Pistoleer vs Martial arts expert..any stories?


PDA






Mr. Magnum
July 22, 2007, 12:56 AM
Ive asked this a gazillion times already in my head before but never had the chance to let it escape until now.. ive known too many martial arts trainer, experts, students, etc. who are not so into guns or even anti-firearms.

With all due respect to martial-artists (of any sort), Just wondering what will happen if a martial artist together with a shooter comes into a serious incident.. or even comes in a confrontation with each other... I am also aware that even firearm fighting is a form of martial arts..and that all people who either fall on the hand-to-hand or firearm combat (should) be on the defensive purpose and not become offenders to the civillian.

do you have any real life stories to tell? or are these just what we see in the movies?

(e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyBu4OFPmug)

If you enjoyed reading about "Pistoleer vs Martial arts expert..any stories?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
M1 Shooter
July 22, 2007, 01:01 AM
I don't know of any, but that is one of my favorite movie scenes of all time!

PistolPackin'Papa
July 22, 2007, 01:07 AM
Even seen that Harrison Ford movie? Depending on your distance from the BG. Step back, draw and blow him out of his socks. :eek: :D

Of course, if you are close, then weapon retention techniques and positioning are very important. I never intend to get that close. Always keep my eyes open and on the alert. :scrutiny:

GOD has granted me 59 years, so it must work.

PPP

Alphazulu6
July 22, 2007, 01:09 AM
I always think back to Indiana Jones, when that martial arts dude comes out all bad and buff, and Indy just pulls his pistol out without alarm and shoots him dead with one shot.... and then I laugh my a** off!

With martial arts I think that its amazing what someone can do with their body and its an awesome art and dedication lifestyle. Its just such an unfair advantage to have an H&K .45 or Glock .40 vs someone with a "Kill Bill" sword or whatever :D

My money is on the Delta boy and his MP5 vs. a Teenage Mutant Mall Ninja.

pdowg881
July 22, 2007, 01:24 AM
The only way I can see a trained martial artist having a chance defeating a trained shooter is if they are in arms reach of each other, possibly giving the martial artist an oppurtunity to disarm the shooter. Of course, if the shooter is trained it won't be easy to do and you'd likely get shot. The fact that a pistol has more range than an arm gives the shooter a massive advantage at any kind of distance.

General Geoff
July 22, 2007, 01:33 AM
Highly dependent on the situation. Also depends upon awareness of both parties, and who reacts first. A trained martial artist who decides to be the aggressor could most likely take down a gun fighter from 10 feet away before the gun fighter has a chance to draw and shoot.

Likewise, a gun fighter who decides first to take down a martial artist will most likely be able to draw and shoot before the martial artist knows what hit him, regardless of range.

Of course, this hinges on both persons being excellent at what they're trained to do. For those less than adequately trained (which is most people, both in martial arts and in gun fighting), the situation would get murkier and may favour one or the other for other reasons.

timmyb21
July 22, 2007, 01:48 AM
As a gracie Jiu Jitsu student, I would like to add something. Helio Graice said once that jiu jitsu gives you the skills to defeat an opponent in unarmed combat, the skills to disarm an opponent if needed, and the confidence to do either. It doesn't make you bullet-proof. If the pistol fails, the Jiu Jitsu kick in. Take them down, disarm them, then choke them unconsious.

tmajors
July 22, 2007, 01:53 AM
The only way I can see a trained martial artist having a chance defeating a trained shooter is if they are in arms reach of each other, possibly giving the martial artist an oppurtunity to disarm the shooter.

In the Jujitsu classes I took the black belts would do firearms defense, as in an attacker with a firearm. They actually used a real firearm, though unloaded, checked three times at least...once when pulled out of the weapons case, once when handed to the 'attacker' and once before the lesson. Ammo didn't exist anywhere in the dojo either. Can't remember the model but automatic of some kind. Yes this made me VERY nervous as a gun person.

Anyway the attacker would point the gun at the defender and the defender would avoid and disarm. If the click happened when the gun was pointed at the defender he was 'dead'. They would go in so close sometimes that the attacker started with the barrel ON the defenders head.

The closer the attacker was the higher success rate the defender had. On the head was nearly 100% success, anywhere in arms reach was probably around 75% success for the defender. Outside arms reach it depended on if the defender could close the gap before the attacker could fire, still at least 50%.

glockman19
July 22, 2007, 01:58 AM
Pistoleer would win.

John Rogers
July 22, 2007, 02:00 AM
Back when I was training it was part of the curriculum. The particular move I was taught seemed highly improbable and in fairness to the school was never claimed to be otherwise. It depended generally on the opponent trying to regain control of the gun with both hands once you had one hand on it, and generously holding still while you attacked his eyes with the other hand, followed by other unpleasant acts of violence. It's possible that the sequence might have been effective if simplified, as the initial move to get in close and trap the gun could sometimes be done against a partner who was trying not to let you do it, and I could see how several critical vulnerabilities could emerge while the opponent attempts to regain control of the gun. It would help to be a lot stronger and faster than the opponent. And yes you would have to be extremely close to have the slightest chance of pulling it off. You could probably learn something a lot more effective by asking around in any prison.

RobTzu
July 22, 2007, 02:06 AM
You could probably learn something a lot more effective by asking around in any prison.

Is that a pistol, or you just happy to see me?

ryan in maine
July 22, 2007, 02:11 AM
this is the only story I have. a 49 second clip from the anime Samurai Champloo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4gkiji8zLA

Mukuro (with revolver) vs. Jin (ronin)

real stories of an unarmed person disarming someone armed with a firearm are few and far between. for what it's worth tho, it does happen.

Alphazulu6
July 22, 2007, 02:31 AM
real stories of an unarmed person disarming someone armed with a firearm are few and far between. for what it's worth tho, it does happen

Grab for someone's little Kel-Tec and you might be missing a few digits... lol

FlaXD
July 22, 2007, 04:49 AM
Pistoleer would win.Naw, Remo Williams (or Master Chiun) would just dodge each bullet, maneuver up to you, twist your gun arm around, pop out the mag, flick off each remaining round from the mag. and then beat you with your own pistol.:cool:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=RW5d3wIDirI (about 1/2 of the way in.)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Vh4Kx9IqIZw

Phantom Warrior
July 22, 2007, 05:18 AM
As a moderately experienced shooter and martial artist (tae kwon do, not grappling) I think tmajors pretty much put his finger on it. The closer the engagement, the better the odds are for the martial artist because the shooter has less time to react.

This is just conjecture, but I expect that experience also plays a part. A really seasoned martial artist would probably have a better chance to disarm a novice shooter than two equally experienced individuals. And vice versa.


FlaXD,

Outstanding reference!

Medusa
July 22, 2007, 05:33 AM
Hand vs gun, military style. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6888884243553046299)
Different starting positions, different weapons vs hand. Etc. It's pretty good. They're our "shore defence company" - something close to die-hard marines.

M1 Shooter
July 22, 2007, 05:55 AM
Interesting video Medusa, but I personally would not hold a pistol like that on an apparently unarmed yet potentially hostile person. Holding a pistol one handed arm outstreched is just asking for it to be taken away from you. I wonder how they would deal with someone holding a pistol in a close contact retention position.

Medusa
July 22, 2007, 06:02 AM
I wonder how they would deal with someone holding a pistol in a close contact retention position.
This is potential wound vs certain death situation, so it needs to be adressed fast - cutting into the enemy OODA loop and taking the initiative.

Techinques dealing that kind situations are there, but everything can't be shown in public.

mike101
July 22, 2007, 08:40 AM
"Ever seen that Harrison Ford movie?"

Raiders of the Lost Ark. One of the best movies of all time.

Lesson; Never bring a sword to a gun fight. ;)

zastros
July 22, 2007, 08:52 AM
A funny bit of trivia(to me at least) about that scene. It was supposed to be a great fight between Indy (with his whip) and the swordsman. But when they started to choreograph the fight, Harrison Ford was sick with the flu, or beri-beri, or some such. (If you look at the scene, he looks like hell) He just didn't feel up to it, so as a joke he pulled and shot the swordsman. The director and crew just fell out and decided to keep the scene.

zastros

hso
July 22, 2007, 09:51 AM
Movies don't contribute anything to the discussion. We can't complain about their unrealistic depiction of guns on the one hand and then cite them for depicting something else on the other.

The distance separating the two individuals is key in predicting the outcome. Distance is the shooters friend while proximity is the H2H fighter's. If you're close enough to disarm, you're too close to run. If you're far enough away to run, you're too far to try to disarm.

If the BG has a gun on you and you're within contact range it's nearly impossible to draw your gun AND avoid getting shot before you can bring your weapon to bear. On the other hand, if you have trained in disarming/disabling techniques you have a much better chance of preventing yourself from getting shot if you don't obsess about the firearm and focus on self defense.

There's a video clip from training of one of our members effecting a disarm with the shooter knowing it's coming and trying to shoot when they detect the attempt in this thread. http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=155&page=2&highlight=disarms

ID_shooting
July 22, 2007, 10:27 AM
I took a few classes from a little old man in Korea who could do an amazing amount of push-ups on his thumbs not to mention some other stuff that I would have veiwed as near impossible especially for a man his age.

Somone in class asked him this very question. He explained that Tae Kwon Do was tought to most every Korean student for many years yet every conscript in the ROK Army was trained to use a firearm. He said he would never willfully take on an assailant with a gun.

GRIZ22
July 22, 2007, 10:35 AM
The closer the engagement, the better the odds are for the martial artist because the shooter has less time to react.


I agree. I know of a an incident where a LEO (who is a well trained martial artist) was arresting a BG. The BG went for a 357 in his belt and the LEO (who had closed to about 10 feet or so) rushed him and punched the BG breaking his nose which immediately put him down. After the incident the LEO said he knew he could close with BG and hot him before he (the LEO) could get his gun out.

Not really martial arts but anther time a LEO was questining a BG when the BG said "I've got a 38 under my seat (in his car) and I'll shoot all of you". The LEO stopped the guy by slamming the car door on him and then drawing down on the BG.

Car Door Fu?

sacp81170a
July 22, 2007, 10:54 AM
Being an experienced martial artist, I can tell you why I carry a gun rather than depending on empty hand skills: it's far more difficult to stop an attack with your hands and feet than with a gun. Given that you're a master ninja, you have no idea whether the guy with the gun that you're facing is also a master ninja. I've had some of my best lessons from guys that looked pretty harmless...

We all know about the Tueller drill, but the Tueller distance only counts if you're standing still. If you move and draw while the other guy is moving, he can be anywhere outside arm's reach and you can still beat him.

