Advantage Martial Arts Has Over Guns

PhotonGuy

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
4,304
Reaction score
599
When it comes to stopping power and effectiveness in a fight it's obvious that a gun is much better than the martial arts for such stuff. No matter how good you are in the martial arts and what skills you've got, it wouldn't be that smart to go up against somebody who's got a gun when you yourself are unarmed. However there is one main advantage that the martial arts does have over guns and that's how its viewed in court and dealing with the legal aftermath if you ever do use martial arts vs if you ever use a gun.

As the martial arts is nowhere in the ballpark in effectiveness in a fight when compared to guns, as such the way martial arts are viewed in court is nowhere in the ballpark with how guns are viewed in court. if you shoot somebody, even if its in legitimate self defense, you can expect the courts to come down really hard on you. You can be looking at both criminal and civil charges. If on the other hand you just use your hands, feet, ect. to deal with a troublemaker in a confrontation the court will be most likely much lighter on you. So that is an advantage of not using guns or any weapons for that matter, you're not going to get in trouble with the law the way you would if you used a gun, or for that matter another weapon such as a knife, stick, ect.

You could even use that as a defense in court, that you didn't use a gun or any weapons. You could argue that the martial arts is not the same as a gun and as such the courts shouldn't be hard on you as if you did use a gun. So that is the main advantage of martial arts, in self defense.
 
When it comes to stopping power and effectiveness in a fight it's obvious that a gun is much better than the martial arts for such stuff. No matter how good you are in the martial arts and what skills you've got, it wouldn't be that smart to go up against somebody who's got a gun when you yourself are unarmed. However there is one main advantage that the martial arts does have over guns and that's how its viewed in court and dealing with the legal aftermath if you ever do use martial arts vs if you ever use a gun.

As the martial arts is nowhere in the ballpark in effectiveness in a fight when compared to guns, as such the way martial arts are viewed in court is nowhere in the ballpark with how guns are viewed in court. if you shoot somebody, even if its in legitimate self defense, you can expect the courts to come down really hard on you. You can be looking at both criminal and civil charges. If on the other hand you just use your hands, feet, ect. to deal with a troublemaker in a confrontation the court will be most likely much lighter on you. So that is an advantage of not using guns or any weapons for that matter, you're not going to get in trouble with the law the way you would if you used a gun, or for that matter another weapon such as a knife, stick, ect.

You could even use that as a defense in court, that you didn't use a gun or any weapons. You could argue that the martial arts is not the same as a gun and as such the courts shouldn't be hard on you as if you did use a gun. So that is the main advantage of martial arts, in self defense.

Do not, and I mean ever, give legal advice. Not only is this incorrect, it is potentially highly damaging to any case you actually pled to.

You are not a lawyer. You do not deal with judges. You do not know the case studies. You do not know the applications of the law, or how it can be (and is) interpreted. You are not familiar with the different legal systems, let alone the different local laws within a singular system that is out there. This is purely your own uninformed and inaccurate take on what you believe the case should be. It is not what it is.

Do not ever, EVER, give legal advice.
 
When it comes to stopping power and effectiveness in a fight it's obvious that a gun is much better than the martial arts for such stuff. No matter how good you are in the martial arts and what skills you've got, it wouldn't be that smart to go up against somebody who's got a gun when you yourself are unarmed. However there is one main advantage that the martial arts does have over guns and that's how its viewed in court and dealing with the legal aftermath if you ever do use martial arts vs if you ever use a gun.

As the martial arts is nowhere in the ballpark in effectiveness in a fight when compared to guns, as such the way martial arts are viewed in court is nowhere in the ballpark with how guns are viewed in court. if you shoot somebody, even if its in legitimate self defense, you can expect the courts to come down really hard on you. You can be looking at both criminal and civil charges. If on the other hand you just use your hands, feet, ect. to deal with a troublemaker in a confrontation the court will be most likely much lighter on you. So that is an advantage of not using guns or any weapons for that matter, you're not going to get in trouble with the law the way you would if you used a gun, or for that matter another weapon such as a knife, stick, ect.

