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...

Man. The Gun Kata.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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". :D

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 =)

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.

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

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". :)

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...

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 :)

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.

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).

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.

Re: Martial arts v.s. Guns
 

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.

"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.

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.

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 ;)

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.

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

"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.

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.

Hoooooo boy. :rolleyes:

Prepare to be 0wned.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

In many situations, yes you can. Period.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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! :D

plus the fact that you can put all the pressure you want on that trigger, but if my hand is jamming the slide/hammer the gun isn't gonna fire. Plus the fact that in most disarms I'm not gonna care if the gun fires. I'm not gonna sit there letting the gun stay aimed at me through the disarm - i'm gonna move off of the line of fire while disarming you.

And notice that in my example I didn't say the guy was after your wallet. Sometimes people just try to kill someone without a robbery motive.

The situation where a gun is better than martial arts is as follows: Your attacker is about 20 feet away charging at you and has a knife drawn. If he has a gun drawn, he has the drop on you and can shoot you if you reach for your gun. If he has no weapon and you shoot him, get ready to go to jail for a very long time because you just committed manslaughter at the least, possibly murder. If he's within range and has a knife, get ready to get cut to ribbons as you reach for your now useless gun.

Fact is that unless you get the drop on your attacker, which rarely happens, guns aren't gonna help you as much as martial arts will. If you're properly trained in H2H combat, you can fight your way out of a situation where someone got the drop on you (which, btw, will happen much less to a trained martial artist than it will to Joe Citizen). Even if you're properly trained in gun use (which most gun carriers are not) you still have to reach into your jacket/pocket/wherever you're concealing the weapon, chamber a round, take the safety off, raise the weapon, aim, and FINALLY fire. Your attacker most likely already has his gun out, the safety (if it has one) is off, the weapon is ready to fire, and he's already got it pointing at you. So while you're busy getting READY to shoot, he's shooting. This is, as was pointed out, assuming you don't walk around with the gun out and ready to fire at all times.

This is dangerously incorrect. An automatic will fire regardless of your hand on the slide (which it won't be after it fires, trust me).

Incidentaly, many new autos don't even have an exposed hammer.

And most people have a semi auto rather than an auto. However, my next sentence covered autos as well - -namely, step off the line of fire and don't let the barrel keep pointing at you when you disarm!

1. An automatic pistol refers to one in which the action sequences through the use of energy from the cartrige, not one that fires in a full-auto mode. :rolleyes:

2. How are you going fo move your entire body out of the line of fire before I pull a trigger? Sounds like dodging bullets to me...

3. Even if you do move out of the line of fire, where is the barrel pointing now? That buload of nuns will not be to happy with your descision to use your ninja skills when their choir is one sister short.

1. Actually, an automatic pistol is more precisely defined as a pistol which continues to fire as long as the trigger is held down. A semi automatic pistol is one that can fire without being cocked - but you still have to pull the trigger for each round.

2. Well, if you just pull your gun and shoot, I'm screwed. But then, I'm screwed in that situation whether I have a gun or martial arts training or both. If, however, you pull your gun and threaten me with it from close range (and yes, it happens, it happened to me 2 years ago) then I have two choices. A) give you my wallet. B) if I feel that you're gonna kill me no matter what, I can go for the disarm.

You're talking as though i'm gonna take a big step out of the line of fire, then reach for your gun and try to wrestle it away from you. That would be insane.

3. That's why people properly trained in actual combat-oriented martial arts also have undergone awareness training. I'm not gonna move the gun off my line and have it point at my friends/family who are with me. I'll even try to avoid the gaggle of nuns that have been following me around, but at the end of the day, if someone i'm not protecting, the attacker shot them, not me. My first concern is protecting my family/friends who are with me.

BTW, if attempting a disarm in a crowded situation, you can always perform the disarm that ends up with the pistol pointing at the attacker with your finger on the trigger ;)


The bottom line is that there ARE ways to disarm guns. And they DO work. That guy that I mentioned that pulled the gun on my 2 years ago found himself minus one gun and held with his own gun until the cops arrived. Does that make me superman, able to dodge bullets? No. It makes me very lucky that he was stupid enough to pull his weapon close enough to me that my training enabled me to disarm him.

I'll take gun for range.

And real life situation ,Hand to Hand combat close quarters.

