The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 7, 2007, 07:59 AM   #126
JoeBlackSpade
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 4, 2007
Posts: 162
Some of these responses are hilarious to read.

Let's set aside the credibility of the individual trainers here, which a few have questioned. Further, let's set aside the argument of VA Tech for just a second. What is the goal of any, and all training? With each individual move, each movement, each counter-movement, isn't it merely to give you one additional tool in your bag, just one more little piece of knowledge to draw on, in the slim chance that you might get to use it? By the logic of some, perhaps we shouldn't waste our time on ANY training, since techniques can only be useful if they are practiced until your hands bleed, and you become a Chuck Norris Commando.

I use the word "get" on purpose, since each technique involved in martial arts/ weapons retention/ disarming, all require a convergence of unique circumstances, in order for that individual technique to be employed. The more techniques you know, the greater the number of circumstances one of those techniques might be applicable, and the better prepared an individual is in a broader range of scenarios. In other words, if you know a great number of techniques (and you can execute them properly), you'll be more prepared for a variety of confrontations, as opposed to someone who knows few techniques. As Mas Ayoob pointed out, disarming is for when a weapon is presented at close range. The technique isn't applicable, except in specific cases. Obviously, you aren't going to attempt to disarm someone at 15 meters, who is shooting at you. Do you really need to tell a 23-year old woman to RUN LIKE HELL if she's being shot at from across a parking lot? I doubt it. Disarming isn't about teaching someone how to run away. It's about what to do when you are backed into an allyway, (or a classroom) and a crazy shooter has just wiped out your friends, turns the gun on you at 2 feet away, and you have run out of options. As addressed above, such cases happen all too frequently. In such cases, a 10-hour course can give the victim a fighting chance, which is all we can ask from ANY training that falls below the level of professional.

Having said that, there are many, many instances where a close range shooting turns into a grappling match- by default. This is due to the victim's tendency to instinctively reach out, palm out, in a blocking motion. I've seen many videos where someone is getting shot at point-blank range, and the response is almost always the same: An untrained, instinctive, almost pleading hands-out-blocking motion. This is true of all cultures, all people, virtually all body types, with all other things being equal. Of course the blocking motion does absolutely no good, but without any training at all, what can one expect? These poor people have zero chance of surviving, other than to hope for a catastrophic failure in their attacker's weapon.

Disarming technique training- however brief- at least gives someone in this position a fighting chance- however small- to get their hands on the weapon, and interfere with the attacker carrying out his plans. In that moment of grappling, perhaps the defender can take out an eye, or perhaps in the scuffle, the attacker will lose his nerve. Perhaps LE will show up, or maybe someone else in the group will get up their nerve and join in. My point is that no matter how brief, no matter how cursory, a little bit of weapons disarming training is better than absolutely zero, if nothing else than to familiarize someone with the dynamics involved, and remind them that they should stay vigilant and try to avoid these circumstances at all costs.
JoeBlackSpade is offline  
Old September 7, 2007, 08:12 AM   #127
BlackWidow
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2005
Posts: 3
Now, that sums it all up. Great going JoeBlackSpade. Now maybe some of these guys will "get it"

BlackWidow
BlackWidow is offline  
Old September 7, 2007, 08:13 AM   #128
Justme
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 6, 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,066
I don't think anyone is saying that more knowledge is exactly bad, just that it can be dangerous. I use the term "journeyman hubris" to describe the concept that a little knowledge can be a bad thing. I have seen people get hurt and break things because they have a misplaced sense of their own competence.

I think there is a very real chance that a young woman who takes one of these courses, in isolation as opposed to part of overall training, can develop a misplaced sense of how well she can execute such a move in an emergency situation. I feel confident that good professional trainers like Mr Ayoob recognise and address this issue. I feel equally confident that the people who made that utube video and teach the class in question do not.

I think the number 1 thing that we need to teach young women, and men for that matter, is to obey their instincts. Fear is a very valuable human emotion and if people obey their fear they are less likely to get hurt. I read a book on that issue a few years back but can't remember the author's name or even the title. MrAyoob might know remember the guys name, he was pretty popular for 6 months or so on the talk radio and TV circuit.

The bottom line is that psychological factors are even more important than physical ones. We have to be very very careful that in putting someone in a better position physically we don't put them at greater risk psycholgically. I'm not sure how to write that, but I hope it makes a little sense.
Justme is offline  
Old September 7, 2007, 08:23 AM   #129
Mas Ayoob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2005
Posts: 239
We may be approaching a consensus.

Justme, I believe you're thinking of "The Gift of Fear" by Gavin de Becker.

