It's no point talking about guns. Gun wins no matter what.
Not necessarily. If someone pulls a gun and aims it at you, there's still self-defense options if you are desperate. I'm not saying they'll always be effective - and in the same way, a gun can jam, the gunman can be bluffing, or the hand holding the gun can be wrapped close like some knife defense techniques, and so on.
Also, it seems you are obsessed with competitive fighting - trading blow for blow. But some effective MA are not primarily revolving around that. As people above have mentioned, martial arts is also about self-defense, and part of that is understanding risks and psychology - as well as de-escalating, evading, and escaping.
East Asian martial arts incorporating Zen Buddhist values, for example, focus on neutralising bullies 'without a fight'.
I'm sure you're familiar with CMA ideas about yielding and luring opponent into false sense of security and then doing a sudden blitz attack to take them out? In such cases, there's no physical 'fight' - there's just lure and finish. CMA like Wing Chun are famous for that strategy, for example.
I only talk about MA here, not interested in guns as the subject.
I don't see guns as "the subject" here, but we're discussing a world champion martial arts master who got into a street fight and then lost his life at the hands of a much less skilled opponent.
So, like it or not, the potential of a gun being drawn in a street fight is always present, and since martial arts are often about self defense on the streets, the presence of the gun is highly relevant to the present discussion.
What I have been saying is that most traditional martial arts teach that when you square up in a fighting stance against someone on the street, you should be ready for a concealed weapon to be potentially drawn - no matter a knife or gun. Even a traditional CMA like monkey kung fu from Shaolin would teach you this.
And here on this thread we are discussing the death of a supposed "modern highly effective" ("ultimate") martial arts master being killed in the streets after he squared up in a fighting stance against a guy who was much less skilled.
So there's obviously something going wrong with peoples' perspective of martial arts here!
I am just commenting on what you said about BJJ calling CMA fake or BS. I am sure they refers to actually hand to hand fight, NOT talking about weapons like knife or gun.
I am talking about fighting in competition, if CMA has the goods, they can win even though there are rules.
As I've said already - when guns came along, all the practical effective OVERLAPS of CMA with effective MMA techniques you see today we're lost, but now they are slowly being recovered and restored.
Check this out, for example:
But some styles - like FMA knife and stick stuff, tend to prioritise knives and sticks, and their hands forms that directly relate to those weapons are inferior to empty hand forms - just as much as BJJ is inferior to a tough street bum's fighting instincts with a concealed knife.
But I know which MA I'd like to have training in when I'm cornered by a psychotic street thug wielding a knife ... the FMA, hands down. But you can stick to your octagon-only tested stuff if you feel that's gonna keep your genes surviving into the future when facing the streets, my guy. And good luck with that!
That it has to resort to eyes poking and hitting the groin etc before they can win?
No, not at all. There's plenty of elbows, trapping, and grappling stuff (like from traditional Chinese wrestling, for example) thrown in - as well as leanings towards giving various weapons - like knives and sticks, amplified potential.
Monkey boxing famously has its pole, and no doubt had its own stick and knife forms back in the day. That's probably the original 'BJJ with knife' style - plus some dirty hand strikes thrown in.
But for some reason there's selective vision when observing overlaps between MMA and CMA. Leading to situations like Tony Ferguson training trapping flowing into elbow on a Wing Chun wooden dummy, and destroying Petis with that technique, only for the MMA crowd to claim it all under the title of muay thai 'being trained on a wing chun dummy,' lol.
So people see what they want to see, don't they...
"martial arts is only about competitive sport-like fighting, not self-defense that lures in and then blitzes", "real martial arts fighting doesn't involve weapons and is only validated in the octagon", "fighting never involves the possibility of guns - and once a gun is drawn, the gun-wielder automatically wins the non-existent fight before they even fire a bullet", ... And so on and so forth....
There's big money if one wins, the style will be revere like BJJ.
No it won't be "revered."
Because even though there is triangle choke in something like monkey boxing (I'm just using this example all the time because it sounds like a ridiculous CMA style that easily gets joked about), it'll be claimed it only belongs to BJJ
. Just like what happened to Tiny Ferguson's brutal match-winning elbows.
MMA likes to claim that it can mix and match arts due to those arts' overlaps, but it often refuses to acknowledge any overlaps with traditional CMA and tends to dismiss weapons-heavy MAs as any kind of valid MA outright, lol.
And now Lo is dead , and we hope to avoid more such killings of world champion martial artists
.
So that's why I'm discussing this so much here. Because there's obviously something going wrong somewhere.
A world champion martial arts master was killed by an average Joe idiot, and in my view, and others' view here, martial arts is as much about EFFECTIVE SELF DEFENSE as it is about competitive fighting. And Lo was supposed to be a 'martial arts MASTER'.... So where was his
effective self-defense dimension?
.
. Got it 
(even though the Chinese combined competitive striking and grappling together to form a kind of MMA (called SanDa) before Bruce Lee was even born....).
. You can get through anything - it just takes discipline.