There ya go. I settled the dispute. :>

Yeah... I want to have both... and also be able to crush someones chest in one blow... saw my Sensei do it to. It was amazing.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=11499

You are thinking of a machine-pistol. In the common and technical parlance guns such as the 1911 and Glock 17 are known as automatics.

When put this way I agree with you 100%. If you feel that the person is going to shoot you regardles, then by all means, go for the disarm. Otherwise it is just not worth the risk.
Yes, but remember that the thread asks "Do you belive that it is better to be proficient in the use of a firearm or in unarmed combat". Now to me, as I stated before, proficiency with a firearms includes weapons retention and CQB techniques. Someone trained thus will not be disarmed. Remember, for every move there is a counter. Now granted, most criminals are about as proficient in gun use as they are at weaponless martial arts (lucky for you), but if you match practitioners of equal skill I would put my dollars on the gun every time.

ok- to move this in a slightly different direction - what about the option that Firearms Proficiency is a form of martial art- with the rise of CQB and other integrated fighting systems, does the handgun become like the katana? what makes a martial art? is a dedicated student of the gun, who practices with it and prepares for real world use not a martial artist? Got to thinking about this when I talked to a friend of mine, a 19 year student of Iajatsu (spelling may be wrong) and damned good shot with a pistol...

yes, but to most people proficiency with a gun just means you can hit the deer more often than not.

I guess the reason I'd take MA over gun training is because gun training can give you a false sense of security.

Most of the gun people I've talked to have asinine answers to the "what if" questions.

What if you're grabbed by an attacker late at night?
I'd pull out my gun and shoot him.

What if you're threatened by a guy with a knife?
I'd pull out my gun and shoot him.

What if you're held at gunpoint?
I'd pull out my gun and shoot him.


Guns give you two basic options. Threaten someone with the gun, and shoot someone with the gun. If the criminal isn't threatening your life, one of the options - shooting the SOB - goes right out the window. Well maybe it's my martial arts training coming out, but I don't believe in brandishing a weapon that for whatever reason I can't use. If I pull my knife on you, that means I intend to try to kill you with it.

In fact, as stupid as it may sound, there have been some cases where a victim was threatened, the victim pulled

his gun to scare the attacker, the attacker got scared, pulled his own gun and shot the victim, and the killing was justified under the law because the attacker was now in fear of "death or great bodily harm." I think this is ridiculous, but that's the legal system we're working under.

I figure gun training would be supremely useful in a situation where someone is about to kill or seriously injure me or someone I'm with. In any other attack situation, the gun becomes useless because if I use it, I go to jail and rot for a long time. Again IMHO, this shouldn't be - we should approach this more like Texas does, which is the only state that figures if you get shot while robbing a house it's your own damn fault and not the homeowner's. Unfortunately, as long as the other states don't see it that way, and as long as I don't live in Texas, I'm not willing to go to jail just to avoid a beating.

However, I CAN use my MA training to get out of those much more numerous situations where my life isn't threatened but the guy's trying to hurt me.

A few points I wanted to address in this post:


A dumbass (DA) is a dumbass is a dumbass and it makes no difference if said dumbass goes and buys a .44 magnum and thinks he's Dirty Harry or if he spends six months practicing his Karate and thinks he's Bruce Lee.

The DA will have a false sense of security either way and is likely to end up in serious trouble.

The flip is also true. A smart person knows when to retreat and when to use the options available to them.

As a gun owner and CCW holder, I know that there is only one justification for pulling out my weapon; I or someone around me is being threatened and there is the possibility of great bodily harm or worse.

I admit I don't know whether to be offended by this or astounded.

Are you really saying that defending yourself with deadly force against someone who grabs you or pulls a knife on you isn't a good option??

Because to me, this isn't a game and if someone is willing to do something like this, I will assume that my life means nothing to them and that I am in deadly danger and that the best course of action is to end the encounter quickly and with decisive, overwhelming force.

Yes, I'm sorry to say this does sound stupid.

I know of no cases or juristictions in the United States where this has happened.

The law in Colorado is quite clear on this. If the attacker is still in the process of attacking, they cannot justify pulling a gun and shooting you in "self defense". For this to happen, they would have had to break off their attack so that the person originally being attacked was no longer in danger and then began a new attack on the former attacker.

