Hot Lunch
Master Black Belt
No, THIS is your original point:
And as I said before, this doesn't apply in the US,
Advantage Martial Arts Has Over Guns
- Thread starter PhotonGuy
- Start date
But it's self defense, that's why it's called fighting back. You didn't start the fight, you just defended yourself when you were attacked first. Im from the USA and in the USA you're allowed to defend yourself if you're attacked.
Well as I said before in this thread, Im not trying to give legal advice. Im not a lawyer and if you want legal advice my advice would be to find a good lawyer. I was just stating my opinion and if Im wrong Im open to correction.
So in Sweden if you have consensual sex and then break up with your partner afterwards you can be guilty of rape? That's ridiculous.
Haruhiko
Green Belt
Just because you're allowed to fight back doesn't excuse you from the legal consequences should you seriously harm or God forbid kill someone.
I can't believe this conversation is still going on...
Using MA against a firearm is not something I would recommend. If you're faced with a firearm wielding attacker and you don't have a firearm of your own my advice would be to run, no matter how good at the martial arts you are.
Here in the USA we've got the 1st Amendment which identifies freedom of speech.
So in other words, under the EU and Swedish regulations you can get in trouble for making internet posts even if you're just stating your opinion and not trying to give advice. It's a good thing we have the 1st Amendment in the USA and if you ask me, people are really gullible if they're going to believe everything they read on the internet.
Killing is quite cut and dry but as for what it means to seriously harm somebody, that can be debatable.
Hot Lunch
Master Black Belt
Not exactly. Basically, if the act occurred because you lied to the woman to make it happen, you're guilty of rape.
lol at
"1 shot"
"121 foot away = run towards the guy with the gun and not away."
With that 40 yard sprint speed. I think he would be in trouble even during the days of musket ball
So I want to point out, there was this case in a mall in Virginia back in April in 2023 where a YouTube prankster was getting in the face of a DoorDash driver with his phone. The DoorDash driver felt threatened and he happened to be a CCW carrier so he pulled out his gun and shot the prankster in the stomach and put him in critical condition.
The DoorDash driver was acquitted of malicious wounding and use of a firearm in commission of a felony but he was convicted of the unlawful discharge of a firearm. So the one conviction he got was the conviction of the discharge of a firearm, he was not convicted of malicious wounding even though the prankster was obviously hurt worse than him, it was the prankster who was in critical condition while the DoorDash driver didn't get a scratch.
That being the case, lets say the DoorDash driver didn't use a gun but lets say he had a background in the martial arts and used his bare hands to put the prankster in critical condition, in that case he wouldn't be convicted of the unlawful discharge of a firearm when he didn't even use a gun in the first place. So that ties right into my original point about how the martial arts has an advantage over guns when it comes to self defense, from a legal perspective.
My posts, including this one, are not meant to be taken as legal advice, quite the opposite. Im stating my point of view and trying to see, from people's feedback if Im right or wrong, and if I'm wrong, why.
The DoorDash driver was acquitted of malicious wounding and use of a firearm in commission of a felony but he was convicted of the unlawful discharge of a firearm. So the one conviction he got was the conviction of the discharge of a firearm, he was not convicted of malicious wounding even though the prankster was obviously hurt worse than him, it was the prankster who was in critical condition while the DoorDash driver didn't get a scratch.
That being the case, lets say the DoorDash driver didn't use a gun but lets say he had a background in the martial arts and used his bare hands to put the prankster in critical condition, in that case he wouldn't be convicted of the unlawful discharge of a firearm when he didn't even use a gun in the first place. So that ties right into my original point about how the martial arts has an advantage over guns when it comes to self defense, from a legal perspective.
My posts, including this one, are not meant to be taken as legal advice, quite the opposite. Im stating my point of view and trying to see, from people's feedback if Im right or wrong, and if I'm wrong, why.
windwalker099
2nd Black Belt
Don't claim to know anything about the legal system
other then having experience with it..
Sharing a little bit of something our family went through in the killing of a relative, my uncle.
recently concluded...
what one would think should happen, not the same was what does happen..
This verdict took seven years.
"Life with out parole"
Bear in mind, the shooting was captured by cct camera videoed, the event showing that after they shot and robbed him, he was kicked while lying on the ground, left dying.
It took 5 yrs for them to even go to trial, 7yrs in total before a conviction and sentencing, could be reached.
Last edited:
