Advantage Martial Arts Has Over Guns

[PhotonGuy]

Stop listening.

I've done my research on the gun laws in Sweden so I know a few things, but that's beside the point.

 

[Prince_Alarming]

The main advantage that martial arts has over a gun is that it's a lot easier to find martial artists than it is to find a firearm. Post a video on youtube and any number of sad, lonely gits will pop up to criticise it. They must know a lot of martial arts, surely? I've lost count of the number of people I would have shot if only I'd had a gun, it's so much easier just to hit someone...

 

[Hot Lunch]

All situations are different and sometimes you might have to cause serious injury to stop somebody. I don't know the details of the case about Tyson punching somebody on a plane but there have been cases of people who've had their noses broken and have kept fighting, there have been cases of people who have been shot and who have kept fighting, there have been cases of people who kept fighting while they were dying.

And if any of those things happen, they can fight all they want - but they'll be too impaired to chase you.

So depending on the situation you might have to cause serious injury to incapacitate and stop your attacker. There is also the fact that just about anything can happen in a fight, it is possible to kill when your intent was only to stop your attacker but to leave them alive.

As I mentioned earlier, untrained people kill with their hands all the time. So you can't blame this on martial arts training.

 

[PhotonGuy]

And if any of those things happen, they can fight all they want - but they'll be too impaired to chase you.

Depending on the situation, you might not be able to run.

As I mentioned earlier, untrained people kill with their hands all the time. So you can't blame this on martial arts training.

What matters is how the courts see it. You might not blame it on martial arts training but a judge could.

 

[HighKick]

The main advantage that martial arts has over a gun is that it's a lot easier to find martial artists than it is to find a firearm. Post a video on youtube and any number of sad, lonely gits will pop up to criticise it. They must know a lot of martial arts, surely? I've lost count of the number of people I would have shot if only I'd had a gun, it's so much easier just to hit someone...

it's a lot easier to find martial artists than it is to find a firearm.

This is 100% location specific. In the south part of the U.S. I estimate 50% of the people either carry or have a gun in their vehicle and 90% have a gun in their household. As normal and natural as having your phone with you.

That said, agree, a person who has had good training has their weapon with them 100% of the time.

 

[Hot Lunch]

I think this makes for an interesting case study:

| Thomasmarshall | _blackiano_ · Original audio

. _blackiano_ · Original audio

www.facebook.com

The case against the shooter was dropped, and I'm happy for him. But I can't say I'd disagree if he got convicted.

I don't think firearms and martial arts should be an either-or thing as the title of the thread suggests. To suggest that it should is to imply that firearms can and should be used to compensate for not knowing how to fight - which, in my estimation, is what happened in this particular incident. In fact, I'd say that martial arts training is even more imperative for those who carry, so that you have less lethal measures that can be taken before resorting to the use of a firearm.

Now if he had used martial arts in this scenario, it's possible that no one would have even been arrested. Mall security would likely have escorted everyone involved off the premises.

 

[Prince_Alarming]

This is 100% location specific. In the south part of the U.S. I estimate 50% of the people either carry or have a gun in their vehicle and 90% have a gun in their household. As normal and natural as having your phone with you.

That said, agree, a person who has had good training has their weapon with them 100% of the time.

I wasn't being entirely serious

 

[PhotonGuy]

So with all this talk about reasonable force I want to point out that bare hands = bare hands. If you're attacked by somebody whose your same gender and roughly your same age and same size and they're not using any weapons and you fight back and you're not using any weapons and you stop once you stop them, why should that get you in trouble?

If you continue to beat on them after you've stopped them than yes that will get you in trouble as at that point its no longer a case of self defense but if you've stopped once you've stopped them, that shouldn't get you in trouble. As I said, bare hands = bare hands.

 

[Haruhiko]

When it comes to stopping power and effectiveness in a fight it's obvious that a gun is much better than the martial arts for such stuff. No matter how good you are in the martial arts and what skills you've got, it wouldn't be that smart to go up against somebody who's got a gun when you yourself are unarmed. However there is one main advantage that the martial arts does have over guns and that's how its viewed in court and dealing with the legal aftermath if you ever do use martial arts vs if you ever use a gun.

As the martial arts is nowhere in the ballpark in effectiveness in a fight when compared to guns, as such the way martial arts are viewed in court is nowhere in the ballpark with how guns are viewed in court. if you shoot somebody, even if its in legitimate self defense, you can expect the courts to come down really hard on you. You can be looking at both criminal and civil charges. If on the other hand you just use your hands, feet, ect. to deal with a troublemaker in a confrontation the court will be most likely much lighter on you. So that is an advantage of not using guns or any weapons for that matter, you're not going to get in trouble with the law the way you would if you used a gun, or for that matter another weapon such as a knife, stick, ect.

You could even use that as a defense in court, that you didn't use a gun or any weapons. You could argue that the martial arts is not the same as a gun and as such the courts shouldn't be hard on you as if you did use a gun. So that is the main advantage of martial arts, in self defense.

