Advantage Martial Arts Has Over Guns

[Steve]

Shot placement is vastly more important than caliber. I wouldn’t say that most handgun rounds are ballistically deficient, just are so when compared to high velocity rifle rounds. The issue is that during the engagement your body dumps adrenaline, your field of vision narrows and your heart pounds in your ears. People that are inexperienced will focus on everything except their front sight post.

We have discussed this a few times. Not a ton of information on accuracy rates for cops, but what studies that do exist suggest is in the area of 15 to 20%.

 

[HighKick]

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.

Good luck with that. There is a modicum of truth to the "lethal weapon" analogy.

 

[gyoja]

We have discussed this a few times. Not a ton of information on accuracy rates for cops, but what studies that do exist suggest is in the area of 15 to 20%.

Unfortunately, a lot of LEOs are not really shooters. It’s really a culture that you have to embrace to build proficiency.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Exactly. I took a round to the head and a three round burst to the plate at close range. Many people take three to four rounds before they go down. Rifle rounds are definitely not magic. Shot placement and ammo type is key. If the other two guys that shot me had been using AP rounds, it may have been them walking out that day.

Unfortunately, a lot of LEOs are not really shooters. It’s really a culture that you have to embrace to build proficiency.

I will go one step beyond that and say that shooting accurately is a perishable skill.

 

[gyoja]

I will go one step beyond that and say that shooting accurately is a perishable skill.

Absolutely. Like anything else, you have to work it into your training cycle at least weekly.

 

[Dirty Dog]

There was a case of a woman taking a handgun class who accidentally shot herself in the foot. She was flown into a hospital and her foot was patched up and she was back the next day and finished the class. Had it been a rifle round it probably would've been no more foot and she would be fitted with a prosthetic.

Your knowledge of medicine is every bit as good as your legal knowledge.

 

[drop bear]

Unfortunately, lots of documented cases of cops going down with wounds that a bad guy pushes through because the cop has bought into the "deadly bullet" story. I don't have students -- professional or not -- practice dying. It'll come naturally. I train them to assume that they will keep going...

Do you teach them to stand and trade. Or run for cover.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

We have discussed this a few times. Not a ton of information on accuracy rates for cops, but what studies that do exist suggest is in the area of 15 to 20%.

Do you teach them to stand and trade. Or run for cover.

That’s subjective, you know better.

 

[Galahad25]

I will go one step beyond that and say that shooting accurately is a perishable skill.

Certainly with a handgun. Long barrel is a bit different as long as it is true to the user and they eyesight hasn't gone bad.

 

[gyoja]

Certainly with a handgun. Long barrel is a bit different as long as it is true to the user and they eyesight hasn't gone bad.

Trust me, it’s still perishable. In my prime, we would start shooting at 1200 meters. I can still hit that far, but not as consistent or quick as I’m out of practice.

 

[Hot Lunch]

I think people are coming down on PhotonGuy unfairly. I don't know about how the use of martial arts is perceived in court, but much of what he's saying about the use of firearms is why USCCA and CCW Safe (the later of which, I am a member) and other firearm self-defense insurance companies exist. If you argue that such products are snake oil, you'd have to look at the fact that when these companies first started up, there were many critics - including lawmakers and other politicians - who accused them of helping people get away with murder.

I'm not going to claim that (presumably, unarmed) martial arts are better for you from a legal standpoint than firearms. But if you'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6, martial arts and firearms definitely compliment each other. Martial arts gives you the option of non-lethal force that can serve as your first resort, that non-martial artists who carry do not have.

 

[gyoja]

I think people are coming down on PhotonGuy unfairly. I don't know about how the use of martial arts is perceived in court, but much of what he's saying about the use of firearms is why USCCA and CCW Safe (the later of which, I am a member) and other firearm self-defense insurance companies exist. If you argue that such products are snake oil, you'd have to look at the fact that when these companies first started up, there were many critics - including lawmakers and other politicians - who accused them of helping people get away with murder.

I'm not going to claim that (presumably, unarmed) martial arts are better for you from a legal standpoint than firearms. But if you'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6, martial arts and firearms definitely compliment each other. Martial arts gives you the option of non-lethal force that can serve as your first resort, that non-martial artists who carry do not have.

For me, I don’t see firearms any differently than other weapons that are taught in a martial arts system. Both armed and unarmed combat require discipline and the good sense to know when to walk away, when you can.

