# Picking up that gun



## Ric Flair (Dec 13, 2005)

You guys ever noticed in Way of the Dragon w/Bruce Lee and Ong Bak w/Tony Yaa that there is a major similarity in the two films???

Ever notice how when Bruce or Tony somehow knocks out a gun or a weapon from a bad guy's hands, our heroes never pick em up for their own advantage???  What we have is Bruce or Tony continue attacking the rest of the heavily armed baddies with their bare hands for the most part.

What gives???  Does this make sense???
Is this a part of some universal martial arts code i never heard of???  If it was me and i somehow knock a gun/knife/weapon outta an attackers hand (the odds might be stacked up against me though!) and have the chance to pick it up, i would!!!!!!  Especially if i know there are more attackers around armed with weapons!!!

Or is this done in the movies to show the honour of the martial arts in regards to not killing an opponent???  What about the martial art styles that encourage "do what you must to survive" tactics???  Like Wing Chun or the Filipino arts???  

I'm sure in real life if Bruce Lee faced the situations he faced in "Way of the Dragon" he would probably have shot and stabbed a few of those guys set out to kill him if he had the chance.


----------



## Henderson (Dec 13, 2005)

I guess it wasn't in the script?


----------



## pete (Dec 13, 2005)

sad when we talk about movies as if they were reality, and the actors as if they actually existed in the role they were playing...

but if we were to, better question would be why the bad guys would  throw their guns at superman after all their bullets just bounced off his chest?  and what would george reeves (50's TV) or christopher reeve (70-80's movies) pick up the gun and bend the barrel or use it against them?

pete


----------



## Ric Flair (Dec 13, 2005)

pete said:
			
		

> sad when we talk about movies as if they were reality, and the actors as if they actually existed in the role they were playing...
> 
> but if we were to, better question would be why the bad guys would throw their guns at superman after all their bullets just bounced off his chest? and what would george reeves (50's TV) or christopher reeve (70-80's movies) pick up the gun and bend the barrel or use it against them?
> 
> pete


 
I did not create this post to imply that movies and reality are one in the same.  I know reality from fiction.  

However when it comes to martial art films, i sometimes wonder the purpose of allowing the hero to catch bullets with their teeth, fight 7 guys who are armed with guns or machetes and survive, and even walk through a hail of machine gun bullets lol!!!  Is it to deceive the Western viewers to think Asian martial artist are super beings???  If so this gives the viewer a wrong perception of the martial arts community.  We'll still have those few artist who take an art and eventually go out into the real world thinking they are the hero and, get shot by a police bullet!!!


----------



## Ric Flair (Dec 13, 2005)

But again, I also realize that without any sort of fiction a film regardless of its genre might not totally work.  A director needs to allow his creativity to flow when making a movie, even a documentuary which is based on a real person.  

There needs to be a balance between fiction and reality in certain films though.  I mean, did we pay to see a martial arts flick for its authencity or did we pay to see a guy dodge 20 bullets and beat a machine gun maniac with his bare fist as if he is Superman???

Also i have to be open minded to the type of viewers who actually WANT to see a mystical martial arts hero destroy his opponents with a touch of death and stare of penetration...

Personal taste for each individual???


----------



## Navarre (Dec 13, 2005)

Yes, I think it depends on what the movie is trying to convey. Watching Crouching Tiger I could "believe" anything that happened. But I wouldn't have accepted it if some guy ran along the treetops in a Steven Seagal movie.

Incidentally, Superman would never use a firearm to harm a human. It isn't in his character. In a life-or-death situation he would feel as unsure about it as the average citizen.

Batman, despite his aggressive attitude, also would not use a firearm. He is too traumatized by his parents' death at the hands of a gunman to use the weapon.

The Punisher would blow your kneecaps off and then start working up from the ankles while having a slice of pizza.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Dec 13, 2005)

Ric Flair said:
			
		

> I did not create this post to imply that movies and reality are one in the same. I know reality from fiction.
> 
> However when it comes to martial art films, i sometimes wonder the purpose of allowing the hero to catch bullets with their teeth, fight 7 guys who are armed with guns or machetes and survive, and even walk through a hail of machine gun bullets lol!!! Is it to deceive the Western viewers to think Asian martial artist are super beings???


