Don Gwinn

I can't get over how much this sounds like a gun board. "1911's are good guns for sports, but they're not really practical for carry." "What are you talking about? What do you carry? A 9mm? That's wussy stuff!" "What's wrong with 9mm? Now, a .38--that's a girl's gun. Only good for making your opponent angry." "Well, yeah, the .38, obviously designed by pansies for fairies, but. . . ." If there's anything I've learned from guns it's that caliber and gun are very nearly irrelevent within certain limits. If you train hard so that you hit your target with your weapon while using cover so you don't get hit, you win. I think TKD is going to be the same for me. I study it to address weakness in myself. I am strong, but I am slow. I am large, but I am clumsy. I do "Grizzly-Do" pretty well, but I am clumsy and slow on my feet. So I study TKD with the object of losing some fat, getting faster and quicker on my feet, and learning about range, spacing and timing. I think TKD will do a good job of teaching me those basics. Then, when I have grasped those basic concepts, if I feel the need for other techniques, I'll learn them. In my dojang, punching, elbows, and knees are emphasized even though they compete in WTF-style tournaments. The idea is that tournaments and self-defense do NOT have to be the same. I played football for a long time, and I carry a gun. That doesn't mean I will automatically tackle or shoot someone in a self-defense situation! Now, there are people in the dojang who concentrate mostly on competition, but that is their choice.

Best actor who is also an accomplished martial artist? Michael Jai White. Many of his roles have nothing to do with MA, and he's always pretty good as an actor. Best martial artist to watch in a movie fight? Bruce Lee. No question.

Well, if you need a big bald bad guy to get beat up, let me know. I only live a couple of hours away from you. Good luck.

Hapkido Cougar, I think we might be talking about different movies. A lot of stuff has different titles in different countries (sometimes five or six of the same title in the same country.) This would be a JC Van Damme movie in which he plays Frank Dux. He learns ninjutsu from a Japanese man in the U.S., then goes to Japan to fight in the "Kumite," an underground fighting tournament for people from around the world in which anything goes and sometimes the fighters die. He gets cheated by the champ, Chong Li (Bolo Yeung, who never seems to age a day) but wins in the end because he was trained in fighting blindfolded. The only problem is that, from what I hear, Frank Dux is a total fraud. Either there is no "Kumite," or there is such a contest but they call it something different and have never heard of Frank Dux. Dux also claims to have been a CIA operative, assassin, etc. Also fake, from what I hear. Anyway, if you like cheesy martial arts movies with interesting fighting and not much else, Bloodsport is pretty good. The sequels, on the other hand, are horrible. Remember "Cody" from "Step by Step?" The stoner cousin? He's the hero of all the bloodsport sequels and he's horrible.

Why would "r e tarded" not be your choice of words? That is the proper medical term for the affliction in question. Would you refuse to say you re tar ded the timing on your car? Re tar ded means "slowed," which is the only accurate way to describe the problem with a re tar ded person's mind. They aren't insane, they aren't paranoid, they just think more slowly than other people. Second, the problem is that mental illness is already a mitigating factor under the law. If it were possible to be so reta rded as not to understand that what you did was wrong, then your lawyer would simply move to have you found incompetent. If you are so ret arded that you cannot contribute to your own defense, same thing. So what we have here is a decision that protects people who are not very bright, but smart enough to plan premeditated crimes, smart enough to contribute to their own defense, and smart enough to know the difference between right and wrong. I've long argued that what skews our view of capital punishment is the idea that it's punishment at all. It should not be. No, the state should not take revenge. But we SHOULD remove threats. Some people are too dangerous to be allowed to go free. If you can never let him go, you might as well execute him. Under our system, with our vast free legal resources and practically endless appeals, it would be difficult to execute an innocent man. It could happen, but it's so unlikely--Look, here's an example. In Illinois we currently have a moratorium on the death penalty. The governor is simply refusing to sign off on executions. You can still be sentenced to death, but you're safe unless a future governor starts signing the writs. This was done because of Illinos' "abysmal" track record. We've had something like 13 people released in the last twenty years from death row when it was found out that they were innocent. What was ignored about that was that all those men were released within five years of their original trials in a process that takes at least 13-16 years to get from trial to execution. In other words, our system worked as well as any system ever could. To this day, no one has found any decent evidence that an innocent man has been executed in Illinois.

Now is not really the time to talk about how much Canadians owe Americans, is it? I live about half an hour from Springfield, IL, where the 183rd Fighter Wing is based. In fact, dad was in it back in the 1970's. He was a mechanic on the F-4. Anyway, it's really beginning to disturb me to hear the attitude around here. People are all saying "it's no big deal, accidents happen in war." As RamCalgary says, there's just no way these people would be saying this if four guys from the 183rd had been the victims. Friendly fire and accidents happen. We all know this. But this was not an "accident" or a "mistake." I'm sick of hearing people who willfully commit crimes refer to their actions as "unfortunate mistakes." Gary Condit did not make mistakes! He cheated on his family and obstructed justice at the very least. There is a difference. The initial report says that the pilots from the 183rd were flying over the Canadian training area. There is some confusion as to whether they were told the Canadians were holding an exercise, so it's POSSIBLE they thought the area had been overrun without anyone's knowledge, I guess. They spotted flashes on the ground. They claim they thought these were AA fire, but they took no rounds and saw no tracers or missiles. As it turns out, the Canadians were only using rifles, so it should have been easy to see that this was not AA fire and no threat at their altitude. But up to this point, I can still almost see how it could be an accident. They panicked, etc. The guy who fired was a former Top Gun instructor, but who knows? HOWEVER, when they radioed for permission to fire, it was denied. They then radioed again, saying, quote "I am going in in self-defense." By this time, THEY WERE OUT OF THE AREA and had to do a 180 to fly back to the area where they had "taken fire" and release one 500-lb. bomb, killing four of our allies in the process. Now, if even half of that is true, it's pretty clear that we're dealing with cowboys here. This was not a simple mistake. They thought they knew better than anyone else and they killed 4 people. Not just people--4 comrades-in-arms.

Guys, fox hunting is not my thing--and if it were done in the U.S., it would probably be done with a rifle the way we hunt coyotes. However, I think we're missing a few things here. First, yes, it's cruel for a fox to be torn apart by dogs. How do you think the food that fed that fox to adulthood died? It wasn't tickled until it died of pleasure. A fox essentially IS a dog and it lives the way all canines do--it rips its victims apart until they die and then it eats them. Second, you've already heard the reason fox hunting became popular in the first place. Foxes are predators that interfere with man. Unfortunately for foxes, we're a little better at this game than they are. Third, I hunt only meat animals and only what I have use for, but I don't begrudge the varminters their sport. Woodchucks, prairie dogs, crows, coyotes--these all seem like terrible prey because people don't eat them, but not all prey is food. These animals eat crops, destroy fields, and kill pets and livestock. Fourth, animal populations will balance without human hunting, but the mechanism is starvation and horrible, wasting diseases. We went through this with deer populations in the U.S. a couple of decades ago and it's coming again in a few places. I'll never understand people who think it's worse for a dog to tear an animal up than for a wolf or coyote to do the same thing, or that it's worse for a human to kill a deer with one well-placed shot than to let 20 deer starve to death or die of blue tongue a little farther down the road.

Good on your grandpa! Speaking as a man who only recently began studying MA and has little knowledge of unarmed combat beyond head butts and ground-and-pound, Bon, all I can say to your post is YEP! No, I would not shoot someone to save my property. But if they are willing to threaten my life in order to get my property, the situation has changed. I don't trust robbers no matter what they may promise in exchange for cooperation.

Several of you need to meditate upon the importance of a sense of humor. RealUltimatePower is a joke? Well. . . .yeah. I haven't seen anyone point out that MonkeyNinja is kidding, either, but it's pretty obvious.

They're just simple bands of woven celtic knots repeated over and over--I think there are six strands, but I wouldn't swear to it. Even I have a hard time telling the different knotwork apart. But subtlety and low profile appeal to me. I knew a kid in high school who tattooed his basketball number over his navel (22) with a sewing needle and an ink pen. It looked like hell and he was only a sophomore in high school at the time. I graduated that year, so I don't know, but I hope he at least got to keep that number until he graduated. One must remember that one will indeed be marked for life and plan accordingly. Yeah, you could get the Budweiser Frogs tattooed on your neck, but what kind of idiot will you look like 60 years from now? Actually, I know a lady from Missouri who had "RKBA" tattooed across one butt cheek on a bet.