The three distances we work with in Kendo are chikama (close distance typically tsuba to tsuba), issoku ito no maai (one step, one cut distance, the "danger zone") and toma (farther away). There's been one time in my Kendo career when I actually had someone "disappear" from in front of me. I was in the team competition in the 1997 Rocky Mountain Kendo Championship when one of the guys from Seattle, Sensei Steve Obata, taught me what *fast* is. :D

In team competition, rank doesn't matter, you just fight whoever is on the other team. It started out with me making a spirited attack (no sense in holding back). When they brought us back to center, Obata Sensei had my measure. I swear to this day that he disappeared completely and only showed up again after he had hit my men (forehead) and was completely behind me. It wouldn't have mattered if I'd had a pistol or a sword, I was dead. It also wouldn't have mattered whether he had a weapon or not, since he is also an accomplished Judo and Shotokan practitioner.

On balance, unless I run across Obata Sensei or someone like him, I've never met another martial artist that I would fear if I were armed and they were not.

The movies notwithstanding, a skilled swordsman would have no difficulty in dispatching a karate or kung fu practitioner. I've demonstrated that very fact to a number of people who thought what they were taught in a 'sword vs. empty hand' class had any resemblance to reality. They had no experience with a "real" swordsman. Same goes whether the swordsman is a European fencer or a Kendoka. I'd be interested in seeing a few demonstrations where an IPSC Grand Master went up against an empty hand practitioner.

Gunblade
July 22, 2007, 12:02 PM
I agree with the statements thus far. The closer the gunner, the more likely he/she can be defeated.

I remember seeing a few scenes in anime (Trigun) and movies (Jet Li) where a defender would grab and hold the cylinder of a revolver and stop it from working. In a real world confrontation, could such an event happen?

sturmgewehr
July 22, 2007, 12:31 PM
It's depends on the distance at which the confrontation happens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYAXjKkLmJs

At close range and in certain circumstances I would go for my knife before I went for my gun.

sturmgewehr
July 22, 2007, 12:36 PM
I remember seeing a few scenes in anime (Trigun) and movies (Jet Li) where a defender would grab and hold the cylinder of a revolver and stop it from working. In a real world confrontation, could such an event happen?
Yes, if someone is dumb enough to stick a gun in my face, I can guarantee you that I will get it away from them long before they can shoot me. If a gun is in my face and the BG hasn't pulled the trigger yet, I am at a decided advantage. Depending on the gun in my face, I can and will disable it before I take it away (and will break their finger while taking it - maybe even their wrist). Other guns like XD's and blowback designs (like the P7) can't be easily disabled, so you grab them differently to gain leverage to then disarm the guy holding it to your face.

If you go up against a properly trained handgunner who will turn their strong side away from you and hold their weapon close to their torso with their weak hand out front to defend... well, that's the first clue the guy has training and knows how to use his weapon so you might want to fall back to plan B. Rarely will you find a BG who's properly trained and well practiced... most folks that do that aren't prone to being criminals (LEO, military, or motivated civilian).

Alphazulu6
July 22, 2007, 12:38 PM
I remember seeing a few scenes in anime (Trigun) and movies (Jet Li) where a defender would grab and hold the cylinder of a revolver and stop it from working. In a real world confrontation, could such an event happen?

Absolutely it could. Jet Li could also physically be able to steal the slide from your Beretta 92, but I would not want to count on pulling any of those moves off to save my life!

Jet Li and others have take after take after take to get it to even look like hollywood on the big screen. :D

230RN
July 22, 2007, 01:06 PM
Fascinating discussion.

I wonder if it's appropriate to ask this here: Are there any of the martial arts classes or "styles" available to the elderly, such as myself, who are somewhat limited in mobility due to arthritis, etc?

I would be interested in taking such a class, especially with respect to disarmament of an assailant with either a kinife or a gun, and in breaking holds on my person.

I admire the elderly gentleman who was so adept he could "steal the slide off your M92" (LOL !) but there are those of us who are not as flexible or fast who could use some "H2H" skills.

I have not as yet seen any "advertisements" for classes for folks in this situation.

While I sometimes joke that I have a "Black Belt in Kung-Forty-Five," I sure wouldn't mind knowing some of the moves necessary to defend or disarm which would be appropriate to a party of my age and mobility.

I guess what I'm really looking for is a class in Kung-Old-F@rt.

Thanks in advance, and I hope I'm not diverting the discussion too much.

Phaetos
July 22, 2007, 01:44 PM
Equilibrium Scenes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bGqnK0mFq4)

Much better gun/fight scenes.

Nio
July 22, 2007, 01:47 PM
Having done a *lot* of this kind of training with shooters and martial artists of all kinds, the answer is mostly what others have said. Distance counts. If the gunfighter is beyond 25 feet, then he has the greatest advantage. Inside 25 feet, there is still an advantage. Somewhere within 25 feet, though, the martial artists come into his own. A lot of people approach the problem where the gunfighter already has the gun out and pointed at the other guy. Working from the holster, though, changes the dynamic.

Bottom line, though, is that if I am unarmed you pull the trigger on me and I am within 25 feet of you, I *WILL* reach you and kill you *UNLESS* you manage to shoot me in such a way that I cannot move. You have to get a hip shot, shot through a leg bone, sever the spine, or head shot. If not, I'm going to reach you. Those aren't easy shots, and I'm not going to be an easy target.

Using airsoft, paintball, and simunitions, I've seen good martial artists beat not-so-good shooters. I've seen great martial artists beat good shooters. I've seen good shooters beat martial artists of all types. I've beaten and been beaten. When the fight starts, bull-****e goes out the window.

What I have observed hundreds and hundreds of times is the 'double kill'. You can shoot someone fatally and they can still do lots of things. You can blow their heart out and they can still fight for ten seconds or more. Guns and bullets aren't magic. Neither are any of the martial skills. It's not a fight I would want to have on either side of the fight for real.

Nio

GRIZ22
July 22, 2007, 02:28 PM
I remember seeing a few scenes in anime (Trigun) and movies (Jet Li) where a defender would grab and hold the cylinder of a revolver and stop it from working. In a real world confrontation, could such an event happen?


The first time I heard about "holding the cylinder tight" was the Green hornet was doing it in a radio episode (yeah some time ago). It would work as long as the guy holding the cylinder has a tremendous grip. Not if the gun was cocked though. The Secret Service Agent who grabbed the gun from Squeaky Fromme when she tried to shoot Ford jammed the web of his thumb beween the hammer and slide on the 1911 she was using.

BigRobT
July 22, 2007, 02:34 PM
230RN, I'd probably suggest that you start with Tai Chi and then progress to Judo or Jiu Jitsu.

As far as disarming someone with a gun, in my competition (Judo) days, I was confident enough that were I within arms reach or possibly a little further, that I could disarm someone. It all kind of depends on the given situation. It really hinges on the attitude of the person bearing the firearm in reality. Some people might hesitate and that hesitation could be harmful to them. If they were cocked, ready and willing to shoot, that makes it a little more problematic. The movies are the movies and scenes are choreographed. It's not really true life situations. There is no real answer to a real life situation because each situation differs because of the attitudes of the participants.

JShirley
July 22, 2007, 02:38 PM
"Distance".

biggiesmalls
July 22, 2007, 02:39 PM
royce gracie has put out a book on street self defense where he disarms a guy with a gun several ways. but i think i'll almost always go to my gun before going to my martial arts background.

akodo
July 22, 2007, 03:25 PM
the details of the scenario are very important, and also the skill level. Who do you stack up against a real martial arts expert? How about this guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6rEnEQkYaQ

If the martial arts guy was 10 feet or more away from jerry, they are toast. Even if there are 4 MA guys against one gunner.

Flip side of that is if they are in a 'mexican standoff' each armed and ready, but neither wanting to start trouble, the one who actually decides "Screw this I am going to take him out" and acts first is going to be able to finish before the other can react.

The gun is a ranged weapon, you get into situations where Guy A is holding a gun to Guy B's head, Guy B has a realistic chance of knocking it away and wrestling him, even with little training. Guns are for fighting, not holding people hostage.

Again, pressed body to body, say, people in line to buy movie tickets, one gunman one martial artist, i'd say advantage to the martial artist.

There is a reason that martial artists don't train vs a rifleman at 300 yards, nor a pistolero at 25 yards

akodo
July 22, 2007, 03:31 PM
another thought to consider. The expert pistolero could be in a wheelchair paralized from the middle down, and still be extremely deadly, etc.

firearms are more forgiving of physical differences, shortfalls, etc. as long as you have a good brain, vision, and a functional arm/hand unit, you are golden

FourTeeFive
July 22, 2007, 03:35 PM
I can't find the link but a while ago someone posted a link to a police training video showing the firearm drawing response time with someone charging with a knife. It illustrated that a firearm draw and fire wasn't too practical when you were within something like 22 feet from someone running at you with a knife. So from that information I would say that in certain situations martial arts skills would be more effective in defending yourself.

BAT1
July 22, 2007, 03:49 PM
If you get within arms reach, but you must be as good as Chuck Norris. At a distance be cool and wait for the perfect moment. Or you can listen or look for the sound of the carpel tendon moving to fire. Then you have to be better than Chuck Norris. I've been teaching for 28 yrs and i still don't think i can dodge bullets yet. That's where the brain wins. :cool:

JWarren
July 22, 2007, 03:50 PM
I've had a second degree black belt. A number of our techniques delt with open hand against various weapons-- including firearms.


My observation is that it is indeed possible to disarm/neutralize a fire-arm wielding attacker provided certain factors are present.

As has been said on this thread, distance is the first factor. Frankly, if you can't get to the attacker rapidly, you are not neutralizing him. Period.

What has not been mentioned on this thread is the Biggie: You have to be on top of your game. The biggest advantage a martial artist should employ in neutralizing a weapon-carrying opponent is reaction time. In its basic terms, if the martial artist acts, there is a delay before the target can react. This delay is a result of the rate of transmission from nerve impulses, the moment of cognation and processing a response, and then the transmission of nerve endings to the muscles. A lot of processes, but not a lot of time. If a martial artist is fast, accurate, and DOES NOT hesitate, his action can and will beat the reaction time. If he screws up anywhere in the technique, he is gonna likely get shot.

Bottom line: Be on top of your game before starting to snatch guns outta people's hands. Then again, if you have nothing to lose, it beats being slaughtered.


I went to a seminar led by Bill "Superfoot" Wallace (Champion back in the 70's) where he was asked (has martial artist are oft to be asked) "What are you gonna do if they pull a gun?"


His response was classic:


"Well, If they shoot me, I am going to bleed. If I bleed too much, I am going to die."

He went on to explain that martial arts has a use as the last resort weapon when you have no better alternatives, and that it isn't like the movies.


I concure.




-- John

sacp81170a
July 22, 2007, 05:42 PM
Bottom line, though, is that if I am unarmed you pull the trigger on me and I am within 25 feet of you, I *WILL* reach you and kill you *UNLESS* you manage to shoot me in such a way that I cannot move. You have to get a hip shot, shot through a leg bone, sever the spine, or head shot. If not, I'm going to reach you. Those aren't easy shots, and I'm not going to be an easy target.

