Gun Kata

[Drunken Monkey]

and another one who misunderstands the 'flying around' in crouching tiger...

 

it is an artistic impression of the grace and agility of those who really are trained and those who know a few moves.

 

the 'police' dude was shown a few moves as part of his job.

 

the ones who 'flew' lived and breathed the martial arts.

[Don Gwinn]

I suppose I can see that, but I'm speaking purely of entertainment value. I found gunkata much more interesting than blatant wire-flying in much the same way that I find Batman or the Punisher more interesting than Superman. When I said gunkata was no different or worse, I meant to imply that there was nothing wrong with the flying scenes. Simply not my cup of tea.

if you are UNARMED (no gun, no knife, not even a ball point pen) and there are several people, with guns, who ARE going to kill you (or at least thats what they think), what would you do?

Are they arranged in a circle around me at a distance of a few feet and all armed with firearms, as in the film? It's an impossible situation. Survival would be based on pure dumb luck. Best thing would probably be to assault the weakest part of the circle, attempt to get past the guns and break through the cordon, and somehow escape. Realistically, that's just not going to happen in that situation.

 

I know someone is going to say it, so I will: yes, they're going to shoot each other in the crossfire. However, they will also shoot YOU and the crossfire won't bring you back to life.

 

However, as has been pointed out, under stress you can't tell what you're going to do unless you've trained hard for that particular situation. I have not trained for that and probably won't unless I get awfully good and awfully bored someday. There's really no point, because with the life I lead, I'm unlikely ever to face such a situation. If I ever did, the odds would then be pretty high that it was some sort of mistaken identity (who would do such a thing except the police or the Latin Kings? I have no quarrel with either) and attacking might not be the best option.

 

This is kinda like asking what you would do if you were hanging out the emergency ramp of Air Force One while a crazy Russian played by Gary Oldman tried to kill you. It is conceivable that it could happen to someone, but not only is it just about impossible to survive but it's not as likely as a lot of other situations I still need to train to face.

[Don Gwinn]

That last post looks a little bleak as I look at it now. I suppose what I should have said was that you will not survive such a situation through skill 99.99999999% of the time. That does NOT mean you can't survive.

 

The most famous recent incident happened in Tennessee, in Knoxville I believe. A man had been reported as walking around a parking lot with a handgun. It turned out to be a pellet gun, but there was a very tense confrontation between the suspect and 7 (IIRC) members of the PD. He was apparently committing suicide by cop. He responded to commands to drop his weapon by hiding the pellet gun behind his back and walking toward the officers, and they fired. 28 times. Twenty-eight.

 

Only ONE officer hit the suspect. He only hit him with one shot, in the leg. The other 27 rounds missed (thank God, no one was downrange to be killed by them) and the suspect survived, albeit by simple stupid luck. Praying that the other side can't shoot is NOT a strategy, however.

[Treebranch]

So just put your hands up, lay down and wait? Hell no!

[Warp Spider]

I don't think it's fair to say that handguns aren't powerful, though it does depend on the round. A small round like a 9mm is a bit impotent, but still pretty effective against an unarmored target. Most instances where people are shot and survive are from the more forgiving calibers like .38, .22, or 9mm. I haven't heard of too many people that caught a .44 magnum or 454 causall anywhere remotely vital and came out unscathed.

 

Other than that I'd have to agree with most of that advice. Bullets are pretty hard to dodge (though not impossible, in theory) and a single bullet may not down an attacker. Of course, a 9mm magazine generally holds about 13 bullets, plus one in the tube, (if you cock your gun in advance and then reload the magazine) so as long as you don't wimp out you should have enough round to "make sure."

 

Oh, and if you ever use a gun to defend yourself, don't shoot "gangsta style." I tried that earlier today during some target practice, and although it looks kind of cool, the bullets ricocheting off everything when you completely miss the target kind of dampens the "look cool factor." On the bright side, I did hit the target 4 times, (out of 14 rounds fired from a P99) so even "gangsta style" isn't that bad.

[Don Gwinn]

Treebranch, if that's the impression I gave, I apologize. I'm pretty sure what I said was that the lawyer shooting showed that you must never give up and stay in the fight, that you should never assume that just because your enemy has a handgun you're doomed.

 

In fact, I believe my advice, when asked about a totally hopeless situation involving being surrounded by a dozen government agents with firearms at contact distance, was to assault through the ambush, attack the cordon at the weakest point and attempt to break through and escape.

 

Then, when even that seemed too negative, I posted an example of a man who survived 28 gunshots through dumb luck. I think, considering the nigh-impossible situations we're discussing, my outlook has been pretty sunny and definitely in favor of decisive action.

 

You should of course be bearing in mind that I am no kind of expert. You are getting my opinions here, nothing more.

I don't think it's fair to say that handguns aren't powerful, though it does depend on the round. A small round like a 9mm is a bit impotent, but still pretty effective against an unarmored target. Most instances where people are shot and survive are from the more forgiving calibers like .38, .22, or 9mm. I haven't heard of too many people that caught a .44 magnum or 454 causall anywhere remotely vital and came out unscathed.

