe getting the gun away, there are skills you can learn to tip the odds of that maybe in your favor.

pax

[buzz_knox]

The real Mas Ayoob knows this.

Has it ever entered your mind that the "real Mas Ayoob" is known to some of the moderators, staff, and owner of this board? Has it dawned on you that someone posting with that name might, just might get vetted by the people who know Mas?

[Musketeer]

A couple quick points and I am out of this one. All but #1 are generalities.

1. Yes, Mr. Ayoob is kind enough to post here and the mods would not allow an imposter to post as him.

2. Having some skill in unarmed combat is better than no skill when it hits the fan (in other words some training is better than none).

3. For the average "condition white" citizen it is a better investement of their limited time to teach observation, prevention and evasion skills which can be utilized easier by the unpracticed than unarmed combat skills. (examples: It is easier and more effective to teach AVERAGE people to lock their door and ground floor windows to prevent the casual home invasion than it is to teach them proper firearm handling in a crisis. It is easier to teach an AVERAGE woman danger signs to look for and avoid when walking the street than it is to teach her how to effectively overcome a 250# attacker in unarmed combat.)

4. Most of the time the "victim" in a physical encounter can be assumed to be weaker physically, less practiced in violence and less committed to inflicting serious harm than the attacker. This is likely in male on male encoutners and doubly so in male on female ones.

5. Most people are NOT going to invest the time in training to be proficient in an unarmed combat form.

For every commendable person like Pax who take training to heart, practice, and comprehend the full implications of a violent encounter there are 50 - 100who do not comprehend that it really can happen to them and therefore give only lip service to real training (both metnal and physical). Most of the people on this board have already accepted the existence of such violence in the world and that it CAN happen to them. You are already in the minority and therefore when you see a newspaper article about training you are likely already a world ahead of the people targetted for that training.

Most people do not accept the possible violence they may encounter, nor do they even want to. It is easier for people to believe what makes them comfortable. For some it is belief in a religion to get past the fear of death and for many it is the "belief" that violence will "never happen to them" in order to get past the fear they would otherwise feel in everyday life. Most of the training out there targetted at the "members of the flock" is really only going to be effective at helping them to avoid the wolves, not fight them. They take such training because they may have become a little afraid and such training "reassures them" that they will be safe. Of course for those of us who SEE the real dangers out there it is often frustrating to see a complete lack of emphasis on REAL defensive training, mindset and equipment. The bottom line though is most of the sheep just don't want that.

[pax]

Has it ever entered your mind that the "real Mas Ayoob" is known to some of the moderators, staff, and owner of this board? Has it dawned on you that someone posting with that name might, just might get vetted by the people who know Mas?

buzz ~

Shhhhh! The comedy value is really too good to pass up.

pax

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Is it the real "Justme"? I don't think the real one would say this stuff?

[Justme]

...the only reason you'd ever try a gun grab is if you are definitely going to get killed or worse if you don't Do Something Right Now

On the surface that seems like terribly reasonable advice. However, outside having ESP of one kind or another how could you possibly know when that situation has materialized? If a BG has a gun pointed at you, but has not yet pulled the trigger, what behavior suggests he is going to eventually pull that trigger?

[pax]

Justme ~

Before I answer that question, I need to ask: how much professional firearms training have you had?

Not trying to be a jerk here, just need to know where you're coming from so I know how far back to start.

pax

[glock glockler]

If a BG has a gun pointed at you, but has not yet pulled the trigger, what behavior suggests he is going to eventually pull that trigger?

The fact that he has a gun pointed at you might be a good start

Seriously though, if he has a gun pointed at you and has not fired then he is essentially using the gun as a negotiation tool to alter situation to one he thinks is better for him. Perhaps he just wants your money to buy crack, in which case it's less risky to just give it to him, but he also might want to get the person to an enclosed location to he can rape and then kill them silently with a knife, in which case it's better to try your luck neutralizing him.

[Justme]

Perhaps he just wants your money to buy crack, in which case it's less risky to just give it to him, but he also might want to get the person to an enclosed location to he can rape and then kill them silently with a knife, in which case it's better to try your luck neutralizing him

That's kinda my point. How do you know which you're dealing with? I think a smart young woman who is used to interpersonal communications should concentrate on that aspect as much as possible.

Pax, I appreciate your concern over my firearms experience and training, but quite frankly don't see how it applies to the conversation at hand. I think that the training is the problem, or rather the lack of real world experience is the problem. I don't think the average person realises how brutal violent people are. I don't think people realise how fast and furious most street encounters are.

In short, I think what is being suggested is akin to dropping a soccer mom into Iraq after a few hours of "training".

I am not, nor did I ever claim to be, a firearms expert. I grew up in a rough part of the world, have owned and used guns since I was 7 and spent 10 years in the military. I have been shot at, but never shot thank god. I have been in more than my share of violent encounters, and have come out second best more times than I would like to remember, and have come away with broken bones anyway when I was not second best. I know how ill-prepared I am, despite 25 years of martial arts training and 20 years before that growing up as a hillbilly, when fists and feet start flying, knowing that it seems folly that others consider themselves prepared after a few hours of training.

[DonR101395]

The real Mas Ayoob knows this.

Has it ever occurred to you that "the real Mas Ayoob" is who posted

I love the comic relief though.

[Thumper]

I think you might be missing the point, Justme. Surely you agree that some training is better than none.

If your point is simply that it's not always the best idea to try to beat a gun pointed at you, I tend to agree.

It depends on the situation. If the guy just killed everyone else in the room, I'm going to try to kill him or get away, no matter what he's holding. An attempted abduction for a woman, I'd suggest the same.

No one here is saying you always go for the gun. Mas will be the first guy to tell you (in fact, I believe he was) that a throw down wallet can be a lifesaver in the event of an attempted mugging.

[buzz_knox]

I believe the issue of prior training came into question because before one wishes to be accepted as the fountain of all truth and knowledge, one should be able to demonstrate 1) that they actually understand what the training they disparage involves, and 2) they should demonstrate sufficient knowledge to explain why all other advice to the contrary should be disregarded.

[glock glockler]

Justme,

That’s the paradox of most self-defense training out there, if one were to think of real self-protection as a tree, most of the training out there just dabbles with some of the leaves and rarely addresses the roots and trunk. But how does one effectively get people in the door and staying there by going into the extremely important yet very boring aspects of it?

One can put on a seminar for a few hours and maybe even get the people there to do a few things right, and then they’ll walk away feeling good about themselves, and might even sign up for the next training course, but they probably won’t have the physical/psychological goods to be truly prepared and effective. Unfortunately our culture is very big on quick fixes/crash courses and people want a quick answer to an issue, even when much deeper training/preparation might be essential. Combine that with the fact that most “self-defense training” is designed to protect one’s ego as opposed to protecting oneself and you have a potentially disastrous situation.

With that in mind I would hope that most courses would be a beginning to effective self-protection, and that the person would recognize that fact and hopefully continue on with their training.

[pax]

Justme,

As I said, I wasn't trying to be a jerk. I was trying to figure out how many asumptions I could make when I answered your question: "If a BG has a gun pointed at you, but has not yet pulled the trigger, what behavior suggests he is going to eventually pull that trigger?" I've gotten called 'arrogant' before when I simply answered such questions without taking the other person's level of firearms training or experience into account, and wanted to circumvent that here.

So to the question:

Originally Posted by Justme

If a BG has a gun pointed at you, but has not yet pulled the trigger, what behavior suggests he is going to eventually pull that trigger?

glock glockler's post is a really good starting point, and bears repeating: "The fact that he has a gun pointed at you might be a good start." If the guy has a gun out at all, it is because he thinks he can get something with the gun that he couldn't get without the gun. That means the criminal himself believes that you can take him, bare-handed. That's why he's using the gun.

So what does he want and am I willing to give it to him or get killed right here, right now?

Most of us would say if he "only" wants property, we should just give it to him. Well and good. But how do you know that he "only" wants your stuff? What if what he really wants isn't simply to steal stuff, but to enjoy the power kick of having a helpless victim at his mercy, someone who will give him literally anything he demands before they die for his pleasure?

And how much warning is he going to give you, if that's the case?

All of this means that your initial question really isn't the right one to ask. The right question to ask is "Under what circumstances am I willing to fight back against an assailant, even if I think I will get killed trying?"

You might say "none" to that question, straight up.

I don't.

I'd rather die by a quick bullet on the street, possibly in front of witnesses, than to get willingly into a car with the next Ted Bundy.

I'd rather risk getting shot, or one of my children getting shot, or even accidentally shooting my own child myself, than to "allow" my child to be taken from me, brutalized, tortured, sexually assaulted, and his body never found.

