FMA = "Firearm" Martial Arts?

[Carol]

I just read a comment from someone that believes if you aren't an advocate of firearms for self-defense purposes, you have no business studying, practicing or promoting Filipino Martial Arts.

Do you personally believe this to be true?

 

[Carol]

Personally I haven't seen a firearms focus. I don't train with mock guns, or practice pistol-whipping, or hear of times when we're encouraged to train with a blue gun in a concealed holster to get the feel for the restrictions of movement. But, I'm also a relative noobie.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

The vibe I get is that to train with weapons of one kind but denounce weapons of another kind is hypocrisy, and this angle I agree with.

 

[arnisador]

The vibe I get is that to train with weapons of one kind but denounce weapons of another kind is hypocrisy, and this angle I agree with.

Yeah, that's my thought too.

 

[Guro Harold]

I just read a comment from someone that believes if you aren't an advocate of firearms for self-defense purposes, you have no business studying, practicing or promoting Filipino Martial Arts.

Do you personally believe this to be true?

I can understand this point of view to a degree in the field of combatives.

 

[Bumblebee]

The vibe I get is that to train with weapons of one kind but denounce weapons of another kind is hypocrisy, and this angle I agree with.

After reading "if you aren't an advocate of firearms for self-defense purposes, you have no business studying, practicing or promoting Filipino Martial Arts." I thought, and still think that's a pretty dumb statement. What if the practitioner just wants to learn it because they think it's fun not necessarily for self-defense or anything like that. After reading your (Andy Mynihan's) post I sort of understand now. It's true to learn these weapons, but neglect others, that doesn't make much sense. However, I still disagree with the original statement, because I believe that you should be able to study, practice, and promote whatever you want.