So if you have a link to a story where this actually happened somewhere, please provide it.

Some states use the "back against the wall" standard where a homeowner is expected to retreat until they can retreat no further and then they are allowed to use deadly force. Others, like Colorado and Texas allow a homeowner to use deadly force when a person enters their home in the commission of a felony.

But again, if you see me with my gun out, we are not playing a game. It is out because I see you as a legitimate threat to my personal safety and I am prepared to end that threat. If I can retreat and avoid the situation, I will. If I can talk my way out of it, I will.

But if you are intent on forcing a confrontation, be prepared to pay the price.

Horrible example. I seriously doubt that the busload of nuns will be pissed at the person who stepped out of the line of fire. I'd be willing to bet they're pissed at the jackass who fired the gun.

It is a very good example. I'm not talking about the legality of the situation, I'm talking about thinking far too much of your skills and getting someone else hurt/killed because you fuck up.

Heh, ever see the movie "Equilibrium"

And yes, i agree

a side note here: Ueshiba O'Sensei (the founder of Aikido) once challenged some riflemen to shoot him. as they fired O'Sensei "dodged bullets" (not really, probably). not a real-life example by any means, so it's not meant to be an argument; just a little side note.
here's a secondary account: http://www.aikidojournal.com/new/art...?ArticleID=485
there's a discussion on it at as well, at http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showth...&threadid=3986

Bullshit, untill i see a video.

I also call BS without proof.


A .223 travels around 3000 fps out of the barrel where as the transmission speed of nerve signals have been determined to be around the 600-700 fps range.

So even if the individual could actually see the bullet leaving the gun, they could not send the signal to their muscles fast enough to get out of the way.

no matter what, it depends on proficiency.

I could kill someone from a little over 900 meters with a gun with very reliable accuracy, having trained as such.

I could also kill someone with my open hand from 2 feet away, having also trained as such.

Anyone who happens to have a hand or a rifle can't just go out and do that, so the argument becomes one of skill, not hardware.

btw, according to the O'Sensei story, this was a time when airguns were in common usage, because the did not project smoke and block visibility, yet still caused fatalities to those that were shot, and those have barrel speeds of anywhere from 400 - 1200 fps, depending on the rifle, with speeds exceeding that only with recent technology using compressed air cartridges.

"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."

True that, but with the exception of certain crappy imports, even the cheap stuff is pretty damn good these days.

"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."

In this, we agree 100%. I would also place good money on the martial artists that I consider quality from serious systems, over said civilian. Even over a number of non-civilians.

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

I am the first to admit that it is less than perfect, but I do like those 90% success rate odds =)

"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."

We agree more than we disagree. My main point leaned towards solid MA training in the majority of situations.

"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). "

Shit, I'm a civilian and I'll tell you that there is no such thing. I've put literally hundreds of thousands of rounds downrange in the 25 years I've been shooting. I know all about the lack of perfect reliability. I've even had revolvers fail on me, and they are as fool-proof as guns come.

"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. "

Well, I will stick with my 90% number and say that the simple act of brandishing a gun will get you out of most assaults.

"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?"

Gun or not, Martial Arts or not, you're fucked in this scenario. If I am so completely fricken unaware that some dipwad could get that close to me without my permission, his ninja-ass deserves my wallet.

"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."

No disagreement, but you also must admit that the gun gives one capability that MA does not - range. Honestly, it is an apples and oranges argument.

Sharan wrote:
"plus the fact that you can put all the pressure you want on that trigger, but if my hand is jamming the slide/hammer the gun isn't gonna fire "

Debaser responded:
"This is dangerously incorrect. An automatic will fire regardless of your hand on the slide (which it won't be after it fires, trust me)."

Erm, Shakran is correct. If you jam your hand against the front of the slide of a semi-auto pistol, you bring it out of battery by pushing the slide rearward. Pretty much all semi-autos are designed to be incapable of firing when out of battery. It just won't happen due to design. Try it with your unloaded weapon and you will see what I am saying.

I know exactly what you are saying, but it is almost imposible to do unless you have both hands on the pistol. Why are you going to continue to put forward pressure while he pushes on the front of your weapon rather than simply relaxing your grip then blowing his hand off? Remember, this is all happening in fractions of a second. The way I interpreted his post was that once he was preventing the slide from cycling, the weapon would not work.

This would error would simply leave you with a bullet wound AND a mangled hand.

"Gun or not, Martial Arts or not, you're fucked in this scenario. If I am so completely fricken unaware that some dipwad could get that close to me without my permission, his ninja-ass deserves my wallet. "

Your second sentence is right on point! but I disagree that you're fucked. There are ways to disarm an attacker when he's behind you - - not saying they're easy and I'm certainly not saying they're dangerous, but if you're in that situation and have the choice between maybe dying and absolutely dying, I'll take the maybe alternative ;)

re: the slide:

No, I never said that jamming your hand in a slide will fail the weapon permanently. I said it will stop the weapon from firing. And it will.

Of course, it'll also pinch the holy hell outa your hand (esp. if it's a hammer rather than a slide), so when I did this disarm a couple of years ago in a mugging I wound up with a big infected wound in the web between my thumb and finger for a week, but I'd say it was worth it ;)

Explain how you would jam your hand in the slide of an automatic pistol. I am still confused by your wording.

If you ae talking about taking it out of lock, or battery, then that is easier said than done with a modern pistol.

So, my understanding is you could stop a gun by getting your hand somehow tangled in the action? Are you talking about doing this from the front or the back of the gun and how quick do you think you could this supposing it can be done?

anyone else smelling bullshit here?

I'd even ~like~ to hear what sensi "darkblack" has to offer on this subject as his commentary in the past at least sounded reasonable.

Well, what I am talking about is moving it out of lock/battery. Not impossible to do, merely difficult. The flip side of that is that I am perfectly willing to try said difficult move only if I have no other choice. My wallet is much easier to replace than my hand.

I guess the lesson here is to use a hammerless revolver if you are mugging a martial artist =)

your still not being specific enough. Are you saying you are gonna do a karate chop at my action above my barrel before I pull the trigger? Or are you saying you are gonna try and pull the action back from the middle before I pull the trigger? And your saying your gonna do this while moving your entire body out of the range of fire. I would really like to hear exactly how this works not just that it gets the action out of lock.

I admit that I haven't read all of the posts on this thread, because threads like it tend to turn into ego-fests, but I have a question to pose to you all in regards to martial arts vs. guns as methods of defense:

Which method is most likely to result in an attacker that will not get up, walk around, and sue you? The gun. It is because of this, that the gun (with proper training, etc etc) is the victor when it comes to self-defense.

Of course a hammerless is the easiest to prevent from firing, just grab the cylinder. The gun cannot fire if it won't rotate.

Not really. Very few people would be able to maintain the sort of grip on a cylinder that would be required to prevent it from rotating, especially when struggling for possession of the gun. It is far harder to stop cylinder rotation than hammer drop or pushing a slide out of battery.

... unless you don't live in the United States, and may go to jail for killing said attacker anyway regardless of what he was doing to you. Or for that matter, can't carry a gun around period. 1 vote for martial arts in Canada please. In the U.S., gimme that 9mm since everyone else seems to have one.

I can't defend myself against a gun with my fists. Period. I'm an above average shooter in both rifle and pistol, so I'll stick with what I know best.

"1 vote for martial arts in Canada please. In the U.S., gimme that 9mm since everyone else seems to have one."

Oddly enough, I've lived in America most of my life. I've been shot at once and had a knife pulled on me once. Interestingly enough, both incidents occurred in West Germany (yes, back when there was a West Germany). It's a fun joke to talk about America like everyone here is armed. The reality is slightly different. Yes, there are enough guns here to arm every adult male twice. Half of them are in G. Gordon Liddy's gun collection though, so it's not that big a deal.

I am a martial artist and I think a gun from medium to far range will beat any martial art. But if the gun is close enough and not used right away, a good martial artist at least has a chance to disarm or disable the person with the gun.

wow this thread was a bitch to read...it took me like more than half an hour but I finally got to the end.
I do smell a lot of b/s in this post. I myself haven't met that many experts in martial arts or gun firing in my life. And the fact that there's supposedly a dozen of people or more that posted in thread that have like 20 years of martial arts training or are experts in gun shooting kinda makes me sick. I mean it might true for some of you guys, but a lot are just talking crap

