Going Armed: Understanding Utility and Hoplophobia

[Black Bear]

We have had these discussions on what constitutes a martial art. Sharp Phil has written a thoughtful article on this, I've put out my thoughts. Whatever. I guess I agree somewhat with moving target, in the sense that I don't think folks ought to pooh-pooh others who don't do weapons, as not being "real" martial artists.

 

[KenpoTex]

First of all: you guys have made some good points. However there are a few things I'd like to address.

I don't believe in gun bans. I do believe in gun control. Gun control, in my opinion, is education. I think that anyone who purchases a gun should undergo a mandatory six week class that teaches safety, parts and cleaning, shooting, and usage scenarios. This class needs to mandatory for ALL firearm sales and should be taken for EVERY firearm purchased.

To add to this point, I would like to see a written exam and a proficiency test become a contingency toward obtaining a "permit for ownership". In my opinion, this is the only real gun control because incompetent users would be weeded out.

With all due respect, I could not disagree more. One thing that I think many people forget or choose to ignore is the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is a right not a priveledge to be restricted, controlled, or legislated every time some politician want to win popularity points by demonstrating his concern for crime prevention/safety. As long as you are a law-abiding citizen you should have the right to own firearms regardless of whether you are "competent" with them. I'm not saying that people should carry guns around for SD without knowing how, and more importantly when, to use them; that would be irresponsible and negligent. However, to impose those types of regulations would be assinine. One point to consider is the fact that civilians kill about seven times more people in self-defense shootings than police do but they are about 11 times less likely to shoot the wrong person (I don't remember exactly where I saw that stat. but I'm sure I could find it again if anybody has any doubts).
Another point I would raise is: why don't we impose those types of requirements on people who want to buy a car or obtain their drivers license? Many more people are killed in automobile accidents every year than are killed by firearms regardless of cause (homicide, suicide, accidental discharge etc.). Yeah, I know, somebody's going to say that auto accidents are just that: accidents; whereas most fatalities due to firearms are homicides so that's not a good comparison. I would disagree, all the regulations on the books fail to eliminate crime so I think the point of this discussion is the deaths that occur as the result of incompetence or negligence which is why I used the automobile comparison.

Meahwhile, those dedicated to the goal of gun ownership are not denied that right.

What is the "goal of gun ownership?" There are many reasons that people choose to own guns: self-defense, hunting, recreation etc. just as there are many reasons to study the martial-arts. This raises another problem with mandatory training: is everyone that buys a gun regardless of type going to go throught the same type of training or are we going to have a separate course for each type of weapon. For example, If I buy a .30-06 I don't really need a class on urban self-defense tactics. And by the way, most if not all states have hunter's safety classes and many of the states that allow concealed carry require some sort of a training course before giving someone their permit. Interestingly enough, statistics show that states that have more restrictive concealed carry laws have higher crime rates due to the fact that not as many people want to jump through all the hoops to get a permit, therefore there are not as many law-abiding citizens walking around armed.

Okay, I'll shut up now, I've rambled on long enough...

 

[Gary Crawford]

"The object of War is not to die for your country..it's to make the other poor bastard to die for his" Goerge S. Patton

 

[Crazy Chihuahua]

OC (like Fox) is typically a much better man-stopper than pistols (...) People hit with Fox are incapacitated with much greater efficacy than pistol wounds.

Some people are highly tolerant to OC. There are people who are almost immune to OC sprays. NOBODY is immune to a bullet.

I'm not ragging on OC, I'm just saying, it's not the ultimate weapon or anything, you know?

 

[Kris]

Kenpotex,

Didn't mean offence to you, or anyone else, i can understand why you carry weapons, it's your choice, i'm not trying to tell you you are wrong, sorry if it came across like that, i'm just piss poor at developing a coherent argument :boing2:

The point about OC is true, when i was at one of our infantry training schools they had a guy over from Poland who was totally unaffected by CS gas, he was doing push ups with no worries in a room absolutely full of the stuff, i myself was buggered up by it quite nicely.

 

[KenpoTex]

Kenpotex,

Didn't mean offence to you, or anyone else, i can understand why you carry weapons, it's your choice, i'm not trying to tell you you are wrong, sorry if it came across like that, i'm just piss poor at developing a coherent argument

The point about OC is true, when i was at one of our infantry training schools they had a guy over from Poland who was totally unaffected by CS gas, he was doing push ups with no worries in a room absolutely full of the stuff, i myself was buggered up by it quite nicely.

You didn't offend me, believe me I would have let you know if you had...lol. I just love a good debate/argument.

"The object of War is not to die for your country..it's to make the other poor bastard to die for his" Goerge S. Patton

Gotta love Patton

 

[Makalakumu]

With all due respect, I could not disagree more. One thing that I think many people forget or choose to ignore is the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is a right not a priveledge to be restricted, controlled, or legislated every time some politician want to win popularity points by demonstrating his concern for crime prevention/safety. As long as you are a law-abiding citizen you should have the right to own firearms regardless of whether you are "competent" with them....

As Phil correctly states, weapons are "force multipliers". Knowing how to use the weapon properly is ESSENTIAL. In my world, I would deny a gun user the right to use a gun if they had proven themselves incompetent and irresponsible, just as I would not want people in my dojang who have proven themselves irresponsible with the techniques that I teach. As martial artists we have a great responsibility when it comes to dealing out the power of death. This responsibility needs to extend to gun ownership. The second amendment states that you have the right to bear arms. Our founding fathers wanted us to be able to hunt or protect ourselves. Even they would take a gun away from a proven idiot, though.


