guns...the real martial art...

billc

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
9,183
Reaction score
85
Location
somewhere near Lake Michigan
In a post somewhere else someone said that martial talk is about martial arts and didn't understand why people would talk about guns...well, guns are in fact the tool of one of the most effective martial arts in the world, defensive pistol and rifle shooting, and so deserve an honored place in any martial,arts forum...unless of course you put the limit of "unarmed" in the category...

Why are they one of the best self defense weapons available to a martial artist...

Well, criminals use guns on average 11,000 times a year in he U.S. To commit murder...that is the average from the CDC, and considering they can actually count the bodies...it should be a fairly accurate number.

On average, law abiding citizens with legally owned and in many cases, carried guns, save lives over 100,000 times a year. Now these self defense cases are in the real world, in actual violent encounters which are life or death situations and the criminal is actually shot, killed or captured.

Now this number itself comes from groups who are opposed to people owning and carrying guns, I only point this out to point out that this number is a low count of how many times guns are used to save lives in actual fights. It is low because in most cases of self defense with a gun, the gun is not pulled out if the holster, it is displayed as a warning, or if it is pulled, no shots are fired. Because no one is killed or injured, there is no number that can be plugged into a statistic on gun use. that is why 100,000 lives saved by guns is a low number, and is actually much higher.

Also keep in mind that the number is low because you can't count crimes that never happen...for example...each criminal of the 100,000 that is stopped from attacking a victim who uses a gun, who is shot or captured by the victim, is stopped from creating more victims...on a temporary or more permanent basis...so again, the 100,000 lives saved using a gun is also low due to that fact in counting numbers...

How can we get an idea of how that works...there is a case where a woman with a concealed carry permit wasn't allowed to carry her gun on a college campus...she was raped at gun point 50 feet away from the college police station. She told people that during the attack she could have stopped the attacker if she had had a gun...she was also a black belt in Tae Kwon Do. this rapist went on to rape 3 more women and he murderd the third victim...that is why the 100,000 number is so low...if she had stopped the attacker with her gun three other lives would have been saved, first, from the trauma of violent rape and in the one case from actual,murder.

Think about that for a minute... Innocent, law abiding people, often times with little or no regular training, who may be small in size, elderly, facing a younger, stronger, more violent attacker, or outnumbered, or attacked from an ambush...still manage to stop attacks 100,000 times a year.

11,000 murders vs. 100,000 or more lives saved per year....in real world violent criminal attacks...what other unarmed martial art has that record in successful use...

That is why guns should always have a place in a martial arts forum...they and the arts that teach their use are one of the most effective real world martial arts that exist.
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
21,920
Reaction score
7,475
Location
Covington, WA
As with most things, it really depends upon how you define "Martial Art." Personally, I agree with you that the study of guns for self defense would absolutely qualify as a martial art, and the discussion of guns definitely belongs on a martial arts discussion forum.

I don't think that it needs to look like this in order to be considered a martial art, but that is kind of cool. :)

[video=youtube_share;A2KJHysK6k8]http://youtu.be/A2KJHysK6k8[/video]
 

elder999

El Oso de Dios!
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
1,451
Location
Where the hills have eyes.,and it's HOT!
But it might look like this:

Or this:
NOTE: While most of his training modalities are solid, I'm not endorsing or recommending that anyone train with Gabe Suarez.BUT
Think about that for a minute... Innocent, law abiding people, often times with little or no regular training, who may be small in size, elderly, facing a younger, stronger, more violent attacker, or outnumbered, or attacked from an ambush...still manage to stop attacks 100,000 times a year.

11,000 murders vs. 100,000 or more lives saved per year....in real world violent criminal attacks...what other unarmed martial art has that record in successful use...

That is why guns should always have a place in a martial arts forum...they and the arts that teach their use are one of the most effective real world martial arts that exist.

