Martial arts and guns

[Don Gwinn]

I'm not mad at you, I just don't think what you said makes sense. You could be my best friend, but if you say something silly I'll let you know.

 

Now, you've already begun to back off your position, so clearly you know it wasn't exactly sensible. Yesterday you said a gun can only be used to kill. Today you said only to deter or kill. Well, deterring an attacker is about as far from killing as you'll ever get, seeing as how a deterred attacker leaves of his own volition and is not harmed in any way. And again, there are at least 1.5 million defensive uses of a firearm (defined as uses which prevent the commission of a crime) each year in America, and the vast majority of those are performed by deterring an attacker without firing a shot. So again, all theories aside, in the real world we know for a fact that guns are far more likely to be used in a non-lethal, purely defensive way.

 

Yet you insist on the opposite. I just want to see the evidence, that's all.

 

A gun does not HAVE an intention. It's a gun. It doesn't intend to do anything, including killing. It CAN be used to kill, just like any other weapon you can name. It's easier to kill with a gun than many other weapons, but that also means it's easier to deter with it, which means it's easier to defend yourself with a gun without harming the attacker than it would be with, say, a stick or a knife.

but a gun cannot effectively defend.

 

You're going to have to define what you mean by defend. I keep telling you that guns ARE used to defend, millions of times annually, and you keep telling me it's impossible. What does defend mean to you? I would say that to defend is to block, stop, or evade an attack.

 

Again, I'm not mad at you, but I can't let you throw out untrue assertions with no evidence. It's assumptions like yours that make people cringe in fear at the sight of inanimate objects and call for more laws to further infringe on my right to defend myself.

 

 

[--]

Ok, let's start over. I agree that guns are good and legitimate self-defense. What I wanted to clarify is 'why do people fear them'?

 

Any weapon can deter an enemy. Pulling out a yardstick will deter them the same as a gun will. But what is a gun made for? Killing. Its sole purpose is to kill efficiently. Unlike a cane or staff, with which you can ward off attackers or block their attacks, a gun can either simply deter or it has to kill. It can wound without killing, but it's not made for that. It's made to kill. Of course, swords are made to kill, too. But with a sword, it is easier to control the damage dealt. You can block with a sword. You can strike with the flat of a sword. You can even strike with the hilt of a sword. But a gun? Deter. Shoot. Kill.

 

Most weapons are made to be able to:

 

1)Deter

 

2)Block

 

3)Injure

 

4)Kill

 

A gun can only:

 

1)Deter

 

2)Kill

 

It can injure, but it is not MADE to do so. It is made only to kill your opponent. That's why guns are feared. You could just as easily deter someone with a bokken, and if they still came at you, you could just break their legs or something; you wouldn't have to shoot them. Honestly, when you're firing a gun, you don't aim precisely. In an emergency, you just point at the torso and shoot. Most of the time, you are going to cripple or kill a person. Unlike other weapons, you cannot control what damage you do. This is why a gun is feared, and why, unless you are a soldier or police officer, other weapons are more preferrable for modern life.

 

 

[Bon]

On 2002-07-13 17:22, -: wrote:

 

Any weapon can deter an enemy. Pulling out a yardstick will deter them the same as a gun will. But what is a gun made for? Killing. Its sole purpose is to kill efficiently. Unlike a cane or staff, with which you can ward off attackers or block their attacks, a gun can either simply deter or it has to kill. It can wound without killing, but it's not made for that. It's made to kill. Of course, swords are made to kill, too. But with a sword, it is easier to control the damage dealt. You can block with a sword. You can strike with the flat of a sword. You can even strike with the hilt of a sword. But a gun? Deter. Shoot. Kill.

 

Most weapons are made to be able to:

 

1)Deter

 

2)Block

 

3)Injure

 

4)Kill

 

A gun can only:

 

1)Deter

 

2)Kill

 

It can injure, but it is not MADE to do so. It is made only to kill your opponent. That's why guns are feared. You could just as easily deter someone with a bokken, and if they still came at you, you could just break their legs or something; you wouldn't have to shoot them. Honestly, when you're firing a gun, you don't aim precisely. In an emergency, you just point at the torso and shoot. Most of the time, you are going to cripple or kill a person. Unlike other weapons, you cannot control what damage you do. This is why a gun is feared, and why, unless you are a soldier or police officer, other weapons are more preferrable for modern life.

