Don Gwinn

That was a terribly unhelpful answer. . . . I haven't gotten to play Tekken 4 yet!

I was told 5 years at my school, but that I could do it faster if I was there more. The average student there only attends twice a week.

Oooh, what a cool Christmas present. I'm an Irishman and a woefully inadequate stick fighter; it's perfect.

See that? Three lines to say what took me more than a page, and I ain't finished yet. I think there's another misunderstanding here: 1. I never called the .30 Carbine round ineffective. A lot of veterans have, but that's a bit subjective. It may not be politically correct to say so, but a lot of veterans tell stories that cannot be so, such as the guys who tell you they loved the .45 in 'Nam because hitting a man in the arm with it would spin him around and knock him down. We KNOW that doesn't happen when someone gets hit with a .45 in the arm unless something else causes it. We also KNOW that the .30 Carbine round is reasonably effective when used within its limitations. It can replace and even improve upon a handgun, especially out of the little carbine. Most of the "failures" of the .30 Carbine seem to have come from using it to do something it was not designed to do, like stop a charging soldier 100 yards away or knock down an enraged adversary with one shot. 2. To my knowledge, the Koreans and Chinese did not wear any kind of body armor during that conflict. I could be wrong about that, but it wouldn't make much sense to suppose that 1950's China, which could barely equip its army and relied largely on human-wave attacks, had the money and the inclination to provide body armor at a time when no one else did. However, your point is valid because it brings up another thing to consider about handgun-caliber rounds. Though the ChiComs did not have body armor, American soldiers did find that in such a bitterly cold climate penetration becomes much more important because the enemy will be wearing thick, insulated coats (if they can.) People forget that this makes a difference. Against some light bullets, a heavy winter coat actually makes pretty good makeshift armor, though you wouldn't want to bet on it. Look, again, I'm not telling anyone that handguns, training, M1 carbines, or puppy dogs are bad. I'm simply pointing out that anyone who is going to bet his life on these things needs to understand their limitations. 1. You have never trained too much. As martial artists if not shooters, I'm sure you don't need to be told that one. 2. Handguns are weak. If you don't believe me, ask Clint Smith, Massad Ayoob, Jeff Cooper. . . . anyone who has studied and taught this subject in depth. Therefore, do not assume that your first shot or your second has ended a fight. Keep shooting until your opponent goes down. 3. Handguns are weak, again. Conversely, do not assume that because your opponent has a gun, the fight is over. Even if you have been shot once, don't assume the fight is over.

It has simply never, ever, EVER been a good idea to try to replace Bruce Lee with David Carradine. I've never seen Circle of Iron; looking at the box was enough for me. The fact that Lee wrote the original script in no way means that the final product bore any relation to a Bruce Lee film. For totally unrealistic mayhem in a genuinely good and interesting movie, I like The Crow. Actually, the second one wasn't bad. I hear people complain that they shouldn't have made another without Brandon Lee, but the way the Crow concept works, the spirit of the Crow is the only constant. They'd have had to abandon the concept behind the film to make another one with Brandon Lee starring as The Crow.

I haven't seen Revolutions yet, but from what I hear, they don't really have to worry about Oscar strategies this year. The Last Samurai looks like it will be interesting as a portrayal of a clash between Western militaries and Samurai. Don't know how good it will be, but I'll go see it.

Have I offended you or something? I was under the impression that this thread was about Gunkata as practiced in Equilibrium. The answer to your question, in my opinion, is as follows: 1. Gun training? Sure, that might help, but it depends on what the training is. If you're talking about shooting, it's not a bad idea, but it won't teach you to disarm a shooter. 2. Disarm training? Better. If you take it seriously and work hard at it, it can work. You are ALWAYS at a BIG disadvantage when facing a gun unarmed, though. Disarms are techniques of last resort. 3. Gunkata? It's not real. A movie director made it up. No, it will not help. I am not disparaging you or your style by saying this, unless you study Fake Movie Gun Do, so I'm not sure why you seem to be taking offense.

Treebranch, if that's the impression I gave, I apologize. I'm pretty sure what I said was that the lawyer shooting showed that you must never give up and stay in the fight, that you should never assume that just because your enemy has a handgun you're doomed. In fact, I believe my advice, when asked about a totally hopeless situation involving being surrounded by a dozen government agents with firearms at contact distance, was to assault through the ambush, attack the cordon at the weakest point and attempt to break through and escape. Then, when even that seemed too negative, I posted an example of a man who survived 28 gunshots through dumb luck. I think, considering the nigh-impossible situations we're discussing, my outlook has been pretty sunny and definitely in favor of decisive action. You should of course be bearing in mind that I am no kind of expert. You are getting my opinions here, nothing more. That's an interesting question. . . . is there any record of a human being shot with a .454 Casull? I haven't heard of it. Can't be many, in any case. .44 Magnum is a powerful round for a handgun but nothing compared to a long arm and not a reliable stopper, especially with one shot. Ever hear all the stories about the dismal lack of power from the .30 Carbine in WWII and Korea? Lotta soldiers came back convinced that the M1 Carbine was a weak sister that couldn't be trusted to stop a charging enemy. The same soldiers were and are often heard expounding upon the awesome power of the .45 ACP, especially compared to something like 9mm. Truth is, by every objective measure possible, the .30 Carbine round is much more powerful than the .44 Magnum, even if you fire both from the same length barrel. Yet the .44 and even the .45 are considered man-stoppers, while the .30 is considered a wuss. Makes no sense. Most of what people say and write about handgun calibers is mythical. The bottom line is that although there are some differences, the degree of difference between most handgun calibers is actually very, very small in real terms. Put it in a convenient math format like foot-pounds, and it may look like one round is impressive and the other is weak. But look at how many foot-pounds would be needed to get impressive results and it becomes pretty clear that the handguns mostly get left behind.

So, what kind of knife are we looking for? Pocketknife? Work knife? Fighting knife? Whittlin' knife? It sounds like the last one you had was a cheap, sturdy work knife, emphasis on cheap. Knives in that price range tend to be cheaply made copies of reputable types made by good companies. Nothing wrong with a cheap knife, if it does what you need, but knockoffs are another story. Knockoffs take money out of the pockets of people and companies that actually produce value. If you're not familiar with knives, you might be surprised how prevalent the knock-offs are. Most of the "Smith & Wesson" and "Colt" brand knives, as well as a lot of "United Cutlery," are knock-offs. If I were looking for something inexpensive but very good quality, I'd look at Columbia River Knife and Tool, Kershaw, Spyderco, Case or Schrade, depending on what you want to do with the knife. For a defensive folder, Spyderco. Period. They have the price, the ergonomics, the quality, the service, and the edge that most others don't match. To compete with their quality, their edges, and their innovations, you have to go to a company that will charge you more for a knife. CRKT is just a hair behind Spyderco in my estimation as far as innovation, but they're very inexpensive and their knives are solid.

That's a giant topic.

That last post looks a little bleak as I look at it now. I suppose what I should have said was that you will not survive such a situation through skill 99.99999999% of the time. That does NOT mean you can't survive. The most famous recent incident happened in Tennessee, in Knoxville I believe. A man had been reported as walking around a parking lot with a handgun. It turned out to be a pellet gun, but there was a very tense confrontation between the suspect and 7 (IIRC) members of the PD. He was apparently committing suicide by cop. He responded to commands to drop his weapon by hiding the pellet gun behind his back and walking toward the officers, and they fired. 28 times. Twenty-eight. Only ONE officer hit the suspect. He only hit him with one shot, in the leg. The other 27 rounds missed (thank God, no one was downrange to be killed by them) and the suspect survived, albeit by simple stupid luck. Praying that the other side can't shoot is NOT a strategy, however.

I suppose I can see that, but I'm speaking purely of entertainment value. I found gunkata much more interesting than blatant wire-flying in much the same way that I find Batman or the Punisher more interesting than Superman. When I said gunkata was no different or worse, I meant to imply that there was nothing wrong with the flying scenes. Simply not my cup of tea. Are they arranged in a circle around me at a distance of a few feet and all armed with firearms, as in the film? It's an impossible situation. Survival would be based on pure dumb luck. Best thing would probably be to assault the weakest part of the circle, attempt to get past the guns and break through the cordon, and somehow escape. Realistically, that's just not going to happen in that situation. I know someone is going to say it, so I will: yes, they're going to shoot each other in the crossfire. However, they will also shoot YOU and the crossfire won't bring you back to life. However, as has been pointed out, under stress you can't tell what you're going to do unless you've trained hard for that particular situation. I have not trained for that and probably won't unless I get awfully good and awfully bored someday. There's really no point, because with the life I lead, I'm unlikely ever to face such a situation. If I ever did, the odds would then be pretty high that it was some sort of mistaken identity (who would do such a thing except the police or the Latin Kings? I have no quarrel with either) and attacking might not be the best option. This is kinda like asking what you would do if you were hanging out the emergency ramp of Air Force One while a crazy Russian played by Gary Oldman tried to kill you. It is conceivable that it could happen to someone, but not only is it just about impossible to survive but it's not as likely as a lot of other situations I still need to train to face.

