Originally Posted by hudson69
You can always put it in your sock and swing it. For anything below a 9mm, its worth considering.
Falling for Judo since 1980
"You are wrong. Why? Because you move like a pregnant yak and talk like a spazzing 'I train UFC' noob." -DCS
Fatherhood....you're doing it right.
Damn right. Building some manly men right there. Good stuff.
Originally Posted by tgace
You're all so fucking wrong. Pull guard against gun, no can defense
Seriously though (I'm certain this has been discussed many times before) the word "art" confuses the **** out of many people who conflate it with Fine Art rather than meaning the learned skills/techniques acquired through extensive training.
Firearms training is martial arts in every sense of the term, far more so than many other things which are labelled as martial arts, which in fact have more in common with fine art in that they are more concerned with aesthetics than practical application.
Well a likely reason for the confusion is that the vast majority of firearms training is near completely focused on the operation of the firearm, not the "martial" fighting aspects.
Originally Posted by danno
Gun • fighting: a compound word?
Let's face it, if ones gunfighting training consists solely of shooting targets at a range, isn't that akin to doing all ones BJJ or Judo training against a grappling dummy? What if your Kung Fu training was only forms and working against a wooden dummy? How well will that solo training prepare you for a fight against a live opponent?
This IMHO is why most firearms training is not considered "martial art". Well, that and picking up kids in a minivan with a "Master Chuck's Afterschool Gunfighting Academy" sign would be a hard sell to most suburban moms.
I went to high school with the guy who took the would be robber down. He was not someone to mess with, even in high school.
Originally Posted by danno
That's related to what I was referring to earlier in the thread -- that there are not as many firearm training facilities available as MA schools, and its at those facilities where one can pick up more useful training than just shooting at targets at a range.
Originally Posted by SteveM
"Better" weapons as in how? It's all in how you use it, son.
Originally Posted by Stickybomb
I've got a rifle so old it's production was commissioned by a Russian Tsar for the express purpose of putting down charging cavalry horses. It's type has been used by some of the most infamous and successful snipers in the history of war. It works just as well today as it did in the revolution and two world wars in which it saw service. It will penetrate both sides of a bullet proof vest, knock a ragged hole the size of a grapefruit through the poor schmuck wearing it and simultaneously turn most of their internal organs into dog food from hydro static shock. You could hit a man anywhere on their body and they will likely die from shock and blood loss. It will easily nail whatever you point it as for as far out as you can realistically see.
This devastating war machine is considered obsolete and cost's less than two bags of groceries. I assure you that despite it's age and frugality it will absolutely wreck any living thing you turn it on with monotonous reliability.
Just because there are newer, flashier weapons with fancy plastic parts and larger magazines doesn't mean they are "better".
Take Phrost's advice and learn something about guns before you make more silly statements out of ignorance.
Last edited by Mr. Machette; 11/07/2013 7:19pm at .
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO