Martial arts v.s. Guns - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Fire · 09-11-2003, 08:20 PM

Ok- I have seen this argued on the edges of several threads and want to give a shot at a well reasoned discussion- I am curious where people come down on the issue- Do you belive that it is better to be proficient in the use of a firearm or in unarmed combat. Also, I recently have seen a trend in gun writing that clasifies firearms use as another type of armed martial arts... your thoughts and ideas, but please be polite with each other...

sadistikdreams · 09-11-2003, 08:32 PM

Man. The Gun Kata.

seizei · 09-11-2003, 09:54 PM

Being proficient in the use of a gun means only one thing: when you use your skills, someone will most likely be killed.

Sure it's a valuable tool for defense, but I'd rather not kill people. If I can diffuse a situation with a controlling technique or submission, demotivating an attacker without destroying him, I will take that path any day.

shakran · 09-12-2003, 04:28 AM

Being proficient in only the use of a gun means several things:

1) Unless you're attacked in such a way that your life is immediately in mortal danger, you cannot use your training to end the situation. In other words, you can only shoot someone if they're about to kill you.

2) If you are surprised by an attacker who is using a knife or gun against you (i.e. you didn't have time to draw your own weapon) you are now officially screwed because you never bothered to learn gun/knife disarms.

3) If your attacker is trained in H2H combat, you may very well lose the gun, therefore eliminating all advantages of your gun training.

4) If your gun jams, your bullets get wet and don't fire, or anything else happens that prevents the gun from shooting, you are screwed because all you know how to do is shoot.

IMHO people who get weapons and do not learn H2H combat are setting themselves up for disaster.

pointfourfive · 09-12-2003, 05:12 AM

Is both an option?

As shakran said, one without the other is a bad idea. I guess that's why military and police officers learn both. It's a shame that most civilians don't as well.

1337haxor · 09-12-2003, 08:35 AM

I think both would be the best combo. I spent 3 years learning martial arts and even though this was along time ago, I can still defend myself. I've also been using handguns for about a year and can hit targets accurately (I compete in IDPA). Not to mention I've been recently learning to use a knife in combat. If you put some time aside you should get a broader spectrum of skill since each situation is different and you'll never know what you'll be forced to do.

Moonduck · 09-12-2003, 08:13 PM

"If your gun jams, your bullets get wet and don't fire"

Shakran, you're wandering into the realm of disinformation. Modern ammo is generally waterproof, barring long-term immersion. I realize from your posts under the gun vs knife thread that you are fired up about the subject and hold a strong opinion, but misinformation is not necessary to prove a point.

Moonduck · 09-12-2003, 08:24 PM

On topic, if I had to choose between training in a firearm and training in martial arts, I would pick PROPER training with a gun. By 'proper' I mean full spectrum training to include retention techniques. As competatent retention techniques wander into the realm of unarmed HtH, I suppose I am crossing the boundaries and not answering the question properly.

If I am limited to purely learnign only how to shoot accurrately (a bad idea alone) with absolutely zero HtH skill, or competent HtH training with no gun training whatsoever, I would opt, again only in this limited format, to go with HtH training. It is far more useful in the vast majority of cases.

In the Real World, I've done both, plus spent a fair amount of time working with knives. Frankly, I see it as the responsibility of any person that carries means to escalate level of force to absolutely, positively also possess intermediary levels of force.

It is illegal to escalate force in a self-defense situation. If a mugger threatens to punch you, you are not legally permitted to shoot the mugger in self-defense. (It is possible to have mitigating circumstances, usually due to significant size, age, and gender differences. Your grandma is more likely to get away with putting a slug into a 6'7" 19 yr old attacker even if he is unaramed as that level of force counts as deadly to a little old lady in probably frail health). As such, one is as helpless against an unarmed attacker as you would be without the weapon, IF you choose to properly follow the law.

In my case, Sombo and Kali-Silat are an intermediate level of threat that I possess. The gun, that I (legally) carry if I see a good need to, is another.

Baldrick · 09-13-2003, 08:47 AM

I have been involved and trained in Wado-Ryu Karate for over twenty years now, and have taken various other martial arts (for interests sake) over the same time. I consider myself quite proficient at hand-to-hand defence, no question.

However, even I concede that there are instances where a gun is superior for self defence. Personally, I'd rather take my chances without a gun no matter what, but that's simply a personal feeling based on my experience and confidence. However, it took me many years to gain that experience - whereas proper gun training can be significantly less.

If it was my wife or one of my daughters in a situation that required self defence, I'm not sure I wouldn't want them armed in some way - with significant proper training, of course. They only have a couple years of martial arts training, and I know that there is a great chance that they simply aren't physically capable of overpowering an attacker.

But, the one big positive of carrying a gun versus martial arts - the time it takes to be profient at it - is also a HUGE negative in my opinion. I know this is a sweeping generalization, but I believe guns tend to give their owner a false sense of security. With a gun at their side, they may decide to take that chance of "taking that shortcut through the park", or "walk through that group of punks hanging outside the store". Anyone trained by a good martial arts teacher for several years, has had it drilled into them to avoid situations like these.

As my old sensei used to tell us - "The best defence is to not be there when the shit goes down".

Moonduck · 09-13-2003, 12:10 PM

As my old sensei used to tell us - "The best defence is to not be there when the shit goes down".
------

On this note, I had the extreme fortune to train with a Russian exchange student by the name of Dmitri (I won't try to spell his last name) for a couple of sessions in my old Sombo group. I say fortune because Dmitri was Spetnaz trained and damned good at Sombo.

He related a number of different stories, but one was pertinent to this discussion. On his first day at the Spetnaz HtH school, the first thing that happened off the buss was a 15km run. At the end, the instructor informed the group that they'd just had their first and most important lesson in HtH. Heasked the group if they could explain what that lesson was, and if anyone could, he'd graduate them from the school on the spot. When no one answered, the instructor explained that the first rule of HtH is not to get into it in the first place. The best unarmed fight is one that you can run away from.

Dmitri also said that they did a LOT of running in that course =)

debaser · 09-13-2003, 03:26 PM

In order to consider yourself "proficient" with a gun, you should know proper retention and close quarter techniques.

To me the choice is obvious. A gun in the hands of a proficient user will win every time.

G5_Todd · 09-13-2003, 03:30 PM

definately if i could wake up tommorow being an expert in one of the two it would be martial arts.....

it really doesnt take to long to become a decent shot....where as to be good in martial arts it can years.....

i could always learn to shoot again

Baldrick · 09-13-2003, 03:56 PM

Quote:

In order to consider yourself "proficient" with a gun, you should know proper retention and close quarter techniques.

To me the choice is obvious. A gun in the hands of a proficient user will win every time.

Perhaps I'm taking you too literal and being picky debaser (or simply looking for a good debate

), but while I agree that in *most* situations a gun in the hands of a highly trained owner will "win", there are definitely situations where physical training is preferable.

If you're within striking or grasping distance in front of me with your gun tucked away - or even with your finger off the trigger - I'm not sure I'd put money on you.

But I could come up with specific scenarios all day that would put either you or I at an advantage/disadvantage. Bottom line is that if you're forced to defend yourself (as opposed to taking the offence), chances are your opponent has put himself in the position that it would take for him to "win". Meaning, if he had a gun, he's at least a couple of steps away from me. If someone trained in hand to hand is attacking, he's putting himself right beside you and attacking before you get the chance to pull your weapon. All I'm saying is that it really depends on the scenario as to which training is "best".

debaser · 09-13-2003, 04:18 PM

As I said, with proper retention and CQB techniques, I will win in a hand-to-hand situation. The simple fact is that I can kill you with a pistol much faster than you can kill me with your hands, be it from 21 feet away or in a bear hug...

fugue_life · 09-13-2003, 05:00 PM

K I have seen enough hollywood movies to know that a true martial arts master can catch bullets with their teeth. So I would have to say martial arts all the way

stldickie · 09-13-2003, 07:10 PM

A gun is truly more of an offensive weapon then defensive. I'm not saying that a gun can't be used for defense, but pulling one out would usually put you at a great advantage, therefore putting you on the offensive. You can't (legally) carry a gun around all of the time, so you are probably better off with the martial arts.

Slims · 09-13-2003, 08:22 PM

For every day scuffles and such, hand to hand skills are definitely more usefull. As far as staying alive in a really serious situation/mugging/raping a gun is the way to go (but you have to know how to use it, of course).

seizei · 09-13-2003, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fugue_life
K I have seen enough hollywood movies to know that a true martial arts master can catch bullets with their teeth. So I would have to say martial arts all the way

You've been watching too many movies.

Nice sarcasm though

As a martial artist, I do not want to kill people. At all costs, I will avoid killing another person. For that matter, I will try my best to avoid hurting another person as well. If I was only trained with guns, the nicest I can do is give 'flesh wounds'.

Carrying a gun just gives you false confidence and increases the chance that a confrontation will end in death.

rodgerd · 09-13-2003, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fire
Ok- I have seen this argued on the edges of several threads and want to give a shot at a well reasoned discussion- I am curious where people come down on the issue- Do you belive that it is better to be proficient in the use of a firearm or in unarmed combat. Also, I recently have seen a trend in gun writing that clasifies firearms use as another type of armed martial arts... your thoughts and ideas, but please be polite with each other...

Depends where you live. In the States, with its very, um, liberal gun laws and many states who hold it perfectly acceptable to kill in defence of self and property, a firearm may be quite practical.

Conversely, in New Zealand, firearm ownership is quite restricted, and killing a burgler will get you in rather a lot of trouble; this would be the norm in most countries not in a state of war.

Plus, as a number of people have pointed out, unarmed combat allows you to take non-lethal options, whereas a firearm tends to kill.

shakran · 09-15-2003, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Moonduck
"If your gun jams, your bullets get wet and don't fire"

Shakran, you're wandering into the realm of disinformation. Modern ammo is generally waterproof, barring long-term immersion. I realize from your posts under the gun vs knife thread that you are fired up about the subject and hold a strong opinion, but misinformation is not necessary to prove a point.

"generally waterproof" meaning not always. I've shot (well. .. tried to shoot) a couple of bullets over the years that had gotten wet from rain and they would not fire. I never said "bullets NEVER fire when they're wet." Murphy is an active participant in all fights - if something can go wrong, it'll wait to do so until you really need it to go right.

And your gun can still jam, whether the bullet is wet or not.

Moonduck · 09-15-2003, 11:57 AM

Old ammo or very poor quality ammo then. Modern ammo is generally lacquer sealed that the primer. Bringing up such an incredibly small chance mishap like that is specious logic. That would be equivalent to me countering your martial arts arguments by saying "Well, martial arts are useless because I might've broken the little finger on my right hand in rugby practice the day before, so I'd rather have a gun".

Same goes for jams, rare as heck in quality modern firearms using quality modern ammo. Straw Man arguments. Frankly, a gun is FAR more reliable than most martial art trainign given the spurious way most people are trained. You are taught to respond to set attacks that you know are coming, and the attacks are generally carried out in a totally unrealistic fashion. You then carry out a set of predetermined formulaic response that does not take into account the physiological responses that a real target will experience to the sequence of attacks. On top of this, you perform these maneuvers repetitively with ZERO FORCE behind the attacks, at minimal speed. In all, this type of 'training' is setting the student up with a completely incorrect mental picture of how an assault will occur and how even their own maneuvers will work in a real world conflict.

With a gun, I don't have to worry about how much force I am applying. I don't have to worry about the assailant attacking me in some manner that I have been trained to deal with. I draw said weapon and, 90% of the time, the assault ceases.

I am not saying that firearms are the only answer, simply that you are not pursuing your own line of argument objectively.

meff · 09-15-2003, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pointfourfive
Is both an option?