That's an interesting question. . . . is there any record of a human being shot with a .454 Casull? I haven't heard of it. Can't be many, in any case. .44 Magnum is a powerful round for a handgun but nothing compared to a long arm and not a reliable stopper, especially with one shot. Ever hear all the stories about the dismal lack of power from the .30 Carbine in WWII and Korea? Lotta soldiers came back convinced that the M1 Carbine was a weak sister that couldn't be trusted to stop a charging enemy. The same soldiers were and are often heard expounding upon the awesome power of the .45 ACP, especially compared to something like 9mm. Truth is, by every objective measure possible, the .30 Carbine round is much more powerful than the .44 Magnum, even if you fire both from the same length barrel. Yet the .44 and even the .45 are considered man-stoppers, while the .30 is considered a wuss. Makes no sense.

 

Most of what people say and write about handgun calibers is mythical. The bottom line is that although there are some differences, the degree of difference between most handgun calibers is actually very, very small in real terms. Put it in a convenient math format like foot-pounds, and it may look like one round is impressive and the other is weak. But look at how many foot-pounds would be needed to get impressive results and it becomes pretty clear that the handguns mostly get left behind.

[Treebranch]

So what would you advise if someone pulled a gun on you at arms length? What then? Will a gun kata or gun training, disarming techniques in general come in handy? That's what I think we were talking about on this thread. Wasn't it.

[Don Gwinn]

Have I offended you or something?

 

I was under the impression that this thread was about Gunkata as practiced in Equilibrium.

 

The answer to your question, in my opinion, is as follows:

 

1. Gun training? Sure, that might help, but it depends on what the training is. If you're talking about shooting, it's not a bad idea, but it won't teach you to disarm a shooter.

 

2. Disarm training? Better. If you take it seriously and work hard at it, it can work. You are ALWAYS at a BIG disadvantage when facing a gun unarmed, though. Disarms are techniques of last resort.

 

3. Gunkata? It's not real. A movie director made it up. No, it will not help. I am not disparaging you or your style by saying this, unless you study Fake Movie Gun Do, so I'm not sure why you seem to be taking offense.

[Treebranch]

I'm not offended. Maybe I just didn't understand what or where the specific gun kata came from. I think you make some very sound points.

[Warp Spider]

Treebranch, if that's the impression I gave, I apologize. I'm pretty sure what I said was that the lawyer shooting showed that you must never give up and stay in the fight, that you should never assume that just because your enemy has a handgun you're doomed.

 

In fact, I believe my advice, when asked about a totally hopeless situation involving being surrounded by a dozen government agents with firearms at contact distance, was to assault through the ambush, attack the cordon at the weakest point and attempt to break through and escape.

 

Then, when even that seemed too negative, I posted an example of a man who survived 28 gunshots through dumb luck. I think, considering the nigh-impossible situations we're discussing, my outlook has been pretty sunny and definitely in favor of decisive action.

 

You should of course be bearing in mind that I am no kind of expert. You are getting my opinions here, nothing more.

I don't think it's fair to say that handguns aren't powerful, though it does depend on the round. A small round like a 9mm is a bit impotent, but still pretty effective against an unarmored target. Most instances where people are shot and survive are from the more forgiving calibers like .38, .22, or 9mm. I haven't heard of too many people that caught a .44 magnum or 454 causall anywhere remotely vital and came out unscathed.

That's an interesting question. . . . is there any record of a human being shot with a .454 Casull? I haven't heard of it. Can't be many, in any case. .44 Magnum is a powerful round for a handgun but nothing compared to a long arm and not a reliable stopper, especially with one shot. Ever hear all the stories about the dismal lack of power from the .30 Carbine in WWII and Korea? Lotta soldiers came back convinced that the M1 Carbine was a weak sister that couldn't be trusted to stop a charging enemy. The same soldiers were and are often heard expounding upon the awesome power of the .45 ACP, especially compared to something like 9mm. Truth is, by every objective measure possible, the .30 Carbine round is much more powerful than the .44 Magnum, even if you fire both from the same length barrel. Yet the .44 and even the .45 are considered man-stoppers, while the .30 is considered a wuss. Makes no sense.

 

Most of what people say and write about handgun calibers is mythical. The bottom line is that although there are some differences, the degree of difference between most handgun calibers is actually very, very small in real terms. Put it in a convenient math format like foot-pounds, and it may look like one round is impressive and the other is weak. But look at how many foot-pounds would be needed to get impressive results and it becomes pretty clear that the handguns mostly get left behind.

 

Here you're comparing apples to oranges. .30 caliber didn't work too well against a target wearing flak jackets or possibly kevlar? That's likely because (to my knowledge) it's not a round designed for armor penetration. That certainately doesn't mean that it would be ineffective versus an unarmoured opponent.

 

Obviously rifle rounds are more powerful, but I've yet to find someone who claimed 7.62mm NATO was not effective against unarmoured targets. For sure a handgun round isn't going to dismember a person or send chunks flying like an FN FAL might, but it's still perfectly capable of causing a fatal wound, especially against unarmoured targets.