Years in training or weeks at the shooting range?

[kajukenbo dad]

That is why they have C.W ......If you are looking down the barrel, talk nice and shoot throw your pants pocket and it work better on knife carrying punks........if he is a wannbe punk, give him a hard slam head first on the pavement and keep on walking down the street......Good Luck.....Beaware of your surrounding at all time

[Kirves]

I don't live in the U.S. Where I come from, everyone has hard time getting guns. When the citizens don't have guns, the criminals can't get them either, because illegal guns are usually the ones stolen from the citizens during burglaries.

 

In the U.S., I would think it is more difficult. If one state makes guns hard to get, the criminals can get a gun from the neighboring state where guns are everywhere, all you need is to steal it from someone if you can't buy it. If nearly every house has one, all you need to do is find a house whose owners are not home and break in and look for guns.

 

So, my point is, not every country is like the U.S. so different kinds of solutions work for different people in different areas.

[daeinwolf]

I feel that we as martial artists should have a basic knowledge of firearms. But as someone said, knowing a martial art gives one a choice of how much damage to inflict.

 

As far as street weapons go, I always have a pair of throwing knives on me.

 

Sastimos--Joshua

[Martial_Artist]

I didn't reply to the poll because of the two answers neither one reflected my opinion. I believe a martial artist should be proficient in both. Years in training should also be years at the range.

 

The handgun is the single best weapon for self-defense. No martial artist can really be complete in his self-defense training without knowing how to use one and at least have intermediate accuracy. Especially if that martial artist lives in the U.S.

 

But, the martial artist needs to be able to fight without a weapon as well. There will be times and circumstances where you cannot use a handgun, or the use of a handgun is not justified. You should be able to use you body.

 

Finally, I have some facts to share with the readers of this thread. Particularly I would like to address Treebranch's post. I apologize in advance as this will be somewhat long.

 

Before I begin I recommend reading a book called "More guns, less crime." by Dr. John Lott.

 

These statistics and facts are gathered from the FBI unified crime report, US. Dept of Justice statistics, and others as will be cited.

 

First about countries that banned firearms. Their crime rates, per capita and on comparison with their records, has risen. The UK and Australia both have experienced rises in crime, particularly with handguns because now only criminals have guns. In 1999 Australia was at the top of the list, and the UK was second in a list of the top 17 industrialized countries of the world. With 4.1 and 3.6% of the population being victim to robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force. These countries have strict gun control. Yet, you are more likely to be victimized in these countries than you are in the US, which was only 1.9% of the population. (Taken from Dutch Ministry of Justice, Criminal Victimization in Seventeen Industrialized Countries, 2001)

 

Every year there are at least 30,000 gun related deaths(most of this number is suicide and accidental death) commited in America. That sounds like a lot, well it is, but another statistic that is always overlooked is every years there is an average of 2,500,000 million crimes prevented by law-abiding citizens with firearms. 2,500,000 vs 30,000. Guns in the hands of law-abiding private citizens prevent more crime than is caused by guns. Of the 2,500,000 (that's 2.5 million) incidents where a handgun was used to stop a crime over 85% of those involved say the use of their gun saved their life, that without their gun they would most likely be dead or severely handicapped.

 

US states with stricter gun control also have the higher crime rates. Why? Because when you enact a gun-law only the law-abiding follow that law. Criminals don't follow laws. At least, none of the criminals I've ever had experiences with do. I mean, that's why they're criminals. Vermont has the most lax gun-controls laws in the nation. And year after year they are the lowest or second lowest in crime per capita in the entire US.

 

james Wrighte and Peter Rossi conducted a survey among criminals in prison on violent charges for the book, "Armed and Dangerous: A survey of felons and their firearms". 60% of those polled said they would not attack someone if they knew that person was armed. 60% were more afraid of being shot by a private citizen than by the police. Another 40% said they would not attack a person if they thought that person was armed.

 

Police are 11% likely to accidentally shoot the wrong person. Private citizens are 2%.

 

In conducting a study on rape, the US Dept. of Justice and several researchers have concluded that armed resistance(with a gun) is 7 times more effective than any other type of resistance. Victims that resisted with a firearm were 85% more successful in preventing the rape altogether than their counterparts that resorted to other measures(including hand-to-hand, and running--running, BTW, will get you more injured in a rape case according to research.)