Yeah I would vote for both, besides what good is a gun if you've never target practiced with it? If you're that stupid you can at least kick their ass with your martial arts skills

AlCap0wn · 09-15-2003, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Moonduck
... a gun is FAR more reliable than most martial art trainign given the spurious way most people are trained. You are taught to respond to set attacks that you know are coming, and the attacks are generally carried out in a totally unrealistic fashion. You then carry out a set of predetermined formulaic response that does not take into account the physiological responses that a real target will experience to the sequence of attacks. On top of this, you perform these maneuvers repetitively with ZERO FORCE behind the attacks, at minimal speed. In all, this type of 'training' is setting the student up with a completely incorrect mental picture of how an assault will occur and how even their own maneuvers will work in a real world conflict.

What you're describing sounds more like the "Budget Weekend Self-Defence / Cash-Grab" high-school programs than any actual training you'd receive at a school. A few "graduates" showed up at an informal training session one day to show off, and needless to say got their asses handed to them swiftly and severely.

rodgerd · 09-15-2003, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Moonduck
With a gun, I don't have to worry about how much force I am applying. I don't have to worry about the assailant attacking me in some manner that I have been trained to deal with. I draw said weapon and, 90% of the time, the assault ceases.

Whereupon, in 90% of the world, you go to jail for illegally carrying a firearm, with optional extra charges for threatening someone with it.

Moonduck · 09-16-2003, 11:29 AM

"What you're describing sounds more like the "Budget Weekend Self-Defence / Cash-Grab" high-school programs than any actual training you'd receive at a school."

That is because it is precisely the sort of training that is frequently passed off. I've trained in about 6 different arts, and taken classes in a lot of different schools (comes from moving a lot as my father was in the military). The vast majority were entirely unrealistic.

I've had the fortune to train with folks that were serious. I've gotten injured in those training sessions, and injured others. It is a risk that you take when working high-speed and near to full force. The more you bleed in training, the less you'll bleed when things go pear-shaped. Least that is how it was explained to me. Those sorts of groups are rare though, and the reason is usually prohibitive insurance costs.

I know a number of folks trained in serious self-defense forms under serious self-defense conditions. I know far more that have received training that is utter crap under the most controlled and unrealistic conditions. The only reason that a "black belt" from most schools might be dangerous in a fight is because they are in good physical shape and likely to have a better mentality. I've never had a belt higher than about 4 grades into any martial art, yet have personally trounced folks with black (or other high level grades depending on school) belts in informal scuffles, sparring matches, and at least one fairly serious altercation. I have little respect for most so-called martial arts schools.

I've also been flat handled by various people from less formal schools and arts that tend to teach at a higher level. I was utterly flattened by my Sombo instructor, in various styles of combat. He was awe-inspiring. While I have little respect for most schools, there are still quite a few that I have boundless respect for.

I'm not dogging martial arts in general. I'm dogging the ritual-is-more-important-than-sparring, minimal-contact, and jump-four-feet-in-the-air-and-kick sorts of school that teach useless garbage that will do nothing in the real world except impress gullible types.

----

"Whereupon, in 90% of the world, you go to jail for illegally carrying a firearm, with optional extra charges for threatening someone with it."

Sure enough. Luckily, my corner of the world has options for legal carry. Whenever I carry, I do so legally as I have taken the steps.

The problem with your argument is those self same corners of the world that would arrest you for illegally carrying a firearm will also arrest you for beating the ever-loving crap out of a mugger with your martial arts training. It's a no-win situation in many places.

Kyo · 09-16-2003, 01:30 PM

Assuming equivalent proficiency in their respective skills, a gunman has an enormous advantage over any martial artist in a straight fight - I do not believe this is in debate. A gun does not necessarily equate to a murder weapon - a shot (or several shots) in the arm or leg is often sufficient as a nonlethal deterrant. The mere sight of a gun is often enough to drive off those that aren't similarly armed. Nobody enjoys staring at the business end of a firearm.

In real-world situations, guns come with many strings attached that aren't necessarily present with martial arts. To begin with, pulling a gun on someone in self defense raises the possibility for injury dramatically for all involved. While I've never been on the wrong end of a gun, I imagine that in close quarters it's very difficult to avoid being shot, even if you shoot them first. Drawing your gun also forces your opponent to act. While they may have been threatening you, seeing you draw a gun forces them to hurt you or be hurt themselves. It has been shown in polls (granted, I don't know the sample size or demographic for the poll) that you are much more likely to be injured or killed in robberies and other street crimes if you are carrying a gun. Though, I suppose this is probably due to lack of skill apparent in 90% of the gun-owning population.

There is also a myriad of other social issues involving guns, such as the ability to carry them, concealed or not, the possibility for lethal accidents, etc.

When it comes down to it, however, I hate firearms because of their effect on the mentality and ability of people to injure and kill one another. Guns are an abomination, in my opinion. Here's why:

a) A gun is a ranged weapon, used to maim or kill from a distance. You can gun someone down from a block away and never have to see them die. Even a swordsman or knife fighter must see their weapons cut their opponent, must see the carnage that they deal out with their own hands. Must feel the weight of what they are really doing.
b) A gun is casual and easy. It requires no effort, willpower, or skill to kill someone with a gun. You have to point it at someone and pull the trigger. The fact that children can kill themselves and others with guns is more than enough proof of this. It is extremely difficult for a martial artist to kill by accident. It takes concious effort, the very clear thought that yes, I am going to kill my opponent in exactly this way. Your hands and feet do not accidently 'go off' the way a gun can.
c) As a corollary to the above, a gun does not require skill. It would be good to have skill, but it does not require it. Suddenly, anyone can kill anyone else by pointing a gun and pulling a trigger. A child can kill a man with a simple crook of a finger.
d) Guns do not instill respect or discipline. Martial artists are taught respect for themselves and others, as well as respect for their art and their skills. Someone who buys a gun in a store is not taught respect for anyone or anything. This is why people can walk outside with a gun and shoot anyone they want.

In short, guns are a shortcut, that allow people who have no skill or training to kill people that do.

AlCap0wn · 09-16-2003, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kyo
It has been shown in polls (granted, I don't know the sample size or demographic for the poll) that you are much more likely to be injured or killed in robberies and other street crimes if you are carrying a gun.

Hoooooo boy.