You could even use that as a defense in court, that you didn't use a gun or any weapons. You could argue that the martial arts is not the same as a gun and as such the courts shouldn't be hard on you as if you did use a gun. So that is the main advantage of martial arts, in self defense.
Wow.
 
When it comes to stopping power and effectiveness in a fight it's obvious that a gun is much better than the martial arts for such stuff. No matter how good you are in the martial arts and what skills you've got, it wouldn't be that smart to go up against somebody who's got a gun when you yourself are unarmed. However there is one main advantage that the martial arts does have over guns and that's how its viewed in court and dealing with the legal aftermath if you ever do use martial arts vs if you ever use a gun.

As the martial arts is nowhere in the ballpark in effectiveness in a fight when compared to guns, as such the way martial arts are viewed in court is nowhere in the ballpark with how guns are viewed in court. if you shoot somebody, even if its in legitimate self defense, you can expect the courts to come down really hard on you. You can be looking at both criminal and civil charges. If on the other hand you just use your hands, feet, ect. to deal with a troublemaker in a confrontation the court will be most likely much lighter on you. So that is an advantage of not using guns or any weapons for that matter, you're not going to get in trouble with the law the way you would if you used a gun, or for that matter another weapon such as a knife, stick, ect.

You could even use that as a defense in court, that you didn't use a gun or any weapons. You could argue that the martial arts is not the same as a gun and as such the courts shouldn't be hard on you as if you did use a gun. So that is the main advantage of martial arts, in self defense.
Use of deadly force varies wildly state to state, not to mention other countries. I would recommend taking a concealed carry course in your area. They will inform you about your local laws.
 
Yes, the courts also take a very dim view on anyone using thermonuclear devices on would be muggers and, ironically, would be more lenient if you used a large gun instead.
 
You are of course a lot less likely to kill someone fighting them as you would be if you shot them.

Which also saves a lot of hassle.
 
You are of course a lot less likely to kill someone fighting them as you would be if you shot them.

Which also saves a lot of hassle.
Ooo dont you just hate (court) hassle?
 
Use of deadly force varies wildly state to state, not to mention other countries. I would recommend taking a concealed carry course in your area. They will inform you about your local laws.
Such a course would only focus on what the legal consequences of shooting somebody would be, it wouldn't really get into the legal consequences if you were to use just your hands, ect.
 
Yes, the courts also take a very dim view on anyone using thermonuclear devices on would be muggers and, ironically, would be more lenient if you used a large gun instead.
This isn't The Comedy Cafe, your post would be more suited for that.
 
When it comes to stopping power and effectiveness in a fight it's obvious that a gun is much better than the martial arts for such stuff. No matter how good you are in the martial arts and what skills you've got, it wouldn't be that smart to go up against somebody who's got a gun when you yourself are unarmed. However there is one main advantage that the martial arts does have over guns and that's how its viewed in court and dealing with the legal aftermath if you ever do use martial arts vs if you ever use a gun.

As the martial arts is nowhere in the ballpark in effectiveness in a fight when compared to guns, as such the way martial arts are viewed in court is nowhere in the ballpark with how guns are viewed in court. if you shoot somebody, even if its in legitimate self defense, you can expect the courts to come down really hard on you. You can be looking at both criminal and civil charges. If on the other hand you just use your hands, feet, ect. to deal with a troublemaker in a confrontation the court will be most likely much lighter on you. So that is an advantage of not using guns or any weapons for that matter, you're not going to get in trouble with the law the way you would if you used a gun, or for that matter another weapon such as a knife, stick, ect.

You could even use that as a defense in court, that you didn't use a gun or any weapons. You could argue that the martial arts is not the same as a gun and as such the courts shouldn't be hard on you as if you did use a gun. So that is the main advantage of martial arts, in self defense.
this is pretty consistent with what most people have said in other threads. Self defense is basically where one says, yeah, I broke a law, assaulted someone (or worse), but I had to for reasons that make it okay.

