When practicing gun disarming, students often back away from their aggressor, holding/aiming the gun at them as if the roles have been reversed - strangely this rarely happens with knife disarms i.e. there seems to be an assumption with firearm disarms that the defender is prepared to use this weapon, but not prepared to use a knife, and that the assailant will respect the gun but possibly not respect the knife. 

There are basically three ways a person can neutralize a weapon's threat: 1. act combatively, disregarding the weapon and attacking the assailant to neutralize them as the threat, 2. disarm them, so that they no longer have a weapon to use (they themselves may still remain a threat) and 3. control the weapon and use it against them whilst they are still holding it. We often hold to a magical belief that once we disarm somebody they no longer represent a threat to us, however we should remember that if do disarm a weapon from somebody, we've demonstrated that we weren't completely intimidated by the weapon, and we probably shouldn't assume that our assailant will be. Disengaging whilst training a weapon on somebody may look good in the dojo/studio but it might not be the correct solution in a real-life situation e.g. the person may not be intimidated by the weapon, they may panic etc. and we will be forced to use the weapon against them (whether it is knife or gun) - the mindset to do this is rarely discussed, or played out in training scenarios.  

Ending a drill, with the disarmed person not making a next move is only one possible outcome to a situation involving a firearm (or other weapon) - there is nothing to say they aren't armed with another weapon, or know something about their weapon which makes it inoperable etc. They may also simply question the person's ability to use it, not believing that they will pull the trigger etc. If a person does disarm somebody of a weapon they should have the basic competency to use it, whether it is a knife, stick or gun. 

We should also be aware of the limitations of any weapon we are holding - whether w have armed ourselves before the conflict, or have disarmed somebody during it. We often hold to a magical belief that putting a bullet in someone will automatically drop and stop them. This may be the case if you are trying to mechanically disable them e.g. shooting at the hip so they are no longer able to use this joint and move (which requires great marksmanship, especially whilst under duress), however if you are simply trying to fill a body with lead, an adrenalized or drugged up assailant may keep coming. At close range they may be on top of you before blood loss etc. takes effect. If they're armed with another weapon, such as a knife, you may be involved in a knife fight, even though you've managed to get a shot off.       

The weapon itself may not even be loaded or functional. The only person aware of this is the weapon's owner. Relying fully on the weapon for your defense may be an unwise move. If you're not familiar with that particular model of firearm, then you may have difficulty using it when under high stress and emotion. The one thing you do know about a firearm is that it is a solid piece of metal that is capable of concussing a person; using it as a striking implement, especially at close range may be more effective than relying on it as a ballistic weapon. 

Trying to understand violence simply from our perspective, experiences and understanding is a dangerous way to go. If we were forced to pull a firearm on somebody and they disarmed us, would we be passive, or would we attempt to get the weapon back? Would we trust the person who disarmed us, not to pull the trigger? Probably not, but at the very least we would consider trying to retrieve our weapon - we should build into our training scenarios the possibility that an assailant would try and do the same. We should also put into our training the possibility that the weapon we carry, or the one that we disarm is/becomes inoperable. Violence rarely follows the Happy Path.