Gun Kata

[Drunken Monkey]

guys, stop it now.

 

you are way off the topic of conversation...

[Martial_Artist]

Yes. Bring it back to topic.

[ZR440]

You can give a monkey a hammer to crack a walnut. The hammer is more than capable of destroying the nut, correct? However, if the monkey doesn't know how to operate the hammer, the nut will probably survive another day.

 

Same goes for guns. Only training and practice in offense and defense will give a person the edge.

[Don Gwinn]

See that? Three lines to say what took me more than a page, and I ain't finished yet.

Here you're comparing apples to oranges. .30 caliber didn't work too well against a target wearing flak jackets or possibly kevlar? That's likely because (to my knowledge) it's not a round designed for armor penetration. That certainately doesn't mean that it would be ineffective versus an unarmoured opponent.

I think there's another misunderstanding here:

 

1. I never called the .30 Carbine round ineffective. A lot of veterans have, but that's a bit subjective. It may not be politically correct to say so, but a lot of veterans tell stories that cannot be so, such as the guys who tell you they loved the .45 in 'Nam because hitting a man in the arm with it would spin him around and knock him down. We KNOW that doesn't happen when someone gets hit with a .45 in the arm unless something else causes it.

 

We also KNOW that the .30 Carbine round is reasonably effective when used within its limitations. It can replace and even improve upon a handgun, especially out of the little carbine. Most of the "failures" of the .30 Carbine seem to have come from using it to do something it was not designed to do, like stop a charging soldier 100 yards away or knock down an enraged adversary with one shot.

 

2. To my knowledge, the Koreans and Chinese did not wear any kind of body armor during that conflict. I could be wrong about that, but it wouldn't make much sense to suppose that 1950's China, which could barely equip its army and relied largely on human-wave attacks, had the money and the inclination to provide body armor at a time when no one else did.

 

However, your point is valid because it brings up another thing to consider about handgun-caliber rounds. Though the ChiComs did not have body armor, American soldiers did find that in such a bitterly cold climate penetration becomes much more important because the enemy will be wearing thick, insulated coats (if they can.) People forget that this makes a difference. Against some light bullets, a heavy winter coat actually makes pretty good makeshift armor, though you wouldn't want to bet on it.

 

Look, again, I'm not telling anyone that handguns, training, M1 carbines, or puppy dogs are bad. I'm simply pointing out that anyone who is going to bet his life on these things needs to understand their limitations.

 

1. You have never trained too much. As martial artists if not shooters, I'm sure you don't need to be told that one.

 

2. Handguns are weak. If you don't believe me, ask Clint Smith, Massad Ayoob, Jeff Cooper. . . . anyone who has studied and taught this subject in depth. Therefore, do not assume that your first shot or your second has ended a fight. Keep shooting until your opponent goes down.

 

3. Handguns are weak, again. Conversely, do not assume that because your opponent has a gun, the fight is over. Even if you have been shot once, don't assume the fight is over.

[Guy_Mendiola]

this might sound dumb but do what Steve Fox did on Tekken 4 in his movie when he tackled Lei Wulong and punch his ribs.

[Don Gwinn]

That was a terribly unhelpful answer. . . . I haven't gotten to play Tekken 4 yet!

[Warp Spider]

this might sound dumb but do what Steve Fox did on Tekken 4 in his movie when he tackled Lei Wulong and punch his ribs.

 

I don't get it. What would that be in response to?

[empty_cup]

All this gun kata stuff is great; however, it won't work. Simply put: *bang* you're dead.

 

It's interesting, because guns vs all other martial arts weapons is one of the problems martial arts films have always been fighting. Ever since Bruce Lee, where he went to the island, that had metal detectors to make sure that there weren't any guns. It was tenuous, but defense against guns has always been controversial.

 

In reality, if you are facing an opponent who is trained and practised in the use of a gun, and does not want to take chances, your odds aren't great. In practice - how many people toting guns really do know how to use them that well, and are that cool-headed? Also, it depends on the situation - if their intent is to kill you, you're skating on thin ice - if they want to keep you alive, for whatever purpose, then your chances are much greater.

 

Martial arts training can prepare you to react constructively, if ever god forbid, you are in such a situation.

 

As someone rightly pointed out, if you are learning gun defence, and they run out of bullets, you need to know how someone will use a weapon, whether to pistol whip you, or more along the lines of a kubotan / yawara.

 

My tuppence

 

EC

[returning_wave]

All this gun kata stuff is great; however, it won't work. Simply put: *bang* you're dead.

 

Not neccesarily. I have found in training agaisnt ready and (very) unco-operative opponents that disarmign someone with a firearm is not as difficult as disarmign a knife-weilding opponent. Even when my partner knew what I was goign to do I manged to get my finger in behind the trigger before he could fire. Obviously Im not makign light of firearms here but the finality and fatality often attributed to them in martial arts is a little overstated.