Prepare to be 0wned.

debaser · 09-16-2003, 03:05 PM

Most "robberies and other street crimes" are never reported if they are stopped by a citizen with a gun.

I am interested to see the study you cite, as your statement is a bit to vague to thoroughly deconstruct.

Kyo · 09-16-2003, 03:39 PM

As lame as it sounds, I don't remember which study I'm citing. It's something I read and believed.

I'll retract the statement if people become too focused on it - it's a really minor point in my overall argument. Getting 'Owned,' as someone put it, because of one sentence while the rest of my post goes unnoticed would be a shame, I think.

JimmyTheHutt · 09-16-2003, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kyo
Guns are an abomination, in my opinion. Here's why:

b) A gun is casual and easy. It requires no effort, willpower, or skill to kill someone with a gun. You have to point it at someone and pull the trigger. The fact that children can kill themselves and others with guns is more than enough proof of this. It is extremely difficult for a martial artist to kill by accident. It takes concious effort, the very clear thought that yes, I am going to kill my opponent in exactly this way. Your hands and feet do not accidently 'go off' the way a gun can.
c) As a corollary to the above, a gun does not require skill. It would be good to have skill, but it does not require it. Suddenly, anyone can kill anyone else by pointing a gun and pulling a trigger. A child can kill a man with a simple crook of a finger.
d) Guns do not instill respect or discipline. Martial artists are taught respect for themselves and others, as well as respect for their art and their skills. Someone who buys a gun in a store is not taught respect for anyone or anything. This is why people can walk outside with a gun and shoot anyone they want.

In short, guns are a shortcut, that allow people who have no skill or training to kill people that do.

I'd have to disagree with you on the points you raise regarding guns. Firearms, to be used effectively, require a GREAT DEAL of training. If you do not know how to use the tool, you will use it wrong and pay the appropriate it cost. Professional shooters (military, police, etc) train to use firearms incessantly, to be sure that they have the necessary skill to make it an effective tool. The statistics of most firefights state that they occur within a distance of 8 meters, with no hits scored. This is because the shooters are not well trained in the use of their tool. For a firearm to be effective, a large effort must be put into learning to use it, just as in martial arts.

Like any lethal device, be it hands, feet, knives, swords, or whatever, firearms are potentially very harmful to the wielder or others. Regardless of what the tool is, it must be used with precision and focus to be effective. People get beaten to death everyday, without the assaulter intending to do so. It is not the tool which is the danger, it is the person using it.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

Kyo · 09-16-2003, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JimmyTheHutt
I'd have to disagree with you on the points you raise regarding guns. Firearms, to be used effectively, require a GREAT DEAL of training. If you do not know how to use the tool, you will use it wrong and pay the appropriate it cost. Professional shooters (military, police, etc) train to use firearms incessantly, to be sure that they have the necessary skill to make it an effective tool. The statistics of most firefights state that they occur within a distance of 8 meters, with no hits scored. This is because the shooters are not well trained in the use of their tool. For a firearm to be effective, a large effort must be put into learning to use it, just as in martial arts.

Like any lethal device, be it hands, feet, knives, swords, or whatever, firearms are potentially very harmful to the wielder or others. Regardless of what the tool is, it must be used with precision and focus to be effective. People get beaten to death everyday, without the assaulter intending to do so. It is not the tool which is the danger, it is the person using it.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

Perhaps I am phrasing incorrectly. Let me try again.

A mugger with no skill can rob unarmed people with impunity. Even knowing martial arts, without a gun I would probably go along with whatever a gunman wanted. Someone with a gun can kill people just by pulling a trigger - it's too easy. I'm not talking about an 'effective tool,' I'm talking about walking up to a nice couple on the street and covering the walls in their brains from point-blank.

A child could never beat a man to death, but a child can easily shoot a man to death.

Regardless, I can see your point, and it makes sense. But there is something that bothers me about how a gun can make murder so casual and easy. It takes real effort to beat or stab a man to death, and it's never a sure thing. I could kill someone with hands or swords, but I've had years of training - years that have taught me discipline and respect for what I am now able to do. The punk on the street corner with his dad's pistol can kill someone much more easily than I could, and he hasn't had a minute of training, nor any respect for others or even a real idea of the consequences of pulling the trigger in someone's face.

shakran · 09-16-2003, 07:42 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Moonduck

Quote:

Same goes for jams, rare as heck in quality modern firearms using quality modern ammo.

No argument there. On the other hand, I worked retail for enough years to know that people RARELY go for quality when money is on the line. People'll buy the cheapest crap they can find as long as it looks kinda close to the good stuff.

Quote:

Straw Man arguments. Frankly, a gun is FAR more reliable than most martial art trainign given the spurious way most people are trained. You are taught to respond to set attacks that you know are coming, and the attacks are generally carried out in a totally unrealistic fashion. You then carry out a set of predetermined formulaic response that does not take into account the physiological responses that a real target will experience to the sequence of attacks. On top of this, you perform these maneuvers repetitively with ZERO FORCE behind the attacks, at minimal speed. In all, this type of 'training' is setting the student up with a completely incorrect mental picture of how an assault will occur and how even their own maneuvers will work in a real world conflict.

Point! You're absolutely correct that most schools teach this kind of drivel. Now, admittedly when I answered the original question I was talking about a REAL martial arts school, not a sport kidrate school. If you learn to fight for real, I'll put my money on the martial artist before I put my money on the terrified civilian with the gun.

Quote:

With a gun, I don't have to worry about how much force I am applying. I don't have to worry about the assailant attacking me in some manner that I have been trained to deal with. I draw said weapon and, 90% of the time, the assault ceases.

And the other 10% you have to shoot the SOB and you wind up in jail.

Quote:

I am not saying that firearms are the only answer, simply that you are not pursuing your own line of argument objectively.

I'm not saying martial arts are the ONLY answer either. I'm saying that given the CHOICE between martial arts and guns, I'd choose martial arts because I can use martial arts in ANY attack. I cannot use a gun in a non-lethal attack without a guaranteed jail sentence.

