Should martial artist be considered a lethal weapon

[Spartacus Maximus]

Exactly my point, Spodo. In the case of a car, the machine itself may not be a weapon by design but it will be considered as one if it is driven by a person willfully using it to harm other people. No matter who is concerned, bare-handed violence is always considered differently by the laws.

Training does enhance the potential damage a person can inflict, but as a rule the use of an object increases this to much higher levels which are not possible without a weapon.

Anyway, the time and dedication to training required to become skilled in using one's body as a weapon is such that highly skilled individuals are less likely to become dangerous or engage in risky behaviour. There are exceptions, but these are much much less common than average untrained delinquents having a fistcuff or messing one another up with blades, guns or what have you.

[Alan Armstrong]

Martial artists are potentially dangerous just like everyone else.

They "the martial artist" may have more awareness of dangerous situations than those that focus on other less lethal pursuits such as playing Bingo.

Second hand smoke from cigarettes are more lethal than martial artists because the smoke is lethal in nature whereas the martial artist is only potentially dangerous.

I know if there was threatening behavior towards the general public and my karate instructors where in the vicinity, with out a doubt they would stop the threatening behavior in it's tracks.

The general public would be more likely to become bystanders than active martial art combatants against antisocial behavior.

Most common or normal everyday objects or things can be twisted or warped in to a lethal weapon.

Experienced Martial artists have more potential to deescalate than perpetuate lethally dangerous situations due to reading the warning signs of dangerous situations.

Many martial art styles are NOT lethal in nature as they are self-defense based.

If a martial art style was based on being lethal and anti-social in nature, then it would soon be dis banded as a threat to the civilian populations wellbeing.

This imaginary anti social MA style would attract so much negativity, that the chances of it surviving in a society would be close to zero.

A martial art style and it's practitioners needs the acceptance of the society on many levels, starting from the public and going up the official ladder also.

In conclusion martial artists are not trained with the intent to be lethal, therefore should not be labeled as such.

[LLLEARNER]

Martial arts, like hammers, guns, and money are merely tools. It is the person that chooses to use them as a weapon. Even then, it is the individual that determines whether the weapon is used for good or evil.

[XtremeTrainer]

No a martial artist should not be considered a lethal weapon because martial arts is not like a gun. A gun is a lethal weapon because a gun is at a totally different level than a martial arts background no matter how big that background is. Since a gun is at a totally different level therefore martial arts should not be considered a lethal weapon.

[bushido_man96]

No a martial artist should not be considered a lethal weapon because martial arts is not like a gun. A gun is a lethal weapon because a gun is at a totally different level than a martial arts background no matter how big that background is. Since a gun is at a totally different level therefore martial arts should not be considered a lethal weapon.

I agree, Martial Artists in general should not be termed "lethal weapons," nor should any person ever have to "register" themselves as a lethal weapon.

But, if someone is known to be a skilled Martial Artist, it can change things for that person in how other people react to being attacked by them.

We discuss this often in our use-of-force applications at work. If an officer knows that someone they are dealing with is a skilled Martial Artist, then it can justified in moving up the force continuum.

[sensei8]

Should martial artist be considered a lethal weapon?

I suppose that that's up to the courts to decide upon; others are just opinions.

[RW]

No person is a weapon. A person is a person.

Now, if there is going to be some sort of legislation that considers a person "dangerous" and therefore putting additional restrictions on that person, why would it target martial artists?

Imagine a world where an elderly person practicing taichi in the park is considered a "lethal weapon" while some guy in his 20s who gets into street fights because he is in a gang isn't considered one.

Imagine if the average mcdojo black belt that just does forms/katas and one step partner drills has to be considered a lethal weapon after his/her 2 year journey into black belt (again, mcdojo status).

In this hypothetical maybe a professional MMA fighter or a full time practitioner of full contact martial arts with a black belt (e.g. Kyokushin who spars full contact regularly) could qualify for "lethal weapon" status, but your average non-full contact martial artist should not.