You CAN get a "real" live blade for under $1000. However, in the long run, if you plan to stick with it, you'll probably be happier if you save up and get the "right" blade. That said, you need a LOT more knowledge before you even think about giving anybody any money. Put down the Bud K catalog and step away slowly! There MIGHT be five things in the Bud K catalog that aren't a complete waste of time for a user. The rest are strictly wall-hangers and most are too gaudy and ugly even for that. I bought a set of United Cutlery katana/wakizashi when I was 10, and the other day I found them in my attic. Just out of curiosity I picked up the wakizashi and squeezed. I was able to bend it into a perfect "U" shape with my bare hands. Totally soft, untreated steel. Go here and here and read as much as you can: http://www.swordforum.com http://www.bladeforums.com These will lead you to other places you'll want to check out. By the time you're ready to spend money, you should know enough to make a good choice.

Some random thoughts on this thread in no particular order: 1. Gunkata is not intended to be a serious proposition. The director created it and has stated over and over that it was developed purely as a way of having a theatrical wushu-type art that could incorporate guns without being boring. It's no different and no worse than the goofy flying scenes in "Crouching Tiger." To my way of thinking, it's also more entertaining. 2. If you want to see a movie that actually shows how guns are used by knowledgeable fighters, go rent "Way of the Gun." Good stuff. Lesson Number One--NEVER, and I mean NEVER, dive into an old dry fountain in the courtyard of a Mexican bordello, no matter how many bagmen are shooting at you. If you see the film, you'll agree. 3. The reason Gunkata could never, ever work, even if the physical movements would actually avoid gun shots instead of just looking cool, is that it is based on statistical analysis. "When you are here and he is there, the temperature is thus and the ambient light is so, then he will fire a bullet precisely there and nowhere else, so you simply avoid it." In the real world, no fighting style that works is based on that kind of concept, because humans are too unpredictable. In Gunkata, your opponent would actually be more likely to shoot your dumb butt the clumsier he is! I'm no expert, but that can't be positive. 4. If you actually DID have some way of dodging bullets, you still wouldn't want to stand still in the middle of a circle of opponents unless you could trust them to be smart enough not to fire across at each other. 5. That lawyer did a great job of keeping himself going when a lot of people would have laid down and died for purely psychological reasons. Handguns are underpowered weapons for all their positive attributes, and the proverbial "one shot stop" is very nearly a myth. The truth is that the large majority of handgun gunshot victims DO survive. The fact that the weapon was a .38 Spl. from what I've seen does not increase my amazement. The .38 has long been known to be an inferior stopper against anyone determined to continue the fight. He used cover very well and is to be commended on his cool head. His action limited his opponent to peripheral, non-stopping targets even at close range. 6. The other thing to remember about handguns, besides their inferior stopping power compared to long arms or even knives in many cases, is that they are not magic talismans. Many in the MA community are fond of speaking with distaste of how firearms have made killing too easy, since any fool can point a gun and pull a trigger. Well, that's not quite true, just as any fool can't hit a high moving target with a fast, powerful kick. Both require training. Simply pointing and pulling doesn't get the job done. Now, in this case, that's a good thing! But when it's you vs. your mugger, it would be better if you had trained so you'll use your front sight, squeeze the trigger, and keep firing COM until the threat goes down. 7. In summary: Gunkata is not real or realistic, but it's wonderful to watch. Equilibrium was one of the best films of the year, no matter what some effete snob at Cannes thinks. When facing a handgun, the main thing is to keep your head and use your training to stay in the fight and look for a chance to counterattack or "assault through the ambush." If you get shot, don't give up. Chances are good that you have not been mortally wounded unless you lie down and give up because you "know" from watching TV that people who get shot immediately fall down and die. If you are forced to use a handgun in self-defense, don't assume that you can just point and shoot. If you are forced to use a handgun in self-defense, don't assume that your mugger will immediately keel over, even if you shoot him in the head or heart. He may not have a TV.

Fair enough. Those are the right questions to ask, and it sounds like you've done a very honest assessment. Again, not to sound like I'm judging your worthiness, but I'm impressed.