 
Maybe, it's just because the producer wanted to make a Martial Arts movie.  I've seen plenty of other genres where the hero does superhuman stuff. I mean, if he wanted the hero to use a gun, he'd make a cop movie or a war movie.



			
				Ric Flair said:
			
		

> (...)We'll still have those few artist who take an art and eventually go out into the real world thinking they are the hero and, get shot by a police bullet!!!


 
Darwin Award nomination here.  I don't personally know of anyone that believes that MA beats a bullet.

Ultimately, movies are entertainment.  I expect to see some crazy stuff when I'm watching an action flick.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 13, 2005)

Off all the unbelievable things in these movies...this is pretty low on my list of objections!


----------



## terryl965 (Dec 13, 2005)

Movie are there for the entertainment value just Like Wrestling did you see John Cena win while he was Blindfolded what a scripted.
Terry


----------



## pete (Dec 13, 2005)

Navarre said:
			
		

> Incidentally, Superman would never use a firearm to harm a human. It isn't in his character. In a life-or-death situation he would feel as unsure about it as the average citizen.
> 
> Batman, despite his aggressive attitude, also would not use a firearm. He is too traumatized by his parents' death at the hands of a gunman to use the weapon.


 
who cares, they are just movies.  keep them in the theater or tv screen and out of your martial arts training.  i don't care if they are catching bullets in their teeth or dancing across the bamboo forest.  its fun but not real, and even movies that attempt to attempt to be 'realistic' or 'believable' are still movies.  

what cracks me up is thinking about what the actor playing the character would have really done... like what would 'Bruce' have done.  well, what would Michael Keaton do if he were in Batman's shoes... LOL

i give up.  i'm going to the movies.  

pete


----------



## Navarre (Dec 13, 2005)

I don't understand, Terry. Are you saying pro-wrestling is scripted?? I find that hard to believe.

I'm still wondering if a speeding city bus (with a bomb on it) could really jump a missing section of freeway.


----------



## Navarre (Dec 13, 2005)

pete said:
			
		

> who cares, they are just movies.


 
Uh, yeah. That was my point too, Pete. I was just talking about what was in-character for Superman and Batman. That's relevant to the script.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 13, 2005)

Navarre said:
			
		

> The Punisher would blow your kneecaps off and then start working up from the ankles while having a slice of pizza.


 
Don't talk about my Boy that way...

He would eat afterwords.


----------



## Navarre (Dec 13, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Don't talk about my Boy that way...
> 
> He would eat afterwords.


 
You're absolutely right. Frank Castle's a professional. He wouldn't eat on the job. My apologies.


----------



## Jagermeister (Dec 13, 2005)

To answer the question in the original post, no.  There is no martial arts "code" that opposes the use of countering with a weapon.  The Bruce Lee kind of films you are referring to do this for 2 reasons.

1.  It creates the feeling that this style/character is so dominant, that nothing can stop it, and that equipping him with a gun only subtracts from its power.

2.  If the protagonist kicks the first attacker in the head and takes his gun, the kung fu stops, the gun fight begins, and now you're watching Die Hard instead of a MA film.  There's nothing wrong with Die Hard, but if you set out to make a kung fu film and half the movie is gun fights, you'll have a pretty disappointed audience.

I hope that answers your question.


----------



## Ric Flair (Dec 13, 2005)

Jagermeister said:
			
		

> To answer the question in the original post, no. There is no martial arts "code" that opposes the use of countering with a weapon. The Bruce Lee kind of films you are referring to do this for 2 reasons.
> 
> 1. It creates the feeling that this style/character is so dominant, that nothing can stop it, and that equipping him with a gun only subtracts from its power.
> 
> ...


 
yes it DOES kind of answer my question.  Now here's my thing,
I feel that since it is going on to 2006 and we as a world and society are in a totally different and less innocent time we need at least a few martial art films to represent this era.  Just to even things out a little.

Sure its okay to have your invincible kung fu supercats fighting 12 guys who are armed with guns and knives but, we also need a martial art character who has been through it all.  

A character who knows that there is no longer fighting fair out in the concrete warzones, its do what you can to see the next day!!!  A character who trains not only in hand to hand and weapons training but, fire arms handling/safety/and use!!!  So he is trapped in an area with a few crazed gun men and he MUST save his wife/gf/or daughter/son or not leave at all. He does what he can and beats one bad guy via the art of surprise and grabs the villains gun, ambushes and kills another 2 but runs out of bullets and somehow couldn't get the other baddies guns.  So our hero resorts to picking up a broken broom and starts utilizing his Arnis skills against an unsuspecting bad guy.  Our hero ambushes a few other guys by throwing sand into one of their eyes while stabbing the next and running for cover to make sure they don't hurt him in return, he finishes them off quickly.  he uses his mind to overcome them, not just his m/a skills.  Finally he meets the big bad boss and the boss knows all of our hero's tricks and NOW our hero is forced to fight hand to hand feet to feet for the next few minutes but, in the end our hero bashes the bad guy in the head with a crowbar he finds lying around in order to have time to save his loved one's life who is hanging over a tank full of sulpheric acid.

A Punisher of the martial arts genre, someone who also has the humor of Bruce Lee/Jackie Chan but the will to kill attitude of Mr. T (bad example???)

Though i understand that this is STILL a martial arts movie and needs to maintain its m/a essense and not overdue on the gunplay??? perhaps in between the gunfights/knife fights there will be some minor yet beautiful martial art focused fights with fist/feet/elbows/palms/knees/biting???

p/s Bruce Lee introduced guns and more weapons in "Way of The Dragon" which added realism to the times and made a reality often denied in movies before Bruce's time= bad guys using guns as their means of power!!!  Though Bruce for evey scene where they had guns would throw wooden darts at the bad guys gun hands lol.  Clever but fictional.  Good movie still.


----------



## Jagermeister (Dec 13, 2005)

Careful with those script ideas.  Hollywood'll be stealing that stuff quick!  :wink1:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 14, 2005)

The way of the gun is a martial art.  Hojutsu was the japanese art of gunnery.  Most kung fu movies focus solely on the unarmed skill of the star.  Any movie, however, where skill with a firearm is displayed, is technically a 'martial arts' movie.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 14, 2005)

If you were not trained in using a gun or knife but were trained in underarmed combat and you knocked it out of your attackers hand...would you pick it up?

I think if you pick up a gun, you have to be ready to kill someone with it, it can't be a detterant unless you have the will to back up the threat and coupled with my lack of training, I'm not sure I would risk picking it up


----------



## Navarre (Dec 14, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> If you were not trained in using a gun or knife but were trained in underarmed combat and you knocked it out of your attackers hand...would you pick it up?



I'm not trained to an appreciable extent with a gun. If I knocked it out of an attacker's hand, I would probably make sure it wasn't available to be used by the attacker but I'm not sure I would use it.

Having a gun tends to make one mentally dependent on the weapon. Without proper training, I would find it to be an unnatural state for me and impeding the use of the unarmed techniques I know.

I'm not saying this is preferable. The lack of gun training in this day and age is no doubt to my detriment. 

But, this is still probably going to be my initial reaction. I should probably become better trained in firearm combat, just in case.  *looks for a Glock*


----------



## Ceicei (Dec 14, 2005)

Navarre said:
			
		

> Having a gun tends to make one mentally dependent on the weapon. Without proper training, I would find it to be an unnatural state for me and impeding the use of the unarmed techniques I know.
> 
> I'm not saying this is preferable. The lack of gun training in this day and age is no doubt to my detriment.
> 
> But, this is still probably going to be my initial reaction. I should probably become better trained in firearm combat, just in case. *looks for a Glock*



Not necessarily.  Knowing the lethality of a firearm, the gun is *not* my first line of defense, so I am not "mentally dependent" on my gun.  I love Kenpo with a passion and also enjoy shooting with my guns.  As to when to do what (using empty hands martial arts, other weapons, or a firearm), it will largely depend upon what is happening in the situation.

