Tackling Active Shooters as Self Defense

Simple, taking your opponent to the ground negates a whole myriad of advantages the opponent has. His mobility and abilities to manipulate his weapon including his choices of direction of fire, vision, target, selection, etc. are immediately and significantly reduced once you take him/her to the ground. The opponent is left trying to defend his gun more so than trying to continue shooting people. An opponent on the ground can be more controlled than an opponent that is on his/her feet.
Click to expand...


sure... and striking him with your fists and elbows can do the same thing. To use a tackle as a method of force pales in comparison to hard strikes. If you tackle someone, you will most certainly have to follow up with something to take them out of the fight. This while you have handicapped yourself being on the ground with them. People can do what they want but if I am forced to fight some nut with a gun, I am going full tilt boogie- right out of the gate and try and take him out of the fight quickly and with the first few blows (if I am lucky). I am not going to waste time trying to grapple on the ground.
 
Last edited:
sure... and striking him with your fists and elbows can do the same thing
Click to expand...

It can do the same thing, but usually will NOT do the same thing. You are not likely to restrict mobility or directions of fire unless you are extremely lucky or skilled and can deliver a CNS disabling blow. Most folks cannot do that.

However, feel free to start your own thread documenting fists and elbows to stop active shooters. I would not be surprised if you find several. It would be interesting to see what examples you derive and can share with us. No doubt it will be informative.
 
The whole point is to win. Knocking him down will do nothing past a few seconds if you don't win. You already know that there is no way you will take him out of the fight with a tackle. A tackle is probably the most passive form of physical force there is. You will have to do something more once you have him down. On the other hand, you just might take him out of the fight with a hard strike if you land it properly. How is a badguy going to "select targets" or "orient his weapon" with me knocking the stew out of him?
 
Last edited:
A bad guy with a gun, standing upright, is still a bad guy with a gun, lying down. Focus on the threat. Kick him in the groin or break his knee to disable HIM but then neutralize the threat.

Guns don't kill people. And in this scenario, people don't kill people. People with guns kill people. Unless that "people" is really, really severely disabled, he's still a bad guy with a gun. Even with OC or mace in his face, or a cold meat pie to the jaw or a kick to the manley bits, and especially with a simple football tackle, he's still got a gun and he's now amped up on adrenaline. And YOU are the object of his sudden pain and rage.

Disable the shooter-gun component.


Sgt Lumpy
 
How is a badguy going to "select targets" or "orient his weapon" with me knocking the stew out of him?
Click to expand...

I admire the bravado, I really do.

A bad guy with a gun, standing upright, is still a bad guy with a gun, lying down.
Click to expand...

Yep and with a tremendous restricted range of motion and hence is easier to deal with.

I appreciate y'all's ideas especially the bravado and acknowledge that there is more than one way to deal with such a threat. Please do start another thread and document these other pugilistic and kung fu cases of stopping active shooters. Such examples are very educational, much more so than bravado theory.
 
Here is a mass shooting just stopped by taking the gunman to the ground.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/05/2-killed-town-meeting-pennsylvania/2621711/

Inside, the executive director of the West End Open Space Commission, Bernie Kozen, was tending to one wounded man. Kozen then "bear-hugged" the gunman, took him down and shot the suspect with his own gun, Reber reported.
Click to expand...

Yep, an armed gunman on the ground is still an armed gunman, but Kozen focused on the threat, controlling it on the ground and shot the threat with his own pistol.
 
Yep, an armed gunman on the ground is still an armed gunman, but Kozen focused on the threat, controlling it on the ground and shot the threat with his own pistol.
Click to expand...

That is exactly my point. Recalling the news footage from Bobby Kennedy shot -
"Grab the gun, break his thumb if you have to but grab the gun".


Sgt Lumpy
 
You know, one of the reasons the old Abbott and Costello routines were so funny was because of the reflex most people have when watching them, wanting to say something like, "Uhhhh, you guys, why don't you back up and start over? Because you are not listening to each other."

