More on Street Fighting and What’s Wrong with This Picture

By Matthew Schafer

Copyright, 2008, All Rights Reserved

I’ve gotten a fairly interesting response to the article “The Street Fighting Myth” and I feel that maybe I wasn’t as clear as I should have been. So let me be a little more clear on the matter…street fighting is bullshit!

Let me tell you a little story about something that just happened here. A few nights ago a young man in his early 20’s left a bar where he worked to make the night deposit. As he walked to his car another car pulled up, two guys got out, walked up to him and engaged him in conversation, jumped him, hit him until he fell to the ground, repeatedly stomped and kicked him, then took the money that he had on him and fled.

I’m not sure if that kid has come out of his coma yet but his doctors say that he will never “be right” again, and that he will need direct care assistance for the rest of his life. This kid was in his early 20’s and his life is basically over. He will be a vegetable that his family will have to take care of for the rest of their lives.

Another story, a young man was standing by his car in the parking lot of his apartment building. Two other young men come up to him and started to argue with him. A friend on the third floor saw the altercation and decided to come to his friend’s aid but he was so intoxicated that he decided to jump off of his balcony and promptly broke both of his legs. One of the individuals then pushed this young man who then falls and hits his head of the pavement.

One little push and this young man is now a vegetable and his family cannot afford to take care of him. They depleted their savings, his father’s business had to file bankruptcy, and his siblings have been reported as using drugs to cope with the situation. This young man can no longer regulate the temperature of his body so his family has to watch him around the clock because he could easily catch pneumonia and die. The thing is though, the family has admitted that maybe it would be best for their son and themselves if he did pass on. They even considered taking the family or Oregon where doctor-assisted suicide is legal.

This is the reality of violence and injury. The Chinese knew this and they had a saying that, “when two tigers fight, one will be killed, and the other will die later of his injuries”.

If somebody is going to try to victimize you, seriously injure you, then there is a very good chance that one of you will be killed or messed up so bad that you will never “be right” again and your family will have to bear the burden of taking care of you for the rest of their lives. The only question is which one of you will it be?

If you are going to try to street fight then it will be you. You cannot fight with a criminal, but you can use various methods of self protection.

The first thing is that you have to know how criminals think, how they commit their crimes, how they pick their targets, what vulnerabilities they look for, and what will make them pick you as a target. Then you have to make a plan, constantly be aware of your surroundings, be looking around, and asking yourself, “what’s wrong with this picture?” and “is this necessary?”

You’re walking to your car and another car suddenly pulls up…what’s wrong with this picture (everything so turn and start running). Two guys get out to “talk” to you…what wrong with this picture? Is it necessary for them to get out of their car? Is it necessary for two of them to get out? Is it necessary for them to try to get close to you? NO! None of that is necessary so the second it starts happening you should run like hell.

If two guys approach you is it necessary for them to do so? What’s wrong with this picture? If you have the distance you should run like hell. If you don’t have the distance between you then you should become assertive, establish your boundaries, and then become aggressive, not with your words but with your voice. This tells them that if they come closer that they have a fight on their hands, alerts others who may be able to call for help, and immediately tells you their intentions. If they leave, which most will, that’s fine, but if you do all that and they don’t then you are in a situation where you could possibly be killed.

If they approach you, guess what you should have in your hands…pepper spray. I always tell my students to have pepper spray in their hands if they’re out and about and I always do the same. If it is in your pocket or purse then it does you no good, you need to have it in your hands.

Getting into a fight with a criminal is a method that just doesn’t work. Your first line of defense is your will to survive and your decision to do so, second is making a plan for when things do happen and then following that plan, third is your awareness of your surroundings, fourth is making brief eye contact with everyone and displaying your level of alertness by making sure that people see you looking around, fifth is your ability to run, sixth is your display of aggressiveness when cornered, seventh is pepper spray or another personal weapon (I much prefer pepper spray, even to carrying a gun), and last is self defense techniques designed to cause debilitating injury to your attacker that will require medical attention. Anything else won’t work.

If someone attacks you chances are they will do it by surprise and your clue that its time to defend yourself will actually be being attacked. If someone does come up to you, you don’t get into a fighting stance because that will just escalate the situation and may cause them to pull a weapon. Instead you assume an aggressive posture with your palms outward and elbows in and down, and aggressively give them short commands that tell them to leave. If they don’t leave then you maintain your structure and your focus until they are close enough to use pepper spray or, if you don’t have it, strike them first.

Step into them aggressively and try to drive two of your fingers all the way through their eyeballs, drive your forearm through their throat, use your palm or knee to hit upwards into their groin, stomp on the sides of their ankles, repeatedly slam your palm into their ears with all your body weight, or you might slap their eyes to give them a concussion in their optical nerves. Don’t just swing your arms at them but step into them and when you hit them keep your back straight and bend your knees to drop your bodyweight into the strike.

I don’t care how big, mean, under the influence, or murderous a man is, if they are standing in front of you and you look at their ear, step in aggressively while keeping your back straight, slap your palm into the ear, push all the way through it and bend your knees on impact, you will rupture their ear drum (which takes their balance, leaves them very nauseous, and 9 times out of 10 they want to lay down on the floor) and most likely, provided you followed all the way through and bent your knees, drive them head first into the ground. If you want to make sure you drive them head first into the ground all you have to do is bring your arm down towards the ground during your follow through from the slap. If that individual goes head first into the ground it could kill him.

One of you is most likely going to be killed or end up as a messed up vegetable for your family to take care of, and it is far better that it is him instead of you.

The Street fighting Myth

By Matthew Schafer
Copyright 2008, All Rights Reserved

The other day I heard an all too common story from a friend. This friend trained at a mixed martial arts club in Grand Rapids, Michigan that had two star members. These two members were brothers who had been training in a martial art called Kajukenbo for over 15 years and who were now certified instructors in the art. Kajukenbo is a martial art known for its aggressiveness and for being "martial arts street fighting". For 15 years these guys had been training to fight, both with and without weapons, and recently they decided that doing mixed martial arts would be right up their alley so they joined a local club and were really impressing the other members. From what I was told these two guys were just about how one might envision them: big, mean, avid bodybuilders, and covered in tattoos.

A week or two ago both these gentlemen, who were arguably very, very tough, made a trip to Flint, Michigan and while walking down the street they were approached by two other men and a physical encounter ensued leaving both of these Kajukenbo black belts in intensive care. These two men were not only black belts but instructors in a street fighting art, were in exceptional shape, and were trained in the use of weapons but still they were not only beaten but severely beaten to such a degree that they are in intensive care. How could this be, especially in a two on two fight?

