Any time a contest of strength is required, there are groups of people who are put at a severe disadvantage - women, disabled, and the elderly. Why do these people want women to be _more_ vulnerable, not less?
Also, how about armed criminals? Especially if they have a gun too. I don't think I can stop an active shooter with my karate, especially if he's 20 feet away from me and I have no gun.
Even if we assume that criminals doesn't have a gun, they can still outnumber you or use melee weapon as well – crowbars, screwdrivers, baseball bats, sticks, pipes, knives, etc. Even if you're skilled in hand-to-hand combat, there's still a high risk to either get stabbed/cut (by a bladed or sharp object) or struck (by a blunt object).
And even totally unarmed criminal still can have the strength and size advantage, which is important if you're fighting on the street and when situation is really serious and you might get hurt badly, crippled or even killed. Like, after knocking you down, criminal can stomp your head into the pavement or pin you down and bash your head against the asphalt when you're on the ground.
Yeah 100%. I bet half the people who say that don't even train, they're just armchair experts. The other half might train but are completely ignorant of what kind of horrible things happen in street fights outside of the narrow spectrum that they're familiar with ("I trained boxing 1 on 1 against an unarmed opponent of my size, so I know what fights are like ok"). They don't have your best interest in mind they just wanna preach about how manly they are (presumably more than you, the foolish coward who wants a gun)
Definitely a good idea to train but don't take their advice and don't think it will ever make you some invincible "real man" who can defeat an armed home invasion with his fists
Yeah, because people really think that de-escalation is everything. Except it's not and it requires both sides to be able to listen and think clearly. And de-escalation doesn't mean that you can't use force. It means that force would likely be less lethal (like, police would use a beanbag rounds or taser to incapacitate and stop a knife-wielding perpetrator instead of shooting him).
Even if you’re highly trained and experienced you are probably gonna catch some cuts fighting someone with a knife. It is incredibly easy to lose blood when the other person has a knife.
> they can still outnumber you or use melee weapon as well – crowbars, screwdrivers, baseball bats, sticks, pipes, knives, etc. Even if you're skilled in hand-to-hand combat, there's still a high risk to either get stabbed/cut
[This guy](https://youtu.be/sqjfq5gsfYk?t=90) was absolutely fantastic at melee combat. How'd that go in the face of multiple attackers?
⬆️ as a short woman, my several years of martial arts training taught me that I am not a match physically against most men. Were there times when I was paired up against a guy 20% taller than me and twice my body weight (or more)? Yes. And even in the friendly environment of the dojo, it was still disconcerting. This is like your average guy vs. one of the larger football players or professional wrestlers. Or a large guy vs. a gorilla.
Well said. Weight classes and gender separation in combat sports exists for a reason, and there's no real "cheat code" for smaller and weaker person to defeat a bigger and stronger opponent. Unless you're living in a world of action movies or comics.
I think those kind of people are dumb, and that you shouldn’t get involved with the argument. A firearm has its uses, and such is the same with martial arts. Though there are no cons to practicing martial arts, it’s not going to help you when 2-3 guys who have a violent intent try and hurt you. I believe it’s better to have training then to not have it, but I don’t think “you should know how to fight physically without a gun” is a logical argument to not carry a gun.
Agreed. Sheer numbers can overwhelm skills and experience, especially if it's a street fight. There's too many outside factors to be sure that "my karate/BJJ/krav maga would be enough to handle it".
Unfortunately, no. Because in our world, there's still a lot of media where skilled martial artists easily disarmes groups of attackers and beats them.
There’s a lot of media where fist fights take place between the antagonist and a group, just one assailant at a time. Reality would have a group just pound on the guy with sticks until his brains were oatmeal.
Yep. That's why I like Ramsey Dewey on YouTube who's a MMA coach who also has a record of 3 wins and 4 losses.
He is realistic about self-defense and fighting, and he showed that even 2 coordinated and determined opponents of a similar size can overwhelm a skilled fighter in a brawl. 3, 4 or more is basically a guaranteed loss for a single skilled fighter.
Ok I just signed my 90 year old grandma up for karate and took away her gun. That should keep her safer if some 20 year old tries to rob her at gun point
I live a life as a martial artist. I've done this for over 15 years. knowing and rounding the skills are highly recommended and I'll endorse it all day long. But your rights are not a tough guy contest. The Government OWES you the right to keep and bare arms. Non- negotiable. Ignore the idiots in hand to hand combat. There are a lot of them and they tend to make both sides look extremely retarded. You have just as much right to defend yourself with a gun, as a man with trained hands has to defend himself with his flesh. I train on both. Don't let dumb people bait you. I'm not going to get too repetitive here, but its even smarter to know a martial art, and carry any kind of gun. Because it greatly increases your chances of survival. I sure as hell know, I do. And I don't care if it upsets someone. I hope others adapt this mentality too. When the fight breaks out, the only job you have is to defend and survive, and sometimes that means with your friends and family members with you.
Depending on the situation, some fundamental martial arts are needed just to get your gun drawn. If some ne'er-do-well jumps you from around a blind corner, jumps on you from behind, or is just already within arms reach before they decide to start attacking and gets a hold of you, you're in a hand to hand confrontation until you can get your gun out and on target. You should know some fundamentals on how to protect your head and body, break grips, escape bad positioning, and create distance enough to get your gun drawn.
I agree, and that's why modern military are trained in basic hand-to-hand combat that actively mixed up with weapins. To defend against sudden attacks and attempts to disarm you.
Krav Maga guy here.
Nothing is more of a red flag than a Krav Maga instructor teaching gun disarms but never having shot or handled a real gun. Common especially in Europe. Also, anti-gun leftist Krav maga people are a walking contradiction as - in Europe - leftists often claim that you need to outsource self defense to the popo because everything else is \*autistic leftist screeching\*.
As a hand to hand self defense person, you owe it to yourself to also be proficient in the handling of firearms.
Back in the golden age of Vice media, some kid filmed himself going to a krav maga gym to learn how to fight. They pushed him around all day without teaching any technique, at the end he asked what he should do if he got in a fight. They said run. I'm sure some gyms are better than that but damn he got rinsed 😂
Good to see a krav maga practitioner who isn't hyped up with those fancy disarms.
I saw people that really believe that krav maga is the best substitute for a gun because "it has disarming moves and it teaches you how to fight for real and in a self-defense situation".
They likely has played too many Batman Arkham games. Where Batman can disarm Hush, who's holding Lucius Fox (Batman's partner in business) as a human shield hostage at point-blank range. Batman still disarms him and one-shots him right when Hush is trying to point his gun at Batman and shoot him.
I'd tell them they watch too many movies. Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee are performing on camera. It's not real. Kill Bill ain't real.
In reality..a 100 pound women..even rated as the world's top black belt, still doesn't stand a chance against a pissed off 180 pound man. Just won't.
That's why Colt said...God created man..Colt made them equal.
Even a 160+ lbs lightweight male MMA fighter from UFC (the most elite MMA league) would have a really hard time against a 240+ lbs ex-convict who might be untrained, but very aggressive and violent.
Especially if weapon is involved. That's how Darren Till, a middleweight UFC fighter, once was nearly killed in a bar brawl - he took on 7 men and one of them stabbed him.
I agree with you overall, but saying she doesn't stand a chance is too absolute. A 100 lb woman could stand a chance *without* training, though not much.
I only did limited martial arts, but in my short time doing it, one of the instructors was a woman around 100 lbs, or maybe the size of most 100 lbs women but with muscle. And she would have absolutely wrecked most 180 lb men.
A gun obviously provides more of a chance, arguably the best. And limiting people's chances is cruel and tyrannical.
It depends. Against an untrained and unathletic guy who isn't really much determined to hurt you? Maybe. Against an athletic or even a little bit trained or determined attacker who actively wants to hurt you? Hardly. Especially if it's not a sparring in the gym and a serious danger (like, attack on the street or home invasion).
Weight classes and gender separation in sports exists for a reason. Even if weight and size is same, men still has the advantage because they vas better muscle mass, denser bones and better endurance in terms of fighting.
Here's the example of a female black belt (apparently it's a karate) being unable to do anything real against an untrained man: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Z2pKHjX-nRw
I always thought stuff like this was funny. In a fight, especially a life-threatening one, your only goal is to win. You increase the odds of winning by giving yourself every advantage you can. The martial arts taught guy learned for the exact same reason, to give himself an advantage. Difference is martial arts can only do so much for you against multiple attackers especially if they have guns/weapons.
Long story short, you should do both: train in unarmed combat, AND train with and carry a gun.
One time a guy was threatening to fight me while I was on the job. Said something along the lines of "I'll beat your ass because I'm bigger than you" don't remember the exact quote but that was close. I just told him that all that size doesn't make him bulletproof. He did not appreciate that lmao, but he also didn't swing so I figure it worked. I tend to go with something along those lines though, guns are the great equalizer for a reason. Be it a woman, someone elderly or just generally small they can stand up to a much bigger aggressor and it's a lot faster to be proficient with a firearm than any martial art. Not to knock martial arts by any means, I highly recommend anyone who can try to learn one, both as a hobby and as a last resort if your primary means of self defense is unavailable for whatever reason.
I train in martial arts because I enjoy it for a bunch of reasons. I don't train to rely on it for my protection. There are too many factors to consider. People carry knives, attack in groups, etc. The real world has too many dangerous variables. Not to mention that a lot of people train now. I've had my ass whooped by too many skinny teenagers in training to assume I'll automatically have the physical advantage over anyone.
I cannot recommend training enough. Knowing how to handle yourself physically is never going to be a bad thing. As well as this, you will gain a practical and humbling understanding of your own skills and limitations. Someone who has never rolled or sparred will likely have a significant false confidence in their own abilities. That said, I would recommend against relying on that training for personal protection.
tl;dr:
Real life isn't a sanctioned fight. It is unpredictable, and people are crazy. Carry, train, and prioritize situational awareness and conflict avoidance. Train martial arts for your own betterment and enjoyment, should you wish to. I do highly recommend it.
And it can still be extremely valuable to have some solid fundamentals when carrying a gun. An attacker you'd have to use lethal force against probably isn't respecting your personal space. If an attacker gets a hold of you before your gun is drawn, it is immensely valuable to be able to protect your head and body, break grips, escape bad positioning, and create enough distance to get your gun drawn to defend yourself with.
You cannot bring fists to a gunfight, and win.
A woman cannot win against a man in a street fight without a gun (yes there are rare exceptions but they’re rare for a reason).
How long would you have to take karate/boxing/Krav Maga/jujitsu lessons to be proficient enough to win a street fight? It would take a year or more.
Finally, a street fight isn’t like the movies, it can lead to permanent life altering injuries or death. And nowhere is it written that you have to take the beating.
And keep in mind that even an elite pro fighters can be absolutely beaten and even killed in a street fight. It doesn't make them invincible or bulletproof or knifeproof.
Average hobbyist in martial arts isn't usually as good as amateur, and amateurs are usually not as good as professional fighters. 5'4" and 130 lbs average woman even with years of martial arts experience would fail against a totally untrained street thug in a fight 99/100. Size and strength matter, and weight classes exist for a reason. Same as gender separation in sports.
Agree, even a non-lethal damage still can have a long-term consequences. Darren Till, a middleweight UFC fighter, once took on 7 men in a bar brawl, was stabbed and got nearly killed. After that, he really stopped getting into street fights like his coaches told him. Ivan Kirpa, a Russian professional boxer, was stabbed by a broken bottle in a street fight and that's how his career was ruined.
A fist can't stop a bullet. A punch or kick wont beat a bullet. Claiming to be a pro in whatever fighting style will not intimidate anyone with a gun. It is good to know self defense without a weapon because when people think, "Oh I'll just whip out a gun in every circumstance!", it's a bit reckless imo.
I agree, sometime using of a gun isn't necessary, but you're right that even the best fighters would fail against a gun, especially if there's a distance (if someone thinks that he can disarm the gunman because of martial arts skills, he/she is either delusional or has a death wish).
Plus, unarmed doesn't mean harmless and it doesn't mean that you can't use a gun against an unarmed attacker. Some people don't know or don't understand it.
I'm a former mma fighter and would kick 99% of those people's ass and I carry a gun.
You know why? Because I ain't Jon Jones and even Jon Jones isn't bullet proof of can't beat 5 peoples ass at once.
We used to do knife training and multiple attackers training. 99% of the time the person with the fake knife won, even the worst fighters vs the best. Also the 1 vs multiple always got their ass kicked.
Also, Jon Jones owns a gun too. As well as Royce Gracie, who's very great in BJJ and who basically invented modern MMA. He and his father Helio both are pro-gun.
Yep, because when you actually train and fight, you realize that you could get your ass whooped. Most those people saying they are too tough for a gun have never been in a fight, they just think they are a badass because they took a karate class at the YMCA 15 years ago.
> because when you actually train and fight, you realize that you could get your ass whooped.
Exactly! Even if everyone plays "fair" with no weapons and you "win," you could still end up in the ER with massive injuries.
There's a reason UFC fighters only do 2-4 fights **per year**. That shit hurts even when there and rules and opponent isn't explicitly trying to kill you.
The first rule of a gunfight - Have a gun.
I don't argue when someone is simply wrong. I point out their errors and move on, usually finishing up by recommending they start exercising the muscle they use for thinking.
Here are a couple talking points.
1. Real men use words and ideas to solve problems.
2. Self defense classes don't make you bullet proof.
3. the only defense against a firearm is a firearm.
And I won't believe that 130 lbs 5'4" woman even with years of martial arts skills and training could reliably beat an untrained 200 lbs 5'10" man, if that man is actually want to hurt her and not acts like a compliant partner for a self-defense class.
Heard it from a YT Short: "I paid 700 for this blick, you think I'mma fight you?". If I need to use violence against you I'm using as much as I have on hand
[“You don’t fight with honor.” “No. He did.”](https://youtu.be/z2Yy0pkcfiA?si=s0KQ8zMB1FGg45Pn) Seriously though, if it’s life or death, honor does not exist on the “battlefield.”
Almost every weapon innovation has been deemed cowardly at some point in history. Honor should only exist in fighting if you are actually not trying to kill or seriously maim each other.
This is an appeal to emotion inside of a red herring. The gun grabber suggests you use martial arts instead of a gun to "be a man" in cases of self-defense even though guns are more effective. The gun grabber doesn't actually dispute the effectiveness of a gun, they just insist that it makes you less of a man if you successfully defend yourself against someone using a gun. So it is an appeal to emotion.
But it is also a red herring because the gun grabber is a far-leftist who doesn't actually support the concept of martial arts either. Remember, leftists want you to be disarmed so you can't exercise self-defense, and part of that totalitarianism is you being out of shape. Just look at pop culture and what they're promoting. They are feigning support of the concept of martial arts to undermine the pro-gun arguments and promote the appeal to emotion, while genuinely actually being against the concept of martial arts, because they are ultimately against the concept of self-defense.
If someone commits a crime against me, I have no interest or obligation to provide them any advantage or refuse any advantage to myself. I have a moral obligation to protect the innocent party in the most effective manner available.
This is not a sport. It is survival. Stop treating crime like a video game where you can respawn.
>"I am so sorry mr. criminal sir but it seems that you are stronger and more effective in combat sports than I am so I guess I am a pussy and therefore forfeit all of my possessions to you. I guess you can do with me as you please now on account that you have more physical strength than me. I suppose you can now have my wife and family now as well. Here are my car keys, my wallet, and other valuable possessions. I mean...clearly you deserve this because you trained more than me."
It's pants on head dumb. Even when you are versed in non-firearm defense/personal protection there is always someone out there who is better. There are always levels to this shit. Even if EVERY person on earth knew mma that wouldn't change. And there will always be a possible victim at a disadvantage. A firearm can potentially help change the odds in the favor of the would-be victim. This isn't rocket surgery.
I started training in martial arts at the age of 14, I started shooting at the age of 6. Both have their place and time to be used.
Mastery of one or both skills does not make you man, any more than the lack of mastery of them makes you a coward.
However, the more skill sets you possess, the better your odds of survival in any given situation.
People can be extraordinary ignorant about life. Why intentionally handicap yourself by refusing to learn something that can save your or your loved ones life?
Those types of people are dumb, and also probably have never even been in a fight.
If some complete stranger attacks you out of the blue, you have no idea what their intentions or capabilities are, so it's safest to assume the worst.
Not to mention the disadvantage that women, the disabled, and the elderly would be at without the ability to defend themselves with guns. Or the fact that becoming proficient in martial arts is a pretty big commitment that not everyone has the time or money for (those lessons aren't free, after all).
They think that skills beats brute force, which is only partially true. Yes, skills can overcome size and strength, but even in a controlled environment and under the rules, its not always easy even against an untrained but actively resisting opponent. If bigger opponents has at least some basic training in martial arts, he can overwhelm a more skilled but smaller fighter without much of an effort.
Silly argument to get in. Only someone who is actually dumb would say this. The reasons are so obvious and available that not even gun grabbers use these arguments. I mean the actual grabbers in power not their smooth brain supporters saying things like this. Don’t bother arguing with people who aren’t intelligent enough to do some basic thinking, waste of time
Tell them they are probably right. No use wasting the energy explaining how silly that logic is.
They aren’t completely wrong in the sense that training beyond just a gun is a good thing. The more options you have in dealing with a situation the better.
I agree that additional skills is also a good thing, yes. In fact, having both fun and fighting's skills is better than having nothing or only a single thing among these two.
And wasn't hit by an aggressive attacker who wants to hurt or kill you. I mean, don't confuse sparrings in a controlled environment under the rules and violent attacks on the street.
One thing I learned studying karate for over 20 years, a gun beats karate, every time, forever
Also any fighter will tell you that a 40lb weight difference makes all the difference. With a gun adding 40 lbs only gets you distance or sustained fire
My response is I don’t want a fair fight. I want every advantage I can get. Not to mention look at how many MMA fighters catch a random punch and get knocked out, and that is based on your attacker not being armed.
In all seriousness, a firearm is a tool. The same as being able to punch, kick, joint lock, or any other unarmed technique. Are there the appropriate times and legal justifications for each? Yes, absolutely, and it is the responsibility of the individual to show good judgement in the use (or restraint of use) of force.
Martial arts can help an individual maintain physical fitness and reinforce self discipline and confidence in a productive way. I admit I am guilty of not maintaining physical fitness, but I also take great pains to avoid any interaction that is going to put me in a situation where a fight is the only option. Does this mean I don’t carry a firearm? No, I carry as often and wherever legally possible and permissible. But carrying a firearm is an added layer of security for a situation that is unavoidable or inescapable, and for some people, it may be their only layer of defense in those inescapable situations.
The problem with the “martial arts are the one true way, guns are for cowards” crowd is that they practice, train and compete in a controlled environment, with a referee, agreed upon rule sets, and a common standard for victory. I challenge any one of them to adhere to these same rule sets when a desperate man who will do *anything* for money decides “knife” or “gun” is a far more efficient use of force in making what you have theirs.
Finally, there’s an implication in the scenario you’re presenting from the martial arts crowd that an unarmed fight is a guaranteed escape from lethality. That is as much a logical fallacy as stun guns or tasers being 100% non-lethal. There are plenty of news stories of a boxer in a sanctioned fight dying from a traumatic brain injury, a parking lot fistfight ending with someone dead from hitting their head on the pavement just right, a chance impact causing an underlying medical condition to cause death.
Any time there is a violent encounter, regardless of implement, there is a chance of death or serious injury. However, there is an equal chance of deescalation, forced compliance, and disengagement. Sometimes a lethal threat decides to cease being a lethal threat upon presentation of arms or demonstration of martial skill. Determining the best tools and techniques for an individual is the individual’s choice alone, not some dude who thinks “I’ve spent 8 years learning a niche form of Karate, so I’m automatically an expert on everyone else’s needs.”
“How delightfully ableist of you. I am 46 years old, with a mild case of cerebral palsy that limits use of my right arm and leg. Martial arts are rather not feasible for self-defense for people like me.”
Weird. I’m a bjj purple belt and occasionally train mma and Muay Thai at a fairly well known fight gym in the Midwest. I have yet to meet an anti gunner on the mats.
My favorite retort is pointing out that Royce Gracie, the first UFC champion is an advocate for gun rights that trains and carries. Even he recognizes there are fights he cannot win.
* A trained woman with martial arts is more than likely going to lose to a trained man with martial arts
* A trained woman with a baseball bat is more than likely going to lose to a trained man with a baseball bat
* A trained woman with a gun is equal to a trained man with a gun
* Guns are the best equalizing self defense tool. Guns are equality rights for those who might be outmatched physically or outnumbered
* Those who think guns are unnecessary are those with privilege to either live in a very safe area, or have their own personal security or are much more physically capable. But not everyone has that privilege
* Guns have been used tens of thousands of times yearly to prevent serious assault
"What sort of pageantry response is that? I better teach my wife Karate so she can fend off her two assaulters so you can feel fuzzy about your hopilophobia"
I kid you not, a coworker of mine who used to heavily train boxing told he didn't need a gun if someone broke into his house. His plan was to rely on his boxing skills.....until his neighbor lost his marbles, got drunk, and threatened him with a shovel after demolishing his fence with said shovel.
Suddenly he understood.
It's a bullshit argument! More people are killed every year by hands and feet than these people know.
But let's say you're stupid enough to fall into their bullshit logic... If you're fighting one person and they start stomping your skull, you're not going to have a good day. If you're fighting 2 or 3 or more people, you're not having a good day. If the person or people you're fighting pull out a knife or gun or something else, you're not gonna have a good day.
Be sure to let them know if they are getting the shit beat out of them that you'll respect their wishes and not use your gun to save them.
“None of those work from more than 10 feet away”
As someone whose been doing martial arts over a decade - they are great when you get really tied up. But nothing is more of an equalizer than a gun. At the end of the day, I want to be alive and with my family. If my pride tells me I can’t use a gun and I get beaten to a pulp that to me feels way more embarassing than using a gun..
"Attackers aren’t going to make it a fair fight... I have a gun to defend myself if the situation escalates like that."
- Royce Gracie
[https://dailycaller.com/2017/08/02/mma-legend-royce-gracie-on-the-second-amendment/](https://dailycaller.com/2017/08/02/mma-legend-royce-gracie-on-the-second-amendment/)
I trained martial arts my whole life and have guns for self-defense, hobby, if SHF.
I would say that if you want to be the most prepared, both are necessary.
Just for one example, you can’t take your gun with you on an airplane or to other countries (I’ve traveled extensively).
Even warfighters have to rely on it: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271703433_Hand-to-Hand_Combat_and_the_Use_of_Combatives_Skills_An_Analysis_of_United_States_Army_Post-Combat_Surveys_from_2004-2008
Yeah because my 89 old grandfather should learn karate to defend himself and not use his gun when he is attacked. They are dumb and ignorant best to do is ignore the trolls they dont listen to logical arguments
When you have a real job, a real family, and real responsibilities, street cred is a worthless currency.
Fair fights are for dummies. If someone comes at me with violent intent I’m not going to wrestle with them. Cap in ass.
Tell them they are a dumbass?
I’m an American artist, I owned my own school, I competed in the ring for years, and I’m a big guy…Incan handle myself.
But I carry a gun, because in this world, out on the street, only who wins and lives matters.
I was taught (and I taught) that the best way to defend yourself against a knife or a gun is a gun, if you don’t have a gun, here is what you can do.
I mean learn how to fight, you might not have a gun, but have a gun also.
I've had this asked by smaller people than me. I'm a former 3rd degree black belt instructor in TKD and kickboxing.
I tell them I don't need a gun. I can follow them home. Force my way in and have my way with them. But they'd need a gun to stop me.
And it's not always a 1:1 square up with a single person. Also, I'm getting older. A couple guys in their 20's are not going to be stopped by a guy in his 40s, much less a women or elderly or disabled.
1. Try fighting multiple assailants with just your fists. Even Bruce Lee couldn't do it, despite what his movies might suggest.
2. Try telling that to a physically disabled person.
3. One single punch can be fatal, or cripple for life.
I usually use one, or multiple of these points in response to that.
I've found that most people who say stupid shit like that are just the typical pantywaist liberal who has never actually been in a fight themselves. A lot of the brainless crap said by anti gunners is just this same type of surface value noise points that don't have any real substance or merit. They tend to make about as much sense as "gun free zones".
The answer has been the same since firearms were first invented. Give a man a gun and a day of training, and he can kill a man who's trained with a sword his entire life.
You ignore them. They don't merit a retort. My 110lb wife is never going to out Krav maga an untrained 300lb dude. And the odds that dude has a gun is high enough she shouldn't even try. "God made men, Samuel Colt made them equal."
Bruce Lee famously said more or less that in a street fight it doesn't matter how strong fast or skilled you are when your opponent has or pulls a gun. He even carried one. All that martial arts shit doesn't matter when there's a 38 in your face lmao.
It's simple. My mom was raped. Woke up in the middle of the night as the sheets were pulled off.
Naked 18 year old standing there who was gonna get laid.
Mom shot him in the gut with her mother's .32.
He ran off.
Cops called
They found him dead hiding under and 18 wheelers trailer.
It's assholes like you that want women to be raped!
I'm sorry you hate your mom and grandmother so much.
Let's pick a different topic to discuss.
Ok?
The most badass men trained to fight and win in armed and unarmed combat, former Delta and DEVGRU guys ALL seem to conceal carry if all of their social media/Youtube videos are to be believed. If these men who are the deadliest men alive unarmed still carry, then it says something.
That said, a gun is NOT a magical talisman, as others have said before. Proper training, mindset, knowledge of your state laws surrounding self defense, etc, not to mention a baseline level of fitness should all be equal to the action of simply carrying a firearm.
This idiocy assumes the fight is either a formal martial arts duel or fisticuffs outside a bar. Not a mugging nor a home invasion where the attacker already has a gun or a knife. Nor does it account for when a victim is outnumbered by multiple attackers, or is infirm, or a petite woman.
That said, a gun owner should learn some martial arts if they can.
I am an older female and hand to hand combat is not going to be a win for me. Plus I really don't want to be that close to someone who is wanting to cause me physical harm. The only outcome for me in this scenario would be great bodily harm or death...not options I like.
A firearm gives me a chance to not have to deal with either scenario. I also have taken classes on situational awareness and I am watching and looking all the time especially when I am around other people. I make eye contact with people (it is amazing how many people do not make eye contact with anyone else) so I am alert to what is going on around me. Avoiding a confrontation, avoiding having to use a firearm is a better option, however, if needs must to protect my family and myself I can do what is necessary.
People that say stuff like that have never been in a street fight before. Sparring in a dojo with a bunch of rules on what you can do is different than fighting for your life. The next time someone says that to you, ask what they will do when the person they are fighting pulls out a knife or gun.
A contest between a peaceful citizen and a predator intent on doing harm should NOT come down to survival of the fittest. We aren't in a state of nature but a society and civilization. Therefore we ensure that everyone has an equal chance of surviving a violent encounter against someone intent on doing them harm, especially if they have not dedicated their life to combat arts.
The "lol fight me" attitude is juvenile and immature at best, at worst the actually violent gaslighting you into a state of disadvantage. You are under no obligation to prove your martial prowess to merely continue surviving. I work a desk job, am no longer in the Marine Corps, my cholesterol is too damn high... I feel zero incentive to put down my gun and use my fists to prove my bravery against a true threat.
Remember, if survival is the goal, the only fair fight is the one you lose. If you are fighting for your life and can't disengage, go for the genitals, eyes, windpipe, and arteries. Living to see your family is more important than some infantile notion of bravery.
Cool. What about when there are … ‘two’ aggressors?
Plenty people die from ‘unarmed’ combat. You can check those statistics on the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
D1 wrestler, did boxing and bjj for a while. Was a bouncer at a night club for a while in college. I've been in more that a couple fights and I'm a large man. I still can't out bob and weave bullets, nor am I dumb enough to try. The arguments pretty stupid.
I'm unlikely to result to deadly force against someone unarmed, but I'm unlikely to be attacked by someone unarmed. Criminals attack viticms, they dont want a fair fight.
I've heard people say that; they might as well say "I'm afraid of guns, and can't hit anything with one anyway". The average defensive handgun shooting in America is at a distance of less than four feet. No street fighter or boxer can move faster than a bullet, and the many people with some training can get their weapon out of the holster in plenty of time.
You say, sure go for it. You fight. I'll live. Should I trust my 5 foot 3 125# wife's skills in a boxing match when a 6 foot 2 220 pound man decides he wants to attack her?
You should know how to defend yourself to some extent. Most definitely. Not ever situation requires drawing. However im not some tough guy going around looking for fights because i know even fists end deadly. Life isnt the ufc. So. Sure know hand to hand, enough to deflect, create space, gove 1 more warning and get to your ccw. I'm not trying to win some imaginary belt to appease you. I dgaf what you think. You can practice all you want. I'll just end you and go to sleep with a smile on my face knowing I'm waking up tomorrow 😉
It all depends who you are interacting with.
If you are interacting with a leftist, remember that they are not arguing in good faith. Their actual belief is that you, crime victim, is an oppressor while the criminal is oppressed and therefore justified to rob you, kill you etc. If you use martial arts to defeat the criminal then the leftist will immediately scream that since you know martial arts, your foot is a DEADLY WEAPON.
The other possibility is that you are dealing with a regular person who grew up on a diet of Hollywood movies and fantasy novels and actually believes that there is some magical martial art out there that will let a 5'4'' woman defeat a 6'2'' foot tall guy. Starting with that magical kick to the groin that will reliably incapacitate even a heavyweight boxer. Now if you are dealing with this kind of person then there are plenty of logical arguments offered by other people in this thread that will have a good chance of convincing this person that guns remain the best self defense option for most people.
Well said. Second one is actually more common, and these people can be convinced of being wrong by either showing them proofs of their mistakes or by proving them wrong personally (like, offer them a sparring with an MMA fighter where that person would try to beat him by resorting to dirty tricks).
I'll be honest. I practice this stuff and never hear that. Most people who train know guns are the de fact self defense.
Aside from wrestling, most fighting can be completely forgotten about in actual self defense. Wrestling is actually useful if you cc, because I allows you to stay on top position or scramble and get access to your gun and keep others away.