About the initial issue: we're all repeating each other. OK, a fucker with a gun can give anyone a hot lead facelift from long range distance.
OK, a martial arts expert can disarm a guy by making him flip over his shoulder, take his gun, lie him on the ground, aim at his face and stand one foot on his chest all the while dancing or whistling "Puff the Magic Dragon", but we're not all fucking Jackie Chan. We're just not. OK, we can jam a gun with our hand. But the guy with the gun has to smoke a pound of weed to be as slow as it takes not to react to the guy moving his hand toward his gun. I mean anyone with his finger on a trigger aiming at someone would always shoot at the person at any sudden move in a microsecond or less, its a reflex.
and for dodging bullets: BULLSHIT
no question on that.
I hope no one got offended by my post, I dont want beef with you guys, considering that half of you are Jackie Chans and the other half have magnums, shottys and nines in their houses and carry their Glock 21 when they go to the supermarket.
I live in New York, I'm white and walk thru Harlem every morning and afternoon wearing a tie and I don't feel like someone's gonna pop a driveby on my ass. I mean the chance that you get shot while buying you BigMac at Mcdonalds is really small. I dont think you should this as seriously. And half of you have lived through armed attacks and mugs by disarming the opponent when he has pointing a gun at you and held the gun at his face till the popo arrived....
anyways...peace to all, I don't think guns can resolve anything, considering that the only way to use a gun to defend yourself is by killing or inflicting serious damage. Martial arts seem better being a defense thing...
well I'll see yall later. answer...

I don't know about anyone else, but that seems like a pretty definite resolution.

going to jail is good resolution?

That's the old "Violence doesn't solve anything", and I think Heinlein destroyed that piece of silliness beautifully in "Starship Troopers" (the book, not the shite movie), and Lebell echoes that idea in this thread.

I'm not a martial arts expert. Only taken MA training for about 3 years. I have been shooting for better'n 20 years though. Don't claim to be an awesome shot however. It's a fun hobby. It is very easy to discuss such concepts without being either a balck belt or a Marine Scout Sniper though. It's called having an opinion and being able to reason out scenarios.

If I'm defending myself with a gun, I guarentee that the situation is such that I won't end up in jail for doing it.

ok...
If I shoot a man and kill him. I dont think I'll ever recover completely from it. You guys might call me a pussy, but thats because this country and its culture (movies, books) that often circles aound violence has made killing an everyday event.
I'm French, by the way, live in New York and I hope you don't judge me because of my nationality.
But I think when someones kills another it just stays in its mind forever. Movies and video games want to make you believe that you can stop the guy from pounding youwith his Glock.
But like a guy said before in this post, if a fucker sneaks up on me and aims his gun a me, he does deserve my wallet. What do you prefer, your money or your life? Dont be too arrogant, don't think you can solve anything. Especially not one of the gun jams with your hand. If you miss you're dead. If the guy expects that(and he might) you're dead. So dont try anything stupid.
And now I do expect someone to answer by "Yes, Dad" or something, lol

"If I'm defending myself with a gun, I guarentee that the situation is such that I won't end up in jail for doing it."
- Lebell
You dont pick the way that things turn, man. The justice can make it a racial slurr if the guys ethnicity is different from yours, there are all kinds of possibilities that u do end up rotting in a cell..dont "guarantee" anything thats not your decision but the Judiciary system's decision

Anyone who's gone through the trouble of getting a CCW will tell you that you don't pull a gun unless you have good reason to believe that you or another person is in danger of death or serious injury.

That means they are raping someone, beating someone, have a knife or gun presented etc.

Contrary to what the press would have you believe, most gun owners don't pull a piece because someone called them a dirty name. (And so far VERY few CCW holders have had licenses revoked.)

So again, if you see the business end of my gun, there is a damn good reason for it.

In the end, I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Statistically, CCW holders are FAR less likely to draw than non-CCW Holders.

I was the one that said the guy that sneaks up on me and puts a gun to my head deserves my wallet. I say that because it means that I was not being properly observant and thus deserve to pay the price. Still, the point to CCW is having the option of a firearm for self-defense when it is legally warranted, not just toting a piece with which to waste some shit-talking punk. I personally have a CCW permit and rarely carry.