The answer is actually very simple. These men had spent years learning all about street fighting but the truth is that there's no such thing as street fighting. Street fighting doesn't exist. There's only three types of fighting: 1.) sport fighting (boxing, wrestling, mixed martial arts, etc.) which takes place in an agreed upon place with agreed upon rules and usually has a referee, 2.) brawling which is an ego based encounter and usually resembles sport fighting with no rules or referee, and basically consists of people becoming angry, pushing each other, swinging their fists at each other like gorillas, and then walking away with bloodied lips, and 3.) assault which is when one person walks up to another person and violently attacks them with the intent of causing serious injury or death and often includes weapons and multiple attackers. That's it, all fighting and violent encounters fall into these three categories.

What people consider to be "street fighting" is actually just sport fighting or brawling. Sport fighting is 99% of what people consider fighting: two people fighting in an agreed upon way with agreed upon rules. Brawling is people getting mad because their feelings are hurt and lashing out in an uncontrolled and undisciplined manner and if any injuries happen they are typically very minor. Assault is someone wanting to seriously injure, forcibly rob or rape, or murder you. Sport fighting only happens if you agree to it, brawling can usually be avoided by being polite and respectful to people then knowing de-escalation techniques, but assault can't be avoided, you can reduce your chances of having it happening to you but you can't all together avoid it.

The idea of meeting someone on the "street" and both of you getting into fighting stances and duking it out just doesn't happen. If you look at the information provided to us by the FBI about crime you'll see that criminals attack by surprise and don't assume fighting stances or give you the opportunity to duke it out.

The two brothers lost their encounter because they were trying to street fight and the only place street fighting happens is in the minds of people who don't understand violence and the realities of injury. If you think that when a criminal comes up to you and tries to victimize you that you can get into a fighting stance, dance around, do your boxing or whatever, and outfight a criminal then 99% of the time you're dead wrong. If a criminal isn't very experienced then maybe he'll give himself away and you can get a shot in before he hits you but most of the time the best you can do with all that stuff is act really aggressive and scare him away. Criminals will take you by surprise so the idea of putting up your hands and fighting them just isn't realistic; most experienced criminals will approach you and knock you out or disable you first and then rob you.

From what I heard two guys just walked up them, said something to them, and then started punching them until they knocked them down, then kicked and stomped them until they stomped moving, and then took their wallets and ran away. In no way was that street fighting, it was a crime plain and simple. Street fighting just doesn't exist, what does exist is people of very low moral value using speed, surprise, and violence of action to victimize others.

What Is A Martial Art?

By Matthew Schafer
Copyright 2007


When most people think of the martial arts they think of people running around in pajamas while punching, kicking, and yelling. While this tends to be accurate I truly believe that there is more to a martial art than this.

What inspired me to write this article was a conversation I had with someone earlier today about a "martial arts" school that is in my area. I put martial arts in quotations because I think that calling what this school teaches a "martial art" is a grave disservice to the martial arts. However, it is not my purpose to bad mouth this school, rather I intend to only define martial arts as I see them.

I have discovered that both martial artists and non-martial artists alike consider the martial arts to be little more than punching and kicking techniques. The other day I was walking through the park and I saw a boy of about 8 or 9 punching, kicking, jumping, and screaming. My first thought was that this boy was having a seizure and I took out my cell phone to call for help as I looked around for his parents. Suddenly he noticed me standing there and he stopped and turned to me and said, "Do you like my karate?"

Is that all the martial arts are? If the martial arts are nothing more than punching and kicking then we would have to include the following as martial arts: boxing, kickboxing, Tae Bo and other forms of aerobic kickboxing, kickball, soccer, hacky sack, and other childhood games such as paddy cake and bloody knuckles. I purpose that if all martial arts are is punching and kicking then soccer is a martial art, after all soccer has kicking in it.

What if we increase our definition from just punching and kicking to include throwing, takedown, choking, and joint locking/breaking techniques because many martial arts also use those techniques? Well, then the local high school wrestling team is practicing martial arts. Is a regional high school wrestling tournament really a martial arts tournament?

My personal opinion is that martial arts has very little to do with punching, kicking, throwing, etc. A drug addict who is spastically flailing his arms and legs in the air is not doing martial arts. My belief is that real martial arts are not the physical techniques but the methodologies and tactics that the martial arts employ. For example, which sounds more like martial arts: 1.) some guy just walked up to me and threw a punch at me and he missed so I hit him with a left hook, or 2.) I was being aware of my surroundings and I saw some guy walking towards me in an angry fashion. I put my hands up in a "stay back" fashion and used both my body language and my voice to establish a boundary but he ignored it and he threw a right hook at me. Luckily I was watching the center of his body and I saw his torso and right shoulder move so I knew the punch was coming, and I side stepped it letting it safely pass by me. Then I stepped into a strong forward stance and countered with a left punch and a kiai to his floating ribs.

In the above, what exactly is the "martial arts" aspect? If all the martial arts are is throwing your arms and legs in the air then both 1 and 2 were examples of martial arts because they both included punches. However, I think that the actual martial arts were knowing to be aware of your surroundings, noticing the individual's intent, establishing boundaries with body language and voice, watching the guy's torso and shoulders to see when the punch would come, the tactic of side stepping to avoid the blow, and then the methodology of hitting with proper structure and breathing, and of hitting vulnerable areas of the human body as opposed to just swinging away at general areas. In my book, the martial arts are not really what you do but how you do it.

When I teach a martial arts class I make a distinction between what is and what is not martial arts. If I see someone throwing a sloppy technique I stop them and explain to them that what they did wasn't martial arts. Anyone can throw a punch, but to do it with proper focus, intent, structure, alignment, breathing, and targeting is marital arts.

The other side of my argument is that if you take the term "martial arts" you notice that it has the word "martial" in it and that you're talking about the art of warfare. So, for an art to be a "martial" art it has to be geared for combat or at least applicable to combat or self defense. The way I look at it, the minimum requirements for an art to be an actual martial art is that it MUST teach both defenses for knives and multiple attackers. Why, because knives and multiple attackers are some of the common threats that you face, so if you are planning on walking down the street safely in today's world you'd better know how to deal with them.

Muay Thai is a great form of kickboxing but if a world champion Muay Thai kickboxer was walking down the street and two guys approached him, pulled a knife, and demanded his money he would be screwed. While Muay Thai is a great and very effective form of kickboxing it is only a sport and doesn't teach knife defenses or how to handle multiple attackers.

The same holds true for "MMA" or "mixed martial arts". For as cool as people think it is, it is not a martial art, at least not in my book. MMA, Muay Thai, Wrestling, Pankration, Sumo, Judo, many styles of Ju Jitsu, the majority of Tae Kwon Do, and boxing are not, in my book, martial arts. I do make exception for Kendo, many schools or archery, as well as combat shooting because if we dropped people skilled in those disciplines in a battlefield they may be able to hold their own for a time.

It really gets peoples' dander up when I say that Judo and some styles of Ju Jitsu and Tae Kwon Do are not martial arts and I can understand that because they do use martial art uniforms and belts so the mistake is forgivable.