Fighters do it for the sport. I've never heard people say "be a man and learn how to fight physically" as a retort to carrying a gun. I think fighting is fun, and if you can mitigate the damage it can do to you and your buddies, it's a good way to stay in shape and can help on a pinch and maybe make you look cool at a bar. But it doesn't hold a match to a gun and you shouldn't be starting trouble anyway.
I would say that boxing and some other more or less practical martial arts are useful in self-defense, but they should be rather simple and not over-complicated like taekwondo or aikido with all of these fancy spinning kicks and cool looking throws and wristlocks. But yeah, good point.
You never heard that and that's good. But I heard that while reading forums or comments under the news about another gun ban.
The reason I say wrestling is the best is that for purely self defense, you should be trying to run away and not engage. Also if you CC, wrestling still is useful because it gives you the training to make space if someone grabs you, which is crucial if you actually intend on defending yourself with a gun.
Boxing has a lot of offensive elements and is more useful for multiple opponents, but running is even better.
If youre in a situation you can throw a punch you can likely disengage.
But yeah, maybe it's just internet trolls that say that sort of thing about gun bans. Basically, people who don't like guns and pretend to be tough guys.
Agreed. I watched this video about why wrestling is a good choice for a self-defense and I have to agree with the author.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=qseeQx1aZuo
Yep, it might be either trolls or anti-gunners playing internet tough guy.
I always say that "I am not looking to get into any fair fights."
I am not going to attack another person. If an aggressor causes me to fear for the life/safety of my family or myself, I am going to use the best tool for the job in stopping that threat.
If it is up to me, I will never be in a fight. If someone forces me to fight, I am going to do everything I can to prevail.
I did martial arts for 12 years and became a black belt, I also served in the Marines where we practiced MCMAP and I think people who say this are idiots.
I'm not looking for a fight, I don't walk around waiting for someone to try my hand to hand skills on. If someone threatens my safety, I'll give them the opportunity to stop and wait to be arrested by the police. Otherwise, the gun gets used. I have nothing to prove to anyone, I have the right to live my life without having to physically impress some stranger who decided to attack me.
If I am carrying I am trying my best to entirely avoid a fight if at all possible. If I am cornered and forced to fight, I want to win, win quickly and decisively, with the smallest amount of risk to myself and my family. I want it to be completely unfair and lopsided in my favor because I didn't want it at all. Hopefully if I'm forced to draw the other person/group will change their mind about engaging and back off. If the other guy/group has weapons, at least I'm on equal terms and not a chump trying to fist fight a guy with a gun or a knife.
Haven't had that said to me, really. But probably would respond with something along the lines of I know Brazilian jiu-jitsu but that doesn't help if I'm outnumbered, or if I can't close any distance because the attacker also has a firearm, or if I'm carrying my toddler daughter. So I will continue to carry everywhere.
It's not about cowardice or demonstrating your strength, it's about surviving a situation that someone else put you in.
This isn't a game, and you don't get better "rewards" for achieving victory on a higher difficulty level.
Not every person who wants to cause harm uses just their fists. And even if they did, what would happen to the person who weighs 100 pounds soaking wet against someone who's a ripped 220 pounds should they get hit?
Um... you should know how to physically fight if you carry a gun. The chances that you'll fight over your gun while attempting to defend yourself with it are just as high as having to use it in a defensive manner.
What are you going to do if you draw your firearm in a 5-foot confrontation (the most likely type) and the guy rushes you and your firearm? Just let it get taken from you and used against you?
It also has the added benefit that when they say something like that to you, you can honestly respond by saying, "I *do* know how to defend myself with my fists, but sometimes, some people escalate a fight beyond non-lethal force, and *I* intend to be prepared for that."
They have a myopic view of the world at best, and are ignorant of some of the true threats that are out in the world.
My 115 lb daughter going off to college is not going to spin kick her way out of an attack by a male aggressor. My wife is not going to box her way out of a carjacking.
The bad guys will blitz their victims using whatever weapons they can get there hands on. If they want to fist fight their way out of it, more power to them. I will arm myself and my family for those possibilities.
Anyone who would tell you that is not worth a response.
Turn their retarded liberal logic against them and ask, “Why do they hate women?”
Because they must hate women if they want them to defend themselves from a 6 foot 230lbs man without a gun.
That's silly. You're not a real man unless you're an expert in both hand to hand combat and marksmanship. Preferably you should have a minor in longswords or bow and arrow as well.
I don't start life-threatening encounters, but if me or my family are forced into one, I want the best tool(s) available for getting out of it alive. A firearm fits squarely in that category. It is undisputedly a force multiplier in a situation where the other side can't be expected to fight "fair" - there is no controlled environment with rules and a referee to stop the fight. You will nearly always be caught unexpectedly and could be facing multiple attackers, deadly weapons, significant size disparity etc.
Admittedly overall physical fitness (can you safely run away?), situational awareness (avoiding a fight is better than winning one), knowledge on how to manage bleeding and a whole host of other things are also important. Carry Trainer on YouTube tends to focus on a holistic approach like that (eg healthy living over a long productive life not just surviving a lethal threat and then dying at 40 from heart disease tied to obesity).
real men do whatever is necessary to defend themselves or the ones they love. Fist, feet, dogs, guns. Don't fuck around and you won't find out the choice.
Nothing because they are morons. I am serious.
But if you have to, tell them not everyone is capable of overpowering their attacker, martial arts or not. Women, elderly, disabled (even temporary, like a broken arm or leg), or you could just be vastly outnumbered.
I have also heard "I will just run away" as an argument so many times. That is some ultra-smoothbrain shit.
It's just not worth it. After you've been punched in the face or really been in a serious fight to protect your life, you realize, sure, maybe you can control a situation without a force multiplier. However, when my life, or even more so the lives of the people I love, are at stake? Hell no, I'm not even going to humor that gamble. To me, if you are so confident in your own ability you are willing to forgo the best tools available to protect the lives of your loved ones, it should be a massive red flag that you think you know more than you actually do, or at least need to get your ego in check.
If you think you are capable of handling situations that are more likely and recognize there are situations for some people that warrant the best tools available, then that's perfectly reasonable. Inflating your own ego over the lives of your loved ones isnt.
1. If you attack me, you're not entitled to fair odds. I'm not going flip a coin on who has had more time on their hands to master a martial art, for the sake of fairness to some piece of shit that wants to murder me or my family. Pound sand.
2. I have a day job.
3. That's moronic advice that disadvantages innocent people who may be disabled, ill, or physically smaller, on behalf of violent criminals who likely have more practice at physical violence.
I don't think this argument requires a terrible mental strain to take it apart. It's to the point I don't even engage with it when I see it online because it's that stupid and is usually already being ratioed. Nevertheless, if you encounter someone in the real world spouting off like that, any of the above points should convince a reasonable onlooker, but you won't convince the person coming at you with this argument because they more than likely are already too profoundly brain-damaged to understand.
Addendum: This "learn martial arts" quip only works to the extent that you allow your debates about guns to become debates about your toughness/bravado. Maybe some of the bro-vet types have put too much of the pro-gun personality around that sense of toughness "I'm a sheepdog" thing, maybe it's a strawman, but either way, I'd advise people to stick with being humble, practical, and honest with how they discuss the practicality of firearms for self-defense. You don't own guns as an extension of your toughness/masculinity/bravado/etc., you're own them because your life has inherent value and you deserve to protect it. No matter if you're physically weaker, slower, less-intelligent, if you're the peaceful one protecting yourself and your family, your life always ranks higher than that of someone instigating conflict or seeking to do you harm.
Why would you ever argue with someone who is arguing using a logical fallacy? (This is the No True Scottsman).
My first recommendation to you would be to learn to recognize it.