All due respect, this depends on the guy with the gun giving up the advantage of distance. If he moves laterally, you have to reorient and pursue. In the course of the pursuit the gunman can get off several shots before you get anywhere close enough to hurt him. If you kick him in the knee and put him on the ground, he can still kill you with little effort. He doesn't even have to get up.

The video at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYAXjKkLmJs shows the gunman doing what a trained gunman would never do, obligingly sticking his gun arm and hand out for the martial artist to grab and manipulate. If the same guy took a couple migi nanamae ato (back and to the right at a 45) steps and fired from retention, the martial artist would be toast.

A gun also enables you to engage multiple attackers from a safe distance, something that's extremely dangerous even for the most accomplished martial artiste. A gun also keeps you out of range of contact weapons. You'll never know a good knife fighter has a knife until you're already cut.

Given equivalent training and awareness levels, the gun wins hands down.

sacp81170a
July 22, 2007, 05:57 PM
Ya know, the OP asked for real world martial arts against pistol stories, and so far there haven't been any, just theory and training scenarios. That may be because no martial artist worthy of the name would knowingly go up against a gunman unarmed. ;)

Zoogster
July 22, 2007, 06:15 PM
Well firearms area big equalizer, that is one of the cornerstones behind them and protecting thier ownership.
In history the advantage always went to the king's men that spent years of thier lives training with combat weapons involving martial arts while the average person (serf) was preoccupied with farming and toiling. The training was complex and advanced, the average person trained in not one but multiple different martial arts. They were taught techniques and different arts for offense, defensive, armed and unarmed combat. It was an entire lifestyle, a profession, with years of schooling and training, not just a hobby or self defense skill as it is today.

This meant that in Europe, and in places like fuedal Japan, a handful of professionals could take down dozens and dozens of serfs. On top of this, weapons were in general outlawed for serf possession so they had little skill or familiarity with them. In Asian cultures this is where most of the less effective (than the blades employed by the soldiers) improvised hand to hand tools we see associated with martials arts today came from. They had to be made from legal equipment, and often concealable. They started focusing on stealth to have an advantage over combat skill. So you have Assassins. You have "Ninjas" and other similar fighters that use the advantage of hit and run and stealth to initialy overcome greater skill.

However in general the professional won, the aristocracy was saved, the monarch's rule went unopposed. Guns changed this. Not long after firearms became popular in Europe society came out of a "Dark Age" where things had been the same for hundreds of years, and suddenly everyone felt empowered to challenge the monarchs and the professionals. You had rabble organizing and posing a threat. Ideas taught and imposed were challenged. Governments fell all around, sometimes forming something better, other times something worse, but change was rampant because all were on a more equal footing. Printing presses and science was protected because people could resist.
Organized armies still dominated, but man for man the professional with years of dedicated training was not assured victory over a rebel.

So the importance of martial arts, and the advantage to dedicating years to the pursuit of training for perfection no longer had much incentive and outweighed doing other productive things and pursuing other knowledge as a soldier/professional fighter. This is one of the reasons you see such things become less prevelent and important in Europe where firearms are common, and still practiced close to modern times where they are not like in East Asia. As a result many of our modern surviving martial arts are from the Orient.

Suddenly the shift was from professional soldiers who dedicated thier lives to training and more to militias and quickly trained soldiers with a relatively short amount of training prior to being used in combat or as security. That trend continues to this day. The amount of training to be a soldier, or a police officer is measured in months (obviously they can extend that for quality control, but to learn what is necessary does not take full time dedication for years) now instead of many years. It means people of all walks of life, with all different experiences fill those ranks, rather than those educated throughout thier lives dedicated to an art that followed the same cultural values. So less aristocratic leaning is the result. Such people are just foot soldiers now, one of the peasants, rather than a part of the aristocracy as in the days of knights, samurai etc.

Long story short, it means obviously the advantage goes to the pistoleer, that is why offensive and defensive training focuses on firearms these days rather than martial arts. Those that do focus on martial arts do so more as a less than lethal alternative and to subdue subjects for police/guard work, not because it is more effective.

Martial arts are still very valid, and good skill to fall back on or employ when necessary. One of thier main advantages is not just the skill itself, but the molding of a mindset that one can and should be ready and willing to take charge and be responsible for thier own and other's defense. Rather than trust thier safety to others, they are prepared. This often makes the biggest difference in thier relative safety.

However for the same reasons as cited above many professional martial artists will be against firearms (but obviously many are for). They don't think the average rabble, should have the power to kill without having mastered an artform that also teaches personal responsibility and honor. They obviously would rather live in a society where they and people like them who have applied themselves and grown in maturity have a monopoly on combat and injury inflicting skills. It is a noble notion, one easily understood, but is not based in reality, and in history lead to abuse of power, nobility, and protection of aristocracy. A warrior class, better than others.

However a technology as simple as combustion will not be forgotten or undone, and firearms are here to stay.

Furthermore, humans are naturaly tool users. That is one of the big things that seperates us from the animals. Even the most primitive people formed deadly weapons from sticks, rocks, animal parts etc.

So trained or untrained most defensive situations you will find yourself in will involve, or can quickly involve weapons. Whether it is a firearm, a knife, a blunt object, or anything else nearby not bolted down. So unarmed combat is a practical skill, but expecting to face unarmed opponents is unlikely. That aspect is more of a sport than a reality. Outside of schoolyard fights, and testosterone invoked machoism between friends or family, unarmed combat is rare. In real life people carry something or will pick something up that gives them an advantage and do so pretty fast.

So learn martial arts, enjoy it, I have. But learn how to shoot too, learn how to use weapons, and know how to improvise in situations. Mindset is key. Staying in top physical condition is helpful, and good for you at the same time. However don't expect any one tool to prevail. Don't expect any one skill to save you.

Myrdhyn
July 22, 2007, 06:18 PM
Whenever this comes up in conversation, I've always responded that if a gunman gets himself in a situation where grappling comes into play then sure the martial artist may/will have an advantage and that is as it may be. HOWEVER, whether you are a super grandmaster 15783 degree mega-black belt or not and whether or not you can get the gun away from them it boils down to this: A belt won't stop a bullet.

I.E. if you can't get there fast enough or get the gun away fast enough you can very easily still get shot. Relying on any one form of protection is foolhardy in the extreme.

AlaskaErik
July 22, 2007, 06:59 PM
Criminals like to run in twos and threes. Everyone, including Bruce Lee wannabes, need to be prepared for that type of confrontation.

fearless leader
July 22, 2007, 07:11 PM
It would naturally depend on the range, and who was more accomplished at his art.
I met a Karate instructor that wanted to have me in his class, but I just didn't want to get up that early. I carry a gun, I don't really need Karate, I told him.
He then painted a particularly scary scenario: What if the gun grabbers eventually make you a prisoner and your in a prison where you won't have a gun?
I suppose it could happen some day, if I live long enough.

Nio
July 22, 2007, 11:24 PM
Bottom line, though, is that if I am unarmed you pull the trigger on me and I am within 25 feet of you, I *WILL* reach you and kill you *UNLESS* you manage to shoot me in such a way that I cannot move. You have to get a hip shot, shot through a leg bone, sever the spine, or head shot. If not, I'm going to reach you. Those aren't easy shots, and I'm not going to be an easy target.

All due respect, this depends on the guy with the gun giving up the advantage of distance. If he moves laterally, you have to reorient and pursue. In the course of the pursuit the gunman can get off several shots before you get anywhere close enough to hurt him. If you kick him in the knee and put him on the ground, he can still kill you with little effort. He doesn't even have to get up.


Given that circumstance, you are correct. Running gunfights rarely happen, though. Where do most gunfights happen? Within 15 feet, and within the distance where martial arts may be useful.

Don't get me wrong - I am a martial artist. I've been training for 20 years. I also carry a gun. Two, actually. To me it isn't a quesiton of which one is a better idea. In my experience, being a martial artist makes me a *much* better gunfighter. Maybe that would be a better quesiton to ask: "If two guys get in a gunfight and they are both of equal skill with the gun, but one knows karate and the other doesn't, who wins?"

Criminals like to run in twos and threes. Everyone, including Bruce Lee wannabes, need to be prepared for that type of confrontation.

And there is something that reveals another angle. The vast majority of martial artists are just that - wannabes. They like the *idea* of karate, but maybe train two or three hours a week and incorrectly think they are worth something. Same thing happens with 'Dirty Harry' wannabes. They strap on a gun and think that they are covered. When I a karateka tells me that they *used* to train, or a 'gunfigher' tells me that he *used* to shoot a lot, that tells me that those people are worthless in a fight. If you aren't always training, the machine doesn't make you a super warrior.

Nio

sturmgewehr
July 22, 2007, 11:35 PM
I can't find the link but a while ago someone posted a link to a police training video showing the firearm drawing response time with someone charging with a knife. It illustrated that a firearm draw and fire wasn't too practical when you were within something like 22 feet from someone running at you with a knife. So from that information I would say that in certain situations martial arts skills would be more effective in defending yourself.

I probably posted it... Here it is again anyway...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dUSqE9TDhg

sturmgewehr
July 22, 2007, 11:39 PM
The problem is if you run around shooting everyone you get into a scuffle with, you're going to find yourself in prison for a very-very long time eventually.

Martial Arts give you a less than lethal response option. You can't go around pulling a gun every time someone threatens you (if they aren't armed themselves).

Notch
July 23, 2007, 12:20 AM
I have trained in Kali for 20 years. It is a combination of Mui Thai, Eskrima,JKD, Philipino boxing and various forms of Kung Fu. It is no nonsense, no posing and very effective. That said, I would never think of leaving the house without 2 or more handguns on my person. I am extremely confidant with knife fighting or empty hand, but I am also a realist as well. If I am with my son I will not put myself in a position in which I would need to lock up with one, two or three people on a sidewalk or street. There is no way to do so and protect him as much as I feel neccasary (sp?) I will also not take a chance on a dog attack as well. What I have learned requires the dog to ATTACK ME. Chances are the animal will go fo the smallest of the targets. I will always have a good fighting knife on me, but battles between individuals does not differ from battles between fighting forces. Meet your opposition with greater force than he has access to if at all possible. The 20 foot rule that so many talk about is relative in only a small part of attacks you will encounter. Yes, if someone gets to within 20 feet of you WIT A KNIFE DRAWN he MAY be able to cover the distance between you and him faster than you can draw a sidearm, BUT this ASSUMES that ... He has the weapon out AT 20 FEET and you do not recognize the threat... He is practiced, commited and fairly quick... you are less than average or slow in response. If a man is 20 feet from me and he BEGINS at that time to draw his blade and is of average speed and skill, and I am practiced at my draw, he will lose. This is wha we have found in countless sparring sessions. A firearm isnt the only tool we should have to rely on for personal safety, but it is BY FAR the most effective means we have at our disposal. If you are being menaced by an attacker and he is hopped up on whatever, be it adrenalin, ego or dope, a good fighting stance MAY give him second thoughts... But a drawn pistol will do it for sure.