Judo, it should be mentioned, was never intended to be a martial art. The founder of Judo was very open about the fact that he was creating a sport form of Ju Jitsu , and Judo is considered a sport. While some schools of Judo do teach knife defenses, I've never heard of defending against multiple attackers as part of Judo's curriculum. While I respect Judo and it does have some great self defense moves, such as wrist locks (that they took from Ju Jitsu), I consider Judo on the same level as high school wresting.

Take Judo and compare it to Krav Maga, which has in it's normal curriculum knife defense, gun disarms, multiple attackers, and ground fighting. While I'm not a big fan of Krav Maga, it makes Judo look like ballet.

Today many schools of Ju Jitsu teach nothing but sport martial arts as well. Many people have commented to me that they went to study Brazilian Ju Jitsu but left because the school was doing nothing but preparing them to compete in MMA fights.

Nearly every single Tae Kwon Do school or system that I've come across teaches nothing but punching and kicking. I have found some Tae Kwon Do instructors who do teach knife defenses, usually only to black belts, but they had to learn them from outside their Tae Kwon Do community and then add them to their curriculum. Never once have I found a Tae Kwon Do school that taught defense against multiple attackers as part of their curriculum. Therefore in my opinion, while there might be some instructors out there who do teach Tae Kwon Do as a martial art, Tae Kwon Do in general is not only not a martial art but gives martial arts a bad reputation.

I used to give various self defense seminars throughout Colorado and it would make me sad when I went into a Tae Kwon Do school to teach knife defenses, gun disarms, joint breaking, or fighting on the ground and I would walk in and see 15 or 20 black belts who looked at me like they were starving. I don't think I ever got out of there on time because everyone was pawing at me wanting more. These "black belts" had spent years doing nothing other then punching, kicking, and teaching forms to lower belts that when they had the opportunity to learn something like knife disarms you could almost see their mouths water.

Just like someone who goes to a restaurant and orders filet mignon only to have the waiter bring them burnt toast, they had signed up to learn martial arts only to have their instructor feed them the same punching and kicking techniques every week for years. These poor people had excitedly reached the rank of black belt wondering what great new things they would learn, only to find out that the only thing in store for them is a bunch more forms, maybe a new kick or two, years of teaching colored belts colored belt material, and maybe if they're lucky they get to swing nunchackus around a little. That's why so many people leave awhile after they reach black belt, there's nothing for them to do but show up to class and teach colored belt material.

The particular school that I mentioned in my area is a prime example. They teach a form of Tae Kwon Do that they made up themselves and they teach absolutely nothing other than how to flail your arms and legs in the air. I was asked to sit on the judging panel for one of their black belt testings and I saw black belts who couldn't throw a kick without falling over. I saw people who would spar and be thrown backwards whenever they hit their opponent. No balance, no focus, no being grounded or centered, nothing but swing your arms and legs in the air. I should also mention that everyone passed.

Over the years I worked out with a few of their black belts only to be shocked because I found out that some simple things that I considered to be white belt material were never taught. There was a guy who trained at the school for 3 years, was a black belt, and for the first time he was learning that if someone grabs your wrist you can go against their thumb to pull your hand out. That's self defense 101 and I thought people learned that within their first two belts! Hell, you can go to any women's self defense class and I'll bet that almost every single one teaches that within the first 30 minutes. So why doesn't a black belt with 3 years of training know it?

I know I've run a little long, but if the martial arts are to have any credibility we can't just give out belts to people who can swing their arms and legs in the air. We can't just teach someone a bunch of punches and kicks, give them a black belt, and tell them that they've learned everything they need to know. We can't have all these people walking around with the title "master", "grandmaster", "senior grandmaster", "chief grandmaster", or "eternal grandmaster" (that one still makes me roll my eyes) when all they can do is perform a bunch of punches and kicks. Of course if we raise the standards to what I suggest then 99% of martial arts schools in America would have to close their doors.

I can't blame people for not respecting us, we've done it to ourselves.

On Gun Disarming Techniques

By Matthew Schafer

Copyright 2008, All Rights Reserved

In this article I will talk a little about specific gun disarming techniques. Let me first say that pretty much any disarming technique is fine, the problem with most techniques isn't the techniques themselves but how they're applied. The number one problem with gun disarming as a whole is that everyone just wants to get the gun away from the attacker so you can turn it on them and gain control of the situation; however this is a flawed methodology.

There is a saying in the martial arts/self-defense world that, "you fight the person, not the weapon". This means that if someone attacks you, the problem that you have is not the gun or the knife that they have but their brain and their ability to make conscious decisions. If someone punches you and you block their punch, then you have successfully protected yourself from the punch but you can't stop and rest on your laurels because you still have to deal with the attacker. If someone attacks you with a knife and you disarm him, then you have successfully protected yourself from the knife but you still have an attacker to deal with. In the same way, if someone confronts you with a gun and you take the gun away from them then you have successfully protected yourself from getting shot by the gun but you still have a dangerous predator in front of you to deal with.

The notion that if you take the gun away from your attacker and turn it on them, that they will become fearful and compliant is one that is not sound. Your attacker may become instantly compliant but he may just take his gun back, after all don't think that "good guys" are the only ones who can perform gun disarms (1 out of every 7 police officers who are shot are shot with their own guns). After all, over 90% of the people who are purposely shot (non-accidentally) in their own homes are shot with their own guns. Usually how this happens is that someone wakes up hearing an intruder, gets their gun, and leaves their bedrooms to investigate. They confront their attacker telling him to freeze and threatening to shoot but instead of freezing the intruder simply puts his hands up and says something like, "it's ok, just stay calm" and then walks right over and takes the gun. Most of the criminals that you will encounter are street-smart brawlers and con men that have no problem fighting for a gun.

Something else that might happen is that you take a gun away from a criminal and order him to lay on his stomach only to have him laugh at you. Why? Because you are using his gun and he might know that the gun is not loaded, is not functional (maybe it doesn't have a firing pin), the safety is on and you haven't disengaged it, or maybe the gun is not a real firearm...maybe he attacked you with a toy gun, a water pistol, or a realistic looking Airsoft pistol. You know nothing about the gun you are taking away and you actually don't know if it will function, but your attacker probably does.

You should also take into consideration that when the police arrest an individual and search him or her it is not unusual for that individual to have on their person several guns, several knifes, or several guns and several knives. Many criminals carry multiple weapons and if you take his gun away he might just pull out another and now you're in a gun fight.

Also take into consideration that is it very unlikely that you are an expert in the tactical use of firearms. Sure, if you're a Green Beret you can probably just pick up a random gun and use it but how many of us are Green Berets? It is not logical to expect someone to be able to take a gun away from someone and instantly be able to use it, let alone use it under duress. Do you know where the safeties are one a 1911, M9, .38 special, or a Sig Sauer (some of the most common guns used by criminals)? If you don't and you end up taking one of those guns away from a criminal you may be wondering why it won't fire while your attacker is repeatedly striking you in the face.