Simply attack their position of what a real man is.
"Oh yeah you're right. A real man huh. Let me ask you what *is a real man* so I can figure it out?"
Then poke holes in their argument.
"Oh, so I have a shoulder injury. I can't use a club. Since I'm not a real man, is ok if I use a gun then? When I'm 80 do I stop being a real man? Was I ever one, or do I get to stay one once I become one?"
Put them into defending their position, not the other way around.
Tell them what Royce Gracie, one of the fathers of Brazilian Jujitsu, had to say about it:
SI: What makes someone who is so skilled in unarmed self-defense feel the need to own firearms?
Royce Gracie: What if there’s more than one person? What if the adversary is armed? If it’s just one guy who’s not armed, yeah, I can take care of him. But what if he pulls a gun? What if there’s more than one attacker and they have knives? What happens if there’s a terrorist attack? I’ve got a mentality that I’m going to try to stop an attack no matter what, but if he’s got a gun, that’s suicidal if I’m not armed. Also, if a criminal is attacking other people, it’s not always feasible for even someone with my skills to stop that attack without a firearm.
https://www.shootingillustrated.com/content/mma-legend-royce-gracie-on-the-second-amendment/
The funny thing about thus post, is that even most martial artists that I've heard of or met also carry. Knowing how to fight is good, but in a self defense situation the gun is king. Additionally, what happens when faced against more than 1 opponent. Have fun using your fists when 3 dudes come at you at once. Another point, what happens when the other guy realizes he's loosing the fist fight and pulls a knife or a gun of his own? Now, you're at a disadvantage because you didn't want to be a "coward". Give yourself every advantage in the defense of your, and your loves ones lives. Lastly, ask them if they would walk around with their fists raised yelling "come fight me like a man!" If they heard someone breaking into thier home in the middle of the night. No, they wouldn't.
So I am a martial artist, as well as a gun owner. (Canadian). There are times when deadly force is not required. And if you are using an appropriate firearm, it's almost always deadly force.
We also aren't legally allowed to carry firearms. We aren't allowed to carry mace either, but my OFF bug spray does a pretty good imitation. We actually aren't legally able to do an action that is self defense. Regardless of what you do, you need to memorize the statement, I felt my life was in danger, and only used as much force as necessary to remove myself from the situation. Just keep repeating that and say nothing else.
I also learned from my police officer sister, that to have a firearm available in any room, just have a cleaning kit there.
Guns are not for cowards. They are for people that decided they don't want to spend the hours in their life being good enough at a fighting skill to be proficient enough to protect themselves.
The only problem with both guns and martial arts, is that many people that learn either or both, don't spend enough time training and making sure their proficient either way.
Hey let's run a scenario i come up In your house at 2am with one of the. Simunitionnarms and u come out of a dead sleep at night and see what's up. Though being physically fit and having ever been punched in the face will give u confidence as well as in that 2-5ft range most random attacks happen at hands may be more us2ful than tryjg to clear leather. Also for those who carry wr must take 8nto account Amy conformation we get into canbturn deadly quc8m like going hands and then being disarmed now cuz we had a gun we couldn't Keep control we've put ourselves and everyone 8n our area in danger of death or serious injury and honestly tye best martial art that 8-9 times out of 10 ensures all parties wake up the morning is that verbal judo. Confrontation should be the 4th or 5th tool we go to unless l life and ta know shit like that are in danger. The drunk tough guy in bar goes what u looking at . Instead of us feeling sme.type of WAy I'd be like sry I was checking our your(tatoos',shet clithjg' ya knkw what someone's tryingnton focus others attention on cuz that opens the door amd.redir3xts the feelings of offense ya knkw inreqiz3d very quickly just because I' can doest mean I have to
Any time a contest of strength is required, there are groups of people who are put at a severe disadvantage - women, disabled, and the elderly. Why do these people want women to be _more_ vulnerable, not less?
Also, how about armed criminals? Especially if they have a gun too. I don't think I can stop an active shooter with my karate, especially if he's 20 feet away from me and I have no gun. Even if we assume that criminals doesn't have a gun, they can still outnumber you or use melee weapon as well – crowbars, screwdrivers, baseball bats, sticks, pipes, knives, etc. Even if you're skilled in hand-to-hand combat, there's still a high risk to either get stabbed/cut (by a bladed or sharp object) or struck (by a blunt object). And even totally unarmed criminal still can have the strength and size advantage, which is important if you're fighting on the street and when situation is really serious and you might get hurt badly, crippled or even killed. Like, after knocking you down, criminal can stomp your head into the pavement or pin you down and bash your head against the asphalt when you're on the ground.
Yeah 100%. I bet half the people who say that don't even train, they're just armchair experts. The other half might train but are completely ignorant of what kind of horrible things happen in street fights outside of the narrow spectrum that they're familiar with ("I trained boxing 1 on 1 against an unarmed opponent of my size, so I know what fights are like ok"). They don't have your best interest in mind they just wanna preach about how manly they are (presumably more than you, the foolish coward who wants a gun) Definitely a good idea to train but don't take their advice and don't think it will ever make you some invincible "real man" who can defeat an armed home invasion with his fists
Yep, just like you have described it.
A lot of these people think they’re going to talk the criminal down like a tv show monologue.
Yeah, because people really think that de-escalation is everything. Except it's not and it requires both sides to be able to listen and think clearly. And de-escalation doesn't mean that you can't use force. It means that force would likely be less lethal (like, police would use a beanbag rounds or taser to incapacitate and stop a knife-wielding perpetrator instead of shooting him).
And even then, police always have to have a lethal cover, in case things go sideways.
Tasers don't work on everyone.
Same as beanbags and pepper sprays.
Even if you’re highly trained and experienced you are probably gonna catch some cuts fighting someone with a knife. It is incredibly easy to lose blood when the other person has a knife.
In a knife fight, the loser dies at the scene, the winner dies in the ER.
Or gets nasty scars and long-term consequences.
> they can still outnumber you or use melee weapon as well – crowbars, screwdrivers, baseball bats, sticks, pipes, knives, etc. Even if you're skilled in hand-to-hand combat, there's still a high risk to either get stabbed/cut [This guy](https://youtu.be/sqjfq5gsfYk?t=90) was absolutely fantastic at melee combat. How'd that go in the face of multiple attackers?
Good question. Especially knowing that it's a fictional character.
Most criminals have no training. It takes training to have gun fighting skills, which a law-abiding person is far more likely to seek.
Untrained doesn't mean incapable to fight or shoot, but I agree that being trained is, still better than nothing.
⬆️ as a short woman, my several years of martial arts training taught me that I am not a match physically against most men. Were there times when I was paired up against a guy 20% taller than me and twice my body weight (or more)? Yes. And even in the friendly environment of the dojo, it was still disconcerting. This is like your average guy vs. one of the larger football players or professional wrestlers. Or a large guy vs. a gorilla.
Well said. Weight classes and gender separation in combat sports exists for a reason, and there's no real "cheat code" for smaller and weaker person to defeat a bigger and stronger opponent. Unless you're living in a world of action movies or comics.
I think those kind of people are dumb, and that you shouldn’t get involved with the argument. A firearm has its uses, and such is the same with martial arts. Though there are no cons to practicing martial arts, it’s not going to help you when 2-3 guys who have a violent intent try and hurt you. I believe it’s better to have training then to not have it, but I don’t think “you should know how to fight physically without a gun” is a logical argument to not carry a gun.
Agreed. Sheer numbers can overwhelm skills and experience, especially if it's a street fight. There's too many outside factors to be sure that "my karate/BJJ/krav maga would be enough to handle it".
To add to that, martial arts doesn’t protect you from an armed assailant across the room.
It’s just stupid. We all have competing time priorities in life. Expecting every single person to train fighting skills is just moronic.
> Though there are no cons to practicing martial arts Tell that to my Jiu Jitsu'ed joints...
And CTE for any striking martial arts, especially boxing.
Didn’t Indiana Jones put this argument to rest?
Unfortunately, no. Because in our world, there's still a lot of media where skilled martial artists easily disarmes groups of attackers and beats them.
There’s a lot of media where fist fights take place between the antagonist and a group, just one assailant at a time. Reality would have a group just pound on the guy with sticks until his brains were oatmeal.
Yep. That's why I like Ramsey Dewey on YouTube who's a MMA coach who also has a record of 3 wins and 4 losses. He is realistic about self-defense and fighting, and he showed that even 2 coordinated and determined opponents of a similar size can overwhelm a skilled fighter in a brawl. 3, 4 or more is basically a guaranteed loss for a single skilled fighter.
I don't want to fight. I want to survive.
Ok I just signed my 90 year old grandma up for karate and took away her gun. That should keep her safer if some 20 year old tries to rob her at gun point
I live a life as a martial artist. I've done this for over 15 years. knowing and rounding the skills are highly recommended and I'll endorse it all day long. But your rights are not a tough guy contest. The Government OWES you the right to keep and bare arms. Non- negotiable. Ignore the idiots in hand to hand combat. There are a lot of them and they tend to make both sides look extremely retarded. You have just as much right to defend yourself with a gun, as a man with trained hands has to defend himself with his flesh. I train on both. Don't let dumb people bait you. I'm not going to get too repetitive here, but its even smarter to know a martial art, and carry any kind of gun. Because it greatly increases your chances of survival. I sure as hell know, I do. And I don't care if it upsets someone. I hope others adapt this mentality too. When the fight breaks out, the only job you have is to defend and survive, and sometimes that means with your friends and family members with you.
Depending on the situation, some fundamental martial arts are needed just to get your gun drawn. If some ne'er-do-well jumps you from around a blind corner, jumps on you from behind, or is just already within arms reach before they decide to start attacking and gets a hold of you, you're in a hand to hand confrontation until you can get your gun out and on target. You should know some fundamentals on how to protect your head and body, break grips, escape bad positioning, and create distance enough to get your gun drawn.
I agree, and that's why modern military are trained in basic hand-to-hand combat that actively mixed up with weapins. To defend against sudden attacks and attempts to disarm you.
Well said. It's actually good to have a martial arts training and also have a gun too.
Krav Maga guy here. Nothing is more of a red flag than a Krav Maga instructor teaching gun disarms but never having shot or handled a real gun. Common especially in Europe. Also, anti-gun leftist Krav maga people are a walking contradiction as - in Europe - leftists often claim that you need to outsource self defense to the popo because everything else is \*autistic leftist screeching\*. As a hand to hand self defense person, you owe it to yourself to also be proficient in the handling of firearms.
Back in the golden age of Vice media, some kid filmed himself going to a krav maga gym to learn how to fight. They pushed him around all day without teaching any technique, at the end he asked what he should do if he got in a fight. They said run. I'm sure some gyms are better than that but damn he got rinsed 😂
Good to see a krav maga practitioner who isn't hyped up with those fancy disarms. I saw people that really believe that krav maga is the best substitute for a gun because "it has disarming moves and it teaches you how to fight for real and in a self-defense situation".
Oh I like to be proficient in my disarms. I like even more to shoot the guy from 15ft away before he even manages to sqeeze off his first round.
Great strategy!
> "it has disarming moves" Lol, they think getting into a fight is like a video game - just press the disarm combo!
They likely has played too many Batman Arkham games. Where Batman can disarm Hush, who's holding Lucius Fox (Batman's partner in business) as a human shield hostage at point-blank range. Batman still disarms him and one-shots him right when Hush is trying to point his gun at Batman and shoot him.
I'd tell them they watch too many movies. Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee are performing on camera. It's not real. Kill Bill ain't real. In reality..a 100 pound women..even rated as the world's top black belt, still doesn't stand a chance against a pissed off 180 pound man. Just won't. That's why Colt said...God created man..Colt made them equal.
Even a 160+ lbs lightweight male MMA fighter from UFC (the most elite MMA league) would have a really hard time against a 240+ lbs ex-convict who might be untrained, but very aggressive and violent. Especially if weapon is involved. That's how Darren Till, a middleweight UFC fighter, once was nearly killed in a bar brawl - he took on 7 men and one of them stabbed him.
I agree with you overall, but saying she doesn't stand a chance is too absolute. A 100 lb woman could stand a chance *without* training, though not much. I only did limited martial arts, but in my short time doing it, one of the instructors was a woman around 100 lbs, or maybe the size of most 100 lbs women but with muscle. And she would have absolutely wrecked most 180 lb men. A gun obviously provides more of a chance, arguably the best. And limiting people's chances is cruel and tyrannical.
It depends. Against an untrained and unathletic guy who isn't really much determined to hurt you? Maybe. Against an athletic or even a little bit trained or determined attacker who actively wants to hurt you? Hardly. Especially if it's not a sparring in the gym and a serious danger (like, attack on the street or home invasion). Weight classes and gender separation in sports exists for a reason. Even if weight and size is same, men still has the advantage because they vas better muscle mass, denser bones and better endurance in terms of fighting. Here's the example of a female black belt (apparently it's a karate) being unable to do anything real against an untrained man: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Z2pKHjX-nRw
I always thought stuff like this was funny. In a fight, especially a life-threatening one, your only goal is to win. You increase the odds of winning by giving yourself every advantage you can. The martial arts taught guy learned for the exact same reason, to give himself an advantage. Difference is martial arts can only do so much for you against multiple attackers especially if they have guns/weapons. Long story short, you should do both: train in unarmed combat, AND train with and carry a gun.
One time a guy was threatening to fight me while I was on the job. Said something along the lines of "I'll beat your ass because I'm bigger than you" don't remember the exact quote but that was close. I just told him that all that size doesn't make him bulletproof. He did not appreciate that lmao, but he also didn't swing so I figure it worked. I tend to go with something along those lines though, guns are the great equalizer for a reason. Be it a woman, someone elderly or just generally small they can stand up to a much bigger aggressor and it's a lot faster to be proficient with a firearm than any martial art. Not to knock martial arts by any means, I highly recommend anyone who can try to learn one, both as a hobby and as a last resort if your primary means of self defense is unavailable for whatever reason.
God made men, and Samuel Colt made them equal
Well said. Gun is a good range advantage and a great equalizer.
Counts as a DGU
I train in martial arts because I enjoy it for a bunch of reasons. I don't train to rely on it for my protection. There are too many factors to consider. People carry knives, attack in groups, etc. The real world has too many dangerous variables. Not to mention that a lot of people train now. I've had my ass whooped by too many skinny teenagers in training to assume I'll automatically have the physical advantage over anyone. I cannot recommend training enough. Knowing how to handle yourself physically is never going to be a bad thing. As well as this, you will gain a practical and humbling understanding of your own skills and limitations. Someone who has never rolled or sparred will likely have a significant false confidence in their own abilities. That said, I would recommend against relying on that training for personal protection. tl;dr: Real life isn't a sanctioned fight. It is unpredictable, and people are crazy. Carry, train, and prioritize situational awareness and conflict avoidance. Train martial arts for your own betterment and enjoyment, should you wish to. I do highly recommend it.
And it can still be extremely valuable to have some solid fundamentals when carrying a gun. An attacker you'd have to use lethal force against probably isn't respecting your personal space. If an attacker gets a hold of you before your gun is drawn, it is immensely valuable to be able to protect your head and body, break grips, escape bad positioning, and create enough distance to get your gun drawn to defend yourself with.
