Gun Rights and Martial Arts

[PhotonGuy]

What I know from common sense and what I also know from my own experience is that most martial artists believe in gun rights. Martial artists believe in being able to take care of themselves and that includes being able to use and having access to guns. Bruce Lee himself once said in an interview that if an intruder broke into his house and attacked him and his family that the first means of defense he would use would be his .45 pistol. However, one of the main arguments against guns when it comes to martial artists is that if you're a martial artist you shouldn't need guns. You should be good enough to fight off an attacker without guns. That a real man, or martial artist, shouldn't need a gun to take care of themselves.

 

[Blindside]

What I know from common sense and what I also know from my own experience is that most martial artists believe in gun rights. Martial artists believe in being able to take care of themselves and that includes being able to use and having access to guns. Bruce Lee himself once said in an interview that if an intruder broke into his house and attacked him and his family that the first means of defense he would use would be his .45 pistol. However, one of the main arguments against guns when it comes to martial artists is that if you're a martial artist you shouldn't need guns. You should be good enough to fight off an attacker without guns. That a real man, or martial artist, shouldn't need a gun to take care of themselves.

Um, have you read the many ongoing threads about gun control on this forum? I know several martial artists who aren't into firearms as self-defense tools, I don't agree with them, but that is there perogative. There is a aikido school in West Seattle that has a giant sign in the window advertising it as "the non-violent martial art." Can you imagine them advocating the practice of firearms for self-defense? People do martial arts for many different reasons, not all of them self-defense based.

 

[Takai]

Well said Blindside. You really cannot accurately paint all martial artists philosophies with such a broad stroke. Firearm use is a very personal decision. I have a fellow practitioner that has gone round and round with me on numerous occasions about how "unfair" the use of firearms are. Does that make him a better or lesser martial artist? I personally think it just makes him an individual one.

 

[K-man]

What I know from common sense and what I also know from my own experience is that most martial artists believe in gun rights.

Depends on what you classify to be gun 'rights' and what sort of controls you are prepared to accept. I certainly believe in gun 'rights' but not without significant control. :asian:

 

[ballen0351]

However, one of the main arguments against guns when it comes to martial artists is that if you're a martial artist you shouldn't need guns. You should be good enough to fight off an attacker without guns. That a real man, or martial artist, shouldn't need a gun to take care of themselves.

Whos making that argument? Ive never heard that

 

[Grenadier]

However, one of the main arguments against guns when it comes to martial artists is that if you're a martial artist you shouldn't need guns. You should be good enough to fight off an attacker without guns. That a real man, or martial artist, shouldn't need a gun to take care of themselves.

If you want to go that route, then shouldn't martial artists be of such superior mindsets, that they would never get into fights in the first place? This way, they don't need to learn how to hurt other people...



All men (not just martial artists) may be created equal, but some are more equal than others.

As for not "needing" a gun to take care of one's self, that's really nobody's business but the individual's. It's silly to assume that one size fits all.

If someone decides that a firearm would be the best way for him (or her) to defend himself, then that's the tool he should use. Not everyone, even advanced martial artists, is capable of taking on a muscle-bound brute with his bare hands. Maybe some of your more advanced martial artists aren't exactly spring chickens anymore, or maybe injuries have caught up with them throughout the years. I would hope that a 55 year old fellow who holds a 7th degree black belt in a martial arts system would not try to take on a 22 year old, 300 pound brute high on cocaine, with his bare hands.

 

[Tgace]

There is a aikido school in West Seattle that has a giant sign in the window advertising it as "the non-violent martial art."

I've always found that bit of philosophical "tweaking" to be a bit of a stretch. Some Aikido techniques involve a bit of percussive striking...and if you flip some dude onto the pavement with your "non-violent redirection of aggressive force" and he gets injured I don't believe the law would consider it "non-violent". I can understand the philosophy of the art not being "aggressive" or used offensively, but there is going to be an element of "violence" in any physical struggle.

 

[Blindside]

I've always found that bit of philosophical "tweaking" to be a bit of a stretch. Some Aikido techniques involve a bit of percussive striking...and if you flip some dude onto the pavement with your "non-violent redirection of aggressive force" and he gets injured I don't believe the law would consider it "non-violent". I can understand the philosophy of the art not being "aggressive" or used offensively, but there is going to be an element of "violence" in any physical struggle.

Yup, if you don't have the sensitivity to roll with the direction of the lock and/or do a breakfall something is going to get broken. I have seen several aikido schools where the intention is not really about self-defense, one of them had a sign saying "the road to enlightenment is paved in one inch mats."

 

[Happy-Papi]

Back in the days when I was training in Traditional FMA and military CQC, all my teachers and seniors told me that MA should only be our last option. They said to discretely use MA to eliminate our enemies to capture their gears, food and medicine if weapons and stocks are unavailable. This has been used many times during WW2 and and older wars and probably still being used now...

Having been raised in a dangerous environment, I would always go for guns and other weapons first before MA if weapons are available. I have been trained heavily with firearms, other dodgy weapons and martial arts and will not be offended if anybody should say that I am not a true man or not a true MAist because of guns and back stabbing... We just think differently

By the way, I don't have access to guns now since I live in Japan and all I have is my Xbox and some sleazy iPhone shooting games and this is why whenever I visit my country, I try to sniff the barrel to smell the sweet aroma of gun powder, lol.

 

[PhotonGuy]

If someone decides that a firearm would be the best way for him (or her) to defend himself, then that's the tool he should use. Not everyone, even advanced martial artists, is capable of taking on a muscle-bound brute with his bare hands. Maybe some of your more advanced martial artists aren't exactly spring chickens anymore, or maybe injuries have caught up with them throughout the years. I would hope that a 55 year old fellow who holds a 7th degree black belt in a martial arts system would not try to take on a 22 year old, 300 pound brute high on cocaine, with his bare hands.

There is a good chance that the 55 year old with the 7th degree black belt would make mincemeat out of the 300 pound brute. If anything, martial arts is like wine, you only get better with age. Now, a 55 year old who is just starting out in the martial arts might not fare well against the 22 year old 300 pound brute who is high, but a 55 year old who has some 30 plus years of experience which they probably would if they were 7th degree would know that beating an attacker is not just a contest of strength or brute force. Such a "master" would be able to do astounding things that would blow most people's minds, and leave the 300 pound brute incapacitated and neutralized.

 

[Grenadier]

There is a good chance that the 55 year old with the 7th degree black belt would make mincemeat out of the 300 pound brute. If anything, martial arts is like wine, you only get better with age. Now, a 55 year old who is just starting out in the martial arts might not fare well against the 22 year old 300 pound brute who is high, but a 55 year old who has some 30 plus years of experience which they probably would if they were 7th degree would know that beating an attacker is not just a contest of strength or brute force. Such a "master" would be able to do astounding things that would blow most people's minds, and leave the 300 pound brute incapacitated and neutralized.

How good is "a good chance?" 50% chance likely? 60% chance likely?

Even if we generously say 75%, why should a 55 year old be forced to take a 25% chance risk that he could be seriously injured, or killed? Shouldn't he use the best available practical method to give him the best chance of survival?

For that matter, would you jump out of an airplane using a parachute that had a "good chance" of opening, or would you want the best parachute available?

 

[Tgace]

There is a good chance that the 55 year old with the 7th degree black belt would make mincemeat out of the 300 pound brute. If anything, martial arts is like wine, you only get better with age. Now, a 55 year old who is just starting out in the martial arts might not fare well against the 22 year old 300 pound brute who is high, but a 55 year old who has some 30 plus years of experience which they probably would if they were 7th degree would know that beating an attacker is not just a contest of strength or brute force. Such a "master" would be able to do astounding things that would blow most people's minds, and leave the 300 pound brute incapacitated and neutralized.

Lol! You've watched one to many kung-fu theater movies.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Big Don]

You should be good enough to fight off an attacker without guns. That a real man, or martial artist, shouldn't need a gun to take care of themselves.

I've trained with some bad *** martial artists, but, none of them could parry a bullet, nor move 1400 FPS

 

[PhotonGuy]

How good is "a good chance?" 50% chance likely? 60% chance likely?

Even if we generously say 75%, why should a 55 year old be forced to take a 25% chance risk that he could be seriously injured, or killed? Shouldn't he use the best available practical method to give him the best chance of survival?

For that matter, would you jump out of an airplane using a parachute that had a "good chance" of opening, or would you want the best parachute available?

In the movie The Karate Kid, there was a scene where an old man easily takes down five big teenagers. I know, its a movie and its Hollywood and all, but such stuff is not unheard of. I would say a 55 year old with 35 years of experience in the martial arts has a much better chance of fighting off an attacker than a 25 year old with just 5 years of experience. That being said, a gun would be the best and most practical means of defense in just about any situation and it doesn't matter if your 21, 25, 55, or 105, nobody should take any chance being seriously injured or killed if they don't have to, and so a gun would be the best course of action for anyone. Yo do, however, have to take into account the law. In some places, such as Colorado I believe, you can shoot an intruder just for being on your property. In NJ however, if somebody breaks into your house and comes at you, for you to legally be able to use a gun, they at least have to be coming at you with a knife. So the law also has to be considered.

 

[PhotonGuy]

Lol! You've watched one to many kung-fu theater movies.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Nope, I know of real life cases.

 

[PhotonGuy]

I've trained with some bad *** martial artists, but, none of them could parry a bullet, nor move 1400 FPS

That being so, the best defense against a gun is another gun. However, the anti gun crowd would say that if we got rid of all guns, including the guns that the perpetrators used, than there would be no problem in the first place.

 

[Grenadier]

In the movie The Karate Kid, there was a scene where an old man easily takes down five big teenagers. I know, its a movie and its Hollywood and all

I've bold-faced the part of your statement, for emphasis... What you see in Hollywood isn't going to match what you see in the real world.

, but such stuff is not unheard of. I would say a 55 year old with 35 years of experience in the martial arts has a much better chance of fighting off an attacker than a 25 year old with just 5 years of experience.

A 55 year old is going to be slower and have less strength than a 25 year old. The reflexes are also not going to be quite what they used to be.

Just ask yourself this question: Why aren't there 50 year old boxes still competing for the major world heavyweight titles? If their cunning and wisdom were enough to overcome the significant physical disadvantages, wouldn't you be seeing more of them?

The answer is simple:

While there are some very few exceptions, such as George Foreman at the age of 48 (at the time he retired), not everyone is going to have George Foreman's massive bull neck (even in his late 40's, it looked like he didn't have a neck, because of the massive muscles there), nor are they going to be as physically gifted as he was.

The 51 year old Herschel Walker? Yes, I know that he's been KO'ing guys half his age in the MMA ring, but Herschel Walker is a freak of nature, and exercises with an intense physical workout that would make most people puke after 10 minutes. He still has the body of a man half his age.

We get slower and weaker as we move past our primes. There's no avoiding it. While the process can certainly be slowed significantly by proper physical conditioning, diet and exercise, it's still a one-way street. Perhaps something such as gene therapy can help reverse this, but we're many decades away before that becomes a possibility...

Just because a very select few can still do things as well as they did 25-30 years ago, doesn't mean that the rest of us average Joes can. They can do it because they're exceptionally gifted.

For every time someone claims that they can accomplish what Bruce Lee did, I usually borrow Bob's line:

You are not Bruce Lee.

In NJ however, if somebody breaks into your house and comes at you, for you to legally be able to use a gun, they at least have to be coming at you with a knife. So the law also has to be considered.

This is not true. If someone comes at you in your own home, who poses a significant threat, then there is an imminent threat of bodily harm, and you are justified in using a firearm to defend yourself. That person need not be armed, even in the state of New Jersey.

 

[PhotonGuy]

I've bold-faced the part of your statement, for emphasis... What you see in Hollywood isn't going to match what you see in the real world.



A 55 year old is going to be slower and have less strength than a 25 year old. The reflexes are also not going to be quite what they used to be.

Just ask yourself this question: Why aren't there 50 year old boxes still competing for the major world heavyweight titles? If their cunning and wisdom were enough to overcome the significant physical disadvantages, wouldn't you be seeing more of them?

The answer is simple:

While there are some very few exceptions, such as George Foreman at the age of 48 (at the time he retired), not everyone is going to have George Foreman's massive bull neck (even in his late 40's, it looked like he didn't have a neck, because of the massive muscles there), nor are they going to be as physically gifted as he was.

The 51 year old Herschel Walker? Yes, I know that he's been KO'ing guys half his age in the MMA ring, but Herschel Walker is a freak of nature, and exercises with an intense physical workout that would make most people puke after 10 minutes. He still has the body of a man half his age.

We get slower and weaker as we move past our primes. There's no avoiding it. While the process can certainly be slowed significantly by proper physical conditioning, diet and exercise, it's still a one-way street. Perhaps something such as gene therapy can help reverse this, but we're many decades away before that becomes a possibility...

Just because a very select few can still do things as well as they did 25-30 years ago, doesn't mean that the rest of us average Joes can. They can do it because they're exceptionally gifted.

For every time someone claims that they can accomplish what Bruce Lee did, I usually borrow Bob's line:







This is not true. If someone comes at you in your own home, who poses a significant threat, then there is an imminent threat of bodily harm, and you are justified in using a firearm to defend yourself. That person need not be armed, even in the state of New Jersey.

Jack LaLanne at the age of 70 swam a mile pulling 70 boats each with a person in them, another words he pulled 70 people in 70 boats for a whole mile. John Saxon at the age of 70 could lift a 75 pound kettlebell overhead with one hand. If people get bad with age than how about this? Rickson Gracie whose 54 vs Kristen Stewart whose 23, who would win in a fight?

New Jersey as well as Massachusetts, D.C. and California are the least gun friendly places in the country. In New Jersey, even if somebody breaks into your house you cannot shoot them unless they've got a knife or a gun themselves. That is not what I say thats what the law says. The same might apply in Massachusetts as well and I wouldn't be surprised if that's how it is in California. In D.C.? Forget it. Until just recently you couldn't even own a handgun in D.C. and I believe its still that way in Chicago, Ill. And besides lets face it, there are some places where you can't have guns. Even a carry permit will not enable you to carry wherever you want. There are places such as airports, certain stores and places of business, and schools to name a few where you can't bring guns. That is why you should be able to take care of yourself without guns if you need to. And while I definitely am all for gun rights, I do think that somebody who thinks they always need a gun has got an inferiority complex.

 

[PhotonGuy]

And if you think that old people are slow check this out. This guy was 68 at the time.

 

[Grenadier]

Jack LaLanne at the age of 70 swam a mile pulling 70 boats each with a person in them, another words he pulled 70 people in 70 boats for a whole mile. John Saxon at the age of 70 could lift a 75 pound kettlebell overhead with one hand.

Again, you're trying to make the exceptional people seem like the norm. Each of those folks you mentioned aren't going to be the same as the typical martial artist, much less the average human being. Otherwise, it could be similarly argued that 8 year old kids should be in college, since a handful of extreme genius level intellect kids were able to do so.

Rickson Gracie whose 54 vs Kristen Stewart whose 23, who would win in a fight?

Apples and oranges.

If you want to make such a comparison, why not use a 54 year old Rickson Gracie versus a 26 year old Jon Jones? I can pretty much guarantee you that even though Rickson Gracie has far more experience and knowledge, a younger, stronger Jon Jones will pretty much tear Rickson Gracie apart. Now, a Rickson Gracie in his 30's? That's an entirely different story.

Or, in a more mundane setting, what about a 55 year old lady, who has great knowledge, but a bad set of knees? Would it be smart of her to engage in a fight with a 25 year old savage brute twice her size? Does she have an inferiority complex if she chooses to use a firearm as her first line of defense?

And while I definitely am all for gun rights, I do think that somebody who thinks they always need a gun has got an inferiority complex.

That is where we differ. Some people feel that they want to have the best means of protection possible, including many experienced martial artists in their prime. They're simply exercising common sense, and that's hardly an inferiority complex.