I enjoy UFC for what it is, and all it is is a sport. Like football or rugby. Originally the concept was supposed to be to pit different arts against each other, but it quickly became obvious that the fighter mattered more than the art and that there were certain skills everyone had to have, so if you watch a "modern" UFC you won't hear much about different arts, like "Judo vs. Sambo!" If a guy is going to fight a kickboxer and doesn't know striking very well he'll train with a kickboxer for the weeks leading up to the fight. That's fine, but if he knows kickboxing well enough to use it in internation competition, he's practically a kickboxer, right? Striking does have its place in the Octagon, but yes, grappling dominates. I notice they've hardened the mats, which were a big source of complaints for strikers in the early years. More importantly, as you point out, grapplers can use their most effective techniques without seriously damaging someone. But no matter what you do, someone will think of a way that it isn't "real" fighting. If you overcame that and made it like "real" fighting, you'd have gladiators instead of fighters and I wouldn't watch it. Still, Bas Rutten, Vitor Belfort, Pat Miletich, Matt Hughes. . . . . these guys might take exception to the idea that a striker doesn't get a chance in UFC. I say "Bring back Tank Abbot!"

Mr. Bitseach, I probably just don't get it, so enlighten me, please. Are you trying to be insulting or funny? If you're serious about your hoplophobia, and if it's not to personal a question, what in the world are you doing in a weapons forum? Why not spare yourself the thought of all those nasty weapons and simply do something else? Do you study an art that looks down on the use of weapons, or something?

Mr. Withers, we agree on SIGs as well. My next gun purchase will be an AR15, probably a Cav Arms lower and an Oly Arms upper. SIG P220 (.45 acp) Glock 30 w/Heinie night sights, 3.5 connector, light contour job. Soon to get a trigger job from JP. (.45 acp) Taurus M44 (.44 Rem. Mag.) Swiss Schmidt-Rubin K31 carbine (7.5 Swiss) Ruger Mk1 w/bull barrel (.22 lr) Ithaca Md. 37 (12 ga. pump) Remington 1100 Lightweight Youth (20 ga.--really too small and short for me now, but it was a gift from dad so I can't let it go.) Bear compound bow, 70-lb pull (same deal as the 1100 above) Homemade bamboo bow, probably between 90-100 lb. pull 2 wooden katana Several assorted bayonets, Swedish Mauser, American 1917, etc. Folts Mantis--A custom knife. I own one of only 25 ever made, and mine is the only one with a hand-rubbed finish, green scales, and a finger groove. Alan thought I was nuts when I ordered it, but once he made it he fell in love. Tim Britton Anaconda--Another custom. I won this one in a poetry contest. Spyderco Native--maybe the best production pocketknife ever. Cold Steel Bushman--$11 for a knife you could cross the Rockies with. 'Nuff said. I have between 100-200 other knives, but most would not be considered weapons. Old pocketknives can be more interesting than weapons and cheaper to boot.

"If they have been convicted of a violent crime, time to move to the US to train martial arts or buy a gun." First of all, you can't buy a gun in my part of the U.S. without what is known as a FOID or "Firearms Owner ID" card. This means you have passed a background check already. Then, to buy from a licensed dealer anywhere in the nation, everyone must undergo another check of the NICS system for any criminal or mental illness history. Second of all, I'd LOVE to see the long-range plan for banning or controlling martial arts. Say I'm a violent thug. I am enjoined from studying martial arts. What will they do? How will they keep me from doing forms in my house? How will they keep me from punching a bag, or a tree for that matter? It isn't possible. How many martial arts started out completely underground? Anyway, all this aside, your response means that you are, in fact, in favor of banning the study or martial arts, or you aren't? If not, please tell us what controls you would like to see that the U.S. does not already have. Also, I'm still waiting for someone to cite a problem caused by guns. If anyone would like to discuss this further at a site dedicated solely to firearms, feel free to visit at: http://www.thefiringline.com Anti-gunners are welcome; flames and trolling are very strictly forbidden, so you need not worry about it. If anyone drops in, come by the Legal and Political forum and say hi. I use the same name everywhere.

