Martial Arts Home.

[KydeX]

I choose to stay in prime shape for as long as God allows, again in seeking a martial arts home that is serious about training and survival...

You want to stay in shape and you want to learn self defense. I suggest you find whichever martial art or RBSD system you believe will give you the self defense system you are looking for. Then I suggest you go to the gym for staying in shape. This approach will give you the best chance of achieving both, in my opinion.

 

[Flying Crane]

You want to stay in shape and you want to learn self defense. I suggest you find whichever martial art or RBSD system you believe will give you the self defense system you are looking for. Then I suggest you go to the gym for staying in shape. This approach will give you the best chance of achieving both, in my opinion.

and eventually you come to realize that it's a full-time job trying to maintain it all. gradually you start to lose interest in it. It's not worth it, trying to maintain it forever. You just get burned out.

your training should serve you in life. You should not become a slave to your training. If all you do with your time is train, then you have no life.

 

[Instructor]

and eventually you come to realize that it's a full-time job trying to maintain it all. gradually you start to lose interest in it. It's not worth it, trying to maintain it forever. You just get burned out.

your training should serve you in life. You should not become a slave to your training. If all you do with your time is train, then you have no life.

This...

Learning a martial art is a very long term pursuit, perhaps even lifetime pursuit. After 23 years I am still learning and I am still smiling while I do it. Pick something you love to do and something you enjoy doing and you'll be far more likely to stay with it.

 

[lklawson]

- In all probability, referring to MA as 'self-defense' was far more tasteful to upper-class Victorian-era sensibilities than 'hard, bruising, sweat-wringing training'. For the most part, these were the ones who were first exposed to Asian MA in the West.

Ummm... what?

Could you give a little more detail about what you're saying here?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

the overwhelming majority of guns used in illegal activities were purchased legally

And you support that statement with???

Also, you are more likely to have family member shoot you, or have an accident, than you are to have some wide eyed psychopath attack you.

Sorry, but this is untrue and based upon a "study" which doesn't actually count as one. It's more "cherry picking" and comes from a woefully small and geographically limited sample set which is decades out of date at this point.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Ummm... what?

Could you give a little more detail about what you're saying here?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

That was one of many opinions that I have collected from another forum about "self-defense". It was not my opinion.

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?66958-Train-for-self-defense&highlight=defense

My opinion is as simple as "Whether you want to call it fighting, self-defense, or MA, it's just as simple as "fist meets face".

 

[lklawson]

True the majority of guns used in crimes are purchased legally.

Just not by the person using them in said crime.

 

[lklawson]

Now from those 2 experiences the only reason I had advantages was because of my athleticism and strength even though it wasn't planned, my body triggered its defense/survival mode...

Athleticism can't always replace skill. In these examples, in fact, I'd say that even a little skill would have trumped your athleticism. Haymakers? A "street clinch?" Bear-hugs? Gah! Your time in BJJ and Kali should have taught you how to get by those with very little athleticism.

From your discriptions, skill would definitely have trumped. Fortunately for you, your opponents had absolutely no skills.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

That is not supported by any case study or reality at all. In fact, quite the opposite...

No. I'm not sure why you think that there are no studies because that's not true at all. I can point to no less than SEVEN separate studies which, do, in fact, show there are vastly more "defensive gun uses." Perhaps it's just that no one has ever presented them to you.

No. of Defensive
Gun Uses per Year Source

2.1 million Point Blank: Guns & Violence in America, Gary
Kleck

989,883 "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A
Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and
others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology,
March 2000.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/rngn3274255v6j67/

700,000 Mauser study

650,000 Hart study

498,000 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention

108,000 1993 National Crime Victim Survey

83,000 Rand, Michael J. (April 1994). "Guns and Crime:
Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self Defense, and
Firearm Theft". U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs,Bureau of Justice
Statistics. Retrieved 11 November 2012.
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

76,000 1996 National Crime Victim Survey

Significantly, even using the lowest estimate, 76,000 violent crimes are
prevented by armed citizens each year. Thus, the number of violent crimes
thwarted by armed citizens is about four times the annual murder rate.
​

You have a gun culture problem. That then exacerbates the other issues. But yes, you have a gun problem... but it sometimes seems that only the US can't see that. Or, at least, certain factions in the US.

Not at all. The U.S. has a shockingly low level of violent crime per capita, particularly when compared to our "more civilized" friends in Europe.

I could probably dig up some stats for you or you could believe that I'm not lying.

What it boils down to is this, after all of the emotion and rhetoric, when looking at hard, cold numbers, the U.S. doesn't have a "gun problem" at all.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Spinedoc]

And you support that statement with???

Sorry, but this is untrue and based upon a "study" which doesn't actually count as one. It's more "cherry picking" and comes from a woefully small and geographically limited sample set which is decades out of date at this point.