I can't emphasize enough: you'e got to get training to care for, use and carry firearms.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
B

billc

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
9,183
Reaction score
85
Location
somewhere near Lake Michigan
I can't emphasize enough: you'e got to get training to care for, use and carry firearms.​



I can't agree more...the more training, especially in actual self-defense with the gun is incredibly important...and helpful. The point was made that compared to most martial arts of the empty hand nature, there are actual cases of people with very little regular training with a gun who use it successfully to defend themselves against violent attackers...in many cases these are elderly people, or women against larger male adversaries.

One of the stories I remember...a woman who was a senior citizen was woke up in her house by a teenage male criminal. He forced her around her home to identify expensive items, and then took her back to her bedroom where he made it clear he was going to sexually assault her. At this point, she said she remembered she had cash in a shoe box in her closet. As she rummaged around in the closet, she turned around and shot him in the stomach...it was clear from the story that she didn't go to the range every week, and that the gun was her dead husbands. There aren't many empty hand martial arts that could produce the same self-defense results...
 

Kurai

Green Belt
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
125
Reaction score
24
As with most things, it really depends upon how you define "Martial Art." Personally, I agree with you that the study of guns for self defense would absolutely qualify as a martial art, and the discussion of guns definitely belongs on a martial arts discussion forum.

I don't think that it needs to look like this in order to be considered a martial art, but that is kind of cool. :)

[video=youtube_share;A2KJHysK6k8]http://youtu.be/A2KJHysK6k8[/video]

Watched Equilibrium yesterday, ironically enough. I completely agree with your post as well as Elders.
 

Brian R. VanCise

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Messages
27,758
Reaction score
1,520
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
I would also agree that firearms training is a martial system and one that a modern practitioner of the Martial Sciences should learn from quality instructors.
 

Bill Mattocks

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
15,627
Reaction score
4,435
Location
Michigan
Whilst I believe in the value of firearms as a self-defense weapon, and I agree with all the comments above about obtaining training, I offer a few caveats.

First, when a weapon is introduced into an altercation, the dynamics of that altercation change immediately and generally irrevocably. In other words, unlike a fistfight or a shoving match, a brandished weapon is not likely to end with both parties mutually calling it quits. Somebody is going to get seriously hurt or die now. Not that such risk doesn't exist in unarmed combat, but when a weapon is introduced, the risk factor increases by a huge amount.

Second, a weapon in the hand can be as much a liability as a benefit. When you brandish a weapon, you now have to defend that weapon, and you have only one hand to do so. So you've taken away one of your tools (an open hand), substituted another, and now introduced the possibility that the weapon may be taken from you and used against you.

Third, the laws of self-defense in many places are much more strict about when a weapon can be legally employed as self-defense as opposed to unarmed self-defense in general. Draw that weapon without legal justification and even if you walk away with your life, you may find yourself facing legal issues, from lawsuits to arrest and criminal prosecution.

I'm not saying people should not carry weapons for self-defense. But they are not always appropriate and should not be considered the go-to way of settling all issues. If you're going to go about armed, get training, practice to become proficient, and learn the laws regarding self-defense and use of deadly force where you live.

A gun is not a magic wand. You don't wave it around and everything gets better. In fact, it's generally the opposite; guns may preserve your life in extreme situations, but situations are seldom extreme enough to justify them. Consider your risk, consider your options, and choose carefully. Guns are not the lazy man's way to effective self-defense.
 

Kurai

Green Belt
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
125
Reaction score
24
Whilst I believe in the value of firearms as a self-defense weapon, and I agree with all the comments above about obtaining training, I offer a few caveats.

First, when a weapon is introduced into an altercation, the dynamics of that altercation change immediately and generally irrevocably. In other words, unlike a fistfight or a shoving match, a brandished weapon is not likely to end with both parties mutually calling it quits. Somebody is going to get seriously hurt or die now. Not that such risk doesn't exist in unarmed combat, but when a weapon is introduced, the risk factor increases by a huge amount.