 

[Hot Lunch]

For me, I don’t see firearms any differently than other weapons that are taught in a martial arts system. Both armed and unarmed combat require discipline and the good sense to know when to walk away, when you can.

Yes, but when the option to walk away is no longer there, a gun owner who carries but cannot fight has the choice between taking the beating and pulling out the firearm. The person who can fight has that option in the middle that the other person doesn't have. Sending someone home with a black eye is far easier on a sane human being's conscious than sending them to the morgue.

 

[Fungus]

One problem with "better weapons" (wether arms or not) is that once your opponent even SUSPECT or knows you HAVE a it, you give your opponent the TIME to prepare his more perful weapon. Eventually everyone is walking around beeing more inclined to respond with more force.

I think the secret weapon is best. So no gun-flashing or "I am a black belt" t-shirt

OTOH, if one is considering the chance of beeing mugged, you don't want to appear to the be easiest pray, so it's a balance I think.

 

[GreenieMeanie]

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.

“Stopping power” is a word often thrown around by people, without knowing what it means. The main difference between other weapons and a gun, is that the gun achieves force at distance. Well, technically you can use a sling shot, or throw something, but it’s a hell of a lot harder. I think the only successful throw I’ve seen, was footage of someone tossing a traffic cone onto someone’s head, in Glasgow.

“More lethal” is another one people like to throw around. If you shoot someone in the T-zone, stab them in their left ventricle, throw a pipe at their temple, or bang their head against the edge of a hard table—the result is the same.

Lethal force is lethal force. Some places care how you apply it, others only care if it’s justified. Some of that is explicitly written in law, some of it is jurisdictional culture.

Violence isn’t a movie. You’re not gonna pull a Jason Bourne, or a Road House unless you’ve trained for decades into particular areas of martial arts. Even then, it’s always 50/50. You may beat him up, but you may also drop dead in the process.

A lot can happen once that first punch is thrown, and just because you were unarmed, doesn’t mean you’re safe legally.

Self-defense training, without providing context for the use of force continuum, deescalation, avoidance, and talking to authorities after, is not proper self-defense training.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Certainly with a handgun. Long barrel is a bit different as long as it is true to the user and they eyesight hasn't gone bad.

I respectfully disagree with you on this. If you shoot past 600 and work your skills from different positions, it takes regular practice to make accurate first shot hits.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Yes, but when the option to walk away is no longer there, a gun owner who carries but cannot fight has the choice between taking the beating and pulling out the firearm. The person who can fight has that option in the middle that the other person doesn't have. Sending someone home with a black eye is far easier on a sane human being's conscious than sending them to the morgue.

I agree with you here. Your post made wonder about the implications of someone who can’t fight carrying a gun that they may not be ready or willing to use. Do you or others feel this may increase their personal risk rather than decrease it? How about the risk to those around them? If someone robs them, they may well take and or use that firearm against that victim or others. Maybe this is for a different thread.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

One problem with "better weapons" (wether arms or not) is that once your opponent even SUSPECT or knows you HAVE a it, you give your opponent the TIME to prepare his more perful weapon. Eventually everyone is walking around beeing more inclined to respond with more force.

I think the secret weapon is best. So no gun-flashing or "I am a black belt" t-shirt

OTOH, if one is considering the chance of beeing mugged, you don't want to appear to the be easiest pray, so it's a balance I think.

Gun flashing is Brandishing, which is a crime. Don’t do it, ever.

 

[Hot Lunch]

I agree with you here. Your post made wonder about the implications of someone who can’t fight carrying a gun that they may not be ready or willing to use. Do you or others feel this may increase their personal risk rather than decrease it? How about the risk to those around them? If someone robs them, they may well take and or use that firearm against that victim or others. Maybe this is for a different thread.

I think it could go either way, which is why I was saying that carrying a firearm and martial arts training compliment each other.

If we go back to the George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin case, fighting Trayvon Martin off was not an option for Zimmerman. Because he couldn't. That's why he resorted to his firearms. If Zimmerman was able and willing to fight unarmed, then the results could have been a lot different with both men being alive today.

 

[Hot Lunch]

Gun flashing is Brandishing, which is a crime. Don’t do it, ever.

That's kind of murky in some states. Some allow for "defensive display," but the laws about that in the states that do allow it tend to be very confusing. But other states don't allow it all. Which is unfortunate. I'd like the option of having someone back off after seeing the gun so that everyone goes home unharmed.