Even if you are a Green Beret and you have no problem using a wide variety of weapons it still doesn't mean that you will be able to use your attacker's weapon against him. As stated above you know nothing about your attackers weapon and it very well could have modifications you don't know about (such as extra safeties), be unloaded, non-functional, or a water pistol.

The idea that all you have to do is take the gun away from your attacker, step back, turn the gun on him and be instantly safe is quite unrealistic and extremely dangerous. To go back to the old and true saying that, "you fight the person, not the weapon", the only logical course of action is to not only control the weapon but to also neutralize the attacker at the same time. For example, you might take the gun away and instead of stepping back and pointing it at him, you hold onto the gun in a tight fist (keeping your fingers off the trigger) and you might break his knee with a stomp, collapse his windpipe with a chop, or rupture his testicle with your shin. My preference is to take the gun away and then consider it an impact weapon (a hard blunt object you can use for striking).

What is a better scenario: 1.) someone pulls a gun on you and you execute a perfect gun disarm then step back and point the gun at him yelling, "GET DOWN! LAY DOWN ON YOUR STOMACH!" and then hope that the criminal complies or runs away, that you have the psychological ability to pull the trigger if you need to (most don't), that you have the skill to not only hit your attacker but hit him in an area that stops him (be prepared to shoot him multiple times), and finally hope that the gun fires when you pull the trigger; or, 2.) someone pulls a gun on you and you execute a perfect gun disarm then, while holding onto the gun in a tight fist, you slam the butt of the gun into his temple as you bend your knees, to drop your weight into the strike. The strike either knocks him out or makes him extremely lightheaded by disrupting his blood pressure via attacking his temporal artery, and causes him to fall to the ground and strike his head on the pavement (which could result in unconsciousness, coma, brain damage, or death). Then you run away. Which do you prefer?

Moving on to talking about techniques, as I said above there really isn't a problem with the majority of the techniques out there the problem is how they are used and applied. When it comes to disarming there are a few principles you have to follow and as long as you do then most techniques are fine. One of the main principles that should be observed is called the "push/pull principle" and what this principle means is that during a disarm you should always push on the weapon and never pull on the weapon.

This principle can be demonstrated as follows: get a partner, give them a training gun, have them stand about 4-5 feet away, and then have them point the gun at you. Tell your partner not to move and to maintain a firm grip on the gun. Then grab the gun with both hands, push it to the side so that you are off the line of fire, and then pull on it. There is a good chance that the gun will end up pointing at you. (Note: for these drills I prefer to use a toy gun at fires those rubber suction cup darts. You can find them in any toy store for less than $5.00. I like to use them because it is very obvious if and where you get shot.)

Now do the same thing but this time have your partner pull back on the gun when you pull on it to simulate wrestling for the gun. You'll notice that if you both pull on the gun at the same time what happens is that the gun ends up aligning with the center of your body, right around where your heart is. If the two of you had been wrestling over a real loaded gun and it had gone off you probably would be dead right now.

Try one more thing for me, do the drill again but this time you can do any disarming technique you want, only this time as soon as you touch the gun your partner will take a big step back and pull back on the gun. Did your technique work, or did the gun end up again pointing dead center at your chest? Well, since we live in a universe of physics I can guarantee that the gun did in fact end up pointing right about the same spot as where you keep your heart.

The truth is that if you are attempting to disarm someone and during your technique you pull on the weapon and your opponent resists and pulls on the weapon too you could end up with a bullet in the center of your chest. Now, I'm not saying that a technique that involves pulling on the weapon won't work, because it may work very well, what I am saying is that the technique won't work every time. If you do the technique against a partner who resists you and you do it 100 times you may be able to have it work without incident 98 times, but those other two can ruin your weekend. A lot of techniques "work" but the trick is finding techniques that work all the time.

The other side of this is that if you are the one who has the gun and someone grabs the gun to take it away from you, all you have to do is take a big step back, pull on the weapon so it aligns with the center of their body, and pull the trigger. By simply pulling on the weapon you can almost guarantee that you will get a center shot each time.

I said "almost guarantee" because if your opponent pushes on the gun he can force the gun up against you and no matter how strong you are as a matter of physics you won't be able to force it off. Pushing on the weapon has proven to be extremely effective technique. If you are disarming a gun all you have to do is grab the gun and push on it and keep pushing on it. Either you will end up pinning the gun against them and they won't be able to pull it off, or in resisting they will tense up and/or lose their balance and they will fall. If you keep up with them and keep pushing you can easily end up pinning the gun right underneath their chin and discharge it (assuming that it will fire).

To reintegrate, any disarming technique will more than likely work as long as you push on the gun and don't pull on the gun. If you have a gun and someone is trying to disarm you all you have to do is step back and pull on the gun and it will align dead center.

Now let's look at three of the most common gun disarming techniques that I've seen taught. Two of these techniques come from the Israeli self-defense system known as Krav Maga. I don't know the name of the first technique but I refer to it as the "Krav Maga Special" (KMS).

To perform the KMS you start with someone pointing a gun at you and you 1.) grab the barrel of the gun with one hand and push it to the side as you rotate your body out of the way, 2.) push the gun towards them at an angle which locks their wrist, and then push the gun against them so they cannot operate it, 3.) while holding the gun in place you punch the guy in the face or jaw twice with your other hand, then 4.) use both hands to pull the gun out of their hand and then step back to "safety". You can see this being demonstrated at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZtRmnly_sU and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qekP5aE5py0

People seem to really like this disarm and I see it being widely taught, but unfortunately this technique violates the push/pull principle by making your attacker pull on the weapon. The manner in which the principle is violated is by punching your attacker while holding onto the weapon. If someone pulls a gun on me and I grab and hold onto the gun with one hand and I punch the guy in the face with the other, guess what will happen...I will impart force into my attacker and he, being a bipeds (on two legs), will be forced backwards and he may very well fall to the ground. When he gets knocked backwards or falls, his bodyweight will pull on the weapon and it will end up pointing dead center at my body.

I hate to use the UFC as an example, but what happens when one of the fighters catches a decent punch in the face, especially the jaw? The answer is that the fighter falls down. If your attacker keeps a hold on the weapon while you are knocking him backwards then it is the same as him pulling on the weapon, and you could inadvertently end up causing the weapon to end up pointing at you. Even a light punch can knock you down if it lands on your jaw and falling is a form of pulling. You never, ever hold onto the gun and hit the attacker-that's just asking to get shot.

