Samurai:
This is an incredibly stupid subject of conversation to be engaged in! I don't know about you cats, but I can't think of anything dumber than the idea of further provoking an incident with an armed assailant! Give him your stinkin' wallet, for the love of Pete!
I would IF I thought that the robbers were motivated "rational-choice." I agree that sometimes robbers are interested in only money (and minimum risk) and would take the money and run. However, it is also entirely possible that this could be a gang member intent on robbery AND murder or a thug on drugs too intoxicated to weigh risk and benefit or even a psycopath who is only interested in hurting, not the money.
As always, my main goal would be to escape and evade, not confront. To that end, I might toss my wallet, money or what have you. Or as the situation warrants (say, I'm with someone who cannot run with me) I may distract the robber and take my chances disabling him with whatever I have.
Your argument of "not provoking" the assailant seems eerily too similar to the "Don't resist the rape - you will only make him angry" fallacy.
That little rant aside, I think you should study Akido. This type of scenario is right up their alley. I took a lecture a few weeks ago in my Iaido class. It was given by an Akido sensei, and it was all about disarming a samurai's kitana using your bare hands. This could easily be fitted to work in a firearm confrontation.
The trick is, you have to grip the thumb of the assailant in the proper manner. Once the thumb is immobilized, the slightest twist of the wrist becomes dreadfully painful, and the assailant becomes your (female dog). Akido can teach you all about this.
Having studied Aikido for some time, forgive me if I disagree. Most of Aikido's techniques originate from Daito-Ryu Aiki-Jujutsu. Most Aiki-Jujutsu techniques were NOT about "disarming a samurai's" Kantana. Only a complete idiot would attempt - EMPTY HANDED - to take a sword away from someone who devoted all his time to the use of the sword. It's beyond futile. No, most Aiki-Jujutsu techniques were about 1) sword retention (meaning preventing someone from taking your sword in close quarters) and 2) preventing your opponent from unsheathing his sword in close quarters. The operative term is CLOSE QUARTERS - we are talking about such a close distance that the sword could not be easily brought into bear.
The way knife and gun disarms are taught in most Aikido classes is pure fantasy. If you don't believe me, find yourself an Aikido blackbelt, get a magic marker and pretend that it is a knife (or a gun) and see how many times you can mark him while he tries to use Kotegaeshi (wrist lock) you. There is no doubt that there are SOME Aikidoka who might be good enough to do this, but the vast majority I've seen (and I've seen quite a few) is unable to.
This is not to say that Aikdo is useless. Its techniques are quite sound in weapon retention that can translate very nicely to handgun retention, for example. Unfortunately, this is not recognized by many Aikidoka who insist on spending most of their time in practicing big circle techniques to "disarm swords."
For real (still extremely chancy) gun disarms, stick to folks who actually train with guns (legitimate combatives instructors).
nbk2000:
For instance, in South Africa, many people are murdered by car-jackers because the thieves know that many people are arming their cars with various lethal anti-theft devices, thus you have to kill the occupants to prevent the devices activation.
Somewhat chicken & egg. Which came first? Robbers who kill because of resistance, or Resistance because of Robber who kill?
From what I observed, it most certainly is the case of the latter (resistance because of killings). One unfortunate facet of crime in South Africa nowadays is the association of murder and extreme violence with just about any crime (car jacking, mugging, rape, etc.). If I had to guess without real information, I'd say that the main reason for this is the extremely low chance of apprehension, in part due to the breakdown of the policing system (low morale, training, funding, etc.). When a criminal is unlikely to be caught otherwise, he is probably likely to eliminate the only possible witness (the victim). I am sure that racial and political motivations play a role too (if the continuing murders of Afrikanner farmers and a lack of response to such from the government are any indicaton).
The anti-theft devices (including a car-borne flame thrower!) are really desperate measures to protect BOTH life and property, not just property.
Skorzeny