OK, so let's say that we have a gun that never misfires, never jams - it's the 100% reliable gun (any soldier will tell you there's no such animal). Now take the average gun owner, who's taken the absolute bare minimum training he could get away with to get his permit, and hasn't been to a range since. He's never been in any sort of fighting situation (which, btw you will get in a good dojo), and now he's being mugged. Vast likelihood is that he'll miss with at least the first two shots, and he has a very good chance of emptying his clip without coming close to his target.

Scenario 2: Guy grabs you from behind, wraps his arm around your neck, and sticks a gun/knife in your back. Who's the more likely to get out of that situation, the guy with a gun in his jacket or the guy who knows how to disarm the attacker?

The simple fact of the matter is that while guns certainly have their place and are very effective with dealing with specific situations, proper martial arts training gives a person a much broader range of capabilities than having a gun does.

debaser · 09-17-2003, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by shakran

Scenario 2: Guy grabs you from behind, wraps his arm around your neck, and sticks a gun/knife in your back. Who's the more likely to get out of that situation, the guy with a gun in his jacket or the guy who knows how to disarm the attacker?

Option 3, the guy who realises discression is the better part of valor, and gives the attacker his wallet.

Again, you cannot reliably disarm an attacker with a gun.

Baldrick · 09-17-2003, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Again, you cannot reliably disarm an attacker with a gun.

In many situations, yes you can. Period.

Lebell · 09-17-2003, 10:56 AM

Baldrick,

You're saying that you can reliably disarm me before I can put a pound and a half of pressure on the trigger my cocked SIG226?

I'm sorry, but no.

Perhaps if I have to cock it still, but not if it is ready to shoot.

JimmyTheHutt · 09-17-2003, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kyo
Perhaps I am phrasing incorrectly. Let me try again.

A mugger with no skill can rob unarmed people with impunity. Even knowing martial arts, without a gun I would probably go along with whatever a gunman wanted. Someone with a gun can kill people just by pulling a trigger - it's too easy. I'm not talking about an 'effective tool,' I'm talking about walking up to a nice couple on the street and covering the walls in their brains from point-blank.

A child could never beat a man to death, but a child can easily shoot a man to death.

Regardless, I can see your point, and it makes sense. But there is something that bothers me about how a gun can make murder so casual and easy. It takes real effort to beat or stab a man to death, and it's never a sure thing. I could kill someone with hands or swords, but I've had years of training - years that have taught me discipline and respect for what I am now able to do. The punk on the street corner with his dad's pistol can kill someone much more easily than I could, and he hasn't had a minute of training, nor any respect for others or even a real idea of the consequences of pulling the trigger in someone's face.

That's more of an issue with the person holding the weapon then with the weapon itself. The weapon itself is not the problem, it's the fact that many people treat violence far to casually. Firearms are unfortunately a natural extension of this attitude. They are not the only one, however.

A child is just as capable of beating someone to death as an adult. They give away natural advantages in size, strength and speed, but to say that its not possible is a fallicy. When I was 14, another person at my high school was killed by another, in a simple fistfight gone horribly awry, and with a minimum of effort. The human body is both more fragile and tougher than we think.

Regardless, the real issue is a debate on whether it is better to have a firearm for self defense or rely on HTH for the same purpose. Both have their values, depending on the situation. Neither is applicable in all situations. The people that are likely to use a firearm in self defense have been trained to a certain degree of proficiency with the firearm. They also have a better than average understanding of the effects of pulling that trigger. Any CCW holder is QUITE clear on the ramifications of a bullet entering a human body, and the fact that they, as a shooter, are responisible for wherever that bullet ends up. Therefore, a fair amount training is required, even for the civilian user, to be proficient and responsible. My point is not that one or the other is superior, but that both require discipline and training to be used for self defense. The casual punk on the street corner is just as likely to stab me to death with the same lack of concern or responsibility as he is to shoot me.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

Kyo · 09-17-2003, 04:40 PM

Again, I agree with much of what you say. As I have said, I believe my discomfort comes from the ease and power a gun gives the user. A martial artist needs serious training to be able to kill an opponent consistently, and the effort required is much greater than the simple pulling of a trigger.

A child cannot beat an adult to death, I think. A child can beat other children to death - of that I have no doubt, and just as casually as a street mugger, certainly.

But nothing is quite like a gun. My fists cannot kill with a crook of a finger. My sword comes close, certainly, but there still exists a rather large gap in the training and effort required to kill with a sword than with a gun.

Not everyone can pick up a sword and go out and kill whoever they want. But almost anyone can pick up a gun and radically alter someone's reality.

In short, it's a matter of degree.

Baldrick · 09-17-2003, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
Baldrick,

You're saying that you can reliably disarm me before I can put a pound and a half of pressure on the trigger my cocked SIG226?

I'm sorry, but no.

Perhaps if I have to cock it still, but not if it is ready to shoot.

Are you telling me you walk around with your finger on your cocked SIG226 at all times? I'm sorry, but no you don't.

The argument is that in every situation a gun will win over someone trained in martial arts. I agree with you that in many, even in most situations that is the case. But not in every situation. You're grabbed by surprise from behind with surprising force by a very strong foe. You're going to pull your gun, cock it, aim it, and fire before he knifes you or chokes you out? I don't like your chances. And, if your attacker sees a gun while subduing you, it's possible that you have now just elevated the situation to a life or death struggle. Again, this assumes you are in the real world, and not walking around with your gun drawn, loaded, cocked and ready to fire at the turn of every corner.

Lebell · 09-17-2003, 08:11 PM

Of course not.

As much as we would like to have all situations nicely choreographed to our advantage, the truth is that criminals are not so accomidating.

I think everyone here can craft a situation where martial arts are better and another where firearms are better.

My view is that martial arts take many many years to master and even when they are mastered, a punk with a gun can render them severly limited if not moot.

On the flipside, a person with relatively little training in firearms can successfully defend themselves against someone else with a gun, knife, or martial arts training.

Baldrick · 09-18-2003, 04:12 AM

I agree Lebell. Of course, I'd put a *bit* more stock in martial arts training, but that's based on my obvious bias and not hard facts.