I have only drawn a weapon in "self-defense" once. I was working on a remote site and had a pack of wild dogs come on-site. I drew my weapon, backed off as quickly as I safely could, went inside, and then called Animal Control. I've NEVER pointed a gun at a human being and hope to continue that trend. Much like you, Biz, I don't want someone's death on my conscience, though I would do it to protect my family. Defense of life, mine or others, is the only acceptable reason to pull the trigger, IMO. Here's hoping none of us here ever have to do so.

If you had someone menacing your family (with a gun), that wanted your wallet, would you pull out your piece or just give your wallet?
Someone here said "If you feel he's gonna kill you anyways"
what punk would kill someone? I mean you're usually not walking around in the countryside and to kill someone, conceal the body, and not have shit from it later is almost impossible these days...
what else....thanks for not making me reading posts putting down the French...I expected half of the ppl posting to be NRA kind of guys...
later yall im off to eat

There is no "one-size-fits-all" answer.

If a guy had a gun pulled on me and there were other people present and I felt that he would PROBABLY not shoot, then yeah, I would surrender my wallet.

If he was acting all wacky like he might kill us anyway, then I might try to pull on him, assuming I thought I had a reasonable chance of success.

If he was saying things like, "I'm gonna kill you!!", then I would try to judge the moment right and pull on him no matter what.

If I was alone and didn't have to worry about others, things would shift somewhat in favor of pulling my weapon (not to say an absolute probability however).

Finally, punks shoot and run all the time, for no apparent reason.

I can name 3 or 4 big cases in Denver just off the top of my head.

Do a google on any big city and "homicide" and I'm sure you'll get your fill of stories.

Biznotch, I think the reason you aren't getting random, pointless France-hate is for a coupla reasons:

1) We try to emphasize intelligent discussion here. Weaponry is a touchy topic, we know it, and thus try to be even more mature here than other boards on this site.

2) You are not an idiot, more importantly, you are not citing your country of origin as plausible excuse for your idiocy.

3) My personal take on the France issue is that we don't really dislike the average Frenchman, it is more that we dislike Parisians, and I'm betting that you know what sort of Parisian I am referring to. I've travelled in to France as a youngster. I met many friendly, normal folks there. Then I got to Paris. Blech. Then again, I say the same thing about the Bronx as compared to the rest of America.

As to your on-topic points, I'll just point vaguely at what Lebell wrote as he said pretty much what I would.

Oh yeah, I'm a Life Member of the NRA. We're not all mindless France-haters =)

Oh, sorry, I'm an NRA member as well and no, I don't hate the French although Moonduck has some good points about Parisians...

Biznatch: two things for you. 1 the problem with a punk that will rob you is that you dont know what they are capable of and if they have a weapon this makes it scarier to not know what they are capable of. Also Punks that will rob you might not be in the right frame of mind (because of drugs, lack of sleep just lost a job etc). Second I am an NRA member and I love the french. I recognize the differences we have in culture and politics but I still view each individuals actions as a determinant of their character. People that let politics decide which nations people they like are ignorant to say the least.

Awesome. Thanks a lot guys. (not sarcastic)
I like this thread and I like it even more when I find up the posters are open minded and haven't based their arguments against me on nationality issues but rather facts and provable points. I might as well shut up or say I'm sorry for interpreting the NRA as Freanch Hating cowboys. Thanks, and the fool here is me, because I'm the one that was stereotyping.
That said, I don't support gun carrying or anything, but it does show me that all NRA members do not have the same political views.
Your points on the "punks" who lost their job or might be under drug influence are true. There are some situations that can go out of hand because of factors that aren't always normal.
However, I still remain against carrying, because of the very often repeated argument: if he sees you're carrying, you're dead.
So a dude who knows how to use a gun, whether he's high or not, is normally still able to react to a guy pulling out is gun. That's why, I kind of persist, although there are some exceptions, most punks won't shoot you, so just hand him your wallet.
well...good night to all, I'm out to check the other sections of the well loved TFP...

Not really, biznotch. Look at it this way. I really have zero idea how many TFP members there are, but let's say roughly 5,000 - which is probably a low estimate. Now, with six people "arguing" their respective side of this debate, that means that .12% of the TFP users consider themselves proficient enough in Martial Arts or firearms to feel confident debating the subject. That's probably a low sampling of the general population.

And of course, a thread like this is going to attract the people who are proficient in one or the other. I have been involved in Martial Arts for about 23 years now - since I was 8 years old. I'm obviously very passionate about this subject, as are almost everyone in this thread. While someone who is proficient at knitting may have an opinion on this subject, they probably aren't going to passionately argue it in a thread like this.

Now, let's get to the real debate here... If your Dad pulled a gun on my Dad, my Dad could kick your Dad's ass... ;):lol:

My Dad would own your Dad, dude =)

Good call on the percentages, Baldrick.

I would recommend anyone arguing on the Kung Fu side to just stop now. If you have trained in MA for more than a couple years then you and I both know what we can do. You will not win any arguments here and will only get certain mods aggravated at you and find a warning waiting for you in you inbox next time you log on or you will get made fun of for your life changing training that you have dedicated yourself too. They have no respect for what you do. You turning your body into a weapon is ridiculous to them. Why stop eating potato chips and watching TV all day when you can go out and buy a bunch of hand guns and be just as safe?

And for the "Sensei Darkblack" comment, actually I am not that or a "Sifu" (proper term for a teacher in my line of MA) I teach a self-defense course, not martial arts. I study and train in martial arts under Sifu Pai Mono Lee who was trained Directly by Grand Master Daniel K Pai. I teach young people ways of getting out of nasty situations when there is no other hope. Sorry to break it to you but when a woman is getting raped a concealed gun is not saving her. The training I teach her just might though. I take pride in that.

Knock it all you want.

Again, all you martial artists out there don't even waste your breath.

I would recommend anyone arguing on the Martial Arts side to just stop now. If you have trained in MA for more than a couple years then you and I both know what we can do. You will not win any arguments here and will get made fun of for your life changing training that you have dedicated yourself too. They have no respect for what you do. You turning your body into a weapon is ridiculous to them. Why stop eating potato chips and watching TV all day when you can go out and buy a bunch of hand guns and be just as safe?

And for the "Sensei Darkblack" comment, actually I am not that or a "Sifu" (proper term for a teacher in my line of MA) I teach a self-defense course, not martial arts. I study and train in martial arts under Sifu Pai Mono Lee who was trained Directly by Grand Master Daniel K Pai. I teach young people ways of getting out of nasty situations when there is no other hope. Sorry to break it to you but when a woman is getting raped a concealed gun is not saving her. The training I teach her just might though. I take pride in that.

Knock it all you want.

Again, all you martial artists out there don't even waste your breath.

Nothing like a good ol' blanket generalization to sum things up, is there?

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

Maybe you didn't read this thread but I don't think I was the first one to make "good ol' blanket generalization to sum things up". So, Jimmy thanks for your input but next time read the thread before jumping in and putting someone on blast.

I'm glad you appreciate my input, particularly when I did read the thread. And particpated.

Are you sure you're paying attention?

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

Great reply!

I can see it was well thought out and contained great knowledge of the topic at hand.

The fact that you claim to have read and participated in the topic yet wait until my post to talk about making blanket generalizations, which was the point of that part of my post in rebuttal to the comments made through out this thread about martial artists, leads me to believe that you were just trolling. Congrats troll.

Thanks again!

Ok Darkblack, cut the crap. As someone who has trained in My-Jhong Law Horn Kung Fu ( Sifu Don Perry, Sihung GM Johnny Lee, Sigong Yi Yi Ting ) and with handguns, I can come down on both sides. There are situations where my MA training will get me out of the mess, and there are situations where it won't. For those situations where it won't, I carry a pistol.
These situations are more common than you apparently think; if the assailant is more than 1 meter or to away, he is out of range of any applicable MA technique, and only a pistol, employed quickly and accurately, will do the job. At extreme close range, ie grappling range, getting to the pistol becomes difficult, and MA training is definitely a plus. However, the final, deciding factor nearly always comes down to this; who posesses greated firepower, and the ability to employ it. Kung Fu is fine for me; I'm 21, male, and in good condition. However, what about the 60-year-old grandmother? What about women in general, most of whom lack the skeletal muscle mass to effectively employ MA against a ( probably ) male assailant who will ( probably ) outweigh them by 60lbs or more, and ( almost definitely ) have more than double their skeletal muscle on a pound-for-pound basis? There are female martial artists who could resist such an attack ( Laura Truly, Gini Lau, etc etc ) but they are VERY rare.
I am also someone who has, as you put it, turned my body into a weapon, and a very efficiant one at that. But I also know that I may one day be faced with a situation in which my own life, or the life of another person, depends on my ability to shoot quickly, accurately, and without hesitation. I've known people it's happened to, including more than one rape victim who would have been spared such indignity by the posession and use of a pistol. In all but one case, these were small women who would have had little or no hope of fending off an attacker using MA techniques; the size/weight/muscle mass ratios were too skewed. I've fought people who had that kind of advantage on me; I KNOW what that feels like. When you're THAT out-weighed and out-reached, the only thing you can hope for is for your opponent to get stupid. If he doesn't oblige you, you're capital-S Screwed.
I also resent your comments to the effect that skill with firearms is lazy in comparison to skill at MA. Again, as someone who's fairly decent with both, bullcrap. Ask Jeff Cooper or Ab Topperwein or Jack O'Connor or Carlos Hathcock how long it took them to get as good as they are/were; how many thousands of hours and tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition. How much practice, how many guns worn out and replaced. Being skilled with a firearm requires just as much practice; it simply requires a different -kind- of practice.
This kind of prattle reminds me of the Martial Artists you see on television every now and again who claim to be able to stop, dodge, or otherwise negate bullets. Not physically possible. Even Qigong can't negate physics. I've seen guys do some pretty incredible things, but if you're stupid enough to argue with a bullet, you deserve whatever you get.

Hey, why should I bother wasting my mental faculties, when it's pretty clear you haven't been?

Talk about taking yourself too seriously...
Blanket generalizations and now labels! When you turn ignorant, you really don't fool around do you?

I read the thread and made comments when I felt I had something to add. I may not have wasted the colossal amount of time on this that you have, but, hey, sometimes the rest of us have other things to do.
Sorry I couldn't devote every single moment in my life to trying to prove an impossible point to people I don't even know....

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

Alright now, don't make me brandish my Kung Fu Pimpslap! Stop with the pointless bickering and get back to the discussion at hand, pointless as it admittedly may be =)

Frankly, the solution has been clear since about the second post. The question is bunk as anyone that can should train in both. It is the artificial set-up of the question that is provoking the bickering. (Not a dig at the original poster, just a comment)

EDIT: I type like shite

Show me where I posted that I am not in agreement with you? My first post on this entire thread is up about 8 posts on this last page. I only posted once I noticed someone had brought up my name and only posted to warn the people arguing on MA side to not bother.

So you really believe that you can draw a gun before the guy pointing a gun at you can fire at you? Trust me, you cannot.

I disagree. I train women how to get out of these situations alive. They use their speed to negotiate strength differences. A 60 year old woman is not going to be able to pull a gun on a guy that just grabbed her from behind and is forcing her into a car. She will be able to reach down and eagle talon his sack and rip it upwards causing him to release one arm to grab her striking hand. That gives her an out to go for the eyes with dragon in search of pearl and then run away yelling for help. Or if she has a gun, she can then pull her gun and put a few slugs in the guy...

I disagree. That’s really all I can say. My teachers wife is about 100 pounds and she can kick the crap out of most men. I would put her against any rapist anyday.

I made these comments because of comments made about the ninja wannbe's and the Bruce lee wannabes. It was a rebuttal to the original attack. I know not all gun owners are lazy couch potatoes but the ones in my area are and I use them as a generalization. I was not trying to hurt anyones feelings and I apologize.


Again, I have never claimed to be able to dodge a bullet. I have claimed though that I can disarm someone in hands reach of me. All I have said in this thread is that people that argue that MA is best will get made fun of and ridiculed by you all and you have proven this true. I have not said in this thread anything negative about guns yet the attacks and accusations have been thrown around toward me. No biggy.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JimmyTheHutt
Hey, why should I bother wasting my mental faculties, when it's pretty clear you haven't been?[quote]

Hehe good one.

Again, I don't think you read this thread....I never devoted my every single moment of my life trying to prove an impossible point to people I don't even know....

I come to this community to discuss things and most of the board is moderated to allow such debates to go one. This one on the other hand isn't really. I really don't see where you are coming from with your attack because you have not addressed anything I have said in this post. Maybe you have mistaken someone else’s comments on page 1 or 2 for me. Wasn't me bro.

Anyway I don't want to argue. You have your gun. I have my martial arts. Let us hope that neither of us has to ever use what we have on another person.

Have a good one.