Have to agree with Kokoro on this one, gun's can't replace martial arts training because martial arts training is always at hand whilst a gun may not be. I live in Canada so I don't own any firearms but even if I was allowed to own one I likely wouldn't. Sure I have a gun to defend myself but I don't think I would be able to take a life.
Things happen when you least expect them so to be totally prepared you'd have to carry a gun around with you all the time which is inconvenient to say the least.
-
I am a martial artist. I have a concealed carry license, and actively carry. I'm all for the 2nd amendment.
Most shootings happen at close range within 10 feet.
The use of a firearm is a martial art in my opinion. You have to have a lot of discipline, skill and experience to use it properly.
People consider the use of melee weapons and bows and arrows to be martial arts. Why not the use of firearms?
I practice martial arts, but my focus is on survival not points. I carry as often as possible. There are places like federal buildings, military bases and schools where it's not legal to carry.
The way I look at it is martial arts gives me the ability to stop or avoid an incoming attack. Not every attack warrants lethal force. For example, against a knife, you'll have to use martial arts or combatives at close range. A knife wielding attacker is dangerous up to 21 feet.
My goal is to break distance to pull my pistol.
If my life, or the lives of my family are involved, I'm not using my hands and my feet, I'm using my gun.
NOTE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS NOT A FULLY CORRECT FACTUAL STATEMENT. SOME ARE OPINIONATED, based on various case studies and other authors.
Okay these are my points:
1. Gun is a level of physical force. A gun may be suitable against a knife wielding rapist who gets infuriated and charge in. On the other hand, if your friend got angry after you hit his car, you wouldn't want to shoot him. The same with police officers. If a riot member goes berserk for that short term time span. Having aikido or jujutsu will help him. Using a gun is excessive.
2. Guns as they are a part of physical force, should not be advertised as a miracle for safety. Having a gun does not ensure you are safe. Guns,. knives, martial arts, they're all part of physical force. There is literally no end to physical force. You got karate, I got knife + ballistics, you got knives, I got guns, you got guns, I got bigger guns, you got bigger guns I got some better illegal weapons, because after all, you are the one defending. It never ends. As long as you have a weapon, the ones attacking you who have no trouble breaking the law will out-match yours. Guns should not claim to be a miracle of safety, just like how martial arts ideally can't say it prepares you for everything.
3. Lethal force is problematic. Recently in a lot of news of my place, people gets in jail for using any weapons because they over-reacted. The police recently got sued because they shot down a teenager who was not moving but only threatening them with a weapon. Whether I agree with it or not, it's another matter. But there are other more accurate cases, where someone gets real aggressive and the defending person trusts too much of his fear that such conflict need to end with extreme use of force. In majority of cases. It's not. The fear of 'get (martial arts, guns) today! Or you'll get killed,' is more of advertising. Unless you live in such places, then life or death situations is not often.
In 21st century, you could live your entire life without going physical to get what you want. Please remember, if you are a civilian in a civilized society. Where there's group separation. If you do not actively engage with groups that are not part of the formal sector, there's not much to worry about your life. If you are in the police or military. A gun is a force that you need to use very well. But only if the situation demands it. Even the US military have detailed protocols on how much violence a soldier should deploy in a situation. You don't want to recklessly go over the limits.
3. Assassination vs confrontation. The gun is an amazing weapon of the military. Simple, you just make sure the other side's in range. But in 'civilized' society, there is no enemy. One type is where you tried to retreat but he does not retreat and wants to 'fight.' In those cases, lethal force is your secondary choice. In problems where it's more dangerous, are the sneak attacks. Where in my place, they just walk up to you with what seems to be a water bottle and pour bleach, or they carry whatever stuff they was hiding in plastic bags or magazines and do it. Unless you seriously gave them a reason, they won't likely to 'assassinate' as the legal consequences for them is grim. There are 1 or 2 idiots out there but they are rare. Conclusion remains though, that in confrontations where unless it's either you escape NOW or he will brutally hurt you if you stay, lethal force is not a primary choice. For those sneak attacks, a gun will not have a good possibility of being drawn in time.
Problem of lethal force. Not only is it a short term catastrophe to unleash your 'killer instinct,' by overriding your social psychology to do it, the ordeal is even more nightmarish afterwards In a lot of instances, it's hard to really decide if it was lawful or morale. Nothing will be crystal in court. Plus the aftermath will possibly produce repercussions. I've had one gang of people murder the close friends or anyone known to another gang's member because they've seriously injured that particular gang's member. A city scale riot broke out because of a 'self defense' case. A lot of public properties were alight. So unless you've analysed the threat in critical detail and you are sure no other choices are there. Don't use it.
Bottom line. Don't buy into their 'one tool miracle' idea. The fact is that your safety and survival is a result decided by MORE than 1 factor. So more than one side. It's a sin, God forgive my soul and life if I do claim guns are good or not. That's a different subject and I have no rights to say it. So I will not say it. Overall, you can't expect the gun to be an all encompassing tool for all problems. That's just the industry making money off you by consumerism and imagination.
As a police officer of 40+ yearss, I've long been of the opinion that combat shooting should be considered a martial art all on it's own.
The fellow above who thinks it's just about having an "itchy trigger finger" has obviously no knowledge of the subject.
The essential aspects of shooting are difficult enough. Being prepared and able to use the weapon in a combat situation is an entirely different kettle of fish.
As well, there are the legal aspects to consider.
Guns are an invaluable self-defense weapon. No matter who you're facing, a gun will give you the instant advantage in a fight. Not only that, showing the weapon could most likely stop a fight before it starts, which is greater than any form of victory. As well as this, it can better protect you in scenarios against other armed opponents at distances: after all, no martial art can help after you have a bullet in your gut.
guns are good in the right hands and i believe there should be a backround check for every purchase. but i live in nj where there is an extremely extensive backround check. i own 2 guns.
Firearms: Don't really care much about them.
Martial arts takes a degree of skill and knowledge. Guns, on the other hand, only requires an itchy finger to pull the trigger.
even though i have experience in martial arts i always carry a fake gun as a deterrent to fighting
Guns are great, because they allow people to defend themselves who don't practice martial arts, or who are too weak to defend themselves in a martial arts setting.
You can't usually efficiently hunt animals for food if you are trying to use martial arts, unless your art involves swordsmanship and archery. Guns are easier.
Guns have civilized society, so we no longer need martial arts. The days of savagery where people beat each other about the head are over.
a gun is only useful if you are willing to pull the trigger and kill a person otherwise they are completely useless.
so are you so willing to take another persons life? do you think its that easy?
for many it is not
peole make moronic claims that guns replace martial arts. that is the most bs statement ever. even gun owners dont carry a gun 24/7 on them that is imposible. there are always moments when you dont or can't carry it. there are many places you cant carry a gun.
As a martial artist, what is your stance on guns?
I am very pro gun rights. I know a lot about firearms and firearm safety. That said, I don't own any lol
As far as them being used to release some stress in the firing range? i am fine with that.
But generally guns are for pu$$ies as well as the use of any other external tool... what happened to live to fight another day? settle our differences like men... MANO A MANO!
too each their own. I personally think that they are for war and think that there are too many people like Zimmerman who own them and use them as a crutch or to bully others but there are many who have them under lock and key