Tanzer and JoeBlackSpade are spot on.
Mas Ayoob is offline  
Old September 7, 2007, 08:27 AM   #130
JoeBlackSpade
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 4, 2007
Posts: 162
Quote:
I don't think anyone is saying that more knowledge is exactly bad, just that it can be dangerous.
We're talking about staring down the barrel of an attacker's smoking .357. Danger is inherent.

In any case, knowledge itself is never dangerous, merely the misapplication of that knowledge.

Quote:
I use the term "journeyman hubris" to describe the concept that a little knowledge can be a bad thing.
I agree with you, in the sense of misapplication- say for example if I read a medical journal on Tuesday, and attempted brain surgery on Wednesday. In that case, sure, you make a superb point.

However, in absolute survival situations, we're talking about life-or-death. Doing nothing = certain, violent death.


Quote:
I feel equally confident that the people who made that utube video and teach the class in question do not (teach proper application).
That may well be the case. If so, let the "buyer" beware. In this case, the person taking the class better know the background of their trainer. Of course, the same is true of anything else we might buy- whether services or goods.

I looked at the "Hollywood" video on the MySpace page, and many of those techniques are authentic, and have only been dramatized since the parties who made it apparently also do stunt work.
JoeBlackSpade is offline  
Old September 7, 2007, 08:39 AM   #131
Justme
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 6, 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,066
Quote:
"The Gift of Fear" by Gavin de Becker
Yes, that's the one. My wife was a child and adolescent psychiatrist who also did a fair amount of advocacy work for women on sexual harrasment and discrimination. She made our daughter read that book before she went off to college.

BTW She would be angry and haunt me if I didn't thank Mr Ayoob for all the help he gave professional women in the area of sexual descrimination law. I don't remember the name of the case, but weren't you the expert witness who basically said the FBI was wrong for expecting women to use guns sized for men?
Justme is offline  
Old September 7, 2007, 09:10 AM   #132
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,859
Being a well trained researcher and psychologist - and yes, folks on this list and moderators know that I am me - I have to fall back on my training.

Would someone like to cite reliable data that demonstrates that individuals with such training as described have come to a bad end do that training being misapplied?

Otherwise - lot of armchair speculation worth not much.

It is markedly similar in tone to that of antigunners suggesting that if civilans have guns they won't be able to use them successful and/or they will be taken away. That was disproven. Since I've read the techy literature on victimology - I don't recall seeing one discussion that implies that self-defense training was a handicap as compared to none or that it make people overly confident.

I remember my Judo teacher saying, Use technique, get away, run!!

BTW, I took LFI-1 in Dallas with a broken wrist and shot the whole thing nondominant hand. My autographed target is in the garage. Thus, I think I and Mas actually exist.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old September 7, 2007, 09:21 AM   #133
divemedic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,313
There are some assumptions being made here.

First, a gun pointed at you does not = certain death. In the vast majority of cases, a bad guy pointing a gun at you has no intention of shooting you. When you escalate the situation through a poorly executed disarming maneuver (what other way could you execute it with 10 hours of training?) you are actually increasing the chances that the assailant will shoot.

In my job field, we have an assessment called risk verus benefit. Attemping some half-arsed wanna be karate maneuver increases your risk, and unless the maneuver is properly executed, does not increase the benefit.

Staying in a malfunctioning aircraft may include a high degree of risk, and some would argue that you should jump out to avoid the crash. That becomes foolish if all you are using as a parachute is a trash bag or an umbrella.
divemedic is offline  
Old September 7, 2007, 09:30 AM   #134
Justme
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 6, 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,066
Quote:
It is markedly similar in tone to that of antigunners suggesting that if civilans have guns they won't be able to use them successful and/or they will be taken away
Frightening similar. If you believe that civilians having guns are not at danger from having them taken away, how can you suggest that sociopathic bad guys who have guns are at risk of having them taken away? I assure you that the average sociopath is better equiped to disarm the average "civilian gun owner" than the average college coed with 10 hours of training is equiped to disarm the sociopath.

It is a common misperception that criminals are stupid and untrained. They are sociopathic and do not abide from societies rules, but that is not the same as stupid, naive or incompetent.
Justme is offline  
Old September 7, 2007, 09:41 AM   #135
glock glockler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 29, 2000
Location: Portsmouth, NH, USA
Posts: 905
Justme,

If they're getting within arm's reach they're already making a big mistake, so they're either untrained and foolish, or they're trained and foolish. IMO the overwhelming majority of the martial arts/self-defence stuff out there is really good at setting people up to get killed, it shouldn't be too hard to take their gun away if you now what you're doing.

