The best way of disarming an attacker

[Ledhead686]

I'd like your opinions on a post I came across on another forum:



"There is no disarming in real life, other than to shoot your attackers, or beat them down first.

If you were so close as to be able to disarm him, why do you think he would not be able to proceed to disarm you?

Criminals operate in groups, don't put their firearms against your body, amd stand several metres away.

Nobody who has any experience with firearms, has ever attended any self defense/firearm training course or who is even halfway sober is ever going to put their firearm that close to a person, or stand that close, precisely to prevent themselves being attacked.

By the time they begin using firearms, criminals have been fighting for many years, most trained in prison by ex cons. They understand all about distance control.

They aren't standing there like dummies. When they are close to you, they are moving, hands on you, surrounding you, shouting, puching, kicking, ofetn drunk or high, and are usually attacking you or beating you. They pull out the gun after they have beaten you down."



Now this is just the first half of this gentleman's advice on what to do when confronted by a criminal. Your comments?

 

[Cosmoline]

He's inventing a specific hypothetical that happens to support his point, but it's impossible to say what criminals will always do. In some circumstances disarming techniques may be very useful--more useful than being armed even. Obviously if ten guys beat you down then one pulls out a gun, you're not going to be able to do much. But they can beat you to death with less noise so why shoot you? It doesn't even make much sense.

OTOH it is not unusual to have a gun literally pointed at your face at very close range or jabbed into you, and there are techniques to deal with those threats. They are dangerous of course but so is having a gun pointed at your face.

If you're wondering, ask some folks who've been held up in real life how the criminals present their weapons, and how close they stand. It would be great if they remained 15 yards away, since at that range the trained CCW holder will have an enormous advantage. But they rarely operate that way.

 

[Sam1911]

Sounds like he's got a pretty good handle on things. Of course any time you say "they don't this..." or "they do that..." you run into a million exceptions where exactly the opposite happened. And criminals, just like the rest of us, come in a wide variety of skill and knowledge levels. Expecting to disarm an attacker who knows what he's doing is probably a false hope without extensive training and lots of luck.

There are some really useful techniques for controlling a weapon and trying to keep the bad guy from bringing it to bear on you, but they do require contact-distance as well as strength, skill, and again, luck. Look at SouthNarc's "ECQC" course (videos on youtube) for an idea of what that sort of thing really looks like. Very physical, very desperate, and both participants often end up shot.

The concept that many street criminals are going to be better FIGHTERS than almost any of "us" -- and a whole lot less hesitating, reserved, and alarmed/distraught/stressed by and during a violent encounter certainly is true. The lives many of these guys lead are absolutely full of violence. Many of them have been beaten, stabbed, and even shot before, some many times. The ability to put a magazine full of pistol bullets into a bullseye target at 20 yards is practically no advantage at all if you land in an "average" skilled criminal actor's working zone.

 

[MedWheeler]

The person whom you quote is wholly misinformed. There are no statistics that back up the statement that "most criminals get formal training in their art in prison". Nor are there any that state that they operate in well-orchestrated groups with the smoothness of a well-oiled machine.

No, the vast majority of attackers most likely to end up facing the business end of a defensive firearm are young, relatively untrained, street thugs, and many of their crimes are not rehearsed or otherwise blueprinted and mapped out.

In a defensive situation, if an armed would-be victim is close enough to disarm a thug, he either has already presented his own weapon, or has not. If he has, then, yes, the thug could certainly attempt a disarm tactic himself, but why would the victim simply not fire his weapon? Why would the attacker not fire his? If the victim has not yet presented his weapon, then how exactly is the thug going to attempt a disarm, especially if he does not even yet know the weapon is present?

Regarding the part about thugs proceeding to "beat down" their victims before presenting their weapons: that is complete hogwash. Thugs who even carry guns do so because they are, in fact, coward in nature, and the gun helps them rise above that cowardice. They don't "hold back" on their strongest asset to risk injury first. The typical pattern is to display a weapon, then demand compliance, not the other way around.