So if you use a gun, even if you are eventually exonerated (eg, George Zimmerman), your life may be permanently changed. Fighting, or as drop bear said, simply not killing someone, makes life a lot easier. Its easier to argue that you didnt over react, didnt use excessive force, if you dont pull out your gun and shoot someone.

If I understand what you mean, then I agree somewhat.

No one so far is playing lawyer, and for what its worth, I dont think anyone, anywhere is in any danger of taking anything in this thread as legal advice. So far, nothing said in this thread is any different than what has been discussed many times here in the last. My only gripe with this thread is that you could have pulled up and old thread so we dont have to repeat ourselves.
 
Such a course would only focus on what the legal consequences of shooting somebody would be, it wouldn't really get into the legal consequences if you were to use just your hands, ect.
It focuses on the use of lethal force and the grounds to use such, regardless of type. I used to teach the course, and I have taught seminars to LEOs on unarmed combat. It is important to get all of the information. Just a suggestion.
 
Last edited:
When it comes to stopping power and effectiveness in a fight it's obvious that a gun is much better than the martial arts for such stuff. No matter how good you are in the martial arts and what skills you've got, it wouldn't be that smart to go up against somebody who's got a gun when you yourself are unarmed. However there is one main advantage that the martial arts does have over guns and that's how its viewed in court and dealing with the legal aftermath if you ever do use martial arts vs if you ever use a gun.

As the martial arts is nowhere in the ballpark in effectiveness in a fight when compared to guns, as such the way martial arts are viewed in court is nowhere in the ballpark with how guns are viewed in court. if you shoot somebody, even if its in legitimate self defense, you can expect the courts to come down really hard on you. You can be looking at both criminal and civil charges. If on the other hand you just use your hands, feet, ect. to deal with a troublemaker in a confrontation the court will be most likely much lighter on you. So that is an advantage of not using guns or any weapons for that matter, you're not going to get in trouble with the law the way you would if you used a gun, or for that matter another weapon such as a knife, stick, ect.

You could even use that as a defense in court, that you didn't use a gun or any weapons. You could argue that the martial arts is not the same as a gun and as such the courts shouldn't be hard on you as if you did use a gun. So that is the main advantage of martial arts, in self defense.
I'm not even digging into this right now, because I've read it twice, and it's all over the place wrongness. Let me simply say that before you start talking about self defense, courts, and the law... you need to really know a whole lot more than you show here.
 
Im not, Im just stating my opinion which is based a large part on common sense.
You are stating your opinion on a topic of which you lack even basic expertise to have common sense about. And anyone who knows ANYTHING about the legal system knows that common sense is about as far from it as penguins are from the grizzly bears.
 
Ooo dont you just hate (court) hassle?
I really do. Even as part of the prosecution. It is a day I would rather spend doing something else.

If someone burst in to my home at 3am. And I shoot them. I don't get to go back to bed. I have to fart around explaining to police why I shot them.

I have to clean a whole bunch of home invader off my walls.

It is just hassle after hassle I would rather not deal with.
 
You are stating your opinion on a topic of which you lack even basic expertise to have common sense about. And anyone who knows ANYTHING about the legal system knows that common sense is about as far from it as penguins are from the grizzly bears.

This is important. Court is less about the written law and more about the amount of cash spent on a lawer.

You don't roll up to court and say. "Well the law says this. And I interpret it like that. So therefore I am good to go. "
 
If someone burst in to my home at 3am. And I shoot them. I don't get to go back to bed. I have to fart around explaining to police why I shot them.
Out of interest, will they take your word on the reasons for killing an intruder?
I have to clean a whole bunch of home invader off my walls.
Only big gory bits. The rest can wait
It is just hassle after hassle I would rather not deal with.
I hates the hassles. 丐亢
 
This is important. Court is less about the written law and more about the amount of cash spent on a lawer.

You don't roll up to court and say. "Well the law says this. And I interpret it like that. So therefore I am good to go. "
Has anyone seen the recent film, Anatomy of a Fall? I know its only fiction but seeing how the French court system works was a really eye opener. So different from British/American systems.
 

Latest Discussions

Back
Top