Train MA for self-cultivation

[Urban Trekker]

Preventing the accidents would be by treating the mental health issues. And therapy can be a lot more expensive then MA training depending on how frequently you go, insurance, and the level of therapy.

That doesn't refute my statement of the difference between preventive measures and the fact that treating mental health is something that occurs after. Furthermore, even if it did, the same would still apply to a trained martial artist that doesn't own gun who finds himself in a particular situation; so the two would cancel each other out.

Either way, my original point stands: the measures necessary to prevent firearm mishaps require far less money and time than the cost of martial arts training.

 

[JowGaWolf]

You might be surprised by the martial artists who believe that martial arts training serves one purpose only. They claim they 'do not understand' any other explanation, and demand to be presented with more information, which they then reject utterly. It gets a little old.

Love it!

I taught myself how to juggle. Worked with kids came in handy, impressed a hot look lady with my skills with kids. It help me to get hooked up because she said I wasn't like most guys.

The only real difficulty is to be in a situation where you have something to juggle. Maybe playing tennis. Or just random stuff.

Point is, Sometimes the little stuff comes in handy and you get more out of it than you think. Me knowing how to fight and training self defense is probably why I don't get as many conflicts and why people feel safe around me and with me. Not so much that I'm conflict free, probably because they know I'll handle it.

 

[Urban Trekker]

Me knowing how to fight and training self defense is probably why I don't get as many conflicts and why people feel safe around me and with me. Not so much that I'm conflict free, probably because they know I'll handle it.

That also depends on your personality type. There are plenty of people who can fight well, and they're the type that you don't want to hang with because they're gonna get you locked up. Almost happened to me as a teenager.

That's why I don't see anything self-contradictory about "self-cultivation" being integrated into martial arts training.

 

[Steve]

That doesn't refute my statement of the difference between preventive measures and the fact that treating mental health is something that occurs after. Furthermore, even if it did, the same would still apply to a trained martial artist that doesn't own gun who finds himself in a particular situation; so the two would cancel each other out.

Either way, my original point stands: the measures necessary to prevent firearm mishaps require far less money and time than the cost of martial arts training.

I don't think treating mental health is something that only occurs after firearms mishaps. As a veteran, surely you can appreciate the significance of PTSD and other mental and physical challenges that are affecting servicemen and women and vets. Veteran suicide rates for men are about 1 1/2 times that of non veterans, and for women it's approaching 5 times more for vets over non-vets. While not all of those are with a gun, the point is that addressing the underlying issues BEFORE a death will most definitely prevent some firearm "mishaps" from occurring. Simply put, mental health isn't 'something that occurs after.'

Can you elaborate on what you think are the costs associated with preventing firearms "mishaps?" Maybe the confusion is that you have an unconventional or narrow definition of the costs. For example, if we're talking about the costs of prevention, I personally think you'd have to include the considerable cost of lobbying for and passing gun control legislation and enforcing existing gun laws. To be sure, the gun lobbies spend a considerable amount working to prevent any preventative measures from being passed.

Or it's possible you are thinking of preventative measures in a more narrow manner. I know I consider mental health to be a big part of preventing gun "mishaps."

 

[Urban Trekker]

Can you elaborate on what you think are the costs associated with preventing firearms "mishaps?" Maybe the confusion is that you have an unconventional or narrow definition of the costs. For example, if we're talking about the costs of prevention, I personally think you'd have to include the considerable cost of lobbying for and passing gun control legislation and enforcing existing gun laws. To be sure, the gun lobbies spend a considerable amount working to prevent any preventative measures from being passed.

Okay, so are we going to include the costs of lobbying for more domestic violence legislation with the cost of martial arts training? Because that's the same thing as what you're suggesting.

Let's stick to the macro-level.

I'm simply talking about things like properly storing your firearms so that children, burglars, etc can't access them; for example. The cost of that? The price of a safe. If you only own one handgun, you can get a decent safe for $50. The time? When you come home from the range, don't be a lazy slob and leave your gun on the first flat surface you see when you walk in your house. Put it in the safe. I recommend cleaning it first; but at least put it in the safe.

Simple things like that are what I'm talking about.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Ummm, yes.....no......maybe. Seen quite a few MA teachers that look like they know their way around a donut bar more than a barbell. Sure, they may still retain the knowledge but they aren't living the example.