Straw purchases, gun shows, etc. Here's some articles:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/crime/14715658-418/chicago-gangs-dont-have-to-go-far-to-buy-guns.html

http://www.hartfordinfo.org/issues/documents/crime/htfd_courant_071606.asp

http://www.seattlepi.com/national/article/Guns-used-in-crime-sold-by-very-few-shops-1243557.php

etc.etc.etc.

As far as your second statement. Here's some more recent academic studies...

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196064403002567

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/1/48.short

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=187806

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795369900283X

Take your pick. Now it's true, that correlation does not equal causation. However, you cannot have causation without correlation. Note, none of these studies is based on anything "decades out of date".

YMMV.

Mike

 

[Spinedoc]

No. I'm not sure why you think that there are no studies because that's not true at all. I can point to no less than SEVEN separate studies which, do, in fact, show there are vastly more "defensive gun uses." Perhaps it's just that no one has ever presented them to you.

No. of Defensive
Gun Uses per Year Source

2.1 million Point Blank: Guns & Violence in America, Gary
Kleck

989,883 "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A
Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and
others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology,
March 2000.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/rngn3274255v6j67/

700,000 Mauser study

650,000 Hart study

498,000 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention

108,000 1993 National Crime Victim Survey

83,000 Rand, Michael J. (April 1994). "Guns and Crime:
Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self Defense, and
Firearm Theft". U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs,Bureau of Justice
Statistics. Retrieved 11 November 2012.
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

76,000 1996 National Crime Victim Survey

Significantly, even using the lowest estimate, 76,000 violent crimes are
prevented by armed citizens each year. Thus, the number of violent crimes
thwarted by armed citizens is about four times the annual murder rate.
​

Not at all. The U.S. has a shockingly low level of violent crime per capita, particularly when compared to our "more civilized" friends in Europe.

I could probably dig up some stats for you or you could believe that I'm not lying.

What it boils down to is this, after all of the emotion and rhetoric, when looking at hard, cold numbers, the U.S. doesn't have a "gun problem" at all.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Statistical cherrypick much?

Their violent crime might be higher, as we are at an almost all time low, however, murder rates, actual homicides, are much, MUCH higher in the US.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/...early-all-other-developed-countries-fbi-data/

 

[lklawson]

Am I not to take from my martial arts training what works for me? That is the goal... It has to be suitable for my needs.

What works for him may not work for me and vice versa...

The thing that's being said to you is that you might not know "what works best for you" and that you're making some assumptions about it. Further that you may be trying to shoe-horn what you think works best for you into a martial arts context which it might not fit well.

I prefer to stay in shape... Its healthier and more pleasing to me.

This too translates over to unarmed combat, should the need arise... No ones talking bodybuilding, I'm talking over conditioning.

No one is telling you to not be in good physical condition, merely that top physical condition may not be as important to a "self defense" encounter as you seem to think, particularly when compared against actual skill.

I could be at a baseball game with my son and an angry parent attacks me... If I'm out of shape, good luck Tim... But if I have been doing the proper training and conditioning, it should be easier... In theory.

Not necessarily. Timing, leverage, position, technique can all overcome raw physical strength when properly applied. Yes, if you have strength to add to skill, that can increase the odds. But don't assume that strength always trumps skill. Sometime it can. Sometimes it can't.

Bruce Lee had the same mindset which is why he said you must train every part of your body...

Bruce Lee is dead.

Soldiers train

Not for "self defense" they don't.

Spartans train

Gah! Don't get me started on Spartans. They're despicable. The ONLY thing they gave to us worth keeping is Laconic Wit. And then only sometimes.

Samurai train

Which Samurai? That covers centuries of evolution of the caste.

I care about my body... I'm not getting a new one, I will grow old and die in this one... Go look in the mirror... You earned that.

While laudable, it has little to do with "self defense."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

That was one of many opinions that I have collected from another forum about "self-defense". It was not my opinion.

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?66958-Train-for-self-defense&highlight=defense

My opinion is as simple as "Whether you want to call it fighting, self-defense, or MA, it's just as simple as "fist meets face".

I can't see it. So, please, answer the question about "Victorian" sensibilities.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Straw purchases, gun shows, etc. Here's some articles:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/crime/14715658-418/chicago-gangs-dont-have-to-go-far-to-buy-guns.html

http://www.hartfordinfo.org/issues/documents/crime/htfd_courant_071606.asp

http://www.seattlepi.com/national/article/Guns-used-in-crime-sold-by-very-few-shops-1243557.php

etc.etc.etc.

Doesn't support your claim.

correlation does not equal causation

Yea, verily.

However, you cannot have causation without correlation. Note, none of these studies is based on anything "decades out of date".

First, none of them compare against (to quote you) "some wide eyed psychopath attack you." Second, all disingenuously include suicides. And, yes, conflating "have family member shoot you, or have an accident" with suicide IS disingenuous.

You seem to assume that I've never looked at the information for myself. I have. The actual data. And, sorry, but all of the studies which you reference have these same sort of (apparently deliberate) problems.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Statistical cherrypick much?

Why yes. If by "statistical cherry pick" you mean "referencing studies done by the CDC, FBI, and Bureau of Justice."

Thanks for playing.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I can't see it. So, please, answer the question about "Victorian" sensibilities.

Can you see this? The 4th one down #19.

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum...rain-for-self-defense/page2&highlight=defense

But at least you can see this.

It was not my opinion.

 

[Spinedoc]

Doesn't support your claim.


Yea, verily.
First, none of them compare against (to quote you) "some wide eyed psychopath attack you." Second, all disingenuously include suicides. And, yes, conflating "have family member shoot you, or have an accident" with suicide IS disingenuous.

You seem to assume that I've never looked at the information for myself. I have. The actual data. And, sorry, but all of the studies which you reference have these same sort of (apparently deliberate) problems.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Hmm, yeah, it would seem that many people who do not have the ability to purchase firearms legally, still manage to use guns purchased legally, which was all that I claimed above. I used the "wide eyed psychopath attack you" statement because it is the living embodiment of the fear in the American populace. Never mind that the chances of this actually occuring border on the non-existent.

If you have other NON biased academic data, then kindly share them. Anything published by a journal or organization that supports gun rights is automatically disqualified. You'll note that I did not (intentionally) use data or publications from organizations that support gun control. Bias being bias after all. But, if you have studies published in peer reviewed scientific journals, I'd love to see it. I like examining both sides of an argument, not participating solely in confirmational bias. I just couldn't find anything supporting that.

I've never made any such assumption about your knowledge. I don't know you, and therefore wouldn't do that.

It would seem that we agree on Self Defense, training, and martial arts. Sadly, on this topic, we will disagree. Personally, I favor an absolute ban on assault weapons (I know, vague, and what constitutes an "assault" weapon is left open to interpretation) meaning assault/combat style rifles, as well as handguns. I would still allow shotguns and long rifles with much, much stricter regulations regarding purchasing, and then a tax to paid every year on every firearm in your home by the gun-owner. This money could be used to help buy back other weapons, enforce stricter regulations. Etc.

I've thought about this a LOT. Ever since the military.

YMMV,

Mike

 

[Spinedoc]

Why yes. If by "statistical cherry pick" you mean "referencing studies done by the CDC, FBI, and Bureau of Justice."

Thanks for playing.

No, I meant that those statistics are meaningless. 76,000 -2.1 million occurences depending on the source? I can already tell you that the p and R values are going to be worthless.

Something that other authors also noted....

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1023077303928

And, one of my faves, our ASA journal...

http://amstat.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09332480.1997.10542033?journalCode=ucha20#.Usx_FfYqS6U

Positive bias indeed.....

Mike

 

[Chris Parker]

That was one of many opinions that I have collected from another forum about "self-defense". It was not my opinion.

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?66958-Train-for-self-defense&highlight=defense

My opinion is as simple as "Whether you want to call it fighting, self-defense, or MA, it's just as simple as "fist meets face".

Except it's not that simple at all (well, except for possibly just fighting). "Fist meets face" can mean that you've failed terribly when looking at self defence, whether it's your fist or your face (contextually, of course... some self defence require it, obviously)... and it's a complete oversimplification of martial arts... so, well, no.

Oh, but with the link you provided, I'd like to address something you raised there (stemming from my question to you):

Someone asked "How is competition or sport testing "self defence"? Whoever like to use the term "self defence" always like to get knife fight involved. Their argument are since sport fight doesn't deal with knife fight, sport fight is no good for self defence.

Frankly, there's a fair number of words put into my mouth there, and I don't think they're warranted. What I was asking you was why you think training for one thing is the same as training for something different... there was no implication of knife defence at all. But, so you know, Tomiki Aikido is a sport form of Aikido that deals with knife defence (even in their competition format), and you could easily class a lot of what's done in the Dog Brothers group as being fairly similar to sports (a lot more than self defence, really)...

Honestly, the argument is simple. Training for sport is training for sport. It is geared towards the skills and tactics that generate success in sports competition. To think that it is doing anything else is to be thoroughly blind to the realities of what training does. The aims are different for sports as for self defence. The optimum tactics are different... in cases, completely opposite to each other. The criteria for success are also, in cases, directly opposed to each other. So why would training for a situation and application that is, in ways, opposite to what you'd actually want to achieve be a good thing?

No. I'm not sure why you think that there are no studies because that's not true at all. I can point to no less than SEVEN separate studies which, do, in fact, show there are vastly more "defensive gun uses." Perhaps it's just that no one has ever presented them to you.