 

[Sam1911]

Not sure the phrase "trained in prison by ex-cons" is really what he meant. Are there a lot of "ex" convicts in prisons?

And I'll agree with something MedWheeler said:

They pull out the gun after they have beaten you down.

Except in the rather unusual situation of an execution or gang initiation type killing, this narrative really doesn't make much sense. It doesn't follow that they'd pull out the compliance tool AFTER they've established total compliance.

 

[Shadow 7D]

Reminds me of a story posted here, and mocked other places mercilessly

Cop trained and trained and trained and trained on disarming technique
one day criminal pulled a gun on him
so he flips through is moves, and at the end, hand the gun back to the criminal....
JUST LIKE HE TRAINED

Thankfully he trained to shoot after his draw, and not reholster, or this would be a sad story and not a funny one.

 

[MedWheeler]

I also agree about the "ex-con" thing, Sam. In fact, there are few outside of prison, too. Once convicted of a crime, I'm pretty sure one is a convict, whether or not time/penalty has been served already. I think the term "ex-inmate" would be more accurate. Of course, if one returns to prison for a subsequent term, then one could be both a "current inmate" and an "ex-inmate", I suppose.

 

[Ranger Roberts]

He's inventing a specific hypothetical that happens to support his point, but it's impossible to say what criminals will always do. In some circumstances disarming techniques may be very useful

I think Cosmoline hit the nail right on the head. There are disciplines of martial arts such as Krav Maga that teach deadly disarming techniques. Every situation is going to be different, so you really have to roll with the punches (pardon the pun). As far as sticking a gun against someone's body, I think it is a little unlikely. In fact, when I was qualifying a few years ago, one of the instructors told me something interesting. He said if I were wrestling a suspect and had to pull my gun (glock 19) and it was pushed against the suspect's body, there is the potential for the gun to come out of battery (think about how a Glock breaks down for cleaning) and not fire. I wouldn't want to test his theory but it makes sense.

 

[herrwalther]

Not sure the phrase "trained in prison by ex-cons" is really what he meant. Are there a lot of "ex" convicts in prisons?

If you listen to Amnesty international and liberals, sure prisons are full of innocent and misunderstood people who just need a second chance

The ability to disarm someone is a tool. Just like having a firearm, a knife, spare reload etc. You have to be trained to know how to use the tools you have to fight against the tools they have. Now if they have a crowbar, they know how to use it because the learning curve on those is rather low. If you have a handgun, the ability and training to employ that tool before they can close the distance is your training. If all your physical tools of self defense (handgun, backup handgun, knife, pepper spray, samurai sword, voodoo etc) is taken away, you are left with an unarmed fight. Does hand to hand fighting happen in confrontations? Yup. Case in point is the Zimmerman trial where a fight occurred before a firearm came into play. Whether guilty or not, that is how that situation went down. So to completely discard fights don't happen is downright naive, they just wont happen in every situation.

The biggest benefit to learning disarms or other unarmed fighting is it is very easy. When taking a gun course you will need a range, firearm, safety gear, etc. Rather pricey endeavor to set up everything. Unarmed training just takes an instructor and maybe a training mat, and you are in business. No other tools really needed, just bring what you come attached with and be prepared to learn how to use them.

 

[Averageman]

If disarming someone were so easily done, when the Police arrive the weapon would have changed hands between the "Good Guy" and the "Bad Guy" about 186 times.
Hand to hand fighting even with someone unfit but armed is a dangerous proposition as we are seeing this being played out today. One of the most awful hand to hand fights I ever saw ended with a very small Man biting the end off a large Mans nose; it wasn't karate or Krav Maga, it was krarazy. I'm not sure where the teach to defend against crazy.
I'm a big fan of creating time by creating distance and to do that proactively rather than reactively. Dont go to stupid places and do stupid things and 90% of your potential problems are solved.
Self made scenerio's are usually also self serving; they validate a point you have already made in your mind.

 

[Fred Fuller]

I'll take "Deselection" for $1000, Alex...

Crime is a process, not simply an isolated act. If you wait until the attack commences to begin worrying about disarming your attacker, you have fallen far, far behind the power curve.

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/crime_is_a_process.htm
Crime is a Process

Situational awareness is critical in attack avoidance. We need to understand the stages in the development of an attack in order to avoid or prevent it.

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/five_stages.html
Five Stages of Violent Crime

But even before an attack commences, the decision to approach and perhaps to attack must be made by the criminal. This usually requires an active process of evaluation by the criminal before any approach to the victim begins.

This is usually referred to as "the victim selection process." How does that work?

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200812/marked-mayhem
Marked for Mayhem
Street criminals are selective about their victims. Unfortunately, many of us unwittingly give off signals that mark us as easy targets.
By Chuck Hustmyre, Jay Dixit, published on January 01, 2009

So - if we can do what is necessary to avoid selection as a potential victim in the first place, we won't have to worry about disarming anyone physically. If you prefer to look at this as disarming potential attackers mentally - I have no problem with that viewpoint. William Aprill will be on Ballistic Radio this weekend to discuss the art and science of deselection - give it a listen at

http://ballisticradio.com/
Upcoming/Past Shows
July 14th - How To Deselect Yourself As A Victim – William Aprill

 

[MedWheeler]

Fred, I think we all agree with you, but I also think the ill-advised person the OP was quoting was referring to the hypothetical situation of a would-be victim already facing an armed attacker and his weapon. While a self-extraction opportunity may still present itself, and the victim should certainly watch for any, "deselection" is no longer an option.

 

[Deaf Smith]

He's inventing a specific hypothetical that happens to support his point, but it's impossible to say what criminals will always do.

Exactly.

Deaf

 

[Fred Fuller]

a would-be victim already facing an armed attacker and his weapon

True. As Southnarc put it the first time I heard him address the issue at the Snubby Summit in 2005, "Sometimes your awareness fails... ."

At that point the rest of ECQC is a very good starting point IMHO ... http://shivworks.com/?p=822 Extreme Close Quarter Concepts.

DADEE is still the 'school solution' however... with the emphasis on DESELECT and AVOID.

 

[FuzzyBunny]

Nice links in this thread

 

[easyg]

It is not my job, place, business, or inclination to try and disarm someone whom I consider to be a deadly threat to me.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

I Don't, I cane or spray and get away or If I have to shoot them and call 911. But I work the hardest on situational awareness and avoidance of bad situations.

 

[Bubba613]

If disarming works say 80% of the time that sounds pretty good. But it means the decision to attempt disarming is a gamble. I dont go to Vegas. I dont play odds. If all else has failed by that point it's time to draw and fire or beat feet, as the situation suggests.

 

[Jim K]

Sounds like the fellow on TV who supported a gun ban, saying that he could easily disarm an attacker who had a knife or club. He was about 95 and so frail he couldn't have taken a bottle from a baby; his "I can disarm them" was only in his mind.

If I am carrying a gun, and a criminal, armed or unarmed, poses a clear danger to my life, I will shoot him, not try to use some unarmed combat technique that only works in the movies (where the script determines who wins).

But first and most important, I will avoid, if at all possible, being in a situation where I might have to make that decision. I am no longer a LEO; I don't have to go into bad areas or make arrests of bad guys, and I see no reason to put myself in danger if it can be helped.

Jim

 

[Deaf Smith]

Youtube is full of disarming techniques. Thing is I doubt if any of them have done it for real.

This one worked..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obVomWH6rUU

I once saw a video of a cop FAIL to disarm a gunman. He pleaded for his life and the guy actually let him live.

Disarms are a last ditch desperation move and they only work if the other guy is stupid enough to get close.

Deaf