The second disarm I wanted to address is generally referred to as the "pistol disarm" and although this disarm has been around since the 60’s it is generally credited to Krav Maga despite the fact that Krav Maga has only been in America since 1981. To perform this disarm you simply clear the weapon with one hand as you rotate your body out of the way, then you pull forwards on his wrist to pull him of balance, and then rotate the weapon out of their hands with your other hand. You can see this disarm being preformed by going to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfOtlXs59M0

This disarming technique is not bad but it does violate the push/pull principle by pulling on the weapon. Also it has you disarm the attacker and step back and turn the gun on them, which generally is not a dependable course of action. I teach a version of this technique but I change it by eliminating the step where you pull on the weapon, and instead of stepping back after I have the gun I proceed to cause injuries. The technique I teach looks like this:

Your attacker holds the gun in his right hand and points it at you. You step in with your left foot and rotate your body towards the weapon as you gently clear it with your left hand. You grab his wrist with your left hand and the top of the gun with your right hand, then you move your chest to the gun and pin both the gun and his hand against your chest. Then you step back with your left leg as you turn 180 degrees to the left and drop your weight in a horse stance or half horse stance. This will result in the attacker either being thrown to the ground (usually head first) or bent forewords off balance and the gun is now in your hands. If he’s on his feet you drive your forearm into his throat, and if he is one the ground you stomp on his temple.

This technique not only disarms the attacker but it also doesn’t pull on the weapon and if done at full speed it takes care of the attacker himself by throwing him headfirst into the ground.

This last technique I will quickly discuss is one that is again widely taught but I have not been able to get to work even after hours and hours of trying. I call this the “Jim Wagner Disarm” (JWD) because he is the first guy I saw demonstrate it. If you don’t know who Jim Wagner is don’t feel bad because I wouldn’t trust the guy to boil water.

To do the JWD to step off the line of fire as you grab the hand that holds the gun with both of your hands. Then you step forewords as you slam both the gun and his hands into this face once or twice, then you take the gun and step back.

Again, in this disarm you are holding onto the gun and hitting him which isn’t a good idea but beyond that this technique is defeated by the “startle reflex”. When someone gets startled, like when someone grabs the gun that they’re holding, the natural reaction is to tighten up all their muscles. So, chances are that their arm will be ridged and you won’t be able to hit them in the face.

I’ve tried this for hours with different partners and each time their arm stiffens and I can’t get it to bend so I can hit them in the face with it. I have very little respect for this technique.

I hope this article helped to shed some light on some of the nuances of firearm disarmament, and if anyone has any questions I will be happy to address them

Two Little Gun Disarming Tricks

By Matthew Schafer
Copyright 2008, All Rights Reserved

There was a huge response to my article entitled "Can You Really Disarm Someone Who Has A Gun" so I thought that I would write another article on the same subject to expand on some information that I went over. People have emailed me a lot of questions and they seem to be about both clearing the weapon and actual disarming techniques. In this article I will deal with clearing the weapon and in another I'll talk about a few actual techniques.

Just in case someone is reading this and doesn't know what we're talking about, "clearing the weapon" means getting the gun that is pointing at you to no longer point at you, and it is the first step in any disarming technique. You have to first get the gun pointing at something other than you and then take control of both the gun and the attacker. There are three general ways of clearing the weapon: 1) Grab or touch the gun, or the hand that holds the gun, and push it to the side so that if it goes off it will not shoot you, 2.) Stepping out of the way, off the line of fire, so that if the gun goes off it will not shoot you, or 3.) Grab or touch the gun, or the hand that holds the gun, and push it one way and then step the other. Most people prefer both touching the weapon and moving it while moving your body at the same time because it allows you more lateral distance from the muzzle of the weapon and therefore the line of fire.

For most people clearing the weapon is the hardest part because they are scared that they won't be fast enough to clear the weapon without getting shot. However, as we talked about in the last article, when someone is actually assaulting you with a gun they are not going to think about you disarming them, they are going to be thinking about accomplishing their goal (getting your money or moving you to someplace else) and in almost every case they will leave themselves wide open to being disarmed. A criminal will use the gun to intimidate you and will take no action to protect his weapon, which makes it an easy target.

When talking about clearing a firearm I like to give this illustration: let's say that you had both a pencil in your hand and you had a partner standing 4-5 feet away. You want to keep your pencil but your partner wants to take it away from you. What makes more sense, holding the pencil with both your hands, tucking it into your body, and using your body to block your partner from getting it, or putting the pencil in only one hand (which is how most criminals hold their guns) and sticking it in their face? If you're holding the pencil out towards your partner then you're actually making it very easy for him to just reach out and take it. With a gun it is the same thing, if the criminal makes no effort to protect his weapon and holds it out towards you he is actually making it very easy for you to just reach out and grab it.

Clearing the weapon during an actual assault is generally not that hard because 1.) The attacker doesn't want to shoot you, at least not right now (if he did then he already would have), 2.) He is usually close to you, 3.) He is not paying attention to the weapon, 4.) He is not protecting it, 5.) He is not expecting you to do anything but submit to him and be afraid, 6.) When you don't act the way he wants it will confuse him and generally cause him to hesitate, 7.) When you suddenly become violent it generally causes the victim of such violence to freeze for a moment, and 8.) He doesn't know what you are going to do or when you are going to do it.

Also studies have shown that it takes the average person at least a quarter of a second to recognize that a threat exists before they can even come up with a course of action to counter the threat. So taking that into account, if someone points a gun at you and you move to clear the weapon you have a quarter of a second to use before he even processes the fact that something has happened, then his brain has to tell his body to pull the trigger, and then it has to do it. In my experience during my own training sessions, during a pretend assault where the attacker knows what the "defender" will do, it usually takes at least 1.5 seconds from the time the "defender" begins clearing the weapon until the attacker actually fires. One and a half seconds is not long at all but it usually takes less then a second to get off the line of fire.

What's more is that since your attacker isn't expecting you to do anything but submit he will be caught off guard when you instead do the opposite. This generally causes him to hesitate and buys you time to continue your attack. In addition is the fact that action is always faster than reaction so when you act to take control of the gun your attacker has to recognize that you are attacking, devise a counter, then counter. The attacker will be playing catch-up.

Hopefully you can see that it is possible to at very least clear the weapon that is pointed at you, so now I'll tell you about a little "trick".

The FBI has some very intelligent people working in it and those people take the studying of criminal behavior very seriously. They are constantly studying and analyzing crimes as well as interviewing criminals to try to understand what makes criminals commit their crimes, exactly how they commit them, and what is going through their minds while they commit them. In the early 90's they were studying shootings and they made an interesting discovery: in case after case, after case, after case, when a criminal pointed a gun at someone they didn't talk and shoot at the same time. In fact, they discovered that there is a weird "left brain-right brain" thing going on which results in that in nearly every single case, when a criminal is talking they aren't pulling the trigger.

What does this mean to you? It means that if an attacker pulls a gun on you and he says something to you (like "Give me your money", "don't move", "don't scream", or "don't be a hero") you should disarm him right then while he is talking.