 

Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented by just showing a gun. Of the crimes prevented the gun is fired in 0.9% of the incidents. zero point nine percent. Private citizens are saving lives by merely showing the gun and rarely, rarely firing it. The mere presence of a gun is a strong deterrent. It stops around 2.5million crimes a year. So much for law-abiding citizens never using a gun in self-defense.

 

In short, private ownership and possession of firearms, particularly the handgun do more to stop and prevent crime than any other means in the US.

 

So, back to the original question, I refer to my original answer. A martial artist should be proficient in both and use both everyday.

 

For more statistics or crime information PM me. I can get you numbers or references and links to sites with this information. This kind of research is a little hobby of mine.

 

MA.

 

p.s.

 

In Micheal Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" he lied and falsified almost every statistic he gave. The real statistics can be found on the US Dept. of Justice's webpage, the FBI's Unified Crime Reports, and independent University studies. "Bowling for Columbine" is a useless documentary.

 

(This has nothing to do with the thread, but some of the posts reflected information as if it had come from that movie.)

[karate_woman]

I didn't reply to the poll because of the two answers neither one reflected my opinion. I believe a martial artist should be proficient in both. Years in training should also be years at the range.

 

The handgun is the single best weapon for self-defense. No martial artist can really be complete in his self-defense training without knowing how to use one and at least have intermediate accuracy. Especially if that martial artist lives in the U.S.

 

But, the martial artist needs to be able to fight without a weapon as well. There will be times and circumstances where you cannot use a handgun, or the use of a handgun is not justified. You should be able to use you body.

 

Finally, I have some facts to share with the readers of this thread. Particularly I would like to address Treebranch's post. I apologize in advance as this will be somewhat long.

 

Before I begin I recommend reading a book called "More guns, less crime." by Dr. John Lott.

 

These statistics and facts are gathered from the FBI unified crime report, US. Dept of Justice statistics, and others as will be cited.

 

First about countries that banned firearms. Their crime rates, per capita and on comparison with their records, has risen. The UK and Australia both have experienced rises in crime, particularly with handguns because now only criminals have guns. In 1999 Australia was at the top of the list, and the UK was second in a list of the top 17 industrialized countries of the world. With 4.1 and 3.6% of the population being victim to robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force. These countries have strict gun control. Yet, you are more likely to be victimized in these countries than you are in the US, which was only 1.9% of the population. (Taken from Dutch Ministry of Justice, Criminal Victimization in Seventeen Industrialized Countries, 2001)

 

Every year there are at least 30,000 gun related deaths(most of this number is suicide and accidental death) commited in America. That sounds like a lot, well it is, but another statistic that is always overlooked is every years there is an average of 2,500,000 million crimes prevented by law-abiding citizens with firearms. 2,500,000 vs 30,000. Guns in the hands of law-abiding private citizens prevent more crime than is caused by guns. Of the 2,500,000 (that's 2.5 million) incidents where a handgun was used to stop a crime over 85% of those involved say the use of their gun saved their life, that without their gun they would most likely be dead or severely handicapped.

 

US states with stricter gun control also have the higher crime rates. Why? Because when you enact a gun-law only the law-abiding follow that law. Criminals don't follow laws. At least, none of the criminals I've ever had experiences with do. I mean, that's why they're criminals. Vermont has the most lax gun-controls laws in the nation. And year after year they are the lowest or second lowest in crime per capita in the entire US.

 

james Wrighte and Peter Rossi conducted a survey among criminals in prison on violent charges for the book, "Armed and Dangerous: A survey of felons and their firearms". 60% of those polled said they would not attack someone if they knew that person was armed. 60% were more afraid of being shot by a private citizen than by the police. Another 40% said they would not attack a person if they thought that person was armed.

 

Police are 11% likely to accidentally shoot the wrong person. Private citizens are 2%.

 

In conducting a study on rape, the US Dept. of Justice and several researchers have concluded that armed resistance(with a gun) is 7 times more effective than any other type of resistance. Victims that resisted with a firearm were 85% more successful in preventing the rape altogether than their counterparts that resorted to other measures(including hand-to-hand, and running--running, BTW, will get you more injured in a rape case according to research.)

 

Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented by just showing a gun. Of the crimes prevented the gun is fired in 0.9% of the incidents. zero point nine percent. Private citizens are saving lives by merely showing the gun and rarely, rarely firing it. The mere presence of a gun is a strong deterrent. It stops around 2.5million crimes a year. So much for law-abiding citizens never using a gun in self-defense.