You're referring to the advantage of MA... as it pertains to litigation in legal proceedings (nevermind we don't know your jurisdiction and you don't know mine).

So in the hypothetical you're missing a lot of crucial steps that lead up to this fantasy legal case, not the least of which is (I'm assuming) you have no legal background nor cited any relevant precedence in case law, which I'm also assuming would be outside the purview of your average forum goer's interest.

But Chris said it better:

You are not a lawyer. You do not deal with judges. You do not know the case studies. You do not know the applications of the law, or how it can be (and is) interpreted. You are not familiar with the different legal systems, let alone the different local laws within a singular system that is out there. This is purely your own uninformed and inaccurate take on what you believe the case should be. It is not what it is.

Do not ever, EVER, give legal advice.

I've reported this thread (not the poster), as it's dangerous in my opinion to entertain any legal hypothetical involving guns and MA. People are impressionable.

 

[Haruhiko]

you fight back and you're not using any weapons and you stop once you stop them, why should that get you in trouble?

Because you fight back. You're still liable to cause grievous bodily harm, and open up avenues for prosecution.

 

[Haruhiko]

I've reported this thread (not the poster), as it's dangerous in my opinion to entertain any legal hypothetical involving guns and MA. People are impressionable.

@PhotonGuy

Just a quick reminder: legal advice without qualifications can lead to a knock on the door, especially under EU and Swedish regulations. Offering legal counsel (formal and informal) without a license might risk unauthorised practice, and consumer protection laws discourage sharing advice that could mislead or harm someone. If any personal details are shared, it could also raise GDPR concerns.

For reference:
1. Swedish Bar Association (n.d.). Who Can Be an Advokat? Available at: Advokatsamfundet - Advokatsamfundet (Accessed: 5 November 2024).

2. Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure, Chapter 8, Section 4 (n.d.). Unauthorized Practice of Law. Stockholm: The Government of Sweden.

3. European Parliament and Council (2005). Directive 2005/36/EC on the Recognition of Professional Qualifications. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32005L0036 (Accessed: 5 November 2024).

4. European Parliament and Council (2005). Directive 2005/29/EC on Unfair Commercial Practices. Available at: Directive - 2005/29 - EN - EUR-Lex (Accessed: 5 November 2024).

5. European Parliament and Council (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Available at: Regulation - 2016/679 - EN - gdpr - EUR-Lex (Accessed: 5 November 2024).

6. Swedish Data Protection Authority (Datainspektionen) (n.d.). Guidelines on GDPR Compliance in Sweden. Available at: Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten | IMY (Accessed: 5 November 2024).

 

[Hot Lunch]

I've reported this thread (not the poster), as it's dangerous in my opinion to entertain any legal hypothetical involving guns and MA. People are impressionable.

Things may be different in Sweden, but if you cite a post on the internet in US court as to why you're not guilty of a crime, you're going to get laughed at. And rightly so. That particular subject will end with the laugh - no one is going to ask to see the post, much less try to identify the person who posted it.

I've heard that in Sweden, a man is guilty of rape if he feigns an LTR and ends up pumping & dumping. So this, combined with what you're saying, appears to indicate that Sweden has differing views on personal vigilance than much of the rest of the world. What a shame.

 

[Hot Lunch]

@PhotonGuy

Just a quick reminder: legal advice without qualifications can lead to a knock on the door, especially under EU and Swedish regulations.

Then why are you doing it?

 

[Haruhiko]

Things may be different in Sweden, but if you cite a post on the internet in US court as to why you're not guilty of a crime, you're going to get laughed at.

I'm not Swedish nor American. And my concern comes from people reading snippets of the thread and walking away with the notion that using MA against a firearm is a good idea that, should they be charged, is also justified lawfully in legal cases.

The claim that referencing an internet post in a U.S. court would lead to "being laughed at" is inaccurate. U.S. courts often consider online content, including social media posts, as admissible evidence. Examples show that unconventional evidence, including internet posts, has been taken seriously in legal proceedings. Furthermore, different countries have varying legal standards reflecting unique societal values, and dismissing these approaches as "overreach" is an oversimplification. Misleading or uninformed legal advice can contribute to misunderstandings of legal practices.

There are precedents to this:

1. United States v. Vayner (2014) - The Second Circuit overturned a conviction due to improper authentication of Facebook evidence, highlighting the importance of verification for online evidence. (United States v. Vayner, 2014)

2. People v. Beckley (2010) - The Michigan Court of Appeals accepted MySpace posts as evidence, underscoring the court's willingness to admit social media content if relevant. (People v. Beckley, 2010)

3. People v. Cleaves (1991) - This case established that unconventional evidence could be admitted if it meets relevance standards, supporting the idea that U.S. courts consider diverse types of evidence. (People v. Cleaves, 1991)

Then why are you doing it?

I'm citing common Swedish law, as the OP is Swedish, and legislation under the European Union as it pertains to the member states (Sweden being one of them).