Try this, get a gun with a moveable trigger, but please don't use a real gun-use a toy gun, and point it at a partner from a distance just beyond arm's length. Then when you're both ready I want you to say, "Give me your money" and then try to shoot your partner as they try to clear the weapon. Do it a few times and as soon as you see your partner move I want you to pull the trigger and notice what it is pointing at when it goes off.

If you're like most people you will realize something...it is very hard to pull the trigger and shoot them while you are talking. You even know what they are going to do but there is some kind of weird delay. Now, do the drill again but this time stand about 15 feet away from your partner and when you are both ready walk up to your partner, point the gun at him from about arms length away, and then say, "give me your money" as they try to clear the weapon and you try to shoot him. You'll see that it is even harder.

While doing this it is not uncommon to have your partner actually take your gun away from you before you get around to pulling the trigger.

With some practice you can get better at it and overcome the delay you experience in pulling the trigger while talking but it does take practice and the criminals out there don't do that practice. So, when is the best time to disarm your attacker? The answer is right away, but the second best time is as soon as they say something. If your attacker opens his mouth and says something you should be attacking him because at that point there will be a delay in his response time.

This is also very useful when your attacker is standing behind you. Most people say that if the gunman is behind you, you shouldn't do anything until and unless the muzzle of the gun touches you so that you know where the gun is. This is pretty good advice because you don't want to turn around to disarm him only to find out that he is actually a distance away. However, here we have a little wiggle room.

Let's say that someone comes up behind you and points a gun at you. The gun isn't touching you so you can't tell where it is or how far he is away from you by feel, so you look around to find any shadows or reflections that can give away your attacker's position. You find none. You turn your head slightly to the side to use your peripheral vision to locate him but he tells you to look straight ahead. You don't know where the gun is or how far he is away from you, however, he is talking and we know that very seldom can people talk and pull the trigger at the same time. So you turn your feet inward to "pigeon toe" yourself to make it easier to rotate backwards and then as soon as he begins to say something you quickly rotate and penetrate towards him in one step and with your second you quickly locate the attacker and the weapon and get off the line of fire, and then with a very large third step you close distance and complete your technique.

That might not always be wise, after all if I don't know where the attacker is I also probably don't know if he is alone or has friends, but it does give you another possibility.

Here is another little trick I can share with you, one which we call "allowed movement". Very simply what this means is that since your attacker wants something from you, your money or to move you to another location (which might be only a foot away), when he tells you what he wants he immediately after creates an instance where he is allowing you to move and will not shoot you when you do so. So if I have a criminal holding me at gunpoint and I'm standing there with my hands up and he tells me to give him my wallet I now have two great opportunities to disarm him. The first opportunity comes while he is talking and we've already gone over it; the second opportunity if right after he gets done talking. He has just told me to do something and therefore when I move he is allowing me to do so in the expectation that I am complying. So right after he says, "give me your wallet" I just use that opportunity of "allowed movement" to take the weapon instead of reaching for my wallet.

This is actually very simple but there is a little trick to it. Evolution has wired us to notice fast jerky motions because we needed to notice them in order to hunt prey. We might have been standing in a forest with the leaves all blowing gently in the wind and birds flying around, but amid all that movement we had to notice when that rabbit that we had been hunting quickly darts out of it hiding place and runs away. Evolution made our brain pick up on fast jerky movements. People are amazed to discover that when fighting if they make fast jerky motions their opponent will pick them up right away, but if they make graceful and smooth motions, that aren't jerky, their opponent will have a much harder time picking them up.

The same applies here. If our attacker lets us move and we immediately make a fast, jerky play for the gun then that lessens our chances of pulling it off because he will notice it faster and perceive it as a threat. But, if instead of going hurried and fast we go calmly and smoothly then our mannerisms will hide our intent. This is one reason why dealing with intoxicated people is so dangerous, they are so relaxed that almost all their movements are smooth and fluid and it is very hard to see their attacks. There have been thousands of police officers who have been easily disarmed by intoxicated individuals and never saw it coming because their fluidity hid their movement.

No matter what you are doing, moving calmly and smoothly will not only have the benefit of being easier on your body, but it will also make your attacks much harder to notice. In shooting they have a saying, "smooth is fast" and the same applies here.

Less Than Lethal Techniques

By Matthew Schafer

Copyright 2008, All Rights Reserved

After a long day of work you stop by the store to pick up some groceries before heading home. You're tired and are looking forewords to relaxing with you feet up for a little while and going to the store is just about the last thing that you want to do. However, you do need some groceries so you stop and pick up the necessary items. As you leave the store and walk to your car with your hands full of bags you're rather taken back when you hear someone shout at you. You pause almost in disbelief and turn around and you see a young man rushing over towards you, and he doesn't look happy.

As this young man covers the distance between the two of you he starts pointing at you and shouting obscenities...something about you disrespecting him. You're totally clueless and you open your mouth to ask him what the problem is but instead you are violently grabbed by the collar and pushed up against a parked car. The young man continues to shout obscenities as he shakes you by the collar and chokes you by pressing his forearm into your throat. You're scared beyond belief and you can't breathe. You start to get tunnel vision and withdraw into yourself as you instinctively begin to fight for your life by pushing and clawing at his face. Then luck intervenes, one of your fingers finds its way into his eye and it scratches him severely enough to draw blood.

He shouts as he let's go and grabs his injured eye with both hands. Reacting on pure instinct you push him away from you and run to your car. You fumble with the keys a little but you manage to get in and drive away. Your hearts pounding as you clumsily dial 911 on your cell phone and tell the dispatcher what happened.

An hour has passed, and you're now sitting in the police station being questioned about the incident. Your hands are still shaking as you slowly drink the can of soda the detective gave you; you don't really want the soda but you’re happy to have an activity, even such a small one, to take your mind off of what happened. Then, just as you thought things couldn't get worse for you, you find out why a detective is talking to you instead of regular officer...the man that assaulted you is dead...and you killed him.

How did this happen? How did you manage to kill this man who effortlessly dominated you? It seems that when you pushed him away from you in the parking lot, he fell and hit his head on the pavement. This small action resulted in such trauma to this head that it took his life. But still you wonder...how did this happen?

Every style of martial arts, self defense, or defensive tactics that I'm aware of teaches "less than lethal" techniques. "Less than lethal" techniques are simply a classification of physical techniques that are designed to either not cause injury, such as restraining techniques, or not cause death. These techniques include wrist locks, arm locks, pinning techniques, and strikes to areas of the body that do not generally result in death to a healthy individual.

The truth is that "less than lethal" techniques are nothing but a fallacy. You never know what a technique will actually do to someone or how they will respond to trauma. Some techniques can lessen the chances of serious injury or death but no technique can guarantee it.

