if someone pulled a gun on you

[Tombstone]

Neither.

 

I'd do whatever they wanted and hope that I don't get shot anyways.

[MuayThai Fighter]

Neither.

 

I'd do whatever they wanted and hope that I don't get shot anyways.

 

That would be a smart decision and same one I would make.

[ZR440]

I'd give them my wallet and then shoot them in the a$$ as they run or walk away.

 

I have a compact .40" and the permit to carry concealed. And I do carry sometimes. God help those who make me use it.

[JerryLove]

MTF,

 

Weather or not fighting them would be "stupid" depends entirely on what you reasonably expect the outcome of not fighting would be.

 

We do teach both use of a firearm and defense to a firearm. We do train people who deal with fire-arms as part of their Job (police, bondmen, "security", etc). These people do end up at some point looking down a gun. Freezing is certainly not an unherad of response.. but far from the only one.

 

You also play into several myths.. the first is how often bullets actually find their intended mark... most shots miss. The second is the result of being shot. If you miagine that, like th emoives, you shoot someone and they just fall down; you will find that life is usually quite different.

 

"With the exceptions of hits to the brain or upper spinal cord, the concept of reliable and reproducible immediate incapacitation of the human target by gunshot wounds to the torso is a myth" - http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm citing the US Dept. of Justice

 

For an idea, take a look at casualty numbers vs death numbers for millitary operations... people survive being shot all the time.

[jushin]

don't know.

[Martial_Artist]

JerryLove is correct. A gunshot wound will not likely result in death, or even in dropping the assailant. In fact, as stated, unless it is a central control system shot they can still run, shoot, or fight. I can cite modern gunfights(think the FBI fight in Miami).

 

In a gunfight you fall to your highest level of training. So, unless you train to freeze, most likely you will not--barring, of course, individual psychological tendencies.

 

Shooting a moving target with a handgun is a difficult feat. Errors commited by the shooter in inches result in misses by feet. An erratic, moving target, will most likely not be shot from a distance. Of course, turning your back on the gun and running will get you shot. If, however, there is distance, then avoidance is plausible, if not fully feasible.

 

I think the statements should be, if someone is stupid enough to pull a gun on a well-training martial artist in close distance...fill in the blanks.

 

Also, just plain submitting and hoping that a sociopathic criminal may find it in the goodness of his heart not to shoot you isn't bright either. Statistically, forcible, preferrably armed, resistance results in a lower rate of injury to the defender than by merely submitting to the attacker.

 

In rape, for example, women who do not fight back are 1 in 3 more times likely to suffer serious injury. Women who fight back with guns are 1 in 7 times as likely. Additionally, 97% of rapes are unsuccessful against women who carry a firearm. Conversely, 85% of rapes are successful against women doing anything else, including running.

 

The poll doesn't represent a complete range of possible courses of action, so I did not vote. For me defense is not an option. It is a must. How that defense is carried out depends entirely on the situation. If I do not need to engage a gun-wielding opponent to survive, then why would I?

 

MA.

 

p.s.

 

Anyone carrying misconceptions about firearms should look into a few websites.

 

https://www.fbi.org --> The Unified Crime Reports

 

https://www.keepandbeararms.com -->The information bars on the right, GunFacts v3.2

 

https://www.us.doj.gov -->The US Department of Justice -->Criminal Statistics.

 

There are lots of good information sites that cite facts not myth. I suggest investing some time and educating oneself.

[StoneSkin]

run in a zig zag pattern.. the further you get away from them the harder it will be for them to hit you, if you move back and forth like a zig zag it will take longer for them to aim. Run and dont look back

[Warp Spider]

You also play into several myths.. the first is how often bullets actually find their intended mark... most shots miss. The second is the result of being shot. If you miagine that, like th emoives, you shoot someone and they just fall down; you will find that life is usually quite different.

 

"With the exceptions of hits to the brain or upper spinal cord, the concept of reliable and reproducible immediate incapacitation of the human target by gunshot wounds to the torso is a myth" - http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm citing the US Dept. of Justice

 

For an idea, take a look at casualty numbers vs death numbers for millitary operations... people survive being shot all the time.

 

You're making a couple of assumptions here, and they are not safe assumptions.

 

A) Typically when a person pulls a gun on you it is a very short range. The trigger is not hard to pull and they have plenty of time to aim unless you react immediately. Most handguns are semi-automatic so you can expect at least 3 rounds per second from a person unloading the gun at you. They aren't likely to be toting a muzzle-loader.

