That’s very interesting. Were the fighters usually very drunk at the time? I would think that being drunk would diminish the effects of any type of training.
At least for my martial art (mainly Defendo), one of the aims is to train enough on basic principles so that that replaces your natural instincts.
Not intentional.
There’s kind of a world of difference between a world record shooter and your average postal clerk, though. I can’t imagine anyone who doesn’t practice constantly could reload a revolver in 5 seconds.
Generally drunk. IME, that didn’t make much difference, though.
Defendo is absolutely the worst name for anything, ever, incidentally, although I’m sure it’s effective.
Thank you! Digging further into it, it looks like of the 417 women killed in the workplace in 2007, 27 were homicides–while 30 were from car wrecks and the rest from falls, fires, harmful substances, and equipment. Overall, work’s a pretty safe place for a woman–especially if she stays in one place.
ETA: those numbers are percents, not total events. Chart was confusing.
It takes surprisingly little practice to get a reload down under a second or two seconds. (The Record was 6 shots + reload + 6 shots)
Keep in mind, when you’re reloading, you don’t have to put all 6 bullets in, you use a speed loader which pops them into place.
The average postal clerk, or bus driver, will not be able to do 12 shots and a reload in 2.9 seconds, however the shots themselves will be delivered with equal speed (Semi-auto versus revolver), and the reload will take fractionally longer.
Once again; my point is only that reloading a semiautomatic pistol, or a revolver, the distinction is pointless.
In fact, your average person is going to have difficulty reloading a semi-automatic pistol without some practice, too. The average person is going to have to flip the magazine to make sure it faces the right direction, make sure to line it up properly, then slide the tip in and ‘jam’ it into the receiver to make sure it catches.
It’s the select few who are able to pick up a gun, fire off the entire magazine, grab the new magazine from their belt and punch it into the gun without difficulty. That takes practice and planning, as much or more-so than a speed loader.
Understandable. And I would point out that the cop on the scene said that in 20 years, he’d never encountered this sort of thing (that being the beat-down of an armed man by an unarmed victim).
It just occurred to me, this might be of some interest to you guys.
An LDS church was robbed, at gun point. The men in attendance gathered around him and… ahem… told him to leave…
You’ll excuse me if I don’t replace “run!” with “ask the nice man to leave” in my armed-psycho playbook. 
You’re right, they were and should have been widely reported at the time. What makes them overreported is the repeat of the story every time something similar, or almost similar, or dissimilar, but could be confused as similar occurs. We saw plenty of comparisons to Virgina Tech just last month when the attacks went down in Mumbai.
MSNBC has in its archives dozens of stories written or updated in the last thirty days referencing the Columbine shootings, an incident that happened close to ten years ago. Do we still need to hear about this every time violence or the threat of violence occurs or an essay about violence is written or the anniversary date of the event happens or…well, you get the point? Hell, Columbine got a mention just today in an article MSNBC had on a special planned by Nickelodeon on teen pregnancy. You hardly ever see Alferd Packer mentioned on the cooking shows.
This highlights not the ineffectiveness of training per se, but rather the ineffectiveness of formal, Westernized Oriental and other martial arts training which focuses on things like form, balance, and precision but misses important aspects such as awareness, initiative, grounding, and most importantly, how to take a strike and keep moving. I’ve studied a variety of martial arts off and on (jujitsu, ryukyuan kenpo, tegumi, uechi-ryu karate, wing chun gung fu, savate) and the problem with all of them was the focus on form over practicality, and the limit to which an attack is pursued. A real streetfighter both knows how to absorb a punch and isn’t afraid of being hit because he’s been hit plenty of times before. A dojo student, however, may have never been in a real fight since grade school, and however quick or effective he might be at defending against attacks, if some strike gets through, he’s going to fold like an accordion out of surprise. It’s just like jumping into cold water; if you’ve done it many times before it’s just painful, but if you’re not expecting it, it takes your breath completely away. Most effective streetfighters have some kind of training, but it is more akin to traditional bare knuckle pugilism than anything you’ll find in a padded room with trophies in the front window. It’s not that the training you will get from formal martial arts forms is all wrong or bad, it is just incomplete and almost wholly inadequate for a real bone-breaking conflict, and as Really Not All That Bright notes, once under real stress you revert to whatever you know by instinct rather than superficial training, which is why most real world fights end up as ineffectual grappling matches on the ground.