A common "less than lethal" technique that is taught to most police officers, members of the military, as well as security personal is a strike to the solar plexus. The solar plexus is an area in the center of the body just below the sternum. Resting in this area is a large bundle of nerves that affect the diaphragm and if you strike this area it can cause the diaphragm to spasm resulting in the person having trouble breathing (getting the "wind knocked out of him") and leaving him with little fight left in him. This effect can last for seconds or minutes which makes a blow to the solar plexus a very useful technique.

The problem with this being "less than lethal" is that behind those nerves is the abdominal aorta (the largest artery in the body) as well as various other nerves such as the right vegas nerve. If the blow is powerful enough the force can affect the aorta enough to cause a sudden drop in blood pressure. This sudden drop in blood pressure can result in the person passing out or even killing him.

Even if the blow isn't hard enough to affect the aorta the person could have a genetic heart condition and the blow could be just hard enough to cause a heart attack.

Even a simple wrist lock or arm bar could end up being fatal. How? Maybe you apply the wrist lock to control the person but you apply it a little too hard, too fast, you use a wrong angle, or maybe he has horrible balance (most people do, especially if they've been drinking) and when you torque the wrist his feet come out from under him and he goes head first into the ground. Hitting your head of the ground could very easily result in unconsciousness, coma, brain damage, or death.

Perhaps you apply the wrist lock or arm bar perfectly but as you take the person to the ground it just so happens that there is a rock there you didn't see and you end up doing everything right, but still he dies from bouncing his head off of the rock. You did nothing wrong, but some things just happen.

Striking your head on the ground is extremely easy to do and transfers all or the majority of your body weight right into your head. Even if your head doesn’t hit the ground you could land in a manner that causes you to break your neck. Even a simple push, as described above, can result in serious injury or even death.

So it would be great if there really were techniques that were guaranteed to be "less than lethal" but the truth is that you just never know what happens when you put your hands on someone. Therefore, any time to put your hands on someone you need to be aware that even if you do everything perfectly someone could end up seriously injured or dead.

Can You Really Disarm Someone Who Has A Gun?

By Matthew Schafer

Copyright 2008, All Rights Reserved

When people find out that you study the martial arts or self defense usually what follows is some friendly, and sometimes not so friendly, heckling. Sometimes people are actually curious about your new endeavor but they are too self conscious to talk or question you about it openly so they resort to mocking you, and other times people just don't have any patience or it...or you.

With the discovery of your new hobby comes lots of questions. Can you kick someone in the head? Did ninjas really exist? Could you beat up Steven Seagal? Is it true that a black belt has to register their hands as deadly weapons? Is it true that Chuck Norris never ate meat? Do you wear underwear under those pajamas? What would you do if I punched you in the face? Could you beat up Bruce Lee?(sure, dig him up) What would you do if ten guys, three of whom have knives, came after you and.... These are just a few of the questions that I've been asked personally. However, hands down the two most common questions I get asked over and over are: 1.) have you ever had to use it in real life? and 2.) what would you do if someone pulled a gun/can you really take a gun away from somebody? The answer to the first question of course depends on your life experience but the second one has a far more clear cut answer.

So, can you really take a gun away from somebody? Absolutely, and there are many police officers, security guards, and other professionals who have done it and lived to tell about it. While it is true that certain situations may arise where you are have few options and the chance of your success if very slim, the simple truth is that if you can get close enough to your attacker you can disarm him.

Having a gun pointed at you is indeed scary but the gun doesn't give your attacker any magical power. In fact, the big problem that people have with gun disarms isn't the realities of the situation, it is the fear that people have when they see the gun and that fear makes them immobile. Even in training, when you point a toy gun at someone so they can practice their technique you can usually see the fear in their eyes. 9 times out of 10 the person is too scared to even twitch a muscle so they just stand there, then when they do do the technique they're so flustered that they're all over the place, and they're not even using a real gun.

The simple answer is that yes, it is very possible, and in some situations down right easy, to take a gun away from someone. So here I will address the four main elements that play into your hands and make gun disarming possible.

Reason 1. The guy with the gun doesn't want to shoot you! If someone wanted to shoot you they would just walk up to you and pull the trigger and unless you are practicing proper awareness techniques you'd never even see it coming. Since your attacker is standing near you with a gun it must mean that he or she wants something else from you and they are going to use the gun to intimidate you into giving it to them.

Firearms only have two uses: to kill something or to practice killing something. If you are using a firearm to do anything else, like using it as a tool for intimidation, then you are using it improperly.

During any type of assault if the attacker doesn't immediately use violence against you it means that they generally want you to give them something or they want to move you to someplace else. If a gun toting criminal decides that he wants your wallet and he doesn't walk up to you, shoot you, and then rob you while you're on the ground, then he's going to try to distract and intimidate you with the gun while tries to get your wallet. The important thing is that if shooting you was his goal then he'd do it, but since he didn't that must mean he doesn't want to shoot you, at least not right now.

In a situation you'll have some guy in front of you waiving a gun around making demands who actually doesn't want to shoot you! If he doesn't want to shoot you then that right there will give you the upper hand because he won't shoot you right away and then when you do perform your technique he will most likely hesitate since he wasn't planning on firing the gun right then, and you can at the very least be out of the way and be working at having control of the weapon before his brain catches up and he decides to fire.

Reason 2. Most shootings happen within 5 feet. When it comes time to disarm an attacker it is very unlikely that they will be standing on the other side of a room. Nearly all shootings happen within 5 feet and this means you'll be close enough to begin with. Often it is a matter of just reaching out and taking the weapon. Remember, if you can get close enough to him you can disarm him.

Reason 3. Very few criminals know how to properly use a gun. Most people believe that a guy with a gun is an unbeatable force of nature that you cannot hope to overcome. The truth is that there is an extremely large chance that the guy pointing the gun at you has absolutely NO training in using firearms whatsoever. In fact, it is very possible that that guy has NEVER fired a gun before.

The average criminal doesn't train for his crimes. He or she either steals or buys a gun from another criminal and when they are not using that gun to intimidate people into giving up their money, their gun is tucked carefully in their pocket or in a sock drawer. They don't go to the local gun range and practice their technique and their marksmanship; if their gun jammed on them few would know how to clear it. In the same way, most hunters never touch their rifles in between hunting seasons (then they wonder why they can't hit a buck).

It is extraordinarily seldom that a criminal learns even the most basic elements of marksmanship such as how to align the sites. They just pick up a weapon and use it to intimidate people, and when they do fire it they use a method that consists of pointing the gun in the general direction of the target and pulling the trigger, and often pumping their arm, until they hit their target or their gun runs out of bullets (these methods are known as "the innocent woman and children method" or "spray and pray"). It is not unusual for a for a criminal to fire 10 or more shots at a target from a fairly close range and never hit their target. This inability to accurately shoot is one of the reasons that about 97% of gunshot wounds are nonfatal.