 

In short, private ownership and possession of firearms, particularly the handgun do more to stop and prevent crime than any other means in the US.

 

So, back to the original question, I refer to my original answer. A martial artist should be proficient in both and use both everyday.

 

For more statistics or crime information PM me. I can get you numbers or references and links to sites with this information. This kind of research is a little hobby of mine.

 

MA.

 

p.s.

 

In Micheal Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" he lied and falsified almost every statistic he gave. The real statistics can be found on the US Dept. of Justice's webpage, the FBI's Unified Crime Reports, and independent University studies. "Bowling for Columbine" is a useless documentary.

 

(This has nothing to do with the thread, but some of the posts reflected information as if it had come from that movie.)

That doesn't change the fact that law abiding citizens, where I live, can't carry handguns, rifles, etc - concealed or otherwise - down the street. Even if you are talking home protection, you can't even store them in your house without having them locked up separately from the ammo.

 

My Dad is a member of a gun club, and he has a permit to transport some of his weapons, but the permit is VERY specific as to his route and everything - if he is caught outside of that area when he has one of the restricted weapons he can be charged.

 

As for me, I've fired shotguns and rifles, but not handguns. I don't own one myself as I'm not a hunter like my father is and with all the restrictions on ownership there is really no practical "self protection" argument around here when the weapons are stored according to the restrictions; by the time you get to it, unlock it, unlock the ammo and load the weapon, you're screwed.

[granmasterchen]

I feel that you should be proficient, but seriously who in here caries a loaded gun with them at all times? If you do you are paranoid and need to seek help. I have been working with the military for years and i still do not carry a gun for my own amusement, some people do carry guns, the odd ones, yet be prepared to lose it and get charged some serious criminal actions, be safe and don't carry one, the majority of gun incidents result with the members own gun and death, wow that sounds safe!

[Kirves]

Apparently my reply was sencored. Or is it that somehow the reply sending was unsuccesful?

[karate_woman]

I never saw it, myself.

[Martial_Artist]

Well, no, in Canada not being able to carry a handgun properly doesn't change its effectiveness as a self-defense weapon.

 

Just because in Canada the laws say otherwise doesn't change what the firearm can do. The laws change what you, the law-abiding citizen, can do with a firearm. And laws can be changed by the people. A firearm will always act as a firearm regardless of what law governs the person carrying it.

 

However, you did bring up a valid point and I should excuse my post as being directed to those who have the ability to carry a firearm. If, due to the laws of the land, you are restricted to the point of ineffectiveness of usage then you will have to focus more on the archaic-weapon, including empty-hands, weaponry of the martial arts.

 

But then again, my post was in relation to another post that stated firearms are not effective as self-defense weapons when the logic behind such a statement is fatally flawed. Also, my post, should be viewed in the light of accessibility of firearms. In a country such as Canada where the citizen is not allowed to defend themselves, most of what I said does not apply, because the laws of the country tell the law-abiding that they cannot carry a means of self-defense. So, other avenues need to be explored and exploited. Thus, as I stated in the beginning of my post, there should be a time share between the two, but in the case of living in a country with restrictive laws, then the time in the dojo will have to be more--because there will be no time on the range.

 

But, again, the laws of a nation do not change how effective a firearm is as a firearm. When used as intended and unrestricted by laws, the firearm is the best weapon (not including being smart, safe, and avoiding danger, i.e. your brain) for self-defense. Now, it is up to the people who wish to defend themselves and their loved ones and their way of life from the criminal element to determine which laws most effectively accomplish this. Prohibiting the law-abiding only benefits the criminal. But now I am straying from topic and discussions concerning gun-control pro/anti should really be opened in another thread/forum.

 

I appreciate your input, Karate_Woman, and must apologize for not clarifying that my statements about carrying a firearm were really intended for those who have access to a firearm.

 

MA.

 

p.s.

 

The statistics do not change, however, because of a lack of firearms. When a firearm is used to defend in a rape case the success rate for the rapist drops to almost nil. Whereas women who fight back with other methods 1 of 3 will still be raped and/or seriously injured. The firearm still protects the honest citizen more than it is used in the hands of the criminal.

[broomhilda000]

Well said MArtial. I have seen the statistics to. A firearm can and mostly likely will ward or discourage an attacker from going any further, but again if you can't carry a firearm then this doesn't matter.