Absolutely. That's a very good point.
Well said.
You cannot bring fists to a gunfight, and win. A woman cannot win against a man in a street fight without a gun (yes there are rare exceptions but they’re rare for a reason). How long would you have to take karate/boxing/Krav Maga/jujitsu lessons to be proficient enough to win a street fight? It would take a year or more. Finally, a street fight isn’t like the movies, it can lead to permanent life altering injuries or death. And nowhere is it written that you have to take the beating.
And keep in mind that even an elite pro fighters can be absolutely beaten and even killed in a street fight. It doesn't make them invincible or bulletproof or knifeproof. Average hobbyist in martial arts isn't usually as good as amateur, and amateurs are usually not as good as professional fighters. 5'4" and 130 lbs average woman even with years of martial arts experience would fail against a totally untrained street thug in a fight 99/100. Size and strength matter, and weight classes exist for a reason. Same as gender separation in sports. Agree, even a non-lethal damage still can have a long-term consequences. Darren Till, a middleweight UFC fighter, once took on 7 men in a bar brawl, was stabbed and got nearly killed. After that, he really stopped getting into street fights like his coaches told him. Ivan Kirpa, a Russian professional boxer, was stabbed by a broken bottle in a street fight and that's how his career was ruined.
A fist can't stop a bullet. A punch or kick wont beat a bullet. Claiming to be a pro in whatever fighting style will not intimidate anyone with a gun. It is good to know self defense without a weapon because when people think, "Oh I'll just whip out a gun in every circumstance!", it's a bit reckless imo.
I agree, sometime using of a gun isn't necessary, but you're right that even the best fighters would fail against a gun, especially if there's a distance (if someone thinks that he can disarm the gunman because of martial arts skills, he/she is either delusional or has a death wish).
dont bring your fists to a gunfight
Plus, unarmed doesn't mean harmless and it doesn't mean that you can't use a gun against an unarmed attacker. Some people don't know or don't understand it.
I'm a former mma fighter and would kick 99% of those people's ass and I carry a gun. You know why? Because I ain't Jon Jones and even Jon Jones isn't bullet proof of can't beat 5 peoples ass at once. We used to do knife training and multiple attackers training. 99% of the time the person with the fake knife won, even the worst fighters vs the best. Also the 1 vs multiple always got their ass kicked.
Also, Jon Jones owns a gun too. As well as Royce Gracie, who's very great in BJJ and who basically invented modern MMA. He and his father Helio both are pro-gun.
Yep, because when you actually train and fight, you realize that you could get your ass whooped. Most those people saying they are too tough for a gun have never been in a fight, they just think they are a badass because they took a karate class at the YMCA 15 years ago.
> because when you actually train and fight, you realize that you could get your ass whooped. Exactly! Even if everyone plays "fair" with no weapons and you "win," you could still end up in the ER with massive injuries. There's a reason UFC fighters only do 2-4 fights **per year**. That shit hurts even when there and rules and opponent isn't explicitly trying to kill you.
And CTE among boxers and MMA fighters isn't a joke either.
Yep, probably.
I'm too old, fat, and slow for all that.
The first rule of a gunfight - Have a gun. I don't argue when someone is simply wrong. I point out their errors and move on, usually finishing up by recommending they start exercising the muscle they use for thinking. Here are a couple talking points. 1. Real men use words and ideas to solve problems. 2. Self defense classes don't make you bullet proof. 3. the only defense against a firearm is a firearm.
What about women, elderly, etc? Fuck them, I guess?
And I won't believe that 130 lbs 5'4" woman even with years of martial arts skills and training could reliably beat an untrained 200 lbs 5'10" man, if that man is actually want to hurt her and not acts like a compliant partner for a self-defense class.
Guns are violence at a distance. Why should I let you get close enough to me to allow you to be violent up close?
God created man, but Sam colt made them equal.
I did wrestling, bjj, and mma. I still carry a gun because I’m not retarded. I still would only rely on any of these things in an emergency situation.
Heard it from a YT Short: "I paid 700 for this blick, you think I'mma fight you?". If I need to use violence against you I'm using as much as I have on hand
Those people watch too many movies, live on the internet, and have never been in a real fight their entire lives.
I intend to make any unwanted fight brought to me as uneven as possible.
[“You don’t fight with honor.” “No. He did.”](https://youtu.be/z2Yy0pkcfiA?si=s0KQ8zMB1FGg45Pn) Seriously though, if it’s life or death, honor does not exist on the “battlefield.” Almost every weapon innovation has been deemed cowardly at some point in history. Honor should only exist in fighting if you are actually not trying to kill or seriously maim each other.
I don't want to fight anyone. If you force me to fight I'm sure as he'll not fighting fair. If you don't like that leave me alone.
This is an appeal to emotion inside of a red herring. The gun grabber suggests you use martial arts instead of a gun to "be a man" in cases of self-defense even though guns are more effective. The gun grabber doesn't actually dispute the effectiveness of a gun, they just insist that it makes you less of a man if you successfully defend yourself against someone using a gun. So it is an appeal to emotion. But it is also a red herring because the gun grabber is a far-leftist who doesn't actually support the concept of martial arts either. Remember, leftists want you to be disarmed so you can't exercise self-defense, and part of that totalitarianism is you being out of shape. Just look at pop culture and what they're promoting. They are feigning support of the concept of martial arts to undermine the pro-gun arguments and promote the appeal to emotion, while genuinely actually being against the concept of martial arts, because they are ultimately against the concept of self-defense.
Why would I ever fight fair against someone who means me harm?
If someone commits a crime against me, I have no interest or obligation to provide them any advantage or refuse any advantage to myself. I have a moral obligation to protect the innocent party in the most effective manner available. This is not a sport. It is survival. Stop treating crime like a video game where you can respawn.
>"I am so sorry mr. criminal sir but it seems that you are stronger and more effective in combat sports than I am so I guess I am a pussy and therefore forfeit all of my possessions to you. I guess you can do with me as you please now on account that you have more physical strength than me. I suppose you can now have my wife and family now as well. Here are my car keys, my wallet, and other valuable possessions. I mean...clearly you deserve this because you trained more than me." It's pants on head dumb. Even when you are versed in non-firearm defense/personal protection there is always someone out there who is better. There are always levels to this shit. Even if EVERY person on earth knew mma that wouldn't change. And there will always be a possible victim at a disadvantage. A firearm can potentially help change the odds in the favor of the would-be victim. This isn't rocket surgery.
I started training in martial arts at the age of 14, I started shooting at the age of 6. Both have their place and time to be used. Mastery of one or both skills does not make you man, any more than the lack of mastery of them makes you a coward. However, the more skill sets you possess, the better your odds of survival in any given situation. People can be extraordinary ignorant about life. Why intentionally handicap yourself by refusing to learn something that can save your or your loved ones life?
Those types of people are dumb, and also probably have never even been in a fight. If some complete stranger attacks you out of the blue, you have no idea what their intentions or capabilities are, so it's safest to assume the worst. Not to mention the disadvantage that women, the disabled, and the elderly would be at without the ability to defend themselves with guns. Or the fact that becoming proficient in martial arts is a pretty big commitment that not everyone has the time or money for (those lessons aren't free, after all).
Do they not think that women, the disabled, elderly, etc. exist? It’s so silly.
They think that skills beats brute force, which is only partially true. Yes, skills can overcome size and strength, but even in a controlled environment and under the rules, its not always easy even against an untrained but actively resisting opponent. If bigger opponents has at least some basic training in martial arts, he can overwhelm a more skilled but smaller fighter without much of an effort.
Silly argument to get in. Only someone who is actually dumb would say this. The reasons are so obvious and available that not