That was the base of knoweldge i would EXPECT, not what they actually have. It would be the MA equal of that gym monitor who knows how to use all the machines, is trained in first aid and just supervises people and does introductory lessons. (how ever many places seem to not actually have a gym watcher either for some reason, this example is falling apart the more its dissected)

None of that actually has to do with my statement, except the addendum. I would never argue replacing therapy or psychiatry with martial arts. As for the addendum, that falls under the can be, depending..., as that is the insurance aspect. If your country has healthcare where you aren't charged (or it's taken from taxes or whatever) then obviously that's cheaper.

I dont know the context, it looked more like you were going down the "in lieu of " point.

Wait i may have just merged everyones statements in that line into one block.

 

[Steve]

Okay, so are we going to include the costs of lobbying for more domestic violence legislation with the cost of martial arts training? Because that's the same thing as what you're suggesting.

Is it? That actually makes no sense to me. But hey, if you can draw a direct correlation between domestic violence and martial arts, I'm good with it. Otherwise, it's a red herring.

Let's stick to the macro-level.

Macro? I think that's the level I'm taking.

I'm simply talking about things like properly storing your firearms so that children, burglars, etc can't access them; for example. The cost of that? The price of a safe. If you only own one handgun, you can get a decent safe for $50. The time? When you come home from the range, don't be a lazy slob and leave your gun on the first flat surface you see when you walk in your house. Put it in the safe. I recommend cleaning it first; but at least put it in the safe.

Simple things like that are what I'm talking about.

If that's how you see it, fine, but you need to understand that your definition is unconventional and likely to cause confusion. I think I and others see your definition as overly narrow and myopic.

In other news, this tangent raises an interesting question that is actually on topic. Do people learn to shoot guns for self cultivation? Do gun instructors believe that teaching character is (or should be) intrinsic to teaching people to shoot their guns? If this has already been addressed, I apologize. I haven't read every post in detail.

 

[Urban Trekker]

Is it? That actually makes no sense to me. But hey, if you can draw a direct correlation between domestic violence and martial arts, I'm good with it. Otherwise, it's a red herring.

You're bringing taxpayer-funded legislation into something I'm talking about people doing themselves. Guns can be used to defend oneself from another person with a gun. Martial arts can be used to defend oneself from domestic violence. Hence, the correlation.

Macro? I think that's the level I'm taking.

No, you're bringing taxpayer-funded legislation into this. I didn't do that. You did. I'm talking about things that individual people physically open up their wallets and pull out cash or a card for.

If that's how you see it, fine, but you need to understand that your definition is unconventional and likely to cause confusion. I think I and others see your definition as overly narrow and myopic.

I don't think you should resort to creating false strength in numbers. I and others can play that game too.

In other news, this tangent raises an interesting question that is actually on topic. Do people learn to shoot guns for self cultivation? Do gun instructors believe that teaching character is (or should be) intrinsic to teaching people to shoot their guns? If this has already been addressed, I apologize. I haven't read every post in detail.

No, they don't. And that's part of the my whole point. If all you want is self-defense and nothing but self-defense, carry a firearm. Otherwise you're going to find that all the time and money spent on something you don't enjoy doing at the dojo isn't worth not having to take an L from the jealous guy who saw you staring at his girlfriend.

 

[Steve]

You're bringing taxpayer-funded legislation into something I'm talking about people doing themselves. Guns can be used to defend oneself from another person with a gun. Martial arts can be used to defend oneself from domestic violence. Hence, the correlation.

I pay taxes. If we're talking about costs for prevention, my opinion is that we should consider the actual costs. This is directly relevant as others brought up the cost of health care, which is partially tax payer funded in America and entirely tax payer funded elsewhere. I think mental health is a definite part of the equation, and there is a cost associated.

My opinion is that ignoring these things is self serving and myopic. As I've said.

No, you're bringing taxpayer-funded legislation into this. I didn't do that. You did. I'm talking about things that individual people physically open up their wallets and pull out cash or a card for.

You brought up the costs of prevention, but chose only to include some costs and ignore others. You did that. As an individual, I don't open my wallet and pull out cash or a card very often anymore. This isn't the olden days. But seriously, I do pay taxes as an individual. There is individual cost.

We can simply disagree on this, but something tells me you're going to dig in your heels and argue the point anyway.