[/QUOTE]I'm not saying that people should carry guns around for SD without knowing how, and more importantly when, to use them; that would be irresponsible and negligent. However, to impose those types of regulations would be assinine. One point to consider is the fact that civilians kill about seven times more people in self-defense shootings than police do but they are about 11 times less likely to shoot the wrong person (I don't remember exactly where I saw that stat. but I'm sure I could find it again if anybody has any doubts)..

People do know when others are carrying. Point in case is the frequency of attacks with Alaska Bears I posted earlier. Carrying weapons increases bravado, esspecially if the bearer lacks the neccessary training.

Another point I would raise is: why don't we impose those types of requirements on people who want to buy a car or obtain their drivers license? Many more people are killed in automobile accidents every year than are killed by firearms regardless of cause (homicide, suicide, accidental discharge etc.). Yeah, I know, somebody's going to say that auto accidents are just that: accidents; whereas most fatalities due to firearms are homicides so that's not a good comparison. I would disagree, all the regulations on the books fail to eliminate crime so I think the point of this discussion is the deaths that occur as the result of incompetence or negligence which is why I used the automobile comparison..

We regulate automobiles. I have to take a proficiency and written exam in MN to get my drivers license. I think we need to get tougher on these tests also.

What is the "goal of gun ownership?" There are many reasons that people choose to own guns: self-defense, hunting, recreation etc. just as there are many reasons to study the martial-arts. This raises another problem with mandatory training: is everyone that buys a gun regardless of type going to go throught the same type of training or are we going to have a separate course for each type of weapon. For example, If I buy a .30-06 I don't really need a class on urban self-defense tactics. And by the way, most if not all states have hunter's safety classes and many of the states that allow concealed carry require some sort of a training course before giving someone their permit. Interestingly enough, statistics show that states that have more restrictive concealed carry laws have higher crime rates due to the fact that not as many people want to jump through all the hoops to get a permit, therefore there are not as many law-abiding citizens walking around armed.

The classes need to be designed to fit the weapon. If you buy a hunting rifle, you should be taught how to use it, when to use it, and when not to use it. I can't tell you how many people die during hunting season up here because people don't understand the distance involved when they shoot rifles. People are afraid to walk out of their houses. Handguns, rifles, and shotguns need specialized training and proficiency should be demanded by the people.

 

[KenpoTex]

As martial artists we have a great responsibility when it comes to dealing out the power of death. This responsibility needs to extend to gun ownership.

In my world, I would deny a gun user the right to use a gun if they had proven themselves incompetent and irresponsible

I agree that there is a great deal of responsibility both in being a martial-artist and in carrying a firearm. However, I don't believe that any type of training would make a difference. If someone screws up and/or violates a law then yeah, bust him/her. But I don't think it's the government's responsibility to regulate this area (not to mention the fact that most of the governments ideas when it comes to gun safety are bull).

People do know when others are carrying. Point in case is the frequency of attacks with Alaska Bears I posted earlier. Carrying weapons increases bravado, esspecially if the bearer lacks the neccessary training.

I disagree, everyone I've ever known who has had a concealed-carry permit approaches confrontations in the same way as a responsible martial-artist. In other words, they go above and beyond the norm to avoid violence because of the fact that they know they will be held to a higher standard than the average idiot on the street.

The classes need to be designed to fit the weapon. If you buy a hunting rifle, you should be taught how to use it, when to use it, and when not to use it.

Last time I checked this was the type of thing covered by hunter's safety courses(of course I've always felt those were redundant b/c that's the kind of stuff parents are supposed to teach their kids). Also, aside from the fact that having a training course for each gun or type of gun would be immpossible, I don't know that I want the government to have any more control over the gun industry than they already have.

 

[loki09789]

Though the article was addressing the mentallity on the 'anti-weapon' side of the martial issue from the POV of a weapon-ist/weapon inclusivist, I think that there were two/three clear points:

1. The mental, conscious or not, motivations of those who are critical of weapon users in SD.
2. The role of the weapon in the SD continuum as a 'force multiplier.'
3. Training and understanding.

Well, done. How the discussion is getting to 'he said he could beat anyone' or all the other stuff is ridiculous to me. He wrote confidently and strongly. Some took this for arrogance. I call it clear confidence and understanding of a self and position. Agree or disagree but don't 'project.'

As an article, with limited text space, of course there are other factors that come into play when considering 'force multiplier' tools - whether guns or other weapons.

SELF DEFENSE FOCUSED training is about being responsive and adaptable so you can use the best weapon (flesh/brain/stick/gun/words...) at the best time in a very 'not-best' situation. That requires a thorough understanding of fed/state or province/local laws on a lot of issues. It requires a thorough understanding of yourself (fear/habits/good or bad qualities...). It also requires a lot of understanding of your chosen system of training, with an HONEST evaluation of weakness as well as strengths. If you don't know where your holes are, someone will let you know by slipping a knife right in them.

If you are arguing tactics/style/author motivations... you are not discussing the same topic as the premise the article was based on, therefore, you are not discussing well. Phil is a proponent of Self Defense as a whole, not just a style or weapon. He is also a proponent of solid training in all aspects of that whole... I don't do the same thing as he does, or know the man personally, but I am confident enough in my views, though different at times, and myself, though my background and training are different, to be able to recognize his points and compare what I am doing to what he is saying. If it is different, but I believe I am right for me - fine.