Keep your goal in mind. Do what you need to do. If you have to do something, do it with all your heart.

pax
 
I am not sure why people treat it like either/or, when in my opinion it's both.

Disarms seem to work better when the defender attacks the wielder, while simultaneously deflecting and controlling the weapon.

An unbalanced opponent is exponentially easier to manipulate, as any force he applies will serve to unbalance him further. This is true for very strong bad guys, possibly more so than for weaker ones.

Unbalancing is achieved through a combination of change in relative positions and centers of gravity, and through threats or strikes to areas that achieve a reaction - eyes, throat, floating ribs, groin, knees, ankles - whatever is easiest to treaten or strike in the instance.

Throwing a person who is set and balanced is hard. Throwing that same person in the direction to which they are already lunging (tracking a moving target) or flinching (avoiding or reacting to a strike) is much easier.
 
Because we differ on the first strike option which [to me] is critical. SgtLumpy knows what I am talking about and he summed it up better than me. The whole flying tackle thing is stuff of television, not physical combat.
 
Last edited:
We differ, but not the way you suggest.

Where we differ is that you seem to think your striking skills will likely result in an instant stop. I have very rarely seen any fight ended with a single strike or combination.

So, IMO your strategy is generally likely to fail.

I am not advocating some magical flying tackle; I am not opposed to strikes. But I do think emphasizing striking is a good way to increase the odds that the assailant will still be able to use his weapon. And I think the best strategy is a combined one.
 
All I am saying is that if a lives are on the line, your first attack must mean business and afford you the best chance at winning. A tackle is a very passive use of force and nothing that I can qualify as a real attack (in a of itself). If its not an attack, it has no place in being a fist strike on a armed badguy. Its just my opinion.
 
What I am saying is rather than making assumptions, it mght be a good idea to get some training in weapon disarms. I have been practicing them pretty regularly, for years, training with cops, corrections officers, and MPs, and in my experience (on the mat) it takes simultaneous movement off the X, attack, and deflection to give the best odds.
 
FireForged said:
...first attack must mean business and afford you the best chance at winning. A tackle is a very passive use of force...
Click to expand...

I'm fairly certain that "tackling" the shooter is not intended to be like the NFL. You don't roll your shoulder in, wallop him, bounce back up and spike the ball.

A little common sense in determining the next action would go a long way. One would reasonably assume that fists and other options would immediately be employed, depending on the specifics. In fact, one would not reasonably assume anything else.
 
The young man who attempted to tackle Cho at VT in what was described in some reports as a classic football position was shot repeatedly.

The exact whatever is based on being close. If you are close - then you can apply your preferred DragonBall Z, Kung-fu moves of death. Or just pound the person in the noggin repeatedly.
 
And Jacob Ryker was shot too. Of course, he -- and the other six unarmed teenagers who helped him subdue the attacker -- would have been dead if they hadn't acted. Along with at least a few more of the 300 or so other students in the room.

Plus, this entire thread is suffering from a lack of facts. This link might help: http://www.hardtactics.com/Blog/?p=17

pax
 
What I am saying is rather than making assumptions, it mght be a good idea to get some training in weapon disarms. I have been practicing them pretty regularly, for years, training with cops, corrections officers, and MPs, and in my experience (on the mat) it takes simultaneous movement off the X, attack, and deflection to give the best odds.
Click to expand...

I have had the training and used those techniques during a previous occupation I held for more than 13 years.
 
Then you must be one hell of a striker, because I have met few who could strike their way out of getting shot, stabbed, or slashed using strikes alone.
 
Who is the better Bruce Lee is not on topic.

Have we exhausted the basic points which are if you are close to the person, physical combat and swarming him or her may work - note if you are in front, you can get shot. If the person choses to engage a crowd at a distance, better to have a firearm.

Anything else?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top