 

Dude, what are you on ? A gun can't block so it's an inferior weapon ?! How convenient you didn't add it can injure to the list. May I ask why you are so bent on defending without hurting an opponent ? So, you're going to carry an impractical weapon such as a sword around concealed in your trench coat just because IT CAN BLOCK, which a gun can't do. If you're in a situation where you're blocking, it's already escalated too far, and the only effective means of self defense would be disabling the attacker in some way. Why would people even practice with a gun if they're just going to pull it out and shoot blindly at the torso ? Police officers when they shoot, don't end up shooting people in the head, or the heart. Most of the time, they injure them, that's providing the situation escalates where they have no choice but to shoot them. Sadly, there are are cases where people get killed accidently. But, in comparison, the number is probably no greater than the number of people who kill someone accidently with bare hands.

 

You seem to contradict yourself... A gun was designed to kill.. What were the martial arts made for ? In esscence, to kill. You don't think a sword was made to kill ? If that's so, is a sword sharp then ? Why does it have the potential to kill ? Martial arts and weapons of any kinds were designed to kill. Are you saying they're not feared, especially martial arts ?

 

_________________

 

It takes sacrifice to be the best.

 

There are always two choices, two paths to take. One is easy. And its only reward is that it's easy.

 

[ This Message was edited by: Bon on 2002-07-14 00:27 ]

[Don Gwinn]

Pulling out a yardstick will deter them the same as a gun will. But what is a gun made for?

 

I've never been attacked by anyone who would have been deterred by a yardstick.

 

Sorry, I know what you meant. Replace it with "sword" and you might have a point. Not for most people, though. Most have the same kind of mythical awe for a gun as a killing demon as some here display.

It can wound without killing, but it's not made for that.

 

Read that again. Why is what the gun was "made for" more important than what it can be used to do in the real world? Are we discussing theoretical design or are we discussing the use of the weapon in the real world?

 

Besides, who told you that a gun is not made for wounding an opponent? Whoever it was, he didn't know history too well. One of the reasons the FBI clung to lead SWC bullets for so long is that they thought they were bone-breakers and could be used to disable people who were not stopped by, say blood loss.

But with a sword, it is easier to control the damage dealt. You can block with a sword. You can strike with the flat of a sword. You can even strike with the hilt of a sword. But a gun? Deter. Shoot. Kill.

Wrong. You CAN strike with a gun. You CAN shoot for the femur or the pelvic girdle, and some people advocate this. It's not that you can't do so, it's that you'd be a fool to use a gun in this manner in a fight serious enough to require a gun.

 

Do sword instructors teach that in a fight serious enough to require the use of a sword one should strike with the flat in order not to hurt one's opponent? If I didn't think I was justified in hurting or killing my opponent I wouldn't have drawn a sword or gun in the first place. I don't fight for fun.

Honestly, when you're firing a gun, you don't aim precisely. In an emergency, you just point at the torso and shoot.

 

Honestly, I'd like to know who taught you this nonsense. It sounds like someone who read a magazine article about point shooting and didn't understand any of it.

 

Next, I'd like you to remember that you speak for yourself. I practice aimed fire and I know at least two people who do the same and have used the flash sight picture in combat. (and won.) It's all a matter of training.

 

Many people DO just point the gun and jerk the trigger, but many people don't punch correctly in a real fight, either. That's why we train.

This is why a gun is feared, and why, unless you are a soldier or police officer, other weapons are more preferrable for modern life.

Why? What magic process did they go through so that THEY have control of themselves, but you and I are spray-and-pray idiots who can't use a gun properly?

 

And what is it that justifies hiding behind a police officer who has to risk his life to do what you are not willing to do for yourself?

 

I'd like you to visit a friend of mine.

 

http://www.madogre.com

 

Tell him you're a friend of Don Gwinn's and you're curious about his experiences under fire. Tell him what you told me and see what he says. He served in the Army and was actually once shot with a .45 acp. He also worked as a bail enforcement ("bounty hunter") after he got out. He has since promised his wife he will never be a professional gunslinger again and now does mild-mannered computer work, but he's seen the elephant.

 

 

[--]

Damn, you people are dense...

 

Okay, let's make this very, very simple:

 

What would you fear more, a gun or a big stick?

 

The gun. Why? Becuase with a gun, you can only kill. With a big stick, you can injure or immobilize, without first killing.

 

Therefore, guns are feared in our society. Guns are not DESIGNED to injure. They are only designed to kill.

 

Am I getting anything across, or are you just going to skim over my post and get in line for your turn to run your mouth? I'm losing my patience.

 

 

[Bon]

On 2002-07-14 19:13, -: wrote:

 

Damn, you people are dense...

 

Okay, let's make this very, very simple:

 

What would you fear more, a gun or a big stick?

 

The gun. Why? Becuase with a gun, you can only kill. With a big stick, you can injure or immobilize, without first killing.

 

Therefore, guns are feared in our society. Guns are not DESIGNED to injure. They are only designed to kill.

 

Am I getting anything across, or are you just going to skim over my post and get in line for your turn to run your mouth? I'm losing my patience.

 

I've got a pool cue, I've snapped it in half over my leg, effectively giving me two sticks. Are you saying you're not going to fear me with 2 sticks in my hands which can shatter bones into a thousand pieces because it wasn't designed for fighting ? It was designed to hit that little white ball on the pool table.

 

 

[Don Gwinn]

Damn, you people are dense...

 

Yeah, that must be it. You couldn't possibly be mistaken, after all. And clearly you know more about firearms than I do. I've only been shooting since I was 6 years old, and I've only been a moderator at the premiere firearms site on the planet for about two years now. I only own eight guns, and I only shoot about once a week.

 

Clearly, I'm just dense.

Okay, let's make this very, very simple:

 

Please do. I'm pretty sure it's the complexity of your theory that's been tripping me up so far. . . .

What would you fear more, a gun or a big stick?

 

Assuming I think the person wants to harm me, I'd be more afraid of the one with the gun. Duh.

 

You, however, said that you would be equally deterred by a yardstick. You said it, not me. It was a silly thing to say, but that's your problem.

The gun. Why? Becuase with a gun, you can only kill. With a big stick, you can injure or immobilize, without first killing.

 

You must not have simplified enough. Let me get this straight.

 

You are confronted by an attacker. You believe he wants to kill you. However, you see that he is using a weapon which he COULD use to restrain you instead IF he chose to do so. . . . and so you are less afraid?

 

What in the world does it matter what his weapon was designed to do if HE, the PERSON who is about to attack you, intends to kill you? It's ridiculous.

Therefore, guns are feared in our society. Guns are not DESIGNED to injure. They are only designed to kill.

 

Again, could you explain to me what the designer's purpose for the weapon has to do with its real world use? A kitchen knife is not designed to kill. Do you breathe a sigh of relief if someone attacks you with one?

Am I getting anything across, or are you just going to skim over my post and get in line for your turn to run your mouth? I'm losing my patience.

 

That's a shame. I'm really beginning to have a lot of fun explaining the same points over and over. But then, I'm pretty dense, so it doesn't take a lot to entertain me.

 

 

[KickChick]

Bravo Don ... this is both entertaining and informative. I have learned so much from you and have had my memories reawakened of those catholic school girl days when Sister Bernadine used to crack me with the yardstick out in the courtyard. I thought she was gonna kill me I swear!!!

 

 

[Don Gwinn]

He did not specify a Nun with a yardstick, he just said a yardstick. If the attacker is a nun then certain of my statements may require small adjustments. . . .

 

 

[DokterVet]

I hate guns...

 

In Canada handguns are illegal, but since you can get them so easily in the states, every group of thugs has one.

 

So it means criminals have them and we don't - why can't america come to its senses and stop giving these things to everyone?

 

I've been robbed at gunpoint one block away from my house in a rich suburb of Toronto. If they didn't have a gun my friends and I could have mopped the floor with them, no contest. Instead they took my belongings and ruined my evening.

 

I hate guns....they just give power to the corrupt and lazy. They do not benefit anything. The only people that have them here are cops and criminals. The cops only need them because the criminals have them. STOP MAKING GUNS!!!