Would your holstered handgun protect you from this?

[BehindBlueI's]

Gun holstered, gun unholstered, gun floating in the air, who cares, he has a knife and you have a reasonable belief of serious bodily injury or death, shoot him, right now.

The receiving team had no pistol. If he had a pistol, he could have shot him, just like that highly trained operative Jorge Miguel Zimmerman did using this one simple trick.

Everybody else in the thread gets it. Stop looking at it in lawyer mode and look at it in fighter mode.

 

[Vigilant]

Ever try any force on force training? Tueller drill? Everybody is a ninja and a quick-draw champion behind a keyboard.

THIS!!!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Ever try any force on force training? Tueller drill? Everybody is a ninja and a quick-draw champion behind a keyboard.

I will tell you that he had a Kel Tec. YOU will tell me all the hours and hours of force on force training that he had, detail each and every Tueller drill he did.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I will tell you that he had a Kel Tec. YOU will tell me all the hours and hours of force on force training that he had, detail each and every Tueller drill he did.

Want me to post people who lost?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Want me to post people who lost?

Nope, just all the extensive training that Jorge had right now. I'll wait.

 

[bwframe]

Jorge would be dead if Travon had a blade.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Nope, just all the extensive training that Jorge had right now. I'll wait.

No idea. What's your point? One guy in an encounter he's aware of before he's attacked uses deadly force against fists and this translates into what in your mind? Training isn't important? Everyone gets their gun out in time? Spell it out for me.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

No idea. What's your point?

Having a gun makes all the difference. It gives you a chance that the poor guy in the PI did not have.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Having a gun makes all the difference. It gives you a chance that the poor guy in the PI did not have.

Sometimes. Sometimes you lose anyway.

 

[Alamo]

Yes having a gun on your body gives you a chance...not a certainty... that the guy in the video did not have.

If you see him coming and you can shoot him first, or if you can avoid getting stabbed while you draw and fire, great.

But if he's on top of you and stabs you someplace important, doesn't matter how many times you shoot him, or if you kill him, you lose.

Many people without a lot of training conduct successful self-defense with a gun because their criminal opponent is a) not really very good, and b) wasn't really expecting serious opposition and didn't really have his heart in it -- as soon as things turn south he boogies (hence the 2-6million DGUs per year depending on whose study you read).

But depending on your "SA" and your holstered gun to get you through is not a great bet when for a few dollars and hours more you can add some decent combative skills. Even if that kid had had a gun, I doubt he would have ever got it out because he got monkey-gripped on the attacker and his knife. That's not a physical thing, that's a mental and training thing.

Jorge Z was one punch away from getting killed, and he was very lucky to get his gun out and plug Trayvon (and his past attempts at MMA training may have very well helped his luck). The problem with success, especially pointing to one example, is one often learns the wrong lesson about why it happened.

By all means have a gun on you. But by all means, add as much other training as you can manage.

BBI on points this round.

 

[snowwalker]

Offense is the key. Tim Larkin has some simple and excellent programs for an encounter like this. I carry a gun strong side, a solid fixed blade on my off side, and I train with all three. The guy did not make one offensive move and could have stuck him in several places, his left eye would have been a good place to start or a thumb to his throat.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Just having a gun on you doesn't mean diddly if you can't get it unholstered or you don't have the will to use it (even a brief hesitation can get you killed). Getting the gun out and into action is always a concern because your opponent has the element of surprise, even if it is only momentary. He gets to choose the time, location, and method of attack, you do not. Even people who carry consistently don't go about their daily lives expecting to get into a gunfight at any moment. And if you're expecting a gunfight and you're only packing a pistol, you are a fool - you should be carrying a lot more firepower and bringing along all of your armed friends. We carry handguns in our daily lives because they are convenient, not because they are the best fighting weapon, but even the very best weapons are useless if you can't get them deployed.

 

[mcjon77]

Here is a video that may offer some perspective about drawing your gun in a close range knife. These are armed, trained police officers being ambushed by a knife attacker at close range. Look at how challenging it is for them to draw their open carry handgun. Now add to that the fact that as armed citizens we will usually carry concealed and have to clear some cover garment first.

[video=youtube;J_KJ1R2PCMM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_KJ1R2PCMM[/video]

I just recently watched Louis Awerbuck's (R.I.P.) DVD "Analysis of the Survival Mindset" from Panteao Productions. It is an absolutely EXCELLENT video. He did not specifically cover knife attacks. However, one of the things that he mentioned OVER AND OVER AGAIN was that, many times, when someone is carrying a gun they treat it like a hammer, where every problem becomes a nail.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Here is a video that may offer some perspective about drawing your gun in a close range knife.