Second, a weapon in the hand can be as much a liability as a benefit. When you brandish a weapon, you now have to defend that weapon, and you have only one hand to do so. So you've taken away one of your tools (an open hand), substituted another, and now introduced the possibility that the weapon may be taken from you and used against you.

Third, the laws of self-defense in many places are much more strict about when a weapon can be legally employed as self-defense as opposed to unarmed self-defense in general. Draw that weapon without legal justification and even if you walk away with your life, you may find yourself facing legal issues, from lawsuits to arrest and criminal prosecution.

I'm not saying people should not carry weapons for self-defense. But they are not always appropriate and should not be considered the go-to way of settling all issues. If you're going to go about armed, get training, practice to become proficient, and learn the laws regarding self-defense and use of deadly force where you live.

A gun is not a magic wand. You don't wave it around and everything gets better. In fact, it's generally the opposite; guns may preserve your life in extreme situations, but situations are seldom extreme enough to justify them. Consider your risk, consider your options, and choose carefully. Guns are not the lazy man's way to effective self-defense.

As was mentioned by Brian and others.... Quality instruction from quality instructors aid in consideration of everything you mentioned. All of your points are quite valid.
 

elder999

El Oso de Dios!
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
1,451
Location
Where the hills have eyes.,and it's HOT!
One of the stories I remember...a woman who was a senior citizen was woke up in her house by a teenage male criminal. He forced her around her home to identify expensive items, and then took her back to her bedroom where he made it clear he was going to sexually assault her. At this point, she said she remembered she had cash in a shoe box in her closet. As she rummaged around in the closet, she turned around and shot him in the stomach...it was clear from the story that she didn't go to the range every week, and that the gun was her dead husbands. There aren't many empty hand martial arts that could produce the same self-defense results...


Yeah, but calling that "real martial art" is kind of like calling the college kid who fought off a burglar with his wall-hanger, stainless steel katana a 'swordsman," isn't it?

In fact, I'd say it's almost the firearm equivalent of...

:lol:


Seriously, without training, it may be a tool that people wind up using, but it's not "the real martial art."

It's not martial art at all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kurai

Green Belt
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
125
Reaction score
24
Formal studies of use of the katana do exist in several arts though. As do exist formal studies of firearm usage. Just like the katana in your example, it is just a tool. Training with quality instructors help you get the most use of said tool. Properly studied, firearm usage starts falling into being a component of, (borrowing Brian's wonderful term), Martial Sciences.
 

elder999

El Oso de Dios!
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
1,451
Location
Where the hills have eyes.,and it's HOT!
Formal studies of use of the katana do exist in several arts though. As do exist formal studies of firearm usage. Just like the katana in your example, it is just a tool. Training with quality instructors help you get the most use of said tool. Properly studied, firearm usage starts falling into being a component of, (borrowing Brian's wonderful term), Martial Sciences.

My issue isn't with what billc is trying to say, but the way that he insists on saying it. Anyone who has ever been to an IDPA or SASS event-as I have-recognizes that there are multiple layers of "martial artistry" to firearms.

There's also Hojutsu-Ryu...

Indeed. Seem to recall posting something similar to a similar thread, not too long ago. :lol:
 

Tgace

Grandmaster
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
7,766
Reaction score
409
So..was every Samurai who carried a katana an "artist"?

What's the threshold between artist and non-artist? IMO there are many proficient and lethal weapon carriers who are not "artists".

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
 

Tgace

Grandmaster
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
7,766
Reaction score
409
So..was every Samurai who carried a katana an "artist"?

What's the threshold between artist and non-artist? IMO there are many proficient and lethal weapon carriers who are not "artists".

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Of course that's not to say that firearms training cannot be comapred to martial arts...Ive posted this here before.

http://tgace.com/2012/11/26/the-mystical-and-the-mundane/

However there is a risk with trying to "art-a-size" a currently used weapon system. Even Musashi..back in the day...had issues with calling swordsmanship "art".