Also, my previous question might be something good to think about: if you were to kick their leg and render them unable to present any threat, would that count as a disarm?
__________________
"It does not take a majority to prevail...but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

-Samuel Adams

"Give me ten Jesuits and I shall conquer the world"

-Stalin
glock glockler is offline  
Old September 7, 2007, 10:08 AM   #136
buzz_knox
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 1999
Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse
Posts: 4,191
Quote:
In the vast majority of cases, a bad guy pointing a gun at you has no intention of shooting you. When you escalate the situation through a poorly executed disarming maneuver (what other way could you execute it with 10 hours of training?) you are actually increasing the chances that the assailant will shoot.
So surrender/compliance and total reliance on the belief that this individual (who might be looking at a third strike and thus has a motive to eliminate a witness) is the preferred option?

My line of work also does with risk/benefit analysis. In the scenario you depict, the benefit is an absolute unknown as is the risk. Compliance may save your life, or may result in your being raped or killed. There is absolutely no information available beyond the fact that this attacker is already using deadly force against you. So, appealing to risk/benefit analysis is not very beneficial.
buzz_knox is offline  
Old September 7, 2007, 10:10 AM   #137
buzz_knox
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 1999
Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse
Posts: 4,191
Quote:
Also, my previous question might be something good to think about: if you were to kick their leg and render them unable to present any threat, would that count as a disarm?
No, because more than one criminal has continued shooting even after being grounded by weapons fire, let alone from a leg sweep or knee strike. Even if the criminal dropped their weapon, the two wouldn't be separated by much distance and recovery is easy unless you get in close to obtain the weapon.
buzz_knox is offline  
Old September 7, 2007, 10:15 AM   #138
glock glockler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 29, 2000
Location: Portsmouth, NH, USA
Posts: 905
buzz_knox,

If a criminal is "unable to present a threat" how can he shoot back at you?

Even if the criminal dropped their weapon, the two wouldn't be separated by much distance and recovery is easy unless you get in close to obtain the weapon

You mean like close enough to disarm them?
__________________
"It does not take a majority to prevail...but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

-Samuel Adams

"Give me ten Jesuits and I shall conquer the world"

-Stalin
glock glockler is offline  
Old September 7, 2007, 10:20 AM   #139
Justme
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 6, 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,066
Quote:
IMO the overwhelming majority of the martial arts/self-defence stuff out there is really good at setting people up to get killed
That is my opinion also. There are a very small number of very good instructors though, and any course with these people is benificial. Alas, if you aren't in that community already you don't always know who these people are.

This is true of therapist too, BTW. Because I worked with a lot of shrinks I came to see the vast gulf in competence that similarly trained people can have.
Justme is offline  
Old September 7, 2007, 10:48 AM   #140
buzz_knox
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 1999
Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse
Posts: 4,191
Quote:
If a criminal is "unable to present a threat" how can he shoot back at you?
My point was that a leg sweep or knee strike will not render him unable to present a threat. If he is armed with a ranged weapon (i.e. a pistol), then he can present a threat even if lying on the ground, screaming and holding his knee with one hand. As long as the other hand has the weapon, his is a threat.

Quote:
You mean like close enough to disarm them?
But the pontifications in this thread are that attempting to disarm someone is simply a quicker means of insuring your own death. Isn't that what we are supposed to take away, notwithstanding the fact that people who have no training whatsoever in disarming techniques are effective against cops and criminals on a fairly regular basis?
buzz_knox is offline  
Old September 7, 2007, 10:57 AM   #141
buzz_knox
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 1999
Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse
Posts: 4,191
Quote:
Alas, if you aren't in that community already you don't always know who these people are.
Tracking down good instructors in this day and age is actually quite simple. The internet provides some good information, which can be backstopped by something as simple as calling the local police department and asking who they train with and/or recommend. In fact, it's probably easier finding quality instructors in this field than in finding good martial arts instructors (the two are most certainly not always the same).

Here are two names that spring instantly to mind: Steve Tarani and Mas Ayoob. Any internet search will bring them up quickly, and their credentials and qualities can be verified by cross-checking other sources. I'd say Louis Awerbuck but he hasn't gotten around to teaching retention/disarms to the best of my knowledge.
buzz_knox is offline  
Old September 7, 2007, 11:07 AM   #142
glock glockler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 29, 2000
Location: Portsmouth, NH, USA
Posts: 905
Buzz,

A strike to the opponent won't necessarily render him unable to present a threat, that's sorta my point, a disarm doesn't neutralize him either, it just removes 1 of his weapons.

