And bare in mind that my hypothetical situation was to illustrate that there is always some degree of unsupected attack. And it's much easier to simply avoid a situation than it is to try and fight out of an impossible situation.
Obviously it's easier to avoid a fight than it is to win one, doubly so when you're starting in a position of disadvantage. That's not the point of contention.
I think when it comes to hand to hand people get a little lost on whats realistic.
You seem to be among them. The notion that any attempted gun grab that takes someone by surprise
will be successful is totally absurd. If that's the case we can tell police officers that all those hours spent on retention training were just a waste. Even the ones that have successfully used said techniques to defend against a surprise gun grab.
What I'm getting at is it does no good to dwell on preparing for a sneak attack that can't be defened, such as one aimed at rendering you completely helpless. In such a case there is nothign you can do.
Yeah, but that's not what the thread is about, nor my post, which concerns those sneak attacks that
don't leave you dead or incapacitated after the initial onslaught. No one's asking for "martial arts defense for being shot in the back of the head from 10ft away".
Point is in self defense you can "what if" it to death, and lose focus on the orginal goal.
I don't know where this came from, I haven't "what if"ed anything in this thread.
So I guess it's not a perfect way to phrase it, but that was how I was taught to explain it. "theres no defense to a sneak attack" Again this is the same thing, we can debate symantics all night when we really agree that training retention are necessary elements to sucssful carry. Maybe thats why I'm not an author.
We aren't arguing semantics, you're saying something that doesn't mean what you think it means. I
think what you're trying to get across is
that there is no foolproof, 100% reliable method of surviving an attack that takes you by surprise which, though I agree, differs significantly in meaning from
because if the attack is truely surprise, and the attacker didn't botch it entierly, it WILL be sucessful.
which, in the context of this thread, implies that any gun grab will be successful. Forget retention and hand to hand techniques, if you look over and someone is grabbing for your belt line, it's over.
A mutt is not going to face off and slap you with a glove to challenge you to a duel. Most likely you'll simply wake up and your gun will be gone. If you wake up.
So the scenario has changed from "someone grabs for your gun" to "someone grabs for your gun while you sleep"? k...
Yes, it's good to plan for a grab by an impulsive teenager, but a determined bad guy . . . . just keep it concealed.
Isn't planning for one, in effect, planning for both? Maybe I've got this wrong, but handgun retention training doesn't take into account who is trying to grab your gun or their relative level of determination, just that
someone is trying to grab your gun. Again, it's possible to defend against a determined attacker, even if it isn't totally ideal.