Guns and MA

[Jiffy]

I'm surprised. I thought people would be more in favor of this.

Okay, first, yes, there are some people who should not have a gun. These are the same people who should not have a black belt or any martial arts training, so that point is irrelevent.

Second, the idea that you should have to join the army to possess a weapon is wrong. Thugs will carry weapons no matter what, and all responsible citizens should be carrying their own.

Third, anyone from the UK should know better than to think that gun control reduces crime or stops criminals from carrying guns. Every time the UK passes more gun control laws, the crime rates soar higher and higher, and the law abiding people have been essentially disarmed.

There are so many reasons why responsible citizens have the right to (and should) be armed, but I don't have time to post a bunch of statistics.

Bottom line: If you are taking martial arts for self-defense purposes, weapons, namely guns, should be the CORE-not the a supplement- of your training. Mankind stopped fighting with its bare hands thousands of years ago, and there is no reason a responsible citizen shouldn't be armed with the best weapon he has legal ability to carry. Some people have a problem with weapons and that's fine, just understand that if you don't carry a weapon, you are a major disadvantage to someone who does. And don't try to deny other people their right to carry.

You raise some good points, and I see what you are trying to say. What you are failing to recognise though is what other people are saying and also the context in which others live. Here in Australia for instance, concealing a knife is enough to send you behined bars. They usually don't, but they could. Forget guns...

We have had this debate before so I won't endeavour to quote statistics either, it just starts up a big argument and there are too many people with strong beliefs.

I will say this.

Fights are sometimes ended with guns.

Fights are ALWAYS started by narrow minded people.

[bushido_man96]

To quote UseoForce:

Okay, first, yes, there are some people who should not have a gun. These are the same people who should not have a black belt or any martial arts training, so that point is irrelevent.

The point I like to make when someone says that there are people who shouldn't be allowed to carry guns is this: "If they want to carry one, they are carrying one already." This is essentially in regards to criminals. By letting the law-abiding citizen have the right to carry, it levels the playing field a little bit.

[glockmeister]

So what if there is controversey? From the hypothetical perspective of an instructor, I want my students to have the best self defense skills possible. If you don't want to train in my style, fine, go elsewhere.

Let me say, that having a handgun liscense doesn't mean that the people holding them have any "skills" at all. In my state of Pa, any law abiding citizen can get a carry liscense without taking any kind of safety course whatsoever. So the idea that it being a requirement for the reasons you stated are kinda moot in some areas. Having a liscence here doesn't make you any more profficient with a gun than someone who does not.

That being said. I openly support the right-to-carry and carry firearms often. However I do disagree with the idea of forcing someone to get a carry permit in order for them to get a black belt, even if firearms training is part of the curriculum. I don't see how it makes any difference whatsoever.

[patusai]

I do not think that it is a good idea as a requirement for BB. If there is weaponry classes then that can be part of the training I suppose. If you have a gun and the other guy is getting the best of you in a fight then you will be more inclined to use the gun one way or another. The end result may be death when the need to kill was not necessary. Almost all fights do not need to end in death IMHO. As for packing a weapon (if caught with it) try telling the police officer that you are a martial artist and it is part of your training.

[Cat Nap]

I'm a lady shooter with over twenty guns so it's safe to say, I like them. As far as requiring them in martial art training? I'd say no. It's a personal choice and not everyone shares the interest. In the hands of someone who won't practice or doesn't know (or practice) gun safety, it's dangerous to keep it around and will just gather dust in the closet so to speak.

I train with guns because I love them but I train with martial arts for the same reason - and because I can't always carry. At those times, the body needs to become the weapon. If I'm in a situation where I can carry, no way I'm going mano a mano with a large man when I can introduce my favorite carry piece...

Laura

[parkerlineage]

So perhaps it would be best to offer gun training, but not to require it.

As for packing a weapon (if caught with it) try telling the police officer that you are a martial artist and it is part of your training.

I believe that's what licenses are for.

[patusai]

So perhaps it would be best to offer gun training, but not to require it.

As for packing a weapon (if caught with it) try telling the police officer that you are a martial artist and it is part of your training.

I believe that's what licenses are for.

I'm not sure if all states allow consealed weapons and there are only a few who allow wearing one in the open unless you are police or security. Security carrying the weapon can only do so in the line of duty. I think a license allows carrying with limitations

[Cat Nap]

They do - not all allow you to carry. Case in point, in Massachusetts - a Class B allows you to own a gun that doesn't shoot more than nine bullets but you can't carry it, except to transport it to the range and back.

A Class A allows for (a) carry of a large capacity weapon (ten rounds only) and (b) the carry may or may not be restricted. i.e. you may have "all lawful purposes" which allows carry at any time, or you may have a work or game restriction that lets you own the gun but not carry it except to work or the range.