I don't think you should resort to creating false strength in numbers. I and others can play that game too.

I see what you did there. I appreciate your snarkasm. however, in this case, the "others" are in this thread. I'm not creating a false strength in numbers. I'm just simply not the only person who doesn't agree with your definition.

No, they don't. And that's part of the my whole point. If all you want is self-defense and nothing but self-defense, carry a firearm. Otherwise you're going to find that all the time and money spent on something you don't enjoy doing at the dojo isn't worth not having to take an L from the jealous guy who saw you staring at his girlfriend.

It's possible we wouldn't have as many shootings in America if they did. Perhaps we could include that (and the associated costs) as a preventative to gun related self defense situations.

 

[Urban Trekker]

I pay taxes. If we're talking about costs for prevention, my opinion is that we should consider the actual costs. This is directly relevant as others brought up the cost of health care, which is partially tax payer funded in America and entirely tax payer funded elsewhere. I think mental health is a definite part of the equation, and there is a cost associated.

My opinion is that ignoring these things is self serving and myopic. As I've said.



You brought up the costs of prevention, but chose only to include some costs and ignore others. You did that. As an individual, I don't open my wallet and pull out cash or a card very often anymore. This isn't the olden days. But seriously, I do pay taxes as an individual. There is individual cost.

We can simply disagree on this, but something tells me you're going to dig in your heels and argue the point anyway.

Okay, here's something that I think we can agree on: when it comes to the types of violence that guns can be used to defend oneself against, and the kinds of violence that one can use martial arts training to defend oneself against; there is costly legislation that can be passed to address both of these.

That takes care of that, and now we're back to the micro level (that's what I meant to say last time).

I see what you did there. I appreciate your snarkasm. however, in this case, the "others" are in this thread. I'm not creating a false strength in numbers. I'm just simply not the only person who doesn't agree with your definition.

No one else here is talking about the cost of legislation being included with personal expenses.

It's possible we wouldn't have as many shootings in America if they did. Perhaps we could include that (and the associated costs) as a preventative to gun related self defense situations.

I'm not sure how this addresses what you quoted.

 

[Steve]

Okay, here's something that I think we can agree on: when it comes to the types of violence that guns can be used to defend oneself against, and the kinds of violence that one can use martial arts training to defend oneself against; there is costly legislation that can be passed to address both of these.

As much as I'd love to find something to agree with you on, I have some bad news for you. You made some vague allusion to domestic violence, but when I asked you to explain it, you got snarky and changed the subject.

I can't think of any martial arts specific legislation at all, much less costly legislation. Guns, on the other hand....

As I said before, if you can explain your rationale, maybe I'll better understand. Until then, I think you're just being contrary.

That takes care of that, and now we're back to the micro level (that's what I meant to say last time).

I figured. I'm not too worried about whether you know the difference between macro and micro.

No one else here is talking about the cost of legislation being included with personal expenses.

I mean, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but when you talked about associated costs for preventative measures, you were the one who brought it up. You didn't think so, and maybe you're regretting it now, but there you go. You tried to keep the definition limited, but that's just not how these things work.

Whew. Now that takes care of that, and I'm sure this is all settled and we can move on to the actual topic of the thread.

I'm not sure how this addresses what you quoted.

It's the topic of the thread. You brought up guns and said that gun instructors don't include any training for character. I said that if they did, perhaps we'd have less gun related "mishaps" as you called them. Does that connect the dots for you well enough?

 

[Urban Trekker]

As much as I'd love to find something to agree with you on, I have some bad news for you. You made some vague allusion to domestic violence, but when I asked you to explain it, you got snarky and changed the subject.

I can't think of any martial arts specific legislation at all, much less costly legislation. Guns, on the other hand....

As I said before, if you can explain your rationale, maybe I'll better understand. Until then, I think you're just being contrary.

I explained it as best I could in what you quoted. Forget the domestic violence, and focus on "the kinds of violence that martial arts can be used to defend oneself against."

Or are you claiming that there is no legislation that can be passed to address this? Because that's the only way we'd disagree.

I figured. I'm not too worried about whether you know the difference between macro and micro.

Cool.

I mean, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but when you talked about associated costs for preventative measures, you were the one who brought it up. You didn't think so, and maybe you're regretting it now, but there you go. You tried to keep the definition limited, but that's just not how these things work.

You brought in what you thought should be included. By the way, this is the part where you're supposed to disagree with my claim that no else is talking about the cost of legislation being included with personal expenses. You can drop names or quote their posts. Either is fine.

Whew. Now that takes care of that, and I'm sure this is all settled and we can move on to the actual topic of the thread.

Wait, what did we just agree on other than what I proposed that we should agree on?

It's the topic of the thread. You brought up guns and said that gun instructors don't include any training for character. I said that if they did, perhaps we'd have less gun related "mishaps" as you called them. Does that connect the dots for you well enough?

How much of the gun violence in this country do you think is actually committed by those who've received firearms training?

 

[Steve]

I explained it as best I could in what you quoted. Forget the domestic violence, and focus on "the kinds of violence that martial arts can be used to defend oneself against."

Or are you claiming that there is no legislation that can be passed to address this? Because that's the only way we'd disagree.

Okay, this makes more sense. Can you tell me what sorts of violence you have in mind for which there isn't already some sort of law passed? I'm not aware of any strong pro or anti mugging, pro or anti armed robbery groups, or other groups lobbying for harder or softer laws on various types of violent crime. Maybe, in a very loose way, BLM and such. Is that what you have in mind? It's a stretch, if so.

Conversely, gun law is a multi-billion dollar industry. From the lobbying groups like NRA, making and spending money hand over fist, to the gun manufacturers who make a mint convincing folks they not only want an arsenal, it's their god given right to have one.

Cool.


You brought in what you thought should be included. By the way, this is the part where you're supposed to disagree with my claim that no else is talking about the cost of legislation being included with personal expenses. You can drop names or quote their posts. Either is fine.

LOL. We could go on like this forever. You brought up the cost of prevention, but hadn't really thought it through. I provided additional examples of the thing you brought up. You didn't like those examples, because they were inconvenient to the point you were trying to make. Look, it's all in print.

Wait, what did we just agree on other than what I proposed that we should agree on?

Sorry. I was trying out your jedi mind trick thing. Didn't work for me, either.

How much of the gun violence in this country do you think is actually committed by those who've received firearms training?

I'm 100% confident that some of it is. I'm interested in actual data on this, so if anyone has some, please feel free to share it. I'll look myself and share it if I find it.

If I had to spitball it, I'd say 30% to maybe half. That's my guess. If you consider every cop or former cop, every soldier or former soldier, most if not all militia members, a lot of the most horrific mass shooters, etc. are trained to shoot, so in 100% of those cases where someone who either is or was a cop, soldier, or militia member commits a gun related crime. Then add everyone who used a legally owned weapon who had a concealed permit in a state where some training (cursory or not) is required. The numbers stack up pretty fast.

Perhaps if there was an emphasis on character during the training.

 

[isshinryuronin]

If I had to spitball it, I'd say 30% to maybe half. That's my guess. If you consider every cop or former cop, every soldier or former soldier, most if not all militia members, a lot of the most horrific mass shooters, etc. are trained to shoot,

I think it's much less. Hundreds of shootings occur in America's inner cities every week. The shooters are mostly street thugs and other criminals. So, a small proportion of shooters have any formal training. Those few that do are the ones that get the publicity. Little attention is devoted to daily street crime.

 

[JowGaWolf]

That also depends on your personality type. There are plenty of people who can fight well, and they're the type that you don't want to hang with because they're gonna get you locked up. Almost happened to me as a teenager.

That's why I don't see anything self-contradictory about "self-cultivation" being integrated into martial arts training.

Yeah people like that often are chasing street credit. Trying to be the toughest on the block. Many had that agenda even before they could could fight. When I think about some of the people I knew, I'm grateful that I didn't get caught up in their BS. There's that risk that someone will think you are part of that crew. As a kid who grew up in the suburbs, I sure did meet and run into a lot of people who were dangerous to be around.

At one point people were surprised that I hadn't been to jail. I was shocked that they thought going to jail was normal. Some peruse have that wrong mindset.

 

[Steve]

I think it's much less. Hundreds of shootings occur in America's inner cities every week. The shooters are mostly street thugs and other criminals. So, a small proportion of shooters have any formal training. Those few that do are the ones that get the publicity. Little attention is devoted to daily street crime.

Could be.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Little attention is devoted to daily street crime.

Unfortunately this has been the case for a long time. The reason is simple "If it's not in my neighborhood then it's not a problem." When I hear politicians try to side step mass shootings by bringing up "black on black crime" I just want to slap them. Where were they 32 years ago? The sad part was that this wasn't the beginning of it. Before then, inner city neighborhoods were begging for help. But just like drugs many of them had the same mindset. "If it's not in my neighborhood then it's not a problem."

People used to blame rap for the violence, but the truth is that it started long before that. In general people who are having the problems are always asking for help. People who don't have the problem minimize it because "it's not their problem" until it is.

Inner city violence is always an issue. I don't know many inner city's that don't have a problem with it in some point in their history. In the 1920's it was Al Capone and other gangsters. No different than many cities today.

 

[Steve]

Yeah people like that often are chasing street credit. Trying to be the toughest on the block. Many had that agenda even before they could could fight. When I think about some of the people I knew, I'm grateful that I didn't get caught up in their BS. There's that risk that someone will think you are part of that crew. As a kid who grew up in the suburbs, I sure did meet and run into a lot of people who were dangerous to be around.

At one point people were surprised that I hadn't been to jail. I was shocked that they thought going to jail was normal. Some peruse have that wrong mindset.

Yeah, I think considering all crime, 30-50% are with legally owned guns by people who have received some firearms training at some point. military, cops, or civilian training (statutorily required or voluntarily). That's my guess, but there may be data out there somewhere.

If we open it up to all gun related "mishaps" I think it might be over 50%, as you're now talking about suicides and accidents, which I believe are almost always with legally owned weapons.

 

[Tez3]

As far as anything beyond a trained medical proffesional gives you, its case by case basis to if it works or not. As the NHS puts it for Yoga "yoga teacher are not medical proffesionals and are not trained or qualified to diagnose or prescribe treatment to medical issues, but some of the exercises they do may or may not help (insert what ever joint pain you have here)" that in short means, it may or may not, until you ask a GP or run it through a GP or specilist its not a yes or no. (they cant actually tell you it will unless they have a medical proffesional backing them, or specfically run it through who ever is heading your treatment)

A martial arts teacher seems to be a part time, secondment to most people, so nothing says they cannot be qualfiied and work proffesional as what ever medical proffesion full time, but the large amount dont seem to be. Is the issue of martial arts being seperate from modern sports knowledge and education still as big as i think it used to be? Because if you say classes on how to be a personal trainer you tend to learn how to work around some medical conditions, or adapt training to them, or general aches and pains. (not to identify or treat them)

Id exepct the baseline quality of a martial arts teacher to be that of a trained personal trainer, can work around medical conditions and knows about them enough to work around them.

As far as i know at least here, the only medical proffesional that can diagnose and manage mental health issues is a psychatrist, so a psychatrist would head your care plan and vet and review anything you are doing and reccomend things based on their assesments. In some cases i think a Psychologist can, although that seems to be a largely treatment and research position. Every position has a list of what they can and cannot do and what autonomy they have.

So working off the teacher being a trained and qualfiied counciler and registered to work in that capaicty, they could potetionally mix martial arts things in with treatment. There is a needed level of proffesional conduct though, so if its done in that(proffesional) capaicty it needs the required proffesionalism alongside it. (no idea what it is, i just know its diffrent, very complciated and can get very legally complicated)


Addendum: Therapy on the NHS is at least free for me, so its a lot cheaper than going to Martial arts lessons. Depends how you define therapy, some of its free some of it isnt, some of it can be discounted.

A GP can diagnose and manage mental illness, many will send you to a consultant psychiatrist if they believe it could help but a GP can certainly diagnose (if they couldn't how would you ever get referred to a psychiatrist?) You could also be offered counselling from an appropriate source is addiction experts etc, depending on the diagnosis a psychologist might be more appropriate than a psychiatrist. A Community Psychiatric Nurse can also 'treat' you.

 

[Steve]

Just to put this out as a general FYI, people with mental illness are much more likely to be victims of violent crime than perpetrators of it. There are a lot of myths where people envision mentally ill people going crazy. But I encourage anyone who believes that gun issues and violence in America is a mental health issue to do a little research.

To clarify my earlier points, mental health definitely has to do with suicide, attempted suicide, and other forms of self harm. And in America, suicide and attempted suicide is shown to go up dramatically where guns are readily available.