Well, if anyone between St. Louis and Chicago ever wants to try it out, I can be persuaded to go shooting pretty easily. Actually, just about any excuse will do. I know what the answer from at least one person will be: "Yes, it's true that my art has origins in combat, but I practice it in order to stay fit, have fun, and reach a higher spiritual plane." Well, I've never had to use one of my guns in combat either, and the fact that some other people misuse theirs doesn't mean I don't have a right to own mine.

First of all, let's define our terms. A "Gun" must be capable of FIRING, therefore an S-80 is not a "firearm." Please name one of those problems you say guns have caused in America. I'm genuinely interested to hear which problems you think guns have caused and how. The USA has a gun problem the way Japan had a sword problem and England has a beer bottle and forehead problem. That is, there are violent people in those nations who use those weapons to hurt and kill other people. Calling it a "gun problem" when a PERSON hurts a PERSON with a gun is foolish. The SAS tends to be better at free-ranging special operations. We form similar groups, but within a few years they become highly conventional. You might look at Charlie Beckwith's book; Delta Force was his attempt to create an SAS clone in the U.S. military. It lasted as long as his command, then the next commander created what was essentially a conventional airborne unit with good shots and custom weapons. Bitseach, in the U.S., the "fantasy" that trained and licensed CCW holders are good guys has been proven to be reality. They commit crimes at a rate around 1/10th as great as the average population, and even then, the vast majority of the "crimes" committed are things like carrying in a prohibited area, which most often happens by accident. I'd prefer you not generalize about me being a bad person, please. I guess my question is, why do anti-gunners on this site train in martial arts? Are you not aware that your skills could be used to hurt, cripple, or even kill some poor unfortunate? How do you know that most of the "trained" martial artists out there are good people who will use their skills wisely? Wouldn't it be safer to ban the study of the martial arts so that bad people couldn't learn them?

I have a friend with one and he likes it a lot. It seems comfortable and secure in the hand, and like all Spydies is hella sharp. I love Spydercos. I carry a Native just about everywhere.

CkStudent, you're absolutely right. That's the whole point; violence in any given country has a lot more to do with the culture and the people than it does the weapons available. So, no, it's not widespread gun ownership that keeps Switzerland safe--just like it's not widespread gun ownership that makes the U.S. relatively violent. For the past several years (maybe decades, I haven't checked back that far) you can total up ALL violent crime for Japan and Canada on a per capita basis and it is still far less than the rate in America for violent crime WITHOUT GUNS. In other words, if you could transport all our guns magically to Japan and Canada, they'd still have lower violent crime rates. Canada and Japan don't have the racial and drug problems that we do, and Japan is, to put it mildly, a highly repressive society. Their rules of evidence, interrogation, and representation, for instance, are deplorable compared to ours and their extremely high conviction rate reflects it. Withers, be glad you CAN carry. Here in Illinois I have to register as a Gun Nut and carry Photo ID just to touch a gun; carrying a loaded gun is impossible unless you're a politician. I carry an unloaded gun in a fanny pack, which frankly is legal only because of a loophole.

Actually, it's worse than that. At least Greco-Roman and freestyle survived. Heck, they're Olympic sports. "Pro-Wrestling" as we know it today evolved slowly from a loose circuit of traveling "Catch As Catch Can" wrestlers. Now, Catch-as-Can was/is a serious combat form of wrestling, a little like the reputation Jiu Jitsu has today. But how many Catch-as-Can wrestlers do you know? Ain't many out there anymore. Kid wants to wrestle today, he wants to jump off ropes and hit people with chairs. If he goes out and joins a wrestling team and finds that "real" wrestling is fun, it'll likely be Greco-Roman. Check http://www.mattfurey.com if you want to see a little bit about Catch-as-Can. Furey was able to study under Karl Gotch, who was one of the last greats in that sport.

TKL, he has a knife, you are unarmed, and that means you have an advantage? I'm a little lost on that one. Do you carry a knife so that you can give it to your attacker in order to create an advantage for yourself? To me, that sounds a lot like the people who say not to carry a gun because a bad guy will just take it away from you and use it against you.

