a question knock me down

[Bushido-Ruach]

There are some excellent answers here, and most of them I have used myself. The best one has been stated over and again......do you have a gun on you right now?

But since 9/11 my most favorite response is this.....if I'm on a plane that is being hijacked by some stinking fiends bent on killing everyone on board as well as a thousand other people.....I can use my skills, since I am most likely going to die anyway, to maybe, just maybe, take the killers out and maybe save the people in the hijacker's target.

Having been on the receiving end of a multiple attacker scenario, I also like to respond with this.......someone who attacks me may not have a gun, they may come at me in numbers as cowards always do, aftraid to go head to head and toe to toe.

[Waza]

A simple answer, that some one who would ask that question would understand:

Aren't people in the armed forces, the world over, trained in unarmed combat/MA as part of their standard training?

Aren't these also the same people carying some of the world most devistating personal fire arms AND facing off against people carrying such weapons.

Which must mean that people a hell of a lot more experienced in confrontation than the guy asking the "guns Vs' ma" question think that guns dont make unarmed combat redundant.

[joesteph]

Aren't people in the armed forces, the world over, trained in unarmed combat/MA as part of their standard training?

You know, Waza, that's a good observation that I didn't even think about until you mentioned it; we take it for granted. It can be a response to the original question or stand alone, as something to be considered in itself.

[Bushido-Ruach]

Waza asked...

"Aren't people in the armed forces, the world over, trained in unarmed combat/MA as part of their standard training? "

I know that there are a lot of countries that DO train their soldiers in MA, but the United States isn't....unless they have begun this since I was in the Marines in '88. I do know that the Marine Corps has since initiated a system of MA of their own and it has since been sanctioned by the Department of Defense, but before that, all we received in training was in boot camp and that was mostly learning how to thrust a bayonette. The United States armed forces have been way behind the times in hand to hand combat (in my opinion) when you look at other countries such as Russia, China, Philipines and such where they don't just walk around after going through boot camp, train a few days a month, run around the Motor pool and sit most of the day in hot quanson huts doing paperwork.

In other countries such as these, they were out target shooting, MA training, and other warfare training....not just learning how to drive a tank.

[Adonis]

Coming from a military and hearing something regarding that same topic with H2H training, because soldiers have weapons. I hear the same thing. However some times the enemy or a potential enemy is to close in range to be able to quickly engage the enemy with a weapon so training does save lives.

Here are some intesting stats on the military h2h. (Portion taken from one of the Armys H2H manuels)

When fighting started in Afghanistan, they began to conduct post action interviews with Soldiers who had been involved in hand-to-hand fighting, developing an interview format and procedures to draw out the lessons that might be missed in a simple narrative. What equipment was the Soldier wearing, what was the tactical situation and other questions? In the years since then, the Combatives School has conducted hundreds of these interviews and adjusted the curriculum with the lessons learned. For example, while every hand-to-hand fight documented has involved grappling, there have not been any that involved striking alone although striking is always a part of the grappling. Also, around thirty percent of the fights have ended with gun shots. Fighting in an environment where everyone is armed means that very frequently the fight is over who controls the weapons.

[joesteph]

[W]hile every hand-to-hand fight documented has involved grappling, there have not been any that involved striking alone although striking is always a part of the grappling.

It's like having MMA on the battlefield; literally hand-to-hand combat.

Also, around thirty percent of the fights have ended with gun shots. Fighting in an environment where everyone is armed means that very frequently the fight is over who controls the weapons.

Interesting, Adonis, that it says ended with gun shots, which can mean, as I interpret, unarmed fighting over who gets the weapon, or unarmed fighting until one of your fellow soldiers shoots the enemy soldier.

[bushido_man96]

It would make sense that a percentage ends with gunshots, in an environment where guns are rampant. But, in the course of the struggle, both are probably trying to gain a positional advantage to draw and use their weapon to end the fight.

As for the the U.S. armed forces, I do know that they have implemented a combatives program, with several levels of training. It begins with basic ground fighting skills from BJJ, and works up to Boxing/Thai Boxing skills, and eventually into weapons, I think short stick being the main weapon.