 

B) The stopping power of a bullet is highly dependant on the type of bullet. .22, .38 Special, 9mm, 5.45mm may not drop a target. .45 probrably will. Any magnum cartridge will leave a BIG hole. 5.56 will almost definately drop the target. 454 causall, 7.62 WP, 7.62 NATO, .50 BMG, 20mm Anti-Materiel will not only send pieces of the target flying but will also potentially hurl the target a short distance. Shotgun slugs or even buckshot are extremely hazardous at close ranges. Though handguns in 7.62 and .50 BMG are rare, they are not unheard of. The FBI uses primarily .45 caliber and 9mm rounds. The 9mm round is by far the most common handgun round and that is likely what the above quote was based on. 9mm, though a large bullet, does not have a lot of muzzle energy and has rather poor penetration, but due to the fact that it is extremely common, it is what most people's views on how powerful a gun is are based on.

 

C) The people that are wounded and live in war is ON PURPOSE. They shoot them in the leg, etc. so that two other enemy soldiers have to drag the wounded guy away. That takes three people out of the action for the price of one. 5.56 NATO is definately capable of killing a person wearing armor even at range.

 

D) Criminals don't follow the gun laws and may be packing a machine pistol or submachine gun. It is difficult to miss with an automatic weapon at short range.

 

E) Getting shot causes a great deal of trauma to your nervous system. The nervous system is flooded by this trauma and cannot effectively pass communications from the brain to the muscles. However, small caliber bullets do not exhibit a strong nervous trauma effect. Regardless getting shot will often be followed by getting shot again, and again, until you DO fall over. (as a result of not being able to move coherently)

 

F) Guns don't suddenly stop working at close range and do not have to be lined up with your arm to fire. Grabbing a guys arm will likely result in him twisting his wrist to shoot you in the head.

 

G) If a person is attacking you, they likely believe that they can beat you. Thus, it's only fair to consider that they have as much training with their gun as you have with your martial arts, if not more. Some people are just thugs, but most serious criminals are not lummocks.

[ZR440]

I do believe a person would have to be a fool to try to disarm an assailant from a lengthy distance. And at the same time I would rather take my chances and run like the wind if I felt the trigger was going to be pulled. I shot about a hundred rounds this weekend with a friend. My .40" vs. his 9mm. Target distances were generally set up for seven yards. He had much better grouping. Shots averaged around one every two seconds. I can't say for sure, but a moving target (away) would be pretty difficult to hit in my opinion. It depends on the shooter and the gun itself and maybe a little luck.

 

Now if the assailant just wanted my wallet, then so be it. Take it and let me throw my underwear away in peace. But they better not waste time getting away because if I'm packin.....

 

9mm handguns can be very lethal if you know what load to use. Core Bon (and many others) makes rounds that yield impressive muzzle velocity. It used to be thought that the larger rounds (>9mm) were necessary to effectively kill the intended target, but latest research has found that's not entirely true. I have a friend in the Special Forces that told me they use 9mm because it will have a tendancy to cause more internal damage by changing directions within the body cavity, thus destroying more vital tissue. I suppose it's also a matter of the ammo being a lot cheaper than .45 too.

[Martial_Artist]

The FBI issues a Glock in the .40s&w to graduating agents.

 

Stopping power of bullets is a myth. Check out calipers.com or ammo-lab.com to read up on realistic ballistic data. The 9mm isn't the choice because it has a tendency to ricochet within the body, it is the choice because NATO went to a cheaper, more manageable round and NATO Allies followed. You know of a .50BMG handgun? No such thing. I've shot a .50BMG rifle and the kick alone requires that it not be a handgun. You would have a very unmanageable and very pointless handgun.

 

As far as muzzle velocity the 9mm out performs the .40s&w and the .45ACP, both of which are slower, larger bullets. Cor-Bon, for example, prints that the 9mm typically gets 1200fps or more, while a .45ACP only averages 900fps. A 230gr. .45ACP tops at around 850fps. A 9mm in ballistic gellatin gets, more often than not, better penetration than a .45ACP. In fact, the FMJ bullet is coned shaped to achieve this. A .45ACp is not. Now, a .45ACP is a bigger bullet and does more damage internally in the shock cavity. Also, it generally has more consistent penetration regardless of material blocking the path, i.e. jeans, jackets, etc.

 

The people that are wounded and live in war is not ON PURPOSE, never has anyone been machine-gun with a NAZI 8mm and intended to live. Soldiers fire rapid succession, not in the hopes of dropping one guy so that two others can carry him away. They fire with the hopes of killing all three. There are some old men that live in my community that fought in WWII. They were all shot. Leg wound? The enemy was trying to kill them. Center of mass wounds. Unless you are distant from medical services or receive a control center shot, you most likely will not die from a gun-shot wound.

 

Seeing as how, here in the US, full-automatic/selective fire machine guns are considered a non-problem by law enforcement. Full-automatic weapons are used in less than 0.1% of crime in the US. You are just as likely to be struck by a bolt of lightning. Hollywood, however, makes it look like every crime commited by criminals is done with a TEC-9 or MP5.

 

Case in point. The FBI in Miami tracked two bank-robbers and cornered them in a street. There was a gun fight. The first shot fired hit criminal #1 in the heart--it was a fatal wound, even if there was a modern trauma unit he could not be saved. He lived for 3 minutes and killed two FBI agents. A Highway patrol officer fires 5 .357magnum rounds into a traffic stop gone wrong. The suspect shoots the officer in the head with a .22LR and the officer dies, the suspect is taken to a hospitol and survives with no after-effect. A NARC shoots a thug point blank in the chest with a 12ga. The suspect turns away and walks 40feet before falling over dead. An 11-year old shoots an assailant in the chest, piercing both lungs, the heart, and major artery, the assailant runs 50yards before sitting down and slowly dying. Police engage in a shoot-out with a suspect and shoot him 30times with 9mm. He still fights back. It takes a 12ga slug to finally drop him and take him out of the fight.

 

How you react to a gun shot wound is entirely dependent upon your will to fight. A single gun shot wound will do next to nothing to a determined individual. Eventual death is possible with lack of medical treatment, but unless you want to lie down and die you will still be able to fight after being shot. A jewelry store owner in LA gets in a shootout inside his store. He is shot in the neck, shot above the collar bone, and in the chest. He kills one of the robbers and seriously wounds the other. The store owner is taken to the hospitol and lives. He is the only civilian to be mentioned in the record of gun fighters because of the number of kills he has. Thugs have tried to rob his store and he has put almost all of them down.

 

In any tactical gun class you are taught that in a gun fight you most likely will be shot first. That never means the fight is over. In fact, of the gun fights of the 20th century both parties are usually shot and the one who wins/lives is the one who really wants to. It is a myth to assume that getting shot once will put so much shock into you that you won't be able to think straight. Unless you have never mentally prepared for such an event, such a statement is ludicrous. What they teach in the Police, FBI, tactical gun schools across America testifies otherwise.

 

Guns don't suddenly stop working at any range, barring stove-pipes or other FTF/FTE's. The point-blank range is just as good as long-range. It's the range where the gun is out of reach and you aren't far enough for shooter-error, that's dangerous. Twisting his wrist to shoot you? Real guns aren't pellet or BB guns with no recoil or triggerpull. Depending on the gun, if a solid grip isn't held the gun will not fire. Shooting that way will more than likely result in you being missed. It does not take much to miss with a gun. Most gangbangers cannot shoot straight. They have never been taught to hold a gun for accuracy. They hit their targets because they are either at extreme close range, or it's one of 15 shot at their target.

 

If you are attacked by a thug it is because he believes you weak and that he is at no risk. Training has nothing to do with it. Criminals seek out the best risk vs reward scenario. According to a survey conducted across US prisons, 70% of violent criminals will not attack someone if they KNOW that person is armed. 50% won't attack if they THINK that person might be armed. It's not worth the risk to them. 60% of criminals reported that they are more afraid of being shot by a civilian than by the police. Training has nothing to do with how criminals pick their victims. Finding the weak sheep does. Project you are unarmed, or incapable of defense and criminals will pick on you, generally.

 

visit https://www.keepandbeararms.com then visit TOP CLICKS on the right side of the page. Check out GunFactv3.2 and anything else about "assault weapons", etc. Then check out the web pages about handgun ballistics to educate yourself. Gunsite.com, thunderranch, Ayoob's school in NH check these places out and learn about tactical pistoling and do some reading up on the topic.

 

MA.