With a blade of my own? Maybe. With my G30? Yes. Unarmed? Probably not, but I'd sure as hell give it a shot. I'm a long way from learning knife defenses in TKD but I've never had much faith in them anyway. Kali or another Filipino art makes more sense, but often assumes you are armed too. This is no problem for me since I'm a paranoid American but maybe for some.

I don't think there's anything wrong with a tattoo. I'm designing a large Celtic (two dragons and several knots) for my back. It will be mine, unique to me and with special meaning for me. Now, if you're getting your favorite cartoon character put on there, that's a little silly. I played football with a lot of guys who put their numbers or helmets on themselves, and I think that's a little silly unless you're dedicated enough to football to make a real attempt at going pro. But if you hold three black belts in three arts, I find it hard to believe that you lack dedication or are dabbling. If/when I achieve black belt, I've already decided that my present to myself will be two armbands--Celtic "warrior bands." Much like people who get Kanji done to make the meaning private, most people will have no idea what these bands signify and will assume they're just bands like everyone else has. I will know the truth, which will be enough. I believe in sleepers. Hey, if you want to be an army officer, you can always do it in the U.S. I have a good friend in the Army Rangers. He's a Lieutenant, stationed in Korea right now. He has dragons all over his body. Put him in shorts and a tank top and he looks like the illustrated man. Brilliant guy, very hard worker. His family moved here from Vietnam when he was 11 years old and went from filthy rich to starving poor and back to rich in the span of about ten years. [ This Message was edited by: Don Gwinn on 2002-07-03 14:47 ]

That was so sweet, I almost had to kick my mom in the face. Ninjas are cool, and by cool, I mean totally sweet. http://www.realultimatepower.net http://www.mallninja.com

Tai Kwon Leap, it might be more accurate to say that most "warriors" in the U.S. prefer not to train in schools where things like "musical kata" and "weapons forms competitions" are the norm. I didn't know there was such a thing as "musical kata" until I saw this thread, but if you pick up this month's "Black Belt" magazine, you'll see that the cover article (!) is a how-to guide on weapons routines. I thought that might be interesting, so I looked at it. It has NOTHING to do with fighting. It's a guide to choosing costumes that suit your style, weapons that look good with your body type, ways to impress judges, etc. Apparently these weapons forms are performed like little shows and have nothing to do with combat at all? There are a LOT of people in the U.S. who consider themselves warriors. However, most of them spend most of their time on firearms, batons, knives, pepper spray, and if they study unarmed combat it's usually "combatives" or other mixed or modern styles. Most are not interested in learning how to bow or do kata. I've just begun TKD after studying "Gun Foo" for quite awhile and I have to admit that it's a little irritating at times to be so bound by tradition. Last night my instructor told me that my stance is probably the best for fighting (45-degree angle from opponent) but he wants me to start with the "traditional" stance instead--body totally bladed to the enemy, like a handgun "dueling" stance. An old shoulder injury makes this difficult for me, but more importantly, why am I learning to use it if I'm not going to use it? I just tell myself that I'm there to learn his ways, not to teach an art before I understand it myself, and there's probably a good reason. There is certainly a lack of "warrior spirit" in America today, but that's not uncommon. In Japan, for instance, I know of one man who trained with knives and had to carry a knife hidden in a duffel bag because Japanese law forbids the carrying of weapons right down to screwdrivers and pliars! That's not exactly conducive to "Warrior Spirit."

Withers, I started TKD for the first time last Friday and my instructor told me the same thing. Like you, I found that a good sign regarding his ability to teach. Thus far I haven't had to take his advice to survive a class (and I don't use that word lightly) but I'm 24. If I were as out of shape as I am right now at age 36 I don't know. . . . I don't really plan on ever using a kick above the waist in a real defensive situation, and I'll probably never be able to do the flying kicks well. The best shape I was ever in was 230 pounds. I was pretty lean and ran a good 40 back then, but I still weighed 230 pounds! My instructor is a 4th Dan paraplegic in a wheelchair, so he understands physical limitations very well. [ This Message was edited by: Don Gwinn on 2002-07-03 12:31 ]