Stay safe. Carry a good sidearm AND learn to kick some ass.

Mr. Magnum
July 23, 2007, 12:29 AM
[this is the only story I have. a 49 second clip from the anime Samurai Champloo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4gkiji8zLA
Mukuro (with revolver) vs. Jin (ronin)]

If Mukuro was only like Bob Munden (cant find any videoclip) or this guy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9AJzv8gb2A

hehehhehe.... with all these stress from work, its nice to be de-stressed out discussing topics like these.... like when we were in 4th grade, its robots vs androids

[A funny bit of trivia(to me at least) about that scene. It was supposed to be a great fight between Indy (with his whip) and the swordsman. But when they started to choreograph the fight, Harrison Ford was sick with the flu, or beri-beri, or some such. (If you look at the scene, he looks like hell) He just didn't feel up to it, so as a joke he pulled and shot the swordsman. The director and crew just fell out and decided to keep the scene.]

great trivia! this is one of the more memorable scene in any films in hollywood history....yet is was unprepared for.

[Naw, Remo Williams (or Master Chiun) would just dodge each bullet, maneuver up to you, twist your gun arm around, pop out the mag, flick off each remaining round from the mag. and then beat you with your own pistol.]

[Somone in class asked him this very question. He explained that Tae Kwon Do was tought to most every Korean student for many years yet every conscript in the ROK Army was trained to use a firearm. He said he would never willfully take on an assailant with a gun.]

- This is one of the things i heavily ponder on. while i admit i am no martial artist (although i came close of becoming a black belter in jujitsu 7 years ago in which i almost forgot every damn thing i have learned).. i am very much a pistolero and since training for firearms defense, quickdraw etc...i
still believe it is still a form of martial arts. Though the thing is why do i hear from great martial arts gurus that "it is not wise to fight with someone with a gun" yet the non-expert chose to do so. hmmmmmm.........

[There's been one time in my Kendo career when I actually had someone "disappear" from in front of me.]
this im excited to see.......

[He went on to explain that martial arts has a use as the last resort weapon when you have no better alternatives, and that it isn't like the movies.]
+ 1 on this

[The problem is if you run around shooting everyone you get into a scuffle with, you're going to find yourself in prison for a very-very long time eventually. Martial Arts give you a less than lethal response option. You can't go around pulling a gun every time someone threatens you (if they aren't armed themselves.]
+2 on this

sturmgewehr
July 23, 2007, 12:39 AM
Bob Munden:

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/id/2677606489

sturmgewehr
July 23, 2007, 12:43 AM
My personal favorite Jerry Miculek:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uisHfKj2JiI

sacp81170a
July 23, 2007, 05:36 AM
[There's been one time in my Kendo career when I actually had someone "disappear" from in front of me.]
this im excited to see.......

He didn't actually "disappear" as this is a physical impossibility. It's more correct to say "I completely lost sight of him." Same result, however it happened. :uhoh:


Given that circumstance, you are correct. Running gunfights rarely happen, though.

Uh, I suggest you try some force on force training with simunitions or air soft. Gunfights in those circumstances (much closer to "reality") are in fact extremely dynamic.

To me it isn't a quesiton of which one is a better idea. In my experience, being a martial artist makes me a *much* better gunfighter.

I agree completely. One of the things training in martial arts does is give you the proper mindset.

Maybe that would be a better quesiton to ask: "If two guys get in a gunfight and they are both of equal skill with the gun, but one knows karate and the other doesn't, who wins?"

The one who wins the fight without having to resort to fighting, of course. ;) That's one of the secrets I've always let my students know up front. I'm not teaching them to fight, I'm teaching them how *not* to fight. If you're skilled in fighting, no one can force you to do anything, even fight. If you're not, you have no choice in the matter. This is the paradox that the blissninnies out there can't seem to grasp, that those most capable of violence tend to be those who understand how uncertain the outcome of any deadly encounter is. Therefore, they tend to be the most peaceful among us.

To paraphrase Clint Smith, "If you're ever in a fair fight, your tactics suck."

Havegunjoe
July 23, 2007, 04:44 PM
Two of the instructors I teach with are black belts. They both see the limitations of relying solely on Martial Arts and the advantages of having a carry permit.

CWL
July 23, 2007, 04:58 PM
Rather than quoting from cartoons, here's something that should sober people up, world class Thai kickboxer shot to death:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/08/05/GONG.TMP

Zundfolge
July 23, 2007, 05:16 PM
[language police]Pistolcraft IS a martial art.[/language police]

:p

ctdonath
July 23, 2007, 06:48 PM
Variations on the "sword vs. gun" question pop up in threads on a regular basis.
Being a student of pistol and katana, I compared the two here (http://www.donath.org/Rants/SwordVsGun/). Upshot is that within range, both are equally effective. A similar comparison, likely with similar results, could be made with other martial arts: within effective range and applied fully (i.e.: with extreme prejudice), the result should be about the same. Draw times for gun and sword are about the same, and both are devastating on contact.

sacp81170a
July 23, 2007, 07:01 PM
[language police]Pistolcraft IS a martial art.[/language police]

I prefer the term "gun fu". :neener:

Variations on the "sword vs. gun" question pop up in threads on a regular basis.

ct: I read your tests, and unless you've studied iai for a while, you've missed out on a lot of waza that use the tsuba as a very effective close combat weapon. The swordsman doesn't have to step back if he's within 3 feet, as cutting on a reverse draw is taught in muso shinden ryu. These waza are in the koryu, not in the seitei iai portion. A sword is far more than simply a long knife.

jerkface11
July 23, 2007, 07:51 PM
So if Bob Munden fought Chuck Norris who would win?

LightningJoe
July 23, 2007, 11:49 PM
Hand vs gun is like tank vs submarine. They've both got their place, but they're kind of lost against each other.


The guy with the gun can't really shoot the guy with no gun. There are people on these B boards who swear up and down you can shoot unarmed people if they look like they're going to hit you. Those people should probably stay home.


The guy with no gun would be extremely unwise to attack a guy with a gun, because it might be one of those people from the preceding paragraph who think they can shoot you for hitting them. Oh, sure, they'll go to prison, but that won't fix the hole in your head.

Nio
July 24, 2007, 01:06 AM
Hand vs gun is like tank vs submarine. They've both got their place, but they're kind of lost against each other.

I am SO gonna steal that...

Nio

sturmgewehr
July 24, 2007, 01:50 AM
So if Bob Munden fought Chuck Norris who would win?
In an elevator? Probably Chuck.

eltorrente
July 24, 2007, 01:52 AM
Hand vs gun is like tank vs submarine. They've both got their place, but they're kind of lost against each other.

Actually, a submarine could easily take out a tank. You're point still stands though - I'm just picking the fly s**t out of the pepper. :D

sturmgewehr
July 24, 2007, 01:52 AM
To paraphrase Clint Smith, "If you're ever in a fair fight, your tactics suck."
So freaking true.

sturmgewehr
July 24, 2007, 01:54 AM
Actually, a submarine could easily take out a tank. You're point still stands though - I'm just picking the fly s**t out of the pepper.
I guess that depends on the sub... a Trident that had a FO out there that could pin-point the target? Easily. A Los Angeles class vs. a tank? I guess that depends on the circumstances. LOL, that's a total "what if" game with no real victor unless things were incredibly lucky for one guy and really unlucky for the other. :D

Nomad, 2nd
July 24, 2007, 02:01 AM
The guy who studies both:

http://www.tacticalresponse.com/courses/thefight.php


I am not an experenced FOF practitioner... but I HAVE been shown by some that are, that unless you knock them out or cripple them in your first attack...
They WILL kill you.

eltorrente
July 24, 2007, 02:07 AM
I guess that depends on the sub... a Trident that had a FO out there that could pin-point the target? Easily. A Los Angeles class vs. a tank? I guess that depends on the circumstances. LOL, that's a total "what if" game with no real victor unless things were incredibly lucky for one guy and really unlucky for the other.

O.k., way off topic here LOL but yeah, well I was just imagining a what-if scenario. O.k., a renegade tank is shelling an orphanage, and there is noone around to stop him :eek:. But wait! There's a submarine out there loaded with a few tomahawks (all subs carry at least a few of them as far as I know (ex submariner)). They could simply input the coordinates from an observer or satellite, and the tank goes bye-bye. Of course, they would probably never waste an expensive tomahawk on a tank in a "normal" war- but hey it could be done. :D

Prince Yamato
July 24, 2007, 02:20 AM
I did Shaolin Kung Fu for 3 months. It would take me years to physically beat my instructor. In 5 seconds, I could beat him with a gun. I personally can't stand the attitude of the gurus or senseis or whatever they call themselves. I wanted to know specific techniques: How to break a neck, how to break bones, etc. Not that I was going to practice them on friends or anything. I didn't give a crap about the "enlightened path" or progressing through belts. Just show me where to hit the neck. The lack of progression is nothing more than a financial scam to keep you in most of the classes and increase the wages, along with mandatory outfits and kung-fu shoes and whatever else is needed. The sensei is master of nothing compared to a 9mm. Dead is Dead. As for your friends who are anti-gun and pro-martial arts, they're probably the walking stereotype of the white-kid who thinks he knows an ancient Chinese secret, tries to stop a gunfight with his bare hands and gets killed.

If there's one thing I can't physically stand it's people who think everything Asian has some sort of mystical power to it. It doesn't. Don't believe me? Then explain the existence of Norinco.

Also, people don't disappear. It's a physical impossibility. Yeah, blah blah blah Ninjitsu... ninjas were like medieval hitmen. Nothing more.

Also, in fairness to the Harry Potter guy who I ripped on in another thread. Do NOT quote Anime as a real life example- especially on a gun forum. It's not good form. You can like anime- hell I used to watch it. We just don't need any, "which caliber to stop Akira?" Threads, m'kay :). Antis read these sites and anything they can use against us is worth its weight in gold to them.

sacp81170a
July 24, 2007, 05:37 AM
Also, people don't disappear. It's a physical impossibility.

Agreed. Obata Sensei didn't "disappear" (except from my perspective). He just moved so quickly and unexpectedly that I lost sight of him. If you've never had a set of dogu on, you don't understand that the men(head armor with the grill on front) severely limits your peripheral vision. The interesting way in which this relates to handgun tactics is that it artificially creates the "tunnel vision" that happens during stressful encounters. Take that lesson to handguns and what it tells you is that an aggressive, quick move forward at an angle is very likely to take you out of someone's line of sight. A useful bit of knowledge...

I still think this thread has some useful discussion, but the telling fact to me is that the one and only real life story we've seen ends with the champion Muay Thai fighter being killed by a man who was sitting down behind the steering wheel of a motor vehicle.

The one story that I have that's similar is a friend and training partner of mine while I was stationed in Cheyenne got out of the Air Force, went back to his home town, and was shot to death. He was a black belt. So far, the evidence supports the trained handgunner vs. the trained martial artist.

sacp81170a
July 24, 2007, 05:58 AM
Ooops. Double post.

expvideo
July 24, 2007, 11:10 AM
what about martial artist vs pirate?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8rmHzFEqJM

Nio
July 24, 2007, 05:26 PM
I did Shaolin Kung Fu for 3 months. It would take me years to physically beat my instructor. In 5 seconds, I could beat him with a gun. I personally can't stand the attitude of the gurus or senseis or whatever they call themselves. I wanted to know specific techniques: How to break a neck, how to break bones, etc. Not that I was going to practice them on friends or anything. I didn't give a crap about the "enlightened path" or progressing through belts. Just show me where to hit the neck.

Which is about the same thing as saying, "I just wanted to know how to load the gun and pull the trigger so I could stick it in my pants and feel good about myself. I don't give a hoot about all that 'sight picture' garbage." Knowing how to do something and actually being able to do it are two different things.

If there's one thing I can't physically stand it's people who think everything Asian has some sort of mystical power to it. It doesn't. Don't believe me? Then explain the existence of Norinco

LOL! You're right on that one. I get sick of the same thing.

Also, people don't disappear. It's a physical impossibility. Yeah, blah blah blah Ninjitsu... ninjas were like medieval hitmen. Nothing more.

People can move fast enough to appear to disappear. I do it myself, and I teach it to my students. You wouldn't be interested in actually learning how, though...takes time and training. There isn't a quick pill to take.

Nio

eltorrente
July 24, 2007, 06:09 PM
Also, people don't disappear. It's a physical impossibility. Yeah, blah blah blah Ninjitsu... ninjas were like medieval hitmen. Nothing more.

Apparantly you haven't watched The Octagon, starring Chuck Norris. There were lots of Ninjas in that movie and they did some amazing things!

DomMega
July 24, 2007, 06:20 PM
I've been a martial artists since a very young boy off and on but I can honestly say that knowing what I know AND being a gun owner far outweighs just knowing one or the other.

As for martial artists being known as anti's, this is true and I'm not entirely sure as to why.

pdowg881
July 24, 2007, 06:29 PM
Possibly many think martial arts are superior and anybody who uses a gun in inferior not "enlightened" etc?

Nio
July 24, 2007, 07:01 PM
Possibly many think martial arts are superior and anybody who uses a gun in inferior not "enlightened" etc?

Most martial artists are prejudiced against firearms for the same reason that most other people are - simple ignorance. I've known lots of people to go on about how good they are with a sai or some nunchaku, but who walks around with a pair stuck in their pants? I will say that all the martial artists I've introduced to firearms get pretty keen on them...

Nio

silliman89
July 24, 2007, 07:13 PM
As for martial artists being known as anti's, this is true and I'm not entirely sure as to why.


Makes perfect sense to me.

A guy spends his whole adult life studying to be a master in hand-to-hand combat. He finally gets to be good. He can beat anyone who hasn't also spent a lifetime studying the same thing. He should be the master of all he surveys. He deserves to be.

Instead he has to be just as scared of a two-bit punk with a gun as I am. It just isn't fair. It only makes sense for him to want guns to not exist so that he would be on the top of the heap again.

MT GUNNY
July 24, 2007, 09:45 PM
I will elaberate a little, please if anyone knows what im talking about feel free
to correct it.

I once read or seen somewhere, In the time it takes one to react,
another could move towards you and be close for fisical contact
within 5 or 10 steps.

sacp81170a
July 24, 2007, 10:06 PM
Nio:
Most martial artists are prejudiced against firearms for the same reason that most other people are - simple ignorance.

I'd have to say you're pretty much exactly right. Strangely enough, it's only the American and European martial artists that I've met that suffer from this peculiar disorder. Iwakabe sensei at the Rocky Mountain Budokan in Denver has no fear of guns and is a good shot himself. Who knows why?

I've known lots of people to go on about how good they are with a sai or some nunchaku, but who walks around with a pair stuck in their pants? I will say that all the martial artists I've introduced to firearms get pretty keen on them...

That's exactly why I carry a handgun rather than a sword. :D It's extremely hard to avoid saya ate (bumping another's scabbard) if you're not aware of the etiquette and, given that it's a killing insult, I just don't feel like going through the day that way. And talk about a handgun being hard to access while driving... ;)

Autolycus
July 24, 2007, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by Nio;
What I have observed hundreds and hundreds of times is the 'double kill'. You can shoot someone fatally and they can still do lots of things. You can blow their heart out and they can still fight for ten seconds or more. Guns and bullets aren't magic. Neither are any of the martial skills. It's not a fight I would want to have on either side of the fight for real.

Where have you observed this phenomenon hundreds and hundres of times?

mirage
July 24, 2007, 11:43 PM
maybe like this.......

JWarren
July 24, 2007, 11:48 PM
Most martial artists are prejudiced against firearms for the same reason that most other people are - simple ignorance.


I must hang out with the odd-balls of the group. Practically every martial artist I ever trained with also is quite handy with handguns, rifles, and shotguns.

I do know what you mean, however. I've met a few martial artists whose threat-scenerios are rather fanciful.

Just smile, be agreeable and walk away. You aren't going to convince them otherwise.


-- John

Mr. Magnum
July 25, 2007, 12:10 AM
okay okay...... just a kiddie question..... (Sh#t! and im 34)..

we all know that martial arts is a way of life... discipline for the mind and soul...etc etc

but if a martial artist guru with 20 years of training, fights off a pistolero with the same amount of training (20 years of speed shooting / point shooting / fastdraw)......... start off point....7 yards....

this i gotta see!

Mr. Magnum
July 25, 2007, 12:39 AM
cant seem to save this streaming video... tried everything

Bob Munden:
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/id/2677606489

Nio
July 25, 2007, 12:41 AM
Originally posted by Nio;
What I have observed hundreds and hundreds of times is the 'double kill'. You can shoot someone fatally and they can still do lots of things. You can blow their heart out and they can still fight for ten seconds or more. Guns and bullets aren't magic. Neither are any of the martial skills. It's not a fight I would want to have on either side of the fight for real.

Where have you observed this phenomenon hundreds and hundres of times?

In my own dojo. Reading what I wrote, though, it isn't exactly how I meant it to come out, so allow me to elaborate. It's very easy to find case examples of people who get shot - sometimes shot a lot - and keep running around doing all kinds of things. Getting shot does NOT equal instantly dead or even instantly incapacitated. Heck, only 9% of people shot in the head with a pistol caliber actually die. You can be fatally shot, but still be in the fight because your body doesn't know that it's dead yet. The case examples are numerous.

Taking that into training with airsoft, I've observed and participated in hundreds of drills where the shooter gets off a shot or two but the man (or woman) without a gun (but perhaps a knife or other weapon) manages to close the distance and inflict serious injury before they would be overcome by the 'gunshot wounds' inflicted. Shooting at a paper target is one thing, but shooting at someone when they are bearing down on you and you *know* that they are going to hit you hard when they reach you is something else. (We knock the snot out of one another in training...)

Even fairly experienced shooters have trouble with this drill in the begining. They get excited and may manage to shoot arms or legs, and even gut shots - but nothing good enough to stop a goal-oriented maniac from closing the distance and doing damage. It takes some training to stand there and make good shots on an incoming target - especially when that target is trying really hard *not* to get shot. You have to be able to present the gun fast, and then shoot fast and well against an agressive, incoming, moving target.

Not too many people actually train for that. Most people stand in a square box and punch paper. Like my friend Ivan says, "Ze world look werry divverent vhen you icehole is blinking."

Nio

eltorrente
July 25, 2007, 03:12 AM
I once read or seen somewhere, In the time it takes one to react,
another could move towards you and be close for fisical contact
within 5 or 10 steps.

:confused:

Maybe if the guy was really drunk and/or stoned out of his mind. No way someone could take 5 to 10 steps before someone could react.

My friends and I doing experiments with a water pistol showed us that you could only slap a gun away and/or grab it when it is within a couple inches of your head. When it was that close, even when we were expecting it and ready for the guy to smack the gun, we simply couldn't react fast enough and pull the trigger in time. When it was held just a couple feet in front, we always got sprayed before we could knock it out of the way.

sacp81170a
July 25, 2007, 05:22 AM
It takes some training to stand there and make good shots on an incoming target - especially when that target is trying really hard *not* to get shot.

That's precisely the problem. In all the FoF training that I've done, the guy who stands still is the guy who loses. Over and over, no matter whether we're using the shock knives(great little training tool, BTW) or sim guns, the guy who fails to "move off the X" gets hurt. Use the time that it takes you to draw to move laterally back or forward off the line of attack. This forces the other guy to reorient his attack, giving you plenty of time to take well aimed shots. Forcing the guy with the gun to stand in one place results in him getting hurt every time. Time is your friend, distance is your friend. Learn how to increase both.

That's why fencing (European or Japanese) is such great training, because the emphasis is on doing something with your feet at the same time as you're doing something with that hunk of steel you've got in your hand. Not denigrating other martial arts, but most karateka have no idea of precision of movement and timing until they've tried the sword arts. I'm a great example of this fact. I practiced Judo, Tang Soo Do, and Wado Ryu for 15 years before I started Kendo. It's really embarassing to be a black belt and get thoroughly whomped by some kid with a shinai. ;) I thought I knew something about footwork, but in Kendo you have about 15 different terms for how you move your feet while taking a step. It's a whooooole different world.

PP
July 25, 2007, 09:17 AM
Hi! I would like to add my input here. The problem of this thread is the question itself. Most of us live in civilised world and the times when you were either fast or dead are away. That brings the confusion to this problem - people think of shooting and martial arts (bare fist fighting, close range fighting, brawl etc.) as of two different things. But they are not!!!

It is like the word "gunfight" - it is not GUN it actually is FIGHT. In ancient times in China for example they learned how to fight with bare fists, with swords and spears and they also learned to shoot the bow. So if you are learning some martial art and you do because of SELF DEFENCE - you should definately become familiar with guns and shooting. And if you have a firearm for SELF DEFENCE you should become familiar with some basic fighting techniques.

When you are using a gun it is in principles like when you are using a spear. The trajectory of attack is the same at least. So the defence would be in principles also the same - side moves + trying to get as close as possible.

Somebody wrote here that knife at close distance is much more dangerous than a gun - that is extremely true. Please check some vidoes from Dan Inosanto - one of the best experts for knife fighting. He was teaching custom officers to avoid being stabed. So they simulate a situation. They told them he is dangerous and have a knife. Everybody got stabed anyway and nobody was able to pull the gun out of the holster :(

P.S: Sorry for the gramar mistakes - I am not native speaker.

sacp81170a
July 25, 2007, 09:34 AM
Somebody wrote here that knife at close distance is much more dangerous than a gun - that is extremely true. Please check some vidoes from Dan Inosanto - one of the best experts for knife fighting. He was teaching custom officers to avoid being stabed. So they simulate a situation. They told them he is dangerous and have a knife. Everybody got stabed anyway and nobody was able to pull the gun out of the holster

I've been to one of Dan's seminars and he is every bit as dangerous with a knife as anyone with a gun. The difference here is that customs officers, like other LEO's, must get close in order to do their job. In a pure self defense situation, you can keep your distance or run away. That's why LEO's are so interested in what you're doing with your hands. As for me, having been to those seminars and trained with sticks and blades, I don't want to just see your hands, I want to see your palms and the inside of your wrists.

Would I take extra precautions if I were arresting someone who I knew was an MMA fighter? You betcha. I'd call for backup and make it very clear to the fighter that any aggressive move on his part would result in the use of deadly force on my part. I'd use felony arrest procedures, not because I'm afraid of him, but because I'd want us both to go home instead of to the hospital. Respecting another means not discounting his potential to do you harm. Heinlein had it exactly right, "an armed society is a polite society."

PP
July 25, 2007, 09:55 AM
That is very true - indeed. The problem was also that they always went for their guns instead of dealing with the situation straight away (pushing him back, blocking etc.) and then pulling the gun.

That is the reason why I wrote - it is always a fight and the gun is just a tool. The first reaction of most people when conforntating such a situation is to grab a gun. It is not always the best solution.

atomd
July 25, 2007, 10:29 AM
You know, there's like a butt-load of gangs at this school. This one gang kept wanting me to join because I'm pretty good with a bo staff.

ctdonath
July 25, 2007, 12:05 PM
PP has the right idea: the question was presented as style vs. style, when the real question is martial vs. art. The issue is not tool vs. different tool, the issue is the effectiveness of fighting commitment.

Yes, guns do provide a leveraging advantage over other tools, giving a long-range point-and-click lethality option to naive users, an ability to lethal damage with minimal effort. That means nothing if that tool is not applied quickly and decisively in a FIGHT. The oft-mentioned Indiana Jones scene exemplifies this - not by showing a gun superior to sword, but by showing intent to apply immediately & decisively (even if with a groan & shrug) superior to intimidation techniques; the movie would have ended quickly if the guy with the sword had just swung accurately first chance he had, instead of showing off.

The pistoleer should be seen as just another martial artist, familiar with body dynamics, target zones, avoidance techniques, and application of the chosen tool in a manner designed to destroy the opponent as swiftly as possible. He just happens to use a tool with a ranged linear effect, instead of a limited-range area of effect.

No, I don't have any real-world "gun vs. X" stories to contribute. I have, however, studied a variety of tools from long-range rifle down to bare hands. Of all that study, I conclude that tool matters little, mindset is everything, and of all weapons I fear the cane most.


"A pacifist holding a machinegun is just a pacifist holding a machinegun."

Welcome to THR, PP. Nice to see insightful contributions from new participants.

Sniper X
July 25, 2007, 12:08 PM
Easy answer, dead karate guy, living gun guy.....one other reason why I carry, I only took 3 years of TKD and there IS that disparity of force issue when a bigger meaner martial artist is trying to hurt you!

I would think most martial artist are passives in reality but there are those who learn it to use it as a WEAPON against the victim.

Vern Humphrey
July 25, 2007, 01:53 PM
The expression is, "Sure as shootin'," not "Sure as a karate chop."

Caimlas
July 25, 2007, 02:10 PM
Well, I guess I have a story to tell. Not exatly what you're asking for, but...

My wife has an anti friend. She's anti-gun, anti-logic, anti-anything that is her conceived notion of "the evil repressive system". Anyway, that's besides the point.

She's about 5'6", eastern Europe extraction athletic/slender and maybe 110-120lb, 26, and a mother of two girls under 4. When she was younger - before she had kids, basically - she was really into martial arts and exercise, and she's supposedly a black belt in tae kwon do. (I was a purple belt in shotokan karate in high school, but stopped due to lack of funds. Not 100% certain on length of time required to get a black belt, but it was at least a year and a half for me to get a purple belt - white, orange, green, blue x2, purple #1 - at 3 month increments. Most people took longer.)

Anyway, she said that she didn't need a gun, she knew karate. Despite the fact that in the case of a problem she'd have two young girls to take care of in addition to herself. (And despite the fact that she's likely to be carrying a child, and her style is heavily dependent on the ability to quickly shift balance and use one's feet offensively.)

So, being the philosophically aggressive type, I challenged her: if her martial arts skills could defend herself and her children against an attacker, she should have no problem stopping lil' old me (6'2" and a mere 155lb) from grabbing her - at a fairly non-aggressive speed at that. She wasn't able to; I had her in submission both times she tried, despite multiple (attempted) body hits. A person simply gets in "wrestling close" way too quickly once within they're in striking range, especially if they've got a height/weight/reach advantage.

It doesn't matter how many notches on your black belt you've got if you're too weak to fight off and stop someone coming at you and they've got a strength advantage.

Anyway, that's my pistoleer vs. martial arts 'expert' story. :)

sacp81170a
July 25, 2007, 02:21 PM
She's about 5'6", eastern Europe extraction athletic/slender and maybe 110-120lb, 26, and a mother of two girls under 4.

Anyway, she said that she didn't need a gun, she knew karate.

Unfortunately, she's bought into the myth that any attacker will be less skilled than she is and thus they will be easily overcome. I've seen waaaay too many videos and reports of prisoners trading tricks and techniques while incarcerated to believe that criminals don't practice. What they do practice are techniques that are short, brutal, ugly, and depend on surprise and explosive violence. The average "dojo ballerina" mindset will get you killed very quickly on the streets.

On the other hand, it's more comforting to live in denial than to take positive steps to protect yourself and your loved ones. I've seen many anti-rape seminars that were teaching techniques that would get you killed if employed against a street fighter. The one consistent element that gives you the ability to fight back no matter what your size or physical ability: a gun.

ctdonath
July 25, 2007, 02:42 PM
Actually, the absence of real-world stories re: pistoleer vs. martial arts expert most likely come from the fact that few criminal attackers occupy either category. I submit that the title question is thus a non-starter.

Vern Humphrey
July 25, 2007, 03:10 PM
She's anti-gun, anti-logic, anti-anything that is her conceived notion of "the evil repressive system".
Have you explained to her the relationship between gun control and "the evil repressive system?"

It's very hard to repress a man or woman who's holding a loaded gun.

MT GUNNY
July 25, 2007, 07:13 PM
Eltorrent

thats if you already have the gun out what if its holsterd and your just walking and minding your own biusness.

76shuvlinoff
July 25, 2007, 07:52 PM
In my concealed carry classes and in the more advanced defensive shooting classes later on (I think they were required to use the term "defensive") They demonstrated how a determined attacker can cover 18 feet by the time you assess the situation draw and fire the first round. Granted, the instructors had demonstrated this a hundred times to a hundred other classes but even if you take out the fudge and drama factors it's a dose of cold water. Suppose that attacker is loaded up on dope? I believe you better empty that hi cap mag in center mass and hope to take out the spine. Practice, practice practice, fire, move and fire and move and fire.

.02

ctdonath
July 26, 2007, 03:41 PM
Maybe because in Yojimbo (IIRC) a straightforward fight is remembered five different ways by three different participants, and thus we have no idea what really happened.

10-Ring
July 26, 2007, 04:20 PM
I was always told that it would take someone well trained before it would even be an issue and then only an issue inside 8' or so. Outside of that, the pistoleer would win.

Koz
July 26, 2007, 07:33 PM
You are going to need to be extremely clever and quick to disarm someone if he has you dead to rights. All he has to do is point the gun right and pull a trigger, you have to do a lot of **** right.

eltorrente
July 26, 2007, 07:50 PM
Eltorrent

thats if you already have the gun out what if its holsterd and your just walking and minding your own biusness.

Well, of course, then. :D

If you aren't expecting anything and just get straight up attacked out of the blue - there's no way you could realize what is going on, unholster, and pull the trigger.

If the guy isn't expecting it, the attacker would be wise to not just run at him from 10 steps away or whatever - he's gonna casually walk up and ask him what time it is or something first - then attack him. No need to go running at someone if he isn't expecting it. If he IS expecting it, then obviously the attacker is gonna get blasted.

ctdonath
July 26, 2007, 09:32 PM
Seems a good time to remind...

"Sometimes the dragon wins."

Mr. Magnum
July 28, 2007, 04:17 PM
[The expression is, "Sure as shootin'," not "Sure as a karate chop."]
HAHAHAHA LOL!!!!!!

[It doesn't matter how many notches on your black belt you've got if you're too weak to fight off and stop someone coming at you and they've got a strength advantage.]

- This has a lot of sense especially for women living alone in their apartment/house around a tough and rough neighborhood. A woman which has a small to medium frame that is a martial arts GOdess against a 6" drug addict attacker/rapist with a gun has its doubts really.. which leads me to the next post that i read which was......

[....believe that criminals don't practice. What they do practice are techniques that are short, brutal, ugly, and depend on surprise and explosive violence. ]

- Have anyone read at least a hundred actual police reports of real self-defense incidents wherein the aggressor does short/direct/brutal attack to the innocent? pretty scary stuff. then again with this other post below...

[Actually, the absence of real-world stories re: pistoleer vs. martial arts expert most likely come from the fact that few criminal attackers occupy either category. I submit that the title question is thus a non-starter.]

-makes me want to post a sequel thread entitled:
"In actual police cases for the past 20 years, which has more accounts of a successfull defense against a very brutal aggressor? gun owners or an individual using martial art skills?"

eltorrente
July 28, 2007, 08:57 PM
Martial arts looks pretty good in dojos and demonstrations. It's never so pretty in real life though.

Remember the original UFC events? Back then there was no "mixed martial arts", it was just "experts" at various martial arts that would meet in the ring and see who would win. Before each fight they'd show the participant in his dojo, working out with other students and doing these spectacular moves and stuff. Once they got into the ring, it was a whole new ball game. It was all about going straight at the other guy and using mainly fists, then throwing the other guy down and pounding elbows and fists into his face. Not once did someone pull off some super move.

The only guy that used his training was Gracie and his grappling techniques, which of course, work. The problem is that even when grappling and looking for an arm-bar or something, there was always a free hand out there punching at his side or head or something and if there was a gun or knife involved, he would have gotten blasted.

Keep the fancy stuff to the dojo, otherwise run the heck away.

Nio
July 29, 2007, 12:31 AM
Keep the fancy stuff to the dojo, otherwise run the heck away.

I haven't yet managed to outrun bullets... I'll take my chances with the Karate...

Nio

FerFAL
July 29, 2007, 01:07 AM
Just for those wondering:
You don’t loose any fingers if you grab a semi auto that is being fired(frame slide, barrel pointed away form the body!). You dont even get burned or hurt the skin. The worst thing that could happen is getting a bit of skin bit between the barrel and slide on the ejection port, pretty similar to hammer bite on some guns, nothing else.
We tried this during a class with live ammo ( Glock 17) and you don’t get hurt at all, the empty case stays in the chamber, the gun can’t keep on firing.
I was pretty surprised because I thought that it would at least hurt the fingers a bit.
FerFAL

FerFAL
July 29, 2007, 01:22 AM
Nio wrote:
In my own dojo. Reading what I wrote, though, it isn't exactly how I meant it to come out, so allow me to elaborate. It's very easy to find case examples of people who get shot - sometimes shot a lot - and keep running around doing all kinds of things. Getting shot does NOT equal instantly dead or even instantly incapacitated. Heck, only 9% of people shot in the head with a pistol caliber actually die. You can be fatally shot, but still be in the fight because your body doesn't know that it's dead yet. The case examples are numerous.

Taking that into training with airsoft, I've observed and participated in hundreds of drills where the shooter gets off a shot or two but the man (or woman) without a gun (but perhaps a knife or other weapon) manages to close the distance and inflict serious injury before they would be overcome by the 'gunshot wounds' inflicted. Shooting at a paper target is one thing, but shooting at someone when they are bearing down on you and you *know* that they are going to hit you hard when they reach you is something else. (We knock the snot out of one another in training...)

Things do change quite a bit when you have a shooter trained in CQC, rather than someone that simply “shoots paper”.
A trained shooter will keep the attacker away by moving, using objects, or keeping the attacker at bay with one arm while shooting with the other. Yes, you’ll get cut, but I’ll gladly exchange a cut arm for an attacker full of holes.

It takes some training to stand there and make good shots on an incoming target - especially when that target is trying really hard *not* to get shot. You have to be able to present the gun fast, and then shoot fast and well against an agressive, incoming, moving target.

And you wont “stand there and make good shots on an incoming target”, you’ll move AWAY from the attacker while you shoot, increasing the distance as much as possible.

FerFAL

Nio
July 29, 2007, 02:00 AM
I was pretty surprised because I thought that it would at least hurt the fingers a bit.

You can sometimes get away with that with 9mm, but I have seen some painful injuries from this. Check page 4 of this document for an example:

http://www.personaldefensesolutions.net/Article-SafetyFirst.pdf

You do what you have to in the situation, but if the gun goes off, it might be painful. I wouldn't reccomend 'trying' it in practice.

Nio

sacp81170a
July 29, 2007, 10:53 AM
Things do change quite a bit when you have a shooter trained in CQC, rather than someone that simply “shoots paper”.
A trained shooter will keep the attacker away by moving, using objects, or keeping the attacker at bay with one arm while shooting with the other. Yes, you’ll get cut, but I’ll gladly exchange a cut arm for an attacker full of holes.

We have a winner! In all the weapon arts that I've practiced, one of the most important principles is that of "clearing" your weapon. Clearing in this sense means that you must maneuver the weapon in such a way that your opponent can't bind it up and render it ineffective. This concept is illustrated in Kendo by the "clean" strike(no contact with the other's shinai on the final stroke to the target) "right of way" in European fencing, and weapon clearing techniques to counter trapping techniques in kali silat(though this is more in the way you handle your weapon and use of the "dead" hand).

Use the non-weapon("dead") hand and your tai sabaki(footwork and body position) to fend off the attack while firing. It doesn't matter if the firearm is five inches away from the attacker's body or five yards, he's still gonna be seriously wounded.

Nio
July 29, 2007, 10:58 AM
Things do change quite a bit when you have a shooter trained in CQC, rather than someone that simply “shoots paper”.
A trained shooter will keep the attacker away by moving, using objects, or keeping the attacker at bay with one arm while shooting with the other. Yes, you’ll get cut, but I’ll gladly exchange a cut arm for an attacker full of holes.

This is about as good a fantasy as a martial artist thinking they can cross the room and snatch the gun out of your hand before you can shoot them...

Think about Virginia Tech. If you had been there and had a chance at Cho, are you going to slash at his arm while he's putting rounds into you?

If you're shooting at me, and I'm *still* coming, that means one of two things. Either you're a bad guy and I don't have any choice but to take you out or die, *or* I am a psycho off my meds. Either way, I am coming in to murder you. I'm coming hard and fast - much harder and faster than you can back up and shoot me for sure. When I get to you, I am *not* going to cut your arm. :banghead:

While I am incoming, one of five things happened.

1. You shot me, and managed to put one or more rounds into a place in my body that is instantly incapacitating. Somewhere between where I started and where you are, I fell down, flopped around some, and expired. While that is the expectation of most people who carry a handgun, it almost never happens.

2. You fatally shot me, but did not shoot me in a way that is instantly incapacitating. There are lots of examples of people who get shot and run a few blocks before falling over dead. I've got video of a police officer who was shot through the heart and managed to fight for 30 seconds and call for backup before he dropped stone dead on the side of the road. This happens more often than most people realize. I am going to reach you, and I am going to try to murder you.

3. You shot me, but not fatally. This is what happens in most cases. People are shot and they decide to give up, but then they get to go to the hospital and get patched up. The majority of people survive being shot. Only 9% of people shot in the *head* with a handgun bullet actually die. I am going to reach you, and I am going to try to murder you.

4. You miss. That happens fairly frequently in real fights.

5. The weapon malfunctions. You may or may not have put a number of rounds into me already, but no matter how well you can do the clearing drills at the range, I am going to reach you before you can fix it, and I am going to try to murder you.

Assuming #1, then you can go home and eat a doughnut and post the story on the internet. :)

Assuming 2, 3, 4 or 5...I am going to reach you, and I am going to try to murder you. I am not going to slash at your arm while you continue to 'shoot me full of holes'. When I reach you, you *better* have a plan 'B', because your plan A didn't work for ****. Half of 'gunfight' is 'fight', and having done everything you can with the gun before I reach you, *when* I reach you, if you don't have anything other than the gun, then I am going to murder you. I might drop stone dead 20 seconds later, but that's just motovation for me.

This scenario, however, almost never happens. Most people are reasonable people, and don't want to die. It's enough to threaten them with injury in most cases, and everybody goes home safe. When it comes down to mortal combat, though, if you better to be able to fight when the psycho reaches you. The gun isn't going to do you any more good at that point.

You aren't going to have time to reach for your knife, pepper spray, or any other happy horse **** that you think you are so good with or is promised to be 100% effective against charging elephants. You aren't going to have time to do anything at all but deal very directly with the incoming attack. If you shot early and shot often, then maybe it worked out for you. If not, we'll read about you on the internet the next day...

Nio

Nio
July 29, 2007, 11:02 AM
And you wont “stand there and make good shots on an incoming target”, you’ll move AWAY from the attacker while you shoot, increasing the distance as much as possible.

Whatever is happening, you need to *finish* the fight. Moving and manouver and going to cover is nice, but within a few feet it doesn't make any difference at all. I'd rather get two good shots on a guy from a strong position than get one shot while performing associated movement. There is an excellent program put on by Jeff Hall called "Finish The Fight", which explains this concept very well. Unless you've had a couple of hours of 'shooting on the move' training and practice, most people can't hit **** while they're on the move.

Nio

sacp81170a
July 29, 2007, 11:30 AM
The technique to evading while shooting from contact distance goes thusly:

1. Blade your body away from the attack by stepping back at a 45 degree angle to your weapon side. This gains you 18-24 inches to draw your weapon unhampered. Use your weak hand to fend off the attack while establishing your grip on your weapon. This gets you off the line of attack.

2. Continue moving at a 45. As you "clear leather" on your draw stroke, immediately rotate the muzzle of the weapon at your attacker. Lock your weapon arm into your side with the pistol canted at a 45 degree angle to the outside. This allows the slide to function without getting caught in clothing and without getting "limp wrist" malfunctions. This is called the retention position.

3. As soon as you have the position, begin firing. Adjust your aim by moving your entire body as a unit rather than by moving your hand. At this close distance, you don't care whether you're hitting legs, body, chest or whatever, just shoot! Keep moving!

4. When you gain enough distance you can go to your sights to place your shots more precisely. Remember, you can block a contact weapon from getting to your vitals, but he can't block your bullets. Expect to get cut or hurt and be ready for it. Shoot him off of you!

When practicing this technique with a partner with Airsoft or Sims, you'll notice that you might hit your own weak hand at times. Experience will help. If you practice with live ammo on a target, be careful!

Unless you've had a couple of hours of 'shooting on the move' training and practice, most people can't hit **** while they're on the move.

Exactly! That's why you practice! ;)

3. You shot me, but not fatally.

I'm going to shoot you many, many times, until you stop attacking. At contact distances, precision marksmanship is not necessary.

Moving and manouver and going to cover is nice, but within a few feet it doesn't make any difference at all.

Au contraire, making your opponent miss by half an inch is the difference between getting hurt and getting knocked out. Within a few feet, moving is the most important thing you can do. I think we may be focussing on different particulars but we are both very much in agreement on the fight aspect of "gunfight". Having martial arts skills is a very good plan B, with the added bonuses of fitness and stress relief.

If the video you're talking about is the one I remember, a Highway Patrol officer(don't remember which state) shot his attacker 6 times in the chest with a .357 mag. The BG shot him once with a mini .22 revolver that went under his arm, through the gap in his body armor and lodged in his heart. The BG survived and went to prison, the officer died.

Just goes to show how deadly guns are and how much of a part luck plays when guns are involved. Again, as I've said before, the dearth of "real-life" martial-artist-against-gun stories may simply reflect the reality that a serious martial artist wouldn't knowingly attack a someone armed with a gun unless there were no other choice.

Zen21Tao
July 29, 2007, 12:47 PM
(Just my 2 cents)

I love these threads. You have some people comparing expert martial artists like Chuck Norris to average shooters while other people comparing expert gun men like Jerry Miculek to the average Karate black belt.

I have trained trained in various the martial art styles for over 14 years (Tang soo Do, Shotokan, Judo, Kickboxing Jujitsu, Aikido and Wushu) and have trained in firearms for almost as many years (including serving in the Army Infantry).

Based on my experience in both areas, I firmly believe that the outcome of a Shooter vs Martial Artist encounter depends on a great number of factor like distance, familiarity with surrounding, preparedness, etc. But, it also depends on each individual's (be it the shooter or the MA) unique ability and how well each performs on that given day. I have had many kickboxing matches / sparing sessions where I have beaten the very same person that beat me just a weak before - and vise versa.

Ultimately, I don't think any outcome can be generalized on a forum. It really is the case that in most instance the outcome would/could only be determined as it happens when it happens.

sacp81170a
July 29, 2007, 12:50 PM
Ultimately, I don't think any outcome can be generalized on a forum. It really is the case that in most instance the outcome would/could only be determined as it happens when it happens.