As for facing down an opponent armed with a gun or knife: I’ve been there and done that, and can say that it was more luck than skill to have come out unscathed. The right training can improve your odds against a poorly skilled weapon holder (i.e. one that snugs up close to you and gives you the opportunity to deflect or grapple the weapon) but the odds still aren’t good compared to the potential for serious injury or death. At any distance someone holding a firearm has a distinct advantage; rather than try to close ground and work some crazy flying monkey kick, I’d throw whatever was at hand and attempt to open the distance in hopes of reducing the likelihood of being shot. Of course, if you’re cornered and believe yourself to be in mortal danger anyway, you might as well close in and mob the shooter, but that takes not only discipline and training but the kind of fuck-it-all instinct that overcomes fear and the natural inclination to protect oneself from immediate harm despite the hopelessness of it all. This is not something you are going to learn in any classroom, and probably not something most people want to learn compared to the very low chance of ever being in the kind of scenario identified by the o.p. The closest formal training to this is probably Krav Maga and similar styles which focus on aggressiveness and pursuit of an attack until the opponent is completely disabled over style.
As for stopping or defending against random mass shooters, the best defense for society overall is a pro-active one, i.e. preventing the kind of bullying deprecation and emotional abuse that leads to the boiling resentment that fuels these kinds of attacks. Unfortunately, this is largely the human condition, and while some steps to prevent these kinds of attacks have been taken, it is hardly going to be eliminated by even the most stringent kind of “zero tolerance” policies enforced by any school, or emotional abuse laws in any municipality. Removing access to weapons, at least by persons most likely to commit such crimes, is also of limited effectiveness; even if we could zero out firearms availability you’d still have automobiles, gasoline and other incendiaries, poison, et cetera. The most effective thing you could do to prevent these kinds of attacks is to virtually remove the publicity surrounding them, thus destroying the main appeal–the mass attention–that makes such stunts so attractive.
This is hardly an unexplored area of criminal pathology. People who perform these kinds of crimes do so for one essential reason; because they feel subjugated, ignored, and powerless to effect control over or change in their own lives. Exercising ultimate control–if but just for a few minutes–over the lives of others offers both a respite and fulfillment of the ultimate fantasy, of not only being important (if just as a threat) to a few people, but being the focus of many more via media attention. These people aren’t thrill killers in the normal sense; they make no effort to conceal their crimes or to prevent ultimately being captured or killed by police, and indeed, often make elaborate preparations for their own deaths. See Taxi Driver for a textbook example.
Stranger
Exactly. When martial arts training proves to be ineffectual it isn’t necessarily that the techniques taught were no good, it’s that the method of training didn’t adequately prepare the person physiologically and psychologically for the violence of a real assault. Effective martial arts training should incorporate stress training, pain tolerance, execution of technique against an actively resisting opponent, multiple ranges and environments, heavy emphasis on conditioning and pushing past oxygen deprivation, and a bunch of other stuff that isn’t taught nearly as often as it should be. The problem is that that kind of training isn’t everybody’s idea of fun. Most people who study the martial arts just want to go to the corner school, throw some kicks, get in better shape, lose some weight, get a belt, and maybe earn a trophy, so that’s what most martial arts schools teach. If you want more effective self defense training you have to seek it out and be prepared to be taken outside of your comfort zone.
Jebus, I didn’t mean to get sand in your shorts!
What I mean is that I know fuck all about guns and I was thinking about disarming someone with a pistol, like are used in martial arts training (where the “attacker” in the moves I learned only had one gun) and disarming someone with a big fucking gun.
My ignorance has caused a bit of a semantic war and I apologize.
You mean rifle, and don’t worry ZipperJJ, no sand in my shorts (okay, maybe a little…). I apologize if I was overly rude (or rude at all).
If you’re interested, I’ll include a brief description of the different types of weapons. If not, skip on over it, sorry for wasting your time.