Not legal advice at all - these are publicly accessible laws that anyone can review.

 

[Hot Lunch]

I'm not Swedish nor American. And my concern comes from people reading snippets of the thread and walking away with the notion that using MA against a firearm is a good idea that, should they be charged, is also justified lawfully in legal cases.

That's their problem, not yours.

The claim that referencing an internet post in a U.S. court would lead to "being laughed at" is inaccurate. U.S. courts often consider online content, including social media posts, as admissible evidence. Examples show that unconventional evidence, including internet posts, has been taken seriously in legal proceedings. Furthermore, different countries have varying legal standards reflecting unique societal values, and dismissing these approaches as "overreach" is an oversimplification. Misleading or uninformed legal advice can contribute to misunderstandings of legal practices.

You're talking about internet posts that relate to the incident itself, which is not what I'm talking about. You know that.

If you say in court that "I did this because I thought it was legal. Someone on the internet told me that I can do it" - yes, you WILL get laughed at and the discussion will move right on past that.

I'm citing common Swedish law, as the OP is Swedish, and legislation under the European Union as it pertains to the member states (Sweden being one of them).

I don't know what nationality the OP is, but he specifically stated that he has never been to Sweden before. The only Scandinavian countries he claims to have been to is Norway and Denmark.

Not legal advice at all - these are publicly accessible laws that anyone can review.

That's still legal advice. And it still could be very bad legal advice if you don't practice law. If you don't have the education and training, do not proceed based on your own understanding of what you're reading. Many people have made that mistake with dire consequences.

 

[Haruhiko]

You're talking about internet posts that relate to the incident itself, which is not what I'm talking about. You know that.

If you say in court that "I did this because I thought it was legal. Someone on the internet told me that I can do it" - yes, you WILL get laughed at and the discussion will move right on past that.

Under EU and Swedish regulations, even informal online advice can fall under unauthorised practice or misrepresentation, especially if it risks misleading others.

I’m not referring to posts about an incident itself but rather to posts that might shape someone’s understanding of legality before an incident occurs. Courts often consider state of mind and belief in legality, especially when a person’s actions were influenced by external sources, even informal ones. If someone is led to believe an action is legal based on a post they read, that belief can be relevant in court to establish intent.

 

[Hot Lunch]

Under EU and Swedish regulations, even informal online advice can fall under unauthorised practice or misrepresentation, especially if it risks misleading others.

I’m not referring to posts about an incident itself but rather to posts that might shape someone’s understanding of legality before an incident occurs. Courts often consider state of mind and belief in legality, especially when a person’s actions were influenced by external sources, even informal ones. If someone is led to believe an action is legal based on a post they read, that belief can be relevant in court to establish intent.

Maybe in Sweden, but not the US. Again, "somebody on the internet told me I can do that" won't be dignified with a response in a court here.

 

[Haruhiko]

Maybe in Sweden, but not the US. Again, "somebody on the internet told me I can do that" won't be dignified with a response in a court here.

Respectfully, you're incorrect. U.S. courts absolutely consider how external sources, including internet posts, can shape a defendant’s intent or belief. Courts don’t simply ignore context when mens rea (intent) is at issue, especially in cases involving mistake of law or mistake of fact.

Cases like People v. Binkerd (2007) and United States v. Vayner (2014) demonstrate that online content is admissible when relevant to a defendant’s state of mind. Courts don’t automatically dismiss arguments involving internet sources; they examine the influence on intent and belief in legality.

Your claim that a post would be 'laughed off' shows a misunderstanding of how courts approach evidence of intent. Courts follow due process, not blanket dismissals.

 

[Hot Lunch]

Respectfully, you're incorrect. U.S. courts absolutely consider how external sources, including internet posts, can shape a defendant’s intent or belief. Courts don’t simply ignore context when mens rea (intent) is at issue, especially in cases involving mistake of law or mistake of fact.

Cases like People v. Binkerd (2007) and United States v. Vayner (2014) demonstrate that online content is admissible when relevant to a defendant’s state of mind. Courts don’t automatically dismiss arguments involving internet sources; they examine the influence on intent and belief in legality.

Your claim that a post would be 'laughed off' shows a misunderstanding of how courts approach evidence of intent. Courts follow due process, not blanket dismissals.

Your post shows a misunderstanding of those cases. Neither involve prosecuting anyone for giving legal advice

 

[Haruhiko]

Your post shows a misunderstanding of those cases. Neither involve prosecuting anyone for giving legal advice

Shifting to whether these cases involve prosecuting someone for giving legal advice misses my original point.

My references to cases like People v. Binkerd and United States v. Vayner were about showing that courts consider online content as contextual evidence when it affects a defendant’s intent or state of mind—not to prove a prosecution for unlicensed advice.

The point remains: courts can and do consider internet content in understanding belief and intent, even if it’s not directly about prosecuting for giving advice (which they have done as well, usually in through cease-and-desist, and depending on the ramifications of the defendant's actions, can lead to culpability).