Firearm defence?

[JerryLove]

If u want to find out about gun or knife defence I would seriously consider reading up on some SAS self-defence tactics, their excellant. I've recently read SAS guide to self defence and theres a defence for more or less everything, from guns to wild animals.

 

I have some little pocket-book thing that's supposed to be in that line (I'll see if I can track down where I put it) and it's horrible.

Its basically a collection of the best locks, holds, defences etc. that you as a human being can possibly do, have a look.

That's an exaggeration.

[delta1]

Nobody here can honestly give an opinion until you are an owner of a firearm and have been instructed on to properly "use" said firearm.

 

That would be me!

Your first move is to communicate with the assailant. Try to reason with him but do not demand that they"show their hands" which invites the them to make the first move putting you at a huge disadvantage.

 

I'm curiouse about this statement. First off, communicating with an assailant would depend on the situation. If I do choose to communicate with someone I'm holding at gunpoint, conversation is liable to be curt, commanding, and decidedly one sided.

 

But mostly, I'm interested in why you don't want to have him show his hands. If he did something seriouse enough for me to point a gun at him, I definately want to see those hands. Anything he does will probably involve useing his hands, so I want to know where they are and exactly what they are doing. And, he'd best show them to me slowly and in exactly the manner I tell him to do it. Any deviation is a trigger. If I point a gun, I intend to shoot, and he is the trigger that carries that intention into action.

[Rich_2k3]

Jerry, I've been noticing a slight correlation in some of ur posts recently, u seem to automatically disagree with everything ppl say on principle. Now u do seem to be quite knowledgable and bring up some good points but plz dont analyze EVERYTHING ppl say and find faults with everything. I was merely trying to help the guy with some good sources. Thx

[Rich_2k3]

http://www.karateforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=7170&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20

 

Check it out if u dont believe me...

 

And dont take this personally, u just need to stop being so argumenitive with peeps.

[White Warlock]

I disagree with you Rich.

 

 

 

 

 

lol, that was fun.

[JerryLove]

Jerry, I've been noticing a slight correlation in some of ur posts recently, u seem to automatically disagree with everything ppl say on principle.

This is a horribly off-topic and inappropriate post which has no place here.

 

On top of that, it's incorrect (2 posts ago on this thread I was agreeing with Delta). On top of *that* it ignores the fact that "me too" is a useless post. Why would I want to chime in to post "what he said"? Of course I tend to post when I disagree... at least posts that are in response to statements.

 

And that's the limit of how much I'm gonna discuss my postiing habits on this thread. If you have issue with what I've actually posted, I invidte you to argue it.

[JerryLove]

I was merely trying to help the guy with some good sources. Thx

 

The "SAS" books I've seen are very poor, and therefore not a good source of material.

[Ktonix]

If, however, he's still breathing...RELOAD!

 

Reloading and firing more shots into the guy after you have incapcitated him is the worst thing you can do. Not only will self defense not hold up in any court, You are more likely to get a longer sentence if you receive one.

 

The thought goes like this, say you have a revolver and you fired 6 shots and hit him, he would be likely incapcitated to the point where he is harmless, reloading and killing him is the point where it stops becoming self defense and becomes murder. ( ussually man slaughter). Just make sure you kill him with the first 6 shots

[delta1]

I just got my American Rifleman magazine, May 2004 issue. For those who don't know, it is published by the National Rifle Association. Starting on page 64 is an excellent article, sort of an intro or familiarization to shooting with a tactical flashlight. The author is Derek McDonald of SureFire, a low light tactics instructor. I want to give some excerpts that are germain to the discussion here.

Speaking of operating with principles,"Understanding the underlying reasons for whatever technique or tactic you might employ in high stress... gives you a far superior level of competence than merely conditioning a reflexive response."

 

"For our purpose, a principle is defined as a fundamental, or a core thesis that provides the basis for a guiding rule or theory. Compared to techniques, principles are few in number, adaptable to any given situation and not limmited to any particular technique. ... Learn the overarching principles and the techniques will follow."

 

He later says "As you put these principles to the test in training, you may find that some are more useful than others, but you won't know that until you practice them enough to become proficient. Either way, training is the key. You may be able to memorize the material..., but you won't be able to access it under stress unless you have practiced realistically and repeatedly."

 

These statements could have come out of any number of books by Ed Parker, or from any of a whole host of proficient martial arts instructors today- or for that matter, straight out of any of the Emergency Services training classes I've given. And the third paragraph could have come straight out of Bruce Lee's mouth. As I've said, any aspect of firearms training exactly parallels martial arts training.

 

As martial artists, we try to develope not only better technique, but a better understanding of technique. We want to know how to do a move, and also why it works and when to use it. That goes for empty hands as well as the "traditional" martial arts weapons. Why not then apply this same reasoning or philosophy to firearms, should you choose to own or carry one? What is it about a gun that would make it exempt from the same dedicated training we devote to a sword, knife, stick, or empty hand? I'd say nothing- there is no difference. If you choose to train to use a stick because you might pick one up and use it to defend yourself, then certainly you should give equal training to any weapon you choose to carry for the purpose of self defense.

 

The statements by Mr. McDonald given here are very similar to advice given all over this board concerning the martial arts. Any one can swing a fist or pull a trigger. Not everyone can do it effectively, and fewer still take it to the level of understang and tactical proficiency that make it both an art and a "way", an elevation of both skill and consciousness.

Edited April 22, 2004 by delta1

[White Warlock]

Not everyone can do it effectively, and fewer still take it to the level of understang and tactical proficiency that make it both an art and a "way", an elevation of both skill and consciousness.

Is this where i'm supposed to grin and nod like some know-it-all guru?