When you talk about an “Automatic,” that’s a common term for Full Auto Weapon. A weapon that fires more than once every time you pull the trigger. You’ll likely never (in the same way you’ll likely never fly from flapping your arms) encounter someone with this type of gun committing a crime.
When you talk about a SemiAutomatic, you’re referring to a gun that you pull the trigger and it fires, ejects a spent casing, and then reloads itself. You then have to pull the trigger again in order to get it to fire again.
Then there’s a Revolver, this is the gun with a cylindrical, rotating chamber which holds multiple rounds. (This is almost universally Pistols, although there are a few exceptions.)
There’s also a Lever, Pump and Bolt action (these are almost rifles, but there are a few bolt action pistols I know of). These have to have the next round manually Chambered before they can be fired (so it would be pump fire pump fire).
There are also Break open Shotguns (and rifles too, I think), and muzzle loaders (I’d be interested if anyone knows the last time a crime was committed with a muzzle loading rifle?).
That only describes the action of the gun itself, not the size, shape, caliber or weight.
Guns are typically broken down into two categories by their size and function.
Long-gun: These have longer barrels, and are typically more powerful. They often - the rule, rather than the exception - have butt-stocks (the thing you put against your shoulder).
Pistol: These are something meant to be held in the palm of the hand, and fired at arms length.
Now, this line has somewhat blurred in recent years, with the advent of something called a Personal Defense Weapon (PDW). Things like FN’s P90, and the (according to some) recategorized Uzi, MP5 and various other extremely short carbine type weapons. But that’s more a semantic thing than this… which is saying something. :smack:
And yes, sorry, that was as brief as I could make it.
You heard incorrectly.
As a professional Taekwondo instructor, I totally and completely agree with the concept of teaching martial arts in school. My dream in life is to start a school that stresses excellence in education and the only physical education would be Taekwondo instruction. The martial arts training would help them be successful in their studies as well as giving them training in life skills that the schools don’t give today.
Mind you, martial arts training will not make someone invincible. But in a crisis like a shooting scenario, it will enable someone to see an opening and exploit it, as well as teaching disarming techniques.
Happy New Year, everyone!
There seems to be a growing consensus here that it is very impossible or unlikely to rush a gunman from a distance and have a prayer of taking him down, whether you know martial arts or not. And yet my OP provided an example of just such a thing being done. Here are some links. The second link identifies some of the men who took the shooter down, the third link has some reaction from the public and the last link even has a quote from the gunman himself!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356503,00.html
The men who took the shooter down are identified as a Navy veteran and a couple of off-duty cops. None of these men have superpowers, and none was identified as using any particular martial-arts tactic. It seems they did exploit an opening when the shooter reloaded.
OK, instead of mandatory martial-arts training, what if everybody was provided with law-enforcement or military training?
Oops, that would be called a “draft.” OK, never mind. 
According to the first link…
When Diaz stopped to reload his gun, bystanders tackled him to the ground and subdued him until police arrived on the scene.
According to the last link…
The gunman walked away after the shooting but was quickly grabbed by bystanders, one of whom was an off-duty Burbank police officer. Another off-duty officer, from Los Angeles, produced handcuffs and the group held the man until uniformed officers arrived.
A search of a tennis bag used to carry the rifle uncovered 20 rifle cartridges, police said.
The man in question did not have a loaded gun and was not firing while he was tackled. This incident was of a man who had a gun, unloaded, in his hand while he was being tackled.
This doesn’t mean that it’s impossible to tackle someone with a gun (I’m not saying it is) but it does re-enforce the idea that in order to do so you need to choose your moment very carefully. As in “HEY DUDE WITH A GUN, punch” probably won’t work…
I’m not exactly sure what happened, because the stories are conflicting, but it seems to me that none of them claim the man was shooting when he was tackled…
I think this bears repeating. IME having worked in a bouncer type security position for a while, the most effective things for me was my old high school wrestling and football. Much of what makes criminals, cops, and experienced fighters of all flavors so effective hand to hand is the willingness to use physical violence/force as a tool. Learning to set aside that bit of social conditioning makes people far more effective in a variety of situations.