I've been accused by others that what I'm doing is an "over-kill" because I train with martial arts and firearms.  <<shrug>>  I don't consider myself crazy.  I don't think people are out to get me.  I just happen to enjoy these things.  I love peace and go out of my way to avoid unsavory situations.

As others have mentioned upthread, using a gun means you have to be committed to follow through, which may include the possibility of killing.  Granted, it is possible to kill with the use of martial arts, but at least the level of force can be controlled.   However, if it comes down to life or death, distance can be a factor.  Fortunately, many situations in which a civilian has to possibly touch a gun do not often result in a shooting.

- Ceicei


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 15, 2005)

Ceicei said:
			
		

> Not necessarily. Knowing the lethality of a firearm, the gun is *not* my first line of defense, so I am not "mentally dependent" on my gun. I love Kenpo with a passion and also enjoy shooting with my guns. As to when to do what (using empty hands martial arts, other weapons, or a firearm), it will largely depend upon what is happening in the situation.
> 
> I've been accused by others that what I'm doing is an "over-kill" because I train with martial arts and firearms. <<shrug>> I don't consider myself crazy. I don't think people are out to get me. I just happen to enjoy these things. I love peace and go out of my way to avoid unsavory situations.
> 
> ...


 It doesn't mean you're crazy, it means you have a thorough understanding of martial skill.  A gun is merely another martial tool.  It's dynamics are different from a knife of a stick, just as those are different from the empty hand, but they are all part of a martial whole.  

As Bruce Lee was mentioned earlier, i'll point out that he taught there should be no distinction between this way and the next, you should understand where each way fits in.  

One should not view unarmed weapons training as a seperate thing from armed training, they are part of one whole.  To try and view it piecemeal is to miss the point.  Understand the nature of the given tool. 


On the issue of unarmed defense against a weapon, even if you have no desire to use a gun you've managed to disarm someone of, you should have enough knowledge of firearms to render it safe and inoperable to the attacker.  That means being able to seperate the firearm, quickly, from the ammunition.  Even if you only study firearms from the perspective of unarmed defense, you should understand the general operation of different types of firearms and how they are loaded and unloaded.


----------



## Seig (Dec 15, 2005)

pete said:
			
		

> sad when we talk about movies as if they were reality, and the actors as if they actually existed in the role they were playing...
> 
> but if we were to, better question would be why the bad guys would throw their guns at superman after all their bullets just bounced off his chest? and what would george reeves (50's TV) or christopher reeve (70-80's movies) pick up the gun and bend the barrel or use it against them?
> 
> pete


More importantly, why would they stand there with their chests puffed out to let the bullets bounce off and then dodge out of the way when the gun was thrown?


----------



## Navarre (Dec 15, 2005)

Seig said:
			
		

> More importantly, why would they stand there with their chests puffed out to let the bullets bounce off and then dodge out of the way when the gun was thrown?


 
Because getting hit in the head with a prop gun hurts?


Sgtmac, I agree. Our ability to utilize our surroundings and operate in any situation needs to include some general firearm knowledge. As I said, I feel I need to include this in my training.

I'm probably not going to make firearm training an extensive part of my art any more than I would learning a Chinese broadsword but certainly I should train for those weapons I am likely to encounter. This would include knives and guns. Even if I don't practice using them I should at least know how to render them inoperable.


----------



## Navarre (Dec 15, 2005)

Seig said:
			
		

> More importantly, why would they stand there with their chests puffed out to let the bullets bounce off and then dodge out of the way when the gun was thrown?


 
Because getting hit in the head with a prop gun hurts?

Sgtmac, I agree. Our ability to utilize our surroundings and operate in any situation needs to include some general firearm knowledge. As I said, I feel I need to include this in my training.
I'm probably not going to make firearm training an extensive part of my art any more than I would learning a Chinese broadsword but certainly I should train for those weapons I am likely to encounter. This would include knives and guns. Even if I don't practice using them I should at least know how to render them inoperable.