I'd rather risk taking a quick bullet than to suffer a slow rape which is statistically likely to be followed by beating, strangulation and stabbing.

Those are the types of circumstances under which I will fight back even if I don't think I can win.

Having drawn that line, I went and got training to reduce the risk of failure if I ever did need to fight back in such extreme circumstances. Because I personally believe that if a criminal demands any of those things, he's going to kill me one way or the other.

How to know if someone standing there with gun in hand might pull the trigger? Here are some things to look for:

http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2007...they-want.html

A more complete answer is far more complex and branching than the average person is willing to consider.

pax

[Capt. Charlie]

Justme, I'm just posting here to confirm what Pax and others have been trying to tell you. Yes, he truly is the real Mas Ayoob.

Um... you can take your foot out of your mouth now.

Now, back on topic.

[buzz_knox]

How do we know you are the "real" Capt Charlie?

[9mmHP]

I've read Mas Ayoob going on 20 years now, and though he is the writer I most often agree with, he is not infallible. Despite the fawning argumentum ad verecundiam fallacies above, I think he is failing to follow his own advice which is to put distance between yourself and the threat first as much as possible. If these young women are encouraged to fight rather than flee while still possible, I think the so-called "training" is dangerous. All I have to go on is that news article, so perhaps this is the most complete, most intensive, most comprehensive unarmed combat course available that turns shy school girls into overnight ninjas, but I'm not yet convinced, despite all the wishful thinking and high hopes I see here.

[9mmHP]

JustMe, you should know better than to question the identity of anyone on the Internet, where men are men, women are men, and children are police officers.

[pax]

9mmHP ~

No one here has appealed to the authority of anyone who is working outside his field.

In particular, Mas Ayoob is well within his field both when he comments that police officers learn this stuff (he is multiply-qualified as a police trainer in several fields, including "defensive tactics" and Lindell-based disarms & retentions), and he is well within his field when he comments that civilians, including females, can and do learn this stuff (since he earns no small portion of his living from teaching the aforementioned civilians how to defend themselves).

Having said that, I do wish you would note that none of my arguments above appeal to Ayoob's authority nor to anyone else's. I simply commented that my own experience has shown that I (a female, though not particularly young) was indeed able to comprehend a leverage-based firearms disarms technique in a span of days rather than years.

The comments since then have been amusingly instructive: apparently I'm not a "real" woman, since women don't have the right mindset to learn this stuff. Apparently the material I learned wasn't "real", either, even though cops have been using it on the street for 30 years or more. And Mas? He's not "real" either, no matter how many people who know him personally vouch for him.

Heh. I guess I'm done with this thread now. I do think it's a shame that so many people are determined to defend their own ignorance when topics like this come up.

Bottom line from me? Go get some training. Learn something even if you can't learn everything. You've got to start somewhere! Practice what you learn when you learn it and keep practicing until you can't get it wrong. And don't listen to anyone who tells you that you are too _____ (stupid, unmotivated, wimpy, lazy or female) to learn how to defend yourself.

pax

[Lurper]

I think he is failing to follow his own advice which is to put distance between yourself and the threat first as much as possible.

I think what you are failing to follow here 9 is the idea that these techniques should be used when there is no alternative. I don't recall anyone advocating employing these techniques in lieu of fleeing. If it boils down to submission or fighting back, that's when the techniques come in handy.

[Tanzer]

If said BG is willing to point a gun at you for whatever reason, hasn't he already shown that he considers your life to be of less value than what he wants?

[Justme]

One can put on a seminar for a few hours and maybe even get the people there to do a few things right, and then they’ll walk away feeling good about themselves, and might even sign up for the next training course, but they probably won’t have the physical/psychological goods to be truly prepared and effective. Unfortunately our culture is very big on quick fixes/crash courses and people want a quick answer to an issue, even when much deeper training/preparation might be essential. Combine that with the fact that most “self-defense training” is designed to protect one’s ego as opposed to protecting oneself and you have a potentially disastrous situation.

The best comment on this thread, by far, and essentially what I have been trying to say in my own hamfisted and ignorant way.

Furthermore, whether or not someone is Mas Ayoob is rather beside the point when said poster tries to argue that what works in training experience policemen is effective when training inexperienced young women. But hey, there are books and seminars to sell, a person is hardly going to sell lots of those if he tells people the truth. The truth is that very few affluent americans are equiped to handle violent people, and a few hour seminar is not going to change that.