If the flatfeet only knew who that was.

 

[mcjon77]

If the flatfeet only knew who that was.

Yes. There is that.

Personally, if I was a cop and saw Guro Dan doing something suspicious, I would either keep walking and mind my own business or draw my gun on him from across the street. However, while Inosanto is certainly an expert with the blade, I question whether those officers would have done any better against an aggressive attacker using a prison style blitz. It would be the same (or faster) forward movement with repeated stabbing attempts to the chest and stomach, as opposed to the slashes Guro Dan employed.

 

[iChokePeople]

If the flatfeet only knew who that was.

He'll be doing a seminar in Evansville in April.

 

[ModernGunner]

In such a scenario (good guy armed with a handgun or not), it must be remembered that defending oneself is an offensive action.

The Defender is under a brutal attack from a determined attacker, armed with a knife, in close proximity. The response by the Defender is to be 'harder, faster, and even more (not equally) brutal'. Distance (the primary advantage of a firearm) was not really an option in the attack (the OP clip). This is 'close quarters combat' by definition.

Therefore, the Defender MUST (or, should have, in the clip), switched to offensive mode and 'attack the attacker' for lack of a better phrase. The Defender was in a fight for his life. ALL 'bets are off' and ALL options and means are therefore justified.

As a Defender, one cannot just 'hope' the attacker will give up and cease the attack. That mindset can get the Defender killed. To the contrary, the Defender should presume the attack will continue until the Defender is dead.

Such close quarters infighting is 'dirty'. The Attacker 'may' win, the Defender MUST win. Fight 'dirty'.

JMO, but the defensive tactics demonstration clips shown suffer from the same 'problem'. They show grabbing the knife arm / hand to neutralize (good), but make the same 'error' in not switching to 'offensive mode' and eliminating the attack (bad). While a take-down (shown) MAY work in some instances, it may not in many (most?) others.

Eliminate the problem.

 

[oldpink]

In such a scenario (good guy armed with a handgun or not), it must be remembered that defending oneself is an offensive action.

The Defender is under a brutal attack from a determined attacker, armed with a knife, in close proximity. The response by the Defender is to be 'harder, faster, and even more (not equally) brutal'. Distance (the primary advantage of a firearm) was not really an option in the attack (the OP clip). This is 'close quarters combat' by definition.

Therefore, the Defender MUST (or, should have, in the clip), switched to offensive mode and 'attack the attacker' for lack of a better phrase. The Defender was in a fight for his life. ALL 'bets are off' and ALL options and means are therefore justified.

As a Defender, one cannot just 'hope' the attacker will give up and cease the attack. That mindset can get the Defender killed. To the contrary, the Defender should presume the attack will continue until the Defender is dead.

Such close quarters infighting is 'dirty'. The Attacker 'may' win, the Defender MUST win. Fight 'dirty'.

JMO, but the defensive tactics demonstration clips shown suffer from the same 'problem'. They show grabbing the knife arm / hand to neutralize (good), but make the same 'error' in not switching to 'offensive mode' and eliminating the attack (bad). While a take-down (shown) MAY work in some instances, it may not in many (most?) others.

Eliminate the problem.

Yep
In this specific situation, the clerk should have employed every offensive attack possible: poke out eyeballs, biting HARD enough to cause intense pain and probably severe limbs, digits, nose, etc.
In short, when faced with such a scenario with no projectile weapon close at hand, do whatever you can possibly do, and nothing is off limits.
The defender must resort to absolute savagery in order to survive.

 

[chezuki]

Yep
In this specific situation, the clerk should have employed every offensive attack possible: poke out eyeballs, biting HARD enough to cause intense pain and probably severe limbs, digits, nose, etc.
In short, when faced with such a scenario with no projectile weapon close at hand, do whatever you can possibly do, and nothing is off limits.
The defender must resort to absolute savagery in order to survive.

Yep. The "Monday morning quarterback" in me sees a lot of potential improvised weapons. I've never been in a knife attack, but the traditional martial arts training I've had became a bit less traditional and more realistic when it came to knife defense. It was drilled in to us that whenever possible, the first action should be to put something between you and the knife... A chair, table, milk crate, whatever you have at your disposal. The next action needs to be absolutely unrestrained brutal aggression, utilizing anything you can get your hands on. This may mean using that chair to drive the attacker into the wall and then beating him to death with the printer. You have to be absolutely ruthless and do whatever takes to survive, because that's the level of aggression the attacker is willing to use to make sure you don't.

 

[chezuki]

^^ Thinking back, it seems like my old Sensei might have been channeling Col. Cooper before I even knew who Cooper was. That sounds a lot like Principle 6.