Today we see the arts for sale. Men sell their own selves as commodities. As with the nut and the flower, the nut has become less important than the flower. In this kind of strategy, both those teaching and those learning the way are concerned with flamboyant style and showing off their technique, trying to hasten the bloom of the flower with commercial popularization. They speak of "this Dojo" and "that Dojo". They are looking only for quick benefits. Someone once said "Amateuristic strategy is the cause of serious grief". That was a true saying.

For those who are metaphorically handicapped, the "flower" is flashy "art for arts sake" stuff and the "nut" is the "real world" useful stuff. That's the easy metaphor.

The more subtle one is that the nut shouldn't be "less" than the flower. The "flower"...the beauty of the art will come but you cant hasten the blooming through commercial effort, manufacturing rank, creating masterships, developing "artsy" techniques...etc.



Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
 
Last edited:

Tgace

Grandmaster
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
7,766
Reaction score
409
There's also Hojutsu-Ryu...

Is wearing a "GI" and adhering to a Karate like format required to turn a modern weapon into an "art"?

To quote Musashi again,

Third is the gentleman warrior, carrying the weaponry of his Way. The warrior has to master the various properties and virtues of his different weapons. If a gentleman dislikes martial arts he will not appreciate the specific advantages of each weapon. For a member of a warrior house this shows a lack of culture.

"Mastering the various properties and virtues of his different weapons". IMO that's the key. Simply being proficient is a different thing.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
 
Last edited:

jks9199

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
23,473
Reaction score
3,795
Location
Northern VA
Is wearing a "GI" and adhering to a Karate like format required to turn a modern weapon into an "art"?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

I've got no direct experience with it. What I've seen... I just can't say. The little I've seen -- seems reasonably solid. He's got the chops to have put something good together.

Did he need to put the "Martial-Artsy" trappings around it to teach a solid set of principles of combative gun skills as well as weapon retention, etc? Nah. But it seems he was comfortable with it. Did it hurt? Doubt it.
 

Tgace

Grandmaster
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
7,766
Reaction score
409
I've got no direct experience with it. What I've seen... I just can't say. The little I've seen -- seems reasonably solid. He's got the chops to have put something good together.

Did he need to put the "Martial-Artsy" trappings around it to teach a solid set of principles of combative gun skills as well as weapon retention, etc? Nah. But it seems he was comfortable with it. Did it hurt? Doubt it.

Seems kinda "flower" instead of "nut" to me. :)

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
 

elder999

El Oso de Dios!
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
1,451
Location
Where the hills have eyes.,and it's HOT!
The way I was taught, "Craft" is the technical skills that can be......well, taught. An d "art" is an expression of self.

When it comes to shooting, I'm a pretty fair "craftsman," and others are artists. I'm content with that-most people with firearms hardly even qualify as "craftsmen," and that-sadly-includes more than 50% of the cops I've shot with.....the "artists," though, have all been wondrous to behold.....even if their scores turned out lower than mine ,I recognized that I really wouldn't want to be against them in a gunfight....they'd be more relaxed, more.....present, and I'd likely just wind up dead.....but with higher scores! :lfao:

ANyway, that's where I've always drawn the line-has nothing to do with uniforms or other accoutrements....except for the SASS....cowboy gear (or 20's gear!) rules!
 

Chris Parker

Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
6,259
Reaction score
1,104
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Yeah, but calling that "real martial art" is kind of like calling the college kid who fought off a burglar with his wall-hanger, stainless steel katana a 'swordsman," isn't it?

In fact, I'd say it's almost the firearm equivalent of...

:lol:

Seriously, without training, it may be a tool that people wind up using, but it's not "the real martial art."

It's not martial art at all.

This. Definitely this.

Formal studies of use of the katana do exist in several arts though. As do exist formal studies of firearm usage. Just like the katana in your example, it is just a tool. Training with quality instructors help you get the most use of said tool. Properly studied, firearm usage starts falling into being a component of, (borrowing Brian's wonderful term), Martial Sciences.

