Should people be MA experts first before considering carrying a handgun?

**Wounded Ronin** · Posted On: 11/03/2008 6:20pm

Originally Posted by It is Fake

There you go. All I'll say is Wounded, you misinterpreted a cops story and applied it to regular citizens.

I don't get it. You're saying that if a civilian with a CCW, as opposed to a cop, is violently attacked he's less likely than the cop to have someone try and grab his gun away?

**Wounded Ronin** · Posted On: 11/03/2008 6:21pm

Originally Posted by GuiltySpark

People consider ahida kim a martial arts expert.
"Expert" is misused often.

What Kein said, why the long response. Answer is no.

Usually you're a pretty articulate dude. If the answer is "no", then why not?

**CannibalCrowley** · Posted On: 11/03/2008 7:35pm

Originally Posted by 7thSamurai

Is a .357 an equalizer in an armed vs unarmed fight? No.

Facts and logic sat otherwise. Example: Woman in a Wheelchair Shoots an Attacker

For a woman in a wheelchair being choked from behind, a .357 has at least once shown to be quite an effective equalizer.

**7thSamurai** · Posted On: 11/03/2008 8:05pm

Ok, I'll bite. While there are likely exceptions to every rule, I disagree that possessing a firearm makes you equal with anyone who is not in possession of a firearm at the time of the fight. This is not dueling pistols at dawn.

In your example, the shooter was in a wheelchair. Presumably, she was choked although I struggle to really believe that he was attempting to kill her for a pocket book. I wonder if the bruising on her neck is not related to having a purse or chain jerked. Not that it wouldn't happen in some situations, but it's a leap (IMO) to go from someone who mugs people to someone who kills for a pocket book. I'll accept that it has happened in the past and will likely happen in the future, but my experience is that most criminals don't just murder for **** and grins.

Basically, when present your firearm, you cease being equal with you unarmed opponent. Do you shoot to disarm, disable, or kill? Are most shooters even proficient enough to shoot to disable? If a drunk on the street starts a fight with you with his bare fists and you shoot him, are you equal? Where do you draw the line between being on equal grounds and using excessive force?

**vigilus** · Posted On: 11/04/2008 12:46am

Originally Posted by Wounded Ronin

Usually you're a pretty articulate dude. If the answer is "no", then why not?

Ahhh okay I'll bite too, you baited me :)

It honestly seemed like something you would find on MAP (no offense intended)

I mentioned a few reasons. Being a martial art's "expert" is a fairly open qualification.
Steven Segal (because I know you guys love him), Ashida Kim, That LT X guy. There's tons of Martial art's "experts" out there. Tons of false ''experts' too right? It's impossible to really decide who's an expert and who isn't.

Also, an expert in which martial art? If I'm a black belt in Aikido or Iaido, does that justify me owning a gun? Or BJJ or Judo? Martial arts covers way too many spheres. How do you qualify which art should give someone access to owning a firearm and which shouldn't?

Shooting and martial arts both encompass muscle memory sure but having been shooting for 24 years and doing martial arts for about 9, I personally don't see how they really relate to one another.

it would be an easier argument to suggest only soldiers or LEOs should own firearms since they have the training.

Also it sounds like you're talking about guns in purely a self defense role. Many people shoot guns recreationally. Some people simply collect firearms but still require a licence. Having a black belt in Karate just to collect vintage firearms seems a little extreme.

I think the concept you're trying to debate is too narrow and not really considering firearms in general.

**Wounded Ronin** · Posted On: 11/04/2008 6:16pm

Originally Posted by GuiltySpark

Ahhh okay I'll bite too, you baited me :)

It honestly seemed like something you would find on MAP (no offense intended)

I mentioned a few reasons. Being a martial art's "expert" is a fairly open qualification.
Steven Segal (because I know you guys love him), Ashida Kim, That LT X guy. There's tons of Martial art's "experts" out there. Tons of false ''experts' too right? It's impossible to really decide who's an expert and who isn't.

Also, an expert in which martial art? If I'm a black belt in Aikido or Iaido, does that justify me owning a gun? Or BJJ or Judo? Martial arts covers way too many spheres. How do you qualify which art should give someone access to owning a firearm and which shouldn't?

Shooting and martial arts both encompass muscle memory sure but having been shooting for 24 years and doing martial arts for about 9, I personally don't see how they really relate to one another.

it would be an easier argument to suggest only soldiers or LEOs should own firearms since they have the training.

Also it sounds like you're talking about guns in purely a self defense role. Many people shoot guns recreationally. Some people simply collect firearms but still require a licence. Having a black belt in Karate just to collect vintage firearms seems a little extreme.

I think the concept you're trying to debate is too narrow and not really considering firearms in general.

OK, there was a certain amount of ambiguity in my thread title. It could have been a little more precise in terms of what I meant to ask had I worded it a different way. Perhaps it should have read, "Should a civilian have significant ability in hand-to-hand combat before he or she considers carrying a pistol for the purpose of self-defense?"

**EmetShamash** · Posted On: 11/04/2008 8:45pm

Firearms training is a martial art IMO. Seriously.

Are we talking about public policy or personal policy here? If we are talking about public policy, I think legislation barring firearms to people that haven't taken a certain amount of martial arts training is ridiculous. If we are talking about personal policy, I think people "should" take some sort of firearms training for whatever purpose that they are interested in.

Great equalizers huh? This seems like another semantics argument, **** that ****.

**mike321** · Posted On: 11/05/2008 7:36pm

Isn't the great equalizer referring to genetics playing less of a role in potential effectiveness with a gun versus say fists? I don't think the quote/saying has anything to do the fact that you still have to learn how to use a gun.

**moli** · Posted On: 11/05/2008 8:19pm

I've heard the rule of thumb is that a trained person needs 15 feet to deploy a weapon against an attacker. Unlike cops, civilians can't draw the weapon early and hold it down near their leg to prepare for the situation.

Given this, I think it'd be a good idea to have some level of fighting ability in close. Weapon retention would be good, or just being able to make room to draw & aim.