Another important thing that makes untrained shooters so inaccurate with handguns is that they don't know how to hold them. The thing is that if you grab a handgun and hold it so it feels comfortable and natural in your hand it will actually be off center when you point it at your target. So when they go to shoot someone and they extend their arm, their arm will be pointed directly at their target but the gun will be pointed slightly to the left, if in their right hand, or to the right, if the gun is in their left hand. Also, criminals tend to hold their guns in various unstable positions when they shoot that often don't allow them to even see their sites.

The reason that criminals are generally so bad with firearms is because they don't really have to be good. The primary thing that they use the weapon for is to intimidate people and for that they don't even have to have it loaded. Then since nearly all shootings happen within 5 feet it is pretty hard for them to miss, especially when they shoot multiple times.

What this all boils down to is the fact that most gun toting criminals don't know how to use their weapons and would have a hard time hitting the broad side of a barn unless they emptied their entire gun. You're not trying to take the gun away from a Navy SEAL here, you're trying to take the gun away from someone who probably doesn't know how to hold it, aim it, or properly squeeze the trigger. If you try to take the gun away from a Navy SEAL they probably will be able to stop, reacquire you, and shoot you when you move to take their gun; but the criminal will probably see you move then try to repeatedly pull the trigger once you've already taken control of his weapon.

It should also be mentioned that if you get shot and the bullet doesn't hit a nerve, tear a joint, or break a bone it will not make you stop your advance. Even if you do get shot you probably won't know it until afterwards when you're adrenaline levels decline.

Reason 4. Violence deplores a static environment. What does this mean? There is two types of training: static and dynamic. Static (no movement) training means that you and your partner stand in one place and practice the technique together. Dynamic (having movement) training means that you and your partner are moving around and simulating a real attack.

When it comes to practicing gun disarming almost everyone seems content with practicing static disarms. That is, you and a partner stand about 4-5 feet away from each other and your partner holds out the training gun so you can practice your disarming technique. This is great training to learn how to do a technique but it is very poor training to learn how to apply a technique.

Some people do add a small dynamic element into their training and they do this by having the partner with the gun say "bang" or pull the trigger when he sees you move. This does add a small element of realism to the training but its one that does far more harm than good.

If you want to practice to deal with a situation then you have to model that situation under controlled circumstances and learn how to deal with it there. This static training of two people standing there, one ready to blow the other away at the slightest sign of movement, is hardly realistic. Sure you need to start with static training to learn your techniques but once you have them down then its time to start with dynamic training.

Dynamic training involves actually reenacting a violent assault. Once you have the technique down then you need to practice by first deciding on a goal for your partner to try to achieve (either taking your money or moving you to someplace else) and then have them try to accomplish that goal by having them walk up to you and then violently and suddenly pull the gun, shove it into your face, maybe grab you with the other hand and yell, "GIVE MY YOUR F%^&ING MONEY!!". Maybe you have them push you, pull you, or even choke you with their free hand. This kind of training actually models a real assault and it will quickly make you aware of two important elements of firearm disarming. (for tips on how to do dynamic training simply search for and watch videos of real assaults on the internet then reenact them during your training)

The first element is that during the course of the entire assault there are actually numerous great opportunities to disarm them. If you have your partner just stand in front of you and get ready to shoot you if you make a move then you won't be able to accomplish much, but if you pay attention during a session of dynamic training you'll see that your attacker actually gives you opportunities to relieve him of his weapon.

The difference is his focus. During static training there isn't much you can learn or do because your partner's focus is on shooting you as soon as you move, but during dynamic training your partner's focus is on getting your money or making you move someplace and while they are using the gun to intimidate you they aren't focused on the gun or on shooting you and they actually leave themselves and their weapon vulnerable throughout the encounter.

If you practice this you'll notice that the more intense you get in your training the more it seems that the "bad guy" almost wants to give you his gun.

The second element is what we call the "oh shit factor", or more precisely the "startle reflex". Namely, when you're startled, like when someone comes out of the blue and violently shoves a gun in your face, your natural reaction is to stop and tighten your muscles making your body very ridged. In other words you freeze. Criminals actually count on this and they rely on people freezing when they attack them to make their jobs easier.

As I stated above, one of the biggest things that make disarming difficult is not the techniques but the fear of having a gun pointed at you. Gun disarming is nearly impossible for a lot of people, including the "experts", because they only practice static disarms and therefore they never learned to overcome their "oh shit factor"/"startle reflex" and so when they actually get a gun pulled on them they just freeze like a deer in the headlights.

Not to badmouth anyone and I won't give any names, but I do know that there are a small of handful people who advertise themselves as the "foremost experts of firearm disarmament" in the country. These people claim to go all over the country an teach the CIA, FBI, military, SWAT, and every other unit and organization you can think of how to disarm people who have guns. They claim to be the "experts" and the "go to guys" that government agencies go to when they need to learn disarming techniques, and they also sell their how-to DVDs for $39.95.

I've attended some of their training and seen some of their videos and not one of them do any dynamic training at all. One guy, in his how-to video, gives a lecture while wearing a bullet proof vest and a motorcycle helmet as his partner stands in front of him with a revolver loaded with paint bullets. He then stands in front of his partner with his hands up and quickly slaps the gun to the side while trying not to get shot. Even this guy, the so called "foremost authority", couldn't do it 10 times in a row without getting shot somewhere. This kind of "who's faster" static training does nothing more then get people shot.

By doing dynamic training and reenacting violent assaults you learn to deal with your startle reflex and you actually teach your brain a new behavior to perform for that stimulus. You need to have someone suddenly shove a gun into your face and violently shout demands and profanities at you, and even rough you up a little, during training because that probably is how it will happen to you in real life. You need to make your training as real, violent, and scary as possible so you can train your brain to act instead of freeze.

You should even include other people, loved ones or bystanders, in your training because they can get shot while you are doing your disarm. You don't need to have your husband or wife come to class and stand there during your technique, but you should put something in their place as a marker to indicate where they are, like a chair. Then when you do your technique you need to be mindful of where they are so they don't get shot. After all if you successfully disarm and neutralize your attacker but a loved one gets shot in the process you might not have come out ahead.

If you don't overcome your startle reflex if will be nearly impossible to disarm a gun but if you do overcome the reflex you'll find that performing a disarm can even become a reflex.

With my students, I have them stand in the middle of the room and then I walk up to them at odd angles then suddenly and violently assault them with the firearm. After doing this for a few weeks they have no problem with clearing the weapon. I can walk up to them after class while they’re putting on their shoes and suddenly surprise them with the gun and on pure instinct they will clear and control the weapon before I even realize whats going on-and I'm the guy that taught them the technique. It’s just a matter of training.

(Scary? Yes, but watch it closely and you’ll see that the gun is just for intimidation and he makes no attempt to protect it. Taking his gun away would be child’s play.)