As I mentioned earlier, we can all make thousands of situations that put one side or the other at an advantage/disadvantage. My only bone of contention is when the argument is presented that a gun will ALWAYS win over someone very skilled in martial arts. Most of the time, I admit that's true. Just not every time.

Hell, a situation may have come up where a gun didn't win over a highly skilled ping pong player!

09-11-2003, 08:20 PM	#1 (permalink)
Fire Warrior Smith Location: missouri	Martial arts v.s. Guns Ok- I have seen this argued on the edges of several threads and want to give a shot at a well reasoned discussion- I am curious where people come down on the issue- Do you belive that it is better to be proficient in the use of a firearm or in unarmed combat. Also, I recently have seen a trend in gun writing that clasifies firearms use as another type of armed martial arts... your thoughts and ideas, but please be polite with each other... __________________ Thought the harder, Heart the bolder, Mood the more as our might lessens

09-11-2003, 08:32 PM	#2 (permalink)
sadistikdreams lonely rolling star Location: Seattle.	Man. The Gun Kata. __________________ "Besides the noble art of getting things done, there is the noble art of leaving things undone. The wisdom of life consists in the elimination of non-essentials." -Lin Yutang hearts, by d.a.

09-11-2003, 09:54 PM	#3 (permalink)
seizei Purple Monkey Dishwasher Location: CFB Gagetown, NB, CANADA	Being proficient in the use of a gun means only one thing: when you use your skills, someone will most likely be killed. Sure it's a valuable tool for defense, but I'd rather not kill people. If I can diffuse a situation with a controlling technique or submission, demotivating an attacker without destroying him, I will take that path any day. __________________ "If you're not weird, you're not interesting". I'm very interesting ... seizei; (adv - Japanese) at the most; at best; to the utmost; as much (far) as possible. (pronounced - say-zay)

09-13-2003, 08:47 AM	#9 (permalink)
Baldrick We are everywhere... Location: Barrie, Ontario	I have been involved and trained in Wado-Ryu Karate for over twenty years now, and have taken various other martial arts (for interests sake) over the same time. I consider myself quite proficient at hand-to-hand defence, no question. However, even I concede that there are instances where a gun is superior for self defence. Personally, I'd rather take my chances without a gun no matter what, but that's simply a personal feeling based on my experience and confidence. However, it took me many years to gain that experience - whereas proper gun training can be significantly less. If it was my wife or one of my daughters in a situation that required self defence, I'm not sure I wouldn't want them armed in some way - with significant proper training, of course. They only have a couple years of martial arts training, and I know that there is a great chance that they simply aren't physically capable of overpowering an attacker. But, the one big positive of carrying a gun versus martial arts - the time it takes to be profient at it - is also a HUGE negative in my opinion. I know this is a sweeping generalization, but I believe guns tend to give their owner a false sense of security. With a gun at their side, they may decide to take that chance of "taking that shortcut through the park", or "walk through that group of punks hanging outside the store". Anyone trained by a good martial arts teacher for several years, has had it drilled into them to avoid situations like these. As my old sensei used to tell us - "The best defence is to not be there when the shit goes down". __________________ You can be young only once, but you can be immature for the rest of your life...

09-13-2003, 03:26 PM	#11 (permalink)
debaser Sir, I have a plan... Location: 38S NC20943324	In order to consider yourself "proficient" with a gun, you should know proper retention and close quarter techniques. To me the choice is obvious. A gun in the hands of a proficient user will win every time. __________________ Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.

09-12-2003, 04:28 AM	#4 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	Being proficient in only the use of a gun means several things: 1) Unless you're attacked in such a way that your life is immediately in mortal danger, you cannot use your training to end the situation. In other words, you can only shoot someone if they're about to kill you. 2) If you are surprised by an attacker who is using a knife or gun against you (i.e. you didn't have time to draw your own weapon) you are now officially screwed because you never bothered to learn gun/knife disarms. 3) If your attacker is trained in H2H combat, you may very well lose the gun, therefore eliminating all advantages of your gun training. 4) If your gun jams, your bullets get wet and don't fire, or anything else happens that prevents the gun from shooting, you are screwed because all you know how to do is shoot. IMHO people who get weapons and do not learn H2H combat are setting themselves up for disaster.

09-12-2003, 05:12 AM	#5 (permalink)
pointfourfive Upright	Is both an option? As shakran said, one without the other is a bad idea. I guess that's why military and police officers learn both. It's a shame that most civilians don't as well.

09-12-2003, 08:35 AM	#6 (permalink)
1337haxor Insane Location: PA	I think both would be the best combo. I spent 3 years learning martial arts and even though this was along time ago, I can still defend myself. I've also been using handguns for about a year and can hit targets accurately (I compete in IDPA). Not to mention I've been recently learning to use a knife in combat. If you put some time aside you should get a broader spectrum of skill since each situation is different and you'll never know what you'll be forced to do.

09-12-2003, 08:13 PM	#7 (permalink)
Moonduck Junkie Location: SE USA	"If your gun jams, your bullets get wet and don't fire" Shakran, you're wandering into the realm of disinformation. Modern ammo is generally waterproof, barring long-term immersion. I realize from your posts under the gun vs knife thread that you are fired up about the subject and hold a strong opinion, but misinformation is not necessary to prove a point.

09-12-2003, 08:24 PM	#8 (permalink)
Moonduck Junkie Location: SE USA	On topic, if I had to choose between training in a firearm and training in martial arts, I would pick PROPER training with a gun. By 'proper' I mean full spectrum training to include retention techniques. As competatent retention techniques wander into the realm of unarmed HtH, I suppose I am crossing the boundaries and not answering the question properly. If I am limited to purely learnign only how to shoot accurrately (a bad idea alone) with absolutely zero HtH skill, or competent HtH training with no gun training whatsoever, I would opt, again only in this limited format, to go with HtH training. It is far more useful in the vast majority of cases. In the Real World, I've done both, plus spent a fair amount of time working with knives. Frankly, I see it as the responsibility of any person that carries means to escalate level of force to absolutely, positively also possess intermediary levels of force. It is illegal to escalate force in a self-defense situation. If a mugger threatens to punch you, you are not legally permitted to shoot the mugger in self-defense. (It is possible to have mitigating circumstances, usually due to significant size, age, and gender differences. Your grandma is more likely to get away with putting a slug into a 6'7" 19 yr old attacker even if he is unaramed as that level of force counts as deadly to a little old lady in probably frail health). As such, one is as helpless against an unarmed attacker as you would be without the weapon, IF you choose to properly follow the law. In my case, Sombo and Kali-Silat are an intermediate level of threat that I possess. The gun, that I (legally) carry if I see a good need to, is another.