OTOH, a good punch to his throat will give him something else to think about and will tip the scales radically in your favor. With the disarm he is thinking about doing something to you with his weapon, when you try to disarm him he is thinking about preventing you from doing something to his weapon, which are actually pretty damn similar.

But if he needs to go from thinking about doing something to you with his weapon to desperately trying to maintain his balance, or prevent his arm from being broken, or stop another punch to his neck, he has a completely different priority and has to go through another OODA loop. This puts the advantage in your favor.

As far as the main point of the thread concerning disarming: the debate back and forth is legitimate but it unfortunately ignores the main aspect of the overall conflict taking place. Disarms are icing on the cake, nothing more.

If a criminal is threatening you HE is the threat, not the gun, the gun is only a tool. If you go for his gun at the expense of addressing him you waste critical time and make yourself vulnerable, you can take his gun away and he still might be able to do you harm. Maybe the gun doesnt work or isn't loaded, maybe while you're struggling for the gun he stabs you with his knife.

One must neutralize the threat, if you can disarm him in the process of doing so, more power to you, but keep things in perspective.
__________________
"It does not take a majority to prevail...but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

-Samuel Adams

"Give me ten Jesuits and I shall conquer the world"

-Stalin
glock glockler is offline  
Old September 7, 2007, 11:10 AM   #143
buzz_knox
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 1999
Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse
Posts: 4,191
Quote:
But if he needs to go from thinking about doing something to you with his weapon to desperately trying to maintain his balance, or prevent his arm from being broken, or stop another punch to his neck, he has a completely different priority and has to go through another OODA loop. This puts the advantage in your favor.
I agree 100%. I think we may have been talking past each other a bit for which I apologize.
buzz_knox is offline  
Old September 7, 2007, 11:28 AM   #144
9mmHP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 2007
Location: Indiana/Indpls Metro Area
Posts: 318
I get the feeling that some here read some other article than the one that started this. Perhaps I'm wrong that girls having their mommies make them go to this course is going to give them real world skills that they will from then on diligently hone, rather than just go back to condition white and think they now know all they need to know and are safe from everything. Especially, with only the article and their website to go on, training that looks dubious. Maybe everyone else read the article about the women eager to learn disarming techniques as part of a total package of self-defense skills. I must have missed that one. I think we're discussing two very different scenarios, the one presented versus some idealized vision of what we'd like these young women to learn.
9mmHP is offline  
Old September 7, 2007, 11:37 AM   #145
buzz_knox
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 1999
Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse
Posts: 4,191
It started about that particular article, then quickly devolved into the impossibility of learning anything beneficial in a course that lasts only a few days. This is, of course, blatantly false and the reason so many have responded accordingly.
buzz_knox is offline  
Old September 7, 2007, 02:35 PM   #146
Tanzer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 18, 2007
Posts: 884
I dropped most of the post because it would just re-fuel an argument that has subsided---- but let me ask...
Are people who bother taking such courses really condition white people?
__________________
Only the ignorant find ignorance to be bliss. Only those of us who know better will suffer from it.

Last edited by Tanzer; September 7, 2007 at 03:02 PM. Reason: Deletion of unnecessary
Tanzer is offline  
Old September 7, 2007, 03:19 PM   #147
Musketeer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2005
Posts: 3,732
Quote:
Are people who bother taking such courses really condition white people?
Depends on the course.
__________________
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." Thomas Jefferson

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin
Musketeer is offline  
Old September 7, 2007, 03:45 PM   #148
9mmHP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 2007
Location: Indiana/Indpls Metro Area
Posts: 318
I think if you're mommy makes you, then YES. Did anyone else even read the article?
9mmHP is offline  
Old September 7, 2007, 05:08 PM   #149
Tanzer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 18, 2007
Posts: 884
Quote:
I think if you're mommy makes you, then YES. Did anyone else even read the article?
I'm sorry, I must have missed the mommy part in the OP - BECAUSE IT WASN'T THERE.
__________________
Only the ignorant find ignorance to be bliss. Only those of us who know better will suffer from it.
Tanzer is offline  
Old September 7, 2007, 08:35 PM   #150
9mmHP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 2007
Location: Indiana/Indpls Metro Area
Posts: 318
No? You didn't read very far, about 4 paragraphs from the top:

"Katelyn Van Allen, 18, refused to come downstairs when her mother, Anne, invited Moldovan to their Lake County home for an introduction to Self-Defense 101.

"I did not want to do it at all; it seemed stupid," she said. "I thought that I could just carry pepper spray, and I'd be fine. But our mothers forced us to go to the class.""

Now I'm convinced that everyone else is reading some different article in an alternate universe somewhere.
9mmHP is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.18514 seconds with 7 queries