No. of Defensive
Gun Uses per Year Source

2.1 million Point Blank: Guns & Violence in America, Gary
Kleck

989,883 "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A
Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and
others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology,
March 2000.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/rngn3274255v6j67/

700,000 Mauser study

650,000 Hart study

498,000 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention

108,000 1993 National Crime Victim Survey

83,000 Rand, Michael J. (April 1994). "Guns and Crime:
Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self Defense, and
Firearm Theft". U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs,Bureau of Justice
Statistics. Retrieved 11 November 2012.
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

76,000 1996 National Crime Victim Survey

Significantly, even using the lowest estimate, 76,000 violent crimes are
prevented by armed citizens each year. Thus, the number of violent crimes
thwarted by armed citizens is about four times the annual murder rate.​

​

Hey Kirk,

Er... who mentioned "defensive gun uses"? But, for the record:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/...un-deaths-than-any-other-country-study-finds/

They concluded that more guns do not make people safer

http://www.theatlantic.com/national...key-questions-with-13-concise-answers/272727/

How often are guns used in self-defense?There are no comprehensive records kept of incidents where guns are used in self-defense, so the only way to know is to ask people. Data from the National Crime Victimization Survey suggest that a gun is used in self-defense about 60,000 to 120,000 times each year. Several other surveys confirm this estimate. By comparison, each year about a million violent crimes involve guns. This means guns are used to commit a crime about 10 times as often as they are used for self-defense.
A few surveys in the early 1990s suggested that there are millions gun self-defense incidents each year, but there are very good reasons to believe that these estimates were improperly calculated and these numbers are way off, more than 10 times too high. If the numbers really were this high, this would imply that pretty much every gunshot wound in America is the result of somebody protecting him or herself.
Even among the more accurate surveys, according to a panel of criminal court judges who reviewed survey respondents' stories, about half the time the gun use was "probably illegal," even assuming the gun itself had been purchased legally.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/gun-ownership-gun-deaths-study

Not at all. The U.S. has a shockingly low level of violent crime per capita, particularly when compared to our "more civilized" friends in Europe.

Hmm.... let's look at that. Forgive the Wiki links, they were just the first ones thrown up when I googled for results.... more importantly, they're not the sole ones I look at.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

Number of guns... first in the world is the US, with 89 per 100 persons. The next closest is two thirds of that.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

Gun ownership and homicides... the only countries with more homicides than the US are drug-controlled and violence-ridden Central and South America, and places like South Africa. When compared with like-for-like countries (what are often termed "Developed Countries"), the US stands well and truly out in front.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

And the same is seen again.

http://www.thenational.ae/news/worl...rts-but-other-countries-tell-a-different-tale

And really, the thing is, we're not discussing just violent crime, we're specifically dealing with the usage of firearms.

I could probably dig up some stats for you or you could believe that I'm not lying.

Nah, I don't think you're lying, Kirk. As said in one of the articles, the US simply has a very different way of looking at guns than other nations... which leads us to:

What it boils down to is this, after all of the emotion and rhetoric, when looking at hard, cold numbers, the U.S. doesn't have a "gun problem" at all.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Yes, you do. Which is a direct result of your gun culture. But, rather than re-hash everything again here, this is a thread where I laid out my opinion on things already. It's only really page 2 and 3, and honestly I learnt a different take on things like the origins of the second amendment... but I'll let you go through it and see how much you disagree... ha!

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...Armed-Citizen-the-key-to-a-free-society/page2

 

[lklawson]

If you have other NON biased academic data, then kindly share them. Anything published by a journal or organization that supports gun rights is automatically disqualified.

CDC? BoJ? FBI?

It would seem that we agree on Self Defense, training, and martial arts.

Yes, we agree on many things.

Sadly, on this topic, we will disagree. Personally, I favor an absolute ban on assault weapons (I know, vague, and what constitutes an "assault" weapon is left open to interpretation) meaning assault/combat style rifles, as well as handguns. I would still allow shotguns and long rifles with much, much stricter regulations regarding purchasing, and then a tax to paid every year on every firearm in your home by the gun-owner. This money could be used to help buy back other weapons, enforce stricter regulations. Etc.

I had a lot that I was in the middle of composing revolving around various studies, and the inverse relation ship between the greater availability of firearms along with the ever laxer laws in relation to the ever declining violent crime rate. However, I've decided that it's too far a departure within this thread. IOW, it's stinking up the OP's thread. I invite any interested parties over the the sites firearms sub-forum and we can continue there.

I've thought about this a LOT. Ever since the military.

I've thought, read, and researched a lot myself also, ever since, well, honestly well before Columbine but with a renewed vigor after my good friend committed suicide.

Again, I'm happy to debate the subject in the proper forum.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk