A couple of days ago I got into a discussion on Facebook (in the Nebraska Range Time group) regarding gun defenses and disarms. Once we figured out what terms everyone was using, there was some interesting discussion about "the best" technique for gun defenses and such, which got me thinking about how many of the really cool looking gun strips and such that you see on YouTube really AREN'T something you'd want to use in real life--and that the ones that ARE good, are both highly situation-dependent, and individual-defender-dependent.
Some work better for big people, some work better for fast people, and some don't work on a resisting attacker no matter who you are.
So I thought I'd put together a post/video discussing the topic from a conceptual viewpoint--it isn't about specific techniques, it isn't a primer on gun defenses, and it
definitely doesn't say anything like "this is the ONLY gun defense YOU'LL EVER NEED TO KNOW!"
...which is a marketing blurb I've actually seen before.
It does talk about the pros and cons of the main three angles of entry and the main three types of movement/technique that can be used from those entries.
https://precisionresponse.wordpress.com/2015/02/15/gun-defenses-and-disarms/Thoughts? Anyone practice a lot of gun defenses, gone through gun defense/disarm training and think I'm completely off base?
In my opinion, from a
conceptual viewpoint there are a limited number of possibilities, and most disarms I see taught ignore the most important priority of all which is "don't get shot in the first quarter of a second" and almost all of the rest ignore the second more important priority, which is "don't get shot during the rest of the time either." People are often taught techniques that are non-optimal for both the situation and for their body type.
Force-on-force training is a great wakeup call regarding gun defenses that look cool on an unresisting "attacker" in the practice hall.