----------



## Navarre (Dec 15, 2005)

Hmmm. PC went glitchy. Accidental double post. Sorry about that.


----------



## Ric Flair (Dec 15, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It doesn't mean you're crazy, it means you have a thorough understanding of martial skill. A gun is merely another martial tool. It's dynamics are different from a knife of a stick, just as those are different from the empty hand, but they are all part of a martial whole.
> 
> As Bruce Lee was mentioned earlier, i'll point out that he taught there should be no distinction between this way and the next, you should understand where each way fits in.
> 
> ...


 
If you have a tough time emptying the bullets from the gun, you can always simply just shoot off the remaining bullets into the ground (as long as you are not on a top floor with people underneath a floor down!!!) till all the bullets are out!!!  Or a tree, etc could be a good option depending on the location and such.

Make sure you still have an eye on the attacker though if he is still up and unhurt, just to be sure.  

I'm sure a couple of gunshot sounds will get the attacker to flinch (depends on his experience though) and as well attract other civilians as well as the police; who will most likely shoot you to death thinking YOU are the suspect lol because of the gun in your hands....

What if you are on an secluded island where there are no civilians or police though???  I'm sure you'd be screwed by causing such a commotion with your attackers gun... lol now i'm just using too much of my fantasies.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 15, 2005)

I would certainly try to get the gun for myself or toss it to an unreachable place, if for no other reason than to prevent him from getting it back. Would I use it? It depends. One would hope it wouldn't be necessary.

I agree about knowing how to render it unusable being important. Also, it is indeed an interesting point that the gun is essentially a Chinese weapon in origin (gunpowder) and that the Japanese for example certainly made a detailed study of gunnery (and have an interesting history with it).


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 15, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I would certainly try to get the gun for myself or toss it to an unreachable place, if for no other reason than to prevent him from getting it back. Would I use it? It depends. One would hope it wouldn't be necessary.
> 
> I agree about knowing how to render it unusable being important. Also, it is indeed an interesting point that the gun is essentially a Chinese weapon in origin (gunpowder) and that the Japanese for example certainly made a detailed study of gunnery (and have an interesting history with it).


 The japanese treatment of Hojutsu is an interesting story, and it illustrates why I maintain that the gun is the weapon of the free man. 

One of the main reasons the Shogunate eliminated firearms is that they were considered a 'peasants' weapon (and they represented excessive western influence, but I think these two were for the same reasons).    

More accurately, they believed it's ability to be useful in relative untrained hands makes it a weapon that would threaten the standing professional force of samurai, at the hands of the disaffected masses.  They understood it would mean the end of their feudal reign (as it eventually did).

Many tyrants in recent decades have discovered this as well.  Far from being a tool of tyranny, the rifle is a tool of liberation.  Tyrants don't need rifles to enslave people, they just need professional soldiers skilled in a weapon that provides constant training (Say, a jet aircraft or cannons).  

A rifle grants the common man a level of power not available before in the history of the world.  Certainly not available during the most of Japans feudal period, when even if allowed to possess a sword, no peasant could hope to compete with a professional samurai.

In fact, it could be argued that the American Republic could not have existed without the invention of a reliable rifle.  Of course, i'm getting WAAAYYYY off topic.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 15, 2005)

Well, back on topic without argung the points of guns in martial arts is that I don't find t too unrealistic for someone to knock a gun away from someone else and not then pick it up.  It makes sense for movie kung-fu action, but I don't think it's too off to think that in such a situation for someone to not pick it up.

I really don't know *what* I would do.  If I needed it for an equalizer against superior force or numbers, I would hope I would have the sense to, but if I was good  enough to get it away from my opponent and make it a non-threat I would think at that point I wold also be capable of subduing  myopponent without need to risk needing to shot them


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 15, 2005)

As often occurs in fights, sometimes they deteriorate in to grappling matches.  If we end up on the ground, and we are near the firearm, we may be trying to utilize an armbar, for example, only to find that our opponent has managed to retrieve his gun.  Though we may have an extremly technically sound armbar in place, his retrieval of his firearm trumps whatever technique we are performing.


----------