Again, the words of Clint Smith ring true: "If you find yourself in a "fair" fight, your tactics suck." ;)

BlindJustice
July 29, 2007, 01:21 PM
In the movie with Indiana Jones simply shooting the swordsman
Harrison Ford was actually suffering from Dysentary and the original
scripted and practiced scene was scrapped after Ford's adlib. THe
DIrector loved it as it played to IJ's style. All FOrd wanted to do was
go back to his trailer and get to a white porcelin throne. He admitted it
in an interview some time after the movie's release.

YadlibMV

MT GUNNY
July 29, 2007, 06:59 PM
zen21tao

Henc, My signature \l/

FerFAL
July 29, 2007, 08:43 PM
Nio wrote:
This is about as good a fantasy as a martial artist thinking they can cross the room and snatch the gun out of your hand before you can shoot them...

:confused:
Nothing fantastic about hurrying away form your attacker, and using your other forearm to keep your attacker at bay while you pump his chest full of lead. Try some force on force training against a non cooperative partner and you’ll se how hard or how easy it is. Mostly depends on your physical condition, basic hand to hand fighting knowledge.
One of the guys in our class lost every time against a younger, better fit unarmed attacker ( middle age guy, overweight and too slow) while most of us won all the time when dealing with a non cooperative partner, using the proper techniques. Sorry, but I can’t see how any of this compares to “thinking they can cross the room and snatch the gun out of your hand before you can shoot them...” It’s just a couple of simple to learn techniques, no kung fu touch of death…:rolleyes:

“Think about Virginia Tech. If you had been there and had a chance at Cho, are you going to slash at his arm while he's putting rounds into you?”

Considering that there’s no escape, if I don’t have a firearm I’d try to find a confined place where I could grab him and put my knife to good use (if I have my pants on, I have one with me). The end of a narrow corridor or door. A dangerous move for sure, but beats getting shot while on your knees like cattle.
The only person that stood against him was that old teacher who suffered the nazis. Cho was a rather wimpy kid, and if anyone had wrestled him to the ground they would have stopped him( he had no training of any kind as far as I know, looked rather thin and weak) but that of course is easier said than done.

“Half of 'gunfight' is 'fight', and having done everything you can with the gun before I reach you, *when* I reach you, if you don't have anything other than the gun, then I am going to murder you.”
Whatever. :rolleyes:You’ve never been shot, have you? And you certainly have VERY little idea of what bullets do to a body, not on gelatin but on real flesh and bone. I know many people that got shot, none of them kept coming to kill their shooters with their bare hands. If you did such a thing, please do enlighten me because I’d really like to learn from such an astonishing feat.
I admire your confidence, though misguided, believing that you’ll go against an armed attacker, yourself being unarmed, and you are going to kill him because for some reason you wont get hit ( you are wrong, people DO get hit more often than most people believe, it’s called instinctively point shooting, which most criminals do without even knowing with , sometimes with surprisingly good accuracy and most open minded shooting schools today teach some variety of point shooting) or if hit you’ll still keep on fighting until you kill the shooter.
Seems you already have the martial arts thing sorted out, try doing the same thing with weapons, and do so with someone that is both experienced and qualified.
Zen21Tao is right though, some guys here are talking about Shaolin monks or super ninjas from ancient times who spend 20 hours a day perfecting their martial arts going against a target shooter who hasn’t seen his toes for over a decade because of his huge beer gut, while others compare Joe tactical, navy SEAL, SWAT who spends 5 days a week shooting through various possible scenarios going against a loser that thinks he can stop bullets with his secret tiger claw move because he has a black belt in XYZ martial art.
Being reasonable, we should admit that there’s no other weapon better than a firearm for killing people, and Shaolin warriors can only be found at Shaolin temples, so you don’t get to be an accountant, husband and father of two, AND a martial arts master at the same time. On the other hand, with the aid of a tool such as a handgun, the necessary skill to use if for defense along with some unarmed fighting experience, practicing them until learned and then refreshing them often, that yes, is possible and that person can defend himself and his family from most threats within reason, or as much as luck allows.

FerFAL

FerFAL
July 29, 2007, 09:13 PM
Nio wrote:
You can sometimes get away with that with 9mm, but I have seen some painful injuries from this. Check page 4 of this document for an example:

http://www.personaldefensesolutions....afetyFirst.pdf

You do what you have to in the situation, but if the gun goes off, it might be painful. I wouldn't reccomend 'trying' it in practice.

Nio

If you don’t practice it, you wont do it when it counts.
Caliber has nothing to do with it, nothing happens to you if you grab the frame and slide tight. If you grab the ejection port are you may get a small “bite” nothing more. I’m talking about a firm grip, being EXTREMLY cautious to avoid the end of the barrel.
This is not what the article you provide is talking about. The article says “..after he grabbed the top of the slide with an overhand grip and racked it. He had his left thumb on the left of the slide, his other four fingers wrapped over the top, touching the right side of the slide, with the gun tilted to the left, and his left ring finger over the ejection port. As he racked the slide, there was aloud bang, and then he thought “Damn, my hand hurts”…”
Not want I’m talking about, I’m talking about a firm grip holding both the slide and frame, tight. The slide doesn’t get to open, the empty gets stuck there.
I did try it, so did everyone in the class. None of us even got a scratch. This is important because you realize that you can go for the gun, rather than the hand, while struggling with an armed attacker. Gives you greater leverage to turn the gun away from your body and when he fires a round, you are now both fighting over a poor hammer and the firearm is out of the equation. ;)

FerFAL

sacp81170a
July 29, 2007, 10:43 PM
it’s called instinctively point shooting, which most criminals do without even knowing with , sometimes with surprisingly good accuracy and most open minded shooting schools today teach some variety of point shooting)

I teach point shooting from retention to every CCW class. It's a fairly simple technique, and once they know how to do it they can easily take it home from the class and practice. We actually do this with live ammo at the range and most people are pleasantly surprised that they can easily hit a target in the vital area from 3 yards without ever looking at their weapon. The mechanics are easily learned with either hand.

That said, a nice, calm breezy day at the range with me as the gentle instructor (:rolleyes:) in no way simulates a real life or death stress situation. I always encourage my students to obtain more training than we can go over in one range session.

Nio
July 29, 2007, 10:52 PM
Whatever. You’ve never been shot, have you? And you certainly have VERY little idea of what bullets do to a body, not on gelatin but on real flesh and bone. I know many people that got shot, none of them kept coming to kill their shooters with their bare hands. If you did such a thing, please do enlighten me because I’d really like to learn from such an astonishing feat.


Not that it is actually germane, but I have been shot twice. First time was a .357 in the back which narrowly missed my spine. I wasn't even in that fight. Stray bullet came down the street and I thought someone had hit me in the back with a baseball bat. My friend noted, "Dude! You're bleeding!" I walked into the emergency room, and here I am today. Second time was also .357, but I was wearing a vest that time. I did finish that fight.

How many times have YOU been shot?

Having attended more than one tactical anatomy class, and been present at coroner's inquest, I am very well aware of what bullets do - and do not do - to bodies.

To be shot and keep fighting is no astonishing feat. There are many case examples going all the way back to early policing.

http://www.sandiegopolicemuseum.com/SDPD/Fallen%20Heroes/3_Emery_Campbell.htm

http://www.krld.com/pages/707081.php?contentType=4&contentId=710439

http://www.click2houston.com/news/9320983/detail.html

http://www.aphf.org/92.html

http://www.aphf.org/89.html

http://www.aphf.org/94.html

I admire your confidence, though misguided, believing that you’ll go against an armed attacker, yourself being unarmed, and you are going to kill him because for some reason you wont get hit ( you are wrong, people DO get hit more often than most people believe, it’s called instinctively point shooting, which most criminals do without even knowing with , sometimes with surprisingly good accuracy and most open minded shooting schools today teach some variety of point shooting) or if hit you’ll still keep on fighting until you kill the shooter.

I actually gave you five possible situations, all of which happen in real life. I never said it was something I *wanted* to do, but if I was in that situation, I would be glad for all of the training I have had.


Seems you already have the martial arts thing sorted out, try doing the same thing with weapons, and do so with someone that is both experienced and qualified.


As previously stated, I carry two guns every day. I train and train with experienced and qualified people. We use airsoft, Simunitions, and paintball to train, test, and evaluate the very things we're talking about. I'm not talking about some strange theory. I'm talking from the standpoint of thousands of hours of training and research.

Nio

LightningJoe
July 30, 2007, 12:39 AM
The first rule of a gunfight is the same as the first rule of any fight: Be a fighter.


A fighter with no gun can win. A gunman with no fight will lose.

FerFAL
July 30, 2007, 01:44 AM
Not that it is actually germane, but I have been shot twice. First time was a .357 in the back which narrowly missed my spine. I wasn't even in that fight. Stray bullet came down the street and I thought someone had hit me in the back with a baseball bat. My friend noted, "Dude! You're bleeding!" I walked into the emergency room, and here I am today. Second time was also .357, but I was wearing a vest that time. I did finish that fight.

How many times have YOU been shot?

No, I’ve never been shot, thank God.
I wasn’t kidding when I asked, please do tell. Did you shoot back after the vest stopped the 357?, or did you kill you attacker with your bare hands when you reached him?
I’m sorry, but no matter how many “thousands of hours of training and research” you have, the “*when* I reach you, if you don't have anything other than the gun, then I am going to murder you.” part isn’t realistic.

FerFAL

blitzer0101
July 30, 2007, 02:45 AM
Visited Glock Talk and posted the same question?

sacp81170a
July 30, 2007, 05:35 AM
How many times have YOU been shot?

I've been shot, twice. Once in the right thigh, which brought on a very unexpected face plant when that leg quit working for some strange reason. It was kind of an electric buzz and I didn't realize what had happened. I was by no means out of the fight, but I sure wasn't up to sparring around. The second time was in the left shin, and I was thinking "Uh oh, I know this feeling..." as I was going down the second time. I went down pretty much on purpose that time, since that made me a smaller target.

Neither time was I up to chasing someone down and murdering them with my bare hands, but I could definitely still pull a trigger...

Getting back to the subject at hand, CQC is should be short, brutal and decisive. A gun gives you an advantage that, if you know how to use it properly, can't be overcome by empty hand technique, either by blocking or deflecting the projectile. That's why police departments, the military and security forces the world over carry them. That's also what makes them such an effective tool for self defense.

unrealtrip
July 30, 2007, 11:14 PM
I'm sure someone in the 6 pages of this thread already mentioned that within 20ft you can get on top of just about anyone (other than those quick draw cats) before they even have a chance to unholster their guns let alone aim and pull the trigger.

MK11
July 31, 2007, 09:34 AM
You need both. A pistoleer who can't fight his way into position to pull his gun is as clueless and useless as the martial artist who thinks they can defeat weapons with empty hands.

If you enjoyed reading about "Pistoleer vs Martial arts expert..any stories?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!