Question about side-stepping to the left

[smince]

Move to cover, don't worry about whether it's to your left or right or to the perp's left or right... It really doesn't matter, IMO....

You're better off moving to cover, no matter what direction, than hedging your bets on whether the perp can track to the left or to the right....

Again, this assumes cover is even available and you may have a chance to reach it.

As has been mentioned, if the attack comes at less than 21 feet (or more like less than 10 feet), what do you do then?

Remember what we are talking about here: Gunfighting. Using a handgun to save your life or someone’s life you care about. It may (probably will) happen so close that you have to fight off the attacker (or control his weapon) before you can even access you own.

 

[threegun]

Remember what we are talking about here: Gunfighting. Using a handgun to save your life or someone’s life you care about. It may (probably will) happen so close that you have to fight off the attacker (or control his weapon) before you can even access you own.

The need to go hands on represents a catastrophic failure in ones Situational Awareness IMO. IMO the need to control an adversaries gun is very low and here is why. I would likely be held at gunpoint for this to happen. Behind in the reactionary curve (for you fluid situational response guys) meaning I'm looking down the barrel and my gun is holstered still. At this point the only way I draw or grapple or both is if I feel the robbery will end with my death anyway. Since the vast maority don't end in death the odds are low for the need to fight.

Now I agree that the proximity of the attacks will likely be close because we are in a populated area. I just don't like the odds of resisting whilst looking down the barrel of a gun. Again unless other indicators suggest eminent death either way.

Why resist on the terms of the badguy unless you are sure death will result anyway? I can't imagine a scenario that had me holding someone at gunpoint which ended well for the person at gunpoint if they tried to resist.

BTW Did you guys train the F.S.R. stlye of running in any direction while shooting when at Suarez?

 

[smince]

BTW Did you guys train the F.S.R. stlye of running in any direction while shooting when at Suarez?

To all points of the compass/clock, except 12 and 6. It wasn't thought to be smart tactics to try to stay in line with the muzzle and try to outrun a bullet.

The need to go hands on represents a catastrophic failure in ones Situational Awareness IMO. IMO the need to control an adversaries gun is very low and here is why. I would likely be held at gunpoint for this to happen. Behind in the reactionary

That's most likely when a BG will attack you or me. They have SA, too, and don't generally pick out someone who's head is on a swivel.

But I can't stay 'switched on' 24/7/365, and truthfully, neither can anyone else. Surely when out with wife and family, one gets distracted by them and just everyday life events in general, even if only momentarily and that's all it takes.

Lot's of things divert our attention, and you can't go through life without ever letting someone get within 7yds of you unless you become a lonely hermit.

Failure of the S.A. is what the 0-5 and H2H4CCW classes are for. If it never happens to you, carry on then.

 

[threegun]

I got you. I just think trying to lessen the lapses in your SA is more important than learning how to control your opponents gun while you draw yours.

Once you are caught off guard and now held at gun point its too late. Considering all the significant odds, compliance is almost always a safer option.

 

[45Gunner]

Survival in a gun fight depends upon many factors. The obvious is to train and practice your moves along with marksmanship. It appears that most of us are thinking in terms of getting to our guns while avoiding that of the opponent. In some instances, it may not be practical to get to our gun and we are going to have to disarm or take control of the opponents gun before he can shoot us.

The first step is to get out of the mindset that our own gun is our first objective. In some instances, for example, if we are confronted with an opponent that is wielding a gun or knife in our face single-handedly, it is very possible to turn and step into his mid section, grabbing his hand and arm, throwing the opponent off balance, completing your momentum and taking him down. The alternative to taking him down is to use your other hand and force his wrist in towards his own body, thereby making him shoot himself or at the very least, forcing him to release his grip on the gun or knife. It is difficult to explain, easy to demonstrate, and should not be attempted for real until practiced many times.

My point here is to open your field of thinking to other methods instead of racing for your gun, a race you may lose if someone already has the draw on you.

 

[threegun]

In some instances, it may not be practical to get to our gun and we are going to have to disarm or take control of the opponents gun before he can shoot us.

Why not comply? The odds are much much better that you come out uninjured.

The first step is to get out of the mindset that our own gun is our first objective.

Its not for me. Avoidance is my first step and the gun is number two. This is why SA is the single most important thing for me.

In some instances, for example, if we are confronted with an opponent that is wielding a gun or knife in our face single-handedly, it is very possible to turn and step into his mid section, grabbing his hand and arm, throwing the opponent off balance, completing your momentum and taking him down.

