Picking up that gun

[Ceicei]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Ric Flair]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.