09-13-2003, 12:10 PM	#10 (permalink)
Moonduck Junkie Location: SE USA	As my old sensei used to tell us - "The best defence is to not be there when the shit goes down". ------ On this note, I had the extreme fortune to train with a Russian exchange student by the name of Dmitri (I won't try to spell his last name) for a couple of sessions in my old Sombo group. I say fortune because Dmitri was Spetnaz trained and damned good at Sombo. He related a number of different stories, but one was pertinent to this discussion. On his first day at the Spetnaz HtH school, the first thing that happened off the buss was a 15km run. At the end, the instructor informed the group that they'd just had their first and most important lesson in HtH. Heasked the group if they could explain what that lesson was, and if anyone could, he'd graduate them from the school on the spot. When no one answered, the instructor explained that the first rule of HtH is not to get into it in the first place. The best unarmed fight is one that you can run away from. Dmitri also said that they did a LOT of running in that course =)

09-13-2003, 03:30 PM	#12 (permalink)
G5_Todd Junkie Location: Reichstag	definately if i could wake up tommorow being an expert in one of the two it would be martial arts..... it really doesnt take to long to become a decent shot....where as to be good in martial arts it can years..... i could always learn to shoot again __________________ "....and when you men get home and face an anti-war protester, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she's dating a pussy." -General Franks

09-13-2003, 04:18 PM	#14 (permalink)
debaser Sir, I have a plan... Location: 38S NC20943324	As I said, with proper retention and CQB techniques, I will win in a hand-to-hand situation. The simple fact is that I can kill you with a pistol much faster than you can kill me with your hands, be it from 21 feet away or in a bear hug... __________________ Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.

09-13-2003, 05:00 PM	#15 (permalink)
fugue_life Insane Location: under the stairs	K I have seen enough hollywood movies to know that a true martial arts master can catch bullets with their teeth. So I would have to say martial arts all the way __________________ ba-weep=gra=na-weep-nini-bon?

09-13-2003, 07:10 PM	#16 (permalink)
stldickie Addict	A gun is truly more of an offensive weapon then defensive. I'm not saying that a gun can't be used for defense, but pulling one out would usually put you at a great advantage, therefore putting you on the offensive. You can't (legally) carry a gun around all of the time, so you are probably better off with the martial arts.

09-13-2003, 08:22 PM	#17 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	For every day scuffles and such, hand to hand skills are definitely more usefull. As far as staying alive in a really serious situation/mugging/raping a gun is the way to go (but you have to know how to use it, of course). __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

09-15-2003, 11:57 AM	#21 (permalink)
Moonduck Junkie Location: SE USA	Old ammo or very poor quality ammo then. Modern ammo is generally lacquer sealed that the primer. Bringing up such an incredibly small chance mishap like that is specious logic. That would be equivalent to me countering your martial arts arguments by saying "Well, martial arts are useless because I might've broken the little finger on my right hand in rugby practice the day before, so I'd rather have a gun". Same goes for jams, rare as heck in quality modern firearms using quality modern ammo. Straw Man arguments. Frankly, a gun is FAR more reliable than most martial art trainign given the spurious way most people are trained. You are taught to respond to set attacks that you know are coming, and the attacks are generally carried out in a totally unrealistic fashion. You then carry out a set of predetermined formulaic response that does not take into account the physiological responses that a real target will experience to the sequence of attacks. On top of this, you perform these maneuvers repetitively with ZERO FORCE behind the attacks, at minimal speed. In all, this type of 'training' is setting the student up with a completely incorrect mental picture of how an assault will occur and how even their own maneuvers will work in a real world conflict. With a gun, I don't have to worry about how much force I am applying. I don't have to worry about the assailant attacking me in some manner that I have been trained to deal with. I draw said weapon and, 90% of the time, the assault ceases. I am not saying that firearms are the only answer, simply that you are not pursuing your own line of argument objectively.

09-16-2003, 11:29 AM	#25 (permalink)
Moonduck Junkie Location: SE USA	"What you're describing sounds more like the "Budget Weekend Self-Defence / Cash-Grab" high-school programs than any actual training you'd receive at a school." That is because it is precisely the sort of training that is frequently passed off. I've trained in about 6 different arts, and taken classes in a lot of different schools (comes from moving a lot as my father was in the military). The vast majority were entirely unrealistic. I've had the fortune to train with folks that were serious. I've gotten injured in those training sessions, and injured others. It is a risk that you take when working high-speed and near to full force. The more you bleed in training, the less you'll bleed when things go pear-shaped. Least that is how it was explained to me. Those sorts of groups are rare though, and the reason is usually prohibitive insurance costs. I know a number of folks trained in serious self-defense forms under serious self-defense conditions. I know far more that have received training that is utter crap under the most controlled and unrealistic conditions. The only reason that a "black belt" from most schools might be dangerous in a fight is because they are in good physical shape and likely to have a better mentality. I've never had a belt higher than about 4 grades into any martial art, yet have personally trounced folks with black (or other high level grades depending on school) belts in informal scuffles, sparring matches, and at least one fairly serious altercation. I have little respect for most so-called martial arts schools. I've also been flat handled by various people from less formal schools and arts that tend to teach at a higher level. I was utterly flattened by my Sombo instructor, in various styles of combat. He was awe-inspiring. While I have little respect for most schools, there are still quite a few that I have boundless respect for. I'm not dogging martial arts in general. I'm dogging the ritual-is-more-important-than-sparring, minimal-contact, and jump-four-feet-in-the-air-and-kick sorts of school that teach useless garbage that will do nothing in the real world except impress gullible types. ---- "Whereupon, in 90% of the world, you go to jail for illegally carrying a firearm, with optional extra charges for threatening someone with it." Sure enough. Luckily, my corner of the world has options for legal carry. Whenever I carry, I do so legally as I have taken the steps. The problem with your argument is those self same corners of the world that would arrest you for illegally carrying a firearm will also arrest you for beating the ever-loving crap out of a mugger with your martial arts training. It's a no-win situation in many places.

09-16-2003, 01:30 PM	#26 (permalink)
Kyo Crazy	Assuming equivalent proficiency in their respective skills, a gunman has an enormous advantage over any martial artist in a straight fight - I do not believe this is in debate. A gun does not necessarily equate to a murder weapon - a shot (or several shots) in the arm or leg is often sufficient as a nonlethal deterrant. The mere sight of a gun is often enough to drive off those that aren't similarly armed. Nobody enjoys staring at the business end of a firearm. In real-world situations, guns come with many strings attached that aren't necessarily present with martial arts. To begin with, pulling a gun on someone in self defense raises the possibility for injury dramatically for all involved. While I've never been on the wrong end of a gun, I imagine that in close quarters it's very difficult to avoid being shot, even if you shoot them first. Drawing your gun also forces your opponent to act. While they may have been threatening you, seeing you draw a gun forces them to hurt you or be hurt themselves. It has been shown in polls (granted, I don't know the sample size or demographic for the poll) that you are much more likely to be injured or killed in robberies and other street crimes if you are carrying a gun. Though, I suppose this is probably due to lack of skill apparent in 90% of the gun-owning population. There is also a myriad of other social issues involving guns, such as the ability to carry them, concealed or not, the possibility for lethal accidents, etc. When it comes down to it, however, I hate firearms because of their effect on the mentality and ability of people to injure and kill one another. Guns are an abomination, in my opinion. Here's why: a) A gun is a ranged weapon, used to maim or kill from a distance. You can gun someone down from a block away and never have to see them die. Even a swordsman or knife fighter must see their weapons cut their opponent, must see the carnage that they deal out with their own hands. Must feel the weight of what they are really doing. b) A gun is casual and easy. It requires no effort, willpower, or skill to kill someone with a gun. You have to point it at someone and pull the trigger. The fact that children can kill themselves and others with guns is more than enough proof of this. It is extremely difficult for a martial artist to kill by accident. It takes concious effort, the very clear thought that yes, I am going to kill my opponent in exactly this way. Your hands and feet do not accidently 'go off' the way a gun can. c) As a corollary to the above, a gun does not require skill. It would be good to have skill, but it does not require it. Suddenly, anyone can kill anyone else by pointing a gun and pulling a trigger. A child can kill a man with a simple crook of a finger. d) Guns do not instill respect or discipline. Martial artists are taught respect for themselves and others, as well as respect for their art and their skills. Someone who buys a gun in a store is not taught respect for anyone or anything. This is why people can walk outside with a gun and shoot anyone they want. In short, guns are a shortcut, that allow people who have no skill or training to kill people that do.

09-16-2003, 03:05 PM	#28 (permalink)
debaser Sir, I have a plan... Location: 38S NC20943324	Most "robberies and other street crimes" are never reported if they are stopped by a citizen with a gun. I am interested to see the study you cite, as your statement is a bit to vague to thoroughly deconstruct. __________________ Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.

09-16-2003, 03:39 PM	#29 (permalink)
Kyo Crazy	As lame as it sounds, I don't remember which study I'm citing. It's something I read and believed. I'll retract the statement if people become too focused on it - it's a really minor point in my overall argument. Getting 'Owned,' as someone put it, because of one sentence while the rest of my post goes unnoticed would be a shame, I think. Last edited by Kyo; 09-16-2003 at 03:43 PM..

09-17-2003, 10:56 AM	#35 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Baldrick, You're saying that you can reliably disarm me before I can put a pound and a half of pressure on the trigger my cocked SIG226? I'm sorry, but no. Perhaps if I have to cock it still, but not if it is ready to shoot. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

09-17-2003, 04:40 PM	#37 (permalink)
Kyo Crazy	Again, I agree with much of what you say. As I have said, I believe my discomfort comes from the ease and power a gun gives the user. A martial artist needs serious training to be able to kill an opponent consistently, and the effort required is much greater than the simple pulling of a trigger. A child cannot beat an adult to death, I think. A child can beat other children to death - of that I have no doubt, and just as casually as a street mugger, certainly. But nothing is quite like a gun. My fists cannot kill with a crook of a finger. My sword comes close, certainly, but there still exists a rather large gap in the training and effort required to kill with a sword than with a gun. Not everyone can pick up a sword and go out and kill whoever they want. But almost anyone can pick up a gun and radically alter someone's reality. In short, it's a matter of degree.

09-17-2003, 08:11 PM	#39 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Of course not. As much as we would like to have all situations nicely choreographed to our advantage, the truth is that criminals are not so accomidating. I think everyone here can craft a situation where martial arts are better and another where firearms are better. My view is that martial arts take many many years to master and even when they are mastered, a punk with a gun can render them severly limited if not moot. On the flipside, a person with relatively little training in firearms can successfully defend themselves against someone else with a gun, knife, or martial arts training. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

09-18-2003, 04:12 AM	#40 (permalink)
Baldrick We are everywhere... Location: Barrie, Ontario	I agree Lebell. Of course, I'd put a bit more stock in martial arts training, but that's based on my obvious bias and not hard facts. As I mentioned earlier, we can all make thousands of situations that put one side or the other at an advantage/disadvantage. My only bone of contention is when the argument is presented that a gun will ALWAYS win over someone very skilled in martial arts. Most of the time, I admit that's true. Just not every time. Hell, a situation may have come up where a gun didn't win over a highly skilled ping pong player! __________________ You can be young only once, but you can be immature for the rest of your life...