It is also very possible that you are unsuccessful and he shoots you.

The alternative to taking him down is to use your other hand and force his wrist in towards his own body, thereby making him shoot himself or at the very least, forcing him to release his grip on the gun or knife.

Again the risks are extremely high for failure. Which would likely lead to getting shot.

It is difficult to explain, easy to demonstrate, and should not be attempted for real until practiced many times.

When we worked on disarm drills we were told not to attempt unless death was eminent or you basically had nothing to lose by taking such a risk anyway.

They tend to work better in the dojo than the field IMO.

 

[smince]

Behind in the reactionary curve...

It would seem that very often, Joe citizen is behind the reactionary curve.

I just don't like the odds of resisting whilst looking down the barrel of a gun.

Considering all the significant odds, compliance is almost always a safer option.

The odds are much much better that you come out uninjured.

If you are set on playing the odds, you can leave your gun at home 99.99999% of the time.

When we worked on disarm drills we were told not to attempt unless death was eminent or you basically had nothing to lose by taking such a risk anyway.

Maybe I have an incorrect mindset for this board.

If someone points a gun at me I consider death to be eminent and plan on dealing with it accordingly.

 

[threegun]

If you are set on playing the odds, you can leave your gun at home 99.99999% of the time.

Then I wouldn't have an option when the odds are bucked.

If someone points a gun at me I consider death to be eminent and plan on dealing with it accordingly.

Not me. I do consider death to be a possibility if I don't comply or in some rare cases if the bad guy has a wild hair in his bum.

I also plan on dealing with the event accordingly however I also understand the odds. IMO it isn't smart or healthy to try to resist once the drop has been gotten on you unless you feel death was going to happen anyway. Since we know the vast majority of armed encounters end without injury and attempting a disarm increases your chances of being injury tremendously, it seems not so smart to try, again unless death is coming anyway.

Please don't confuse this with being yellow. Its simply understanding odds and not wanting to go from a 5 percent chance of being shot to a 70 percent chance (don't have exact odds).

Now I have been exposed to gun removal or disarm drills. They all rely on getting close enough and surprising your foe. Its not difficult to apply the leverage needed to remove the firearm. Whats difficult is getting your hands on the firearm to do so without getting shot, without the bad guy moving at the pounce, or without counter measures deployed by the bad guy (either on purpose or by accident).

They say if you try a disarm expect to get shot or cut, why? In a robbery compliance usually means not being shot or cut. This is my point.

 

[smince]

...it seems not so smart to try, again unless death is coming anyway.

How do you know if it is or isn't? My crystal ball seems to be on the blink

The fact that it may be a simple robbery isn't enough evidence to wait around and see if he pulls the trigger.

Not an appealing option for me, but have at it...

 

[threegun]

Maybe I have an incorrect mindset for this board.

You sound like me years ago. A warriors mindset. A refuse to be a helpless victim mindset. A fight even if you have to hold your guts in with your weak hand mindset. Nothing wrong with that.

It was debates like this on this board and others that made me understand that odds are important and can be used to increase survival.

 

[threegun]

How do you know if it is or isn't? My crystal ball seems to be on the blink

The fact that it may be a simple robbery isn't enough evidence to wait around and see if he pulls the trigger.

Not an appealing option for me, but have at it..

I never said it was appealing just that it was smarter in most cases if your goal is survival.

Example.......99 out of 100 armed robberies end without a shot fired. You are in the corner hiding for 10 of these robberies. You decide to act and engage the bad guy. Now how many armed robberies ended with shots fired.

Sure I would hate to make the wrong decision. The odds are however on my side. If you choose to attempt a disarm the odds are already stacked against you. You will likely have turned a simply take the money and run into a tried and failed gun grab/ shooting.

Going down fighting is all well and good and I hope to do so if ever the need arises. I also see the good in living to fight another day in the face of really bad odds.

 

[federali]

Separate issues.

Having received training from the NYPD range staff, "moving to the left" wasn't moving with your feet but rather, dipping or ducking left as a fighter would in avoiding a jab. Your feet remain in place while presenting a weapon and firing from a crouch or semi-crouch position.

Back when most bad guys (and good guys for that matter) used revolvers, most inexperienced shooters put too much finger into the trigger guard and also show too much front sight with the result that the shooter would push his rounds to his high-left. Thus, the officer, by dipping to his left, was moving his body away from the most likely avenue his opponent's bullets would take.

Moving to cover or concealment is always a wise choice when you have that option.