Use of the tool doesn't make it a martial art. Just picking up a sword and swinging it around doesn't make you a swordsman. Training a coherent, cohesive, uniform and unified, congruent, and codified approach to a particular contextual application of the tool, following a set of intrinsic principles and tactical applications, though…

There's also Hojutsu-Ryu...

Oh dear, is Hall still using the term "Soke"? I thought he was supposed to find a much more accurate, appropriate, and less offensive term… dammit…

For reference:Modern Hojutsu - Martial Arts Planet

That said, there are genuine martial arts of gunnery…

So..was every Samurai who carried a katana an "artist"?

What's the threshold between artist and non-artist? IMO there are many proficient and lethal weapon carriers who are not "artists".

The study of an art, rather than the study of some techniques. What makes it an art rather than just techniques? A lot of what I posted above covers the beginning of that…

However there is a risk with trying to "art-a-size" a currently used weapon system. Even Musashi..back in the day...had issues with calling swordsmanship "art".

That's not actually what he was saying… in the slightest, really. He had no issue with calling any martial system an "art".

For those who are metaphorically handicapped, the "flower" is flashy "art for arts sake" stuff and the "nut" is the "real world" useful stuff. That's the easy metaphor.

The more subtle one is that the nut shouldn't be "less" than the flower. The "flower"...the beauty of the art will come but you cant hasten the blooming through commercial effort, manufacturing rank, creating masterships, developing "artsy" techniques…etc.

Er… no. That's not what he was saying, to be blunt.

Out of interest, what translation is that? It's rather… odd… and misses the point quite a bit.

Is wearing a "GI" and adhering to a Karate like format required to turn a modern weapon into an "art"?

It was something that Fred Hall felt was important for his system… he had the (I'd say blatantly incorrect) idea that without it, people wouldn't recognise it as a martial art… hmm…

To quote Musashi again,

"Mastering the various properties and virtues of his different weapons". IMO that's the key. Simply being proficient is a different thing.

Er… no.

But, to follow up, how does that Musashi's comment relate to the use of a firearm as a martial art? Are you suggesting that all martial artists need to "master" firearms as well, in order for them to be a "martial artist"?

I've got no direct experience with it. What I've seen... I just can't say. The little I've seen -- seems reasonably solid. He's got the chops to have put something good together.

Did he need to put the "Martial-Artsy" trappings around it to teach a solid set of principles of combative gun skills as well as weapon retention, etc? Nah. But it seems he was comfortable with it. Did it hurt? Doubt it.

I'd just point back to the linked thread earlier in this post… to my mind (and others), there are some very real issues with the structure and formation of this system… mainly through trying to artificially add in incongruent aspects and ideas, without understanding them properly in the first place. Fred Hall's firearms cred isn't in question… the guy's incredibly skilled and highly respected in that regard. But the mess he came up with has some real developmental issues… they might have been addressed (it was indicated that some, at least, were being looked at in the thread above), but I can' speak to that.

So, did it hurt? Yes. See the linked thread for examples as to how.

The way I was taught, "Craft" is the technical skills that can be......well, taught. An d "art" is an expression of self.

When it comes to shooting, I'm a pretty fair "craftsman," and others are artists. I'm content with that-most people with firearms hardly even qualify as "craftsmen," and that-sadly-includes more than 50% of the cops I've shot with.....the "artists," though, have all been wondrous to behold.....even if their scores turned out lower than mine ,I recognized that I really wouldn't want to be against them in a gunfight....they'd be more relaxed, more.....present, and I'd likely just wind up dead.....but with higher scores! :lfao:

ANyway, that's where I've always drawn the line-has nothing to do with uniforms or other accoutrements....except for the SASS....cowboy gear (or 20's gear!) rules!

I'd more take the term "art" here as derived from "artisan"… or "craftsman", to use an alternate term. In other words, in the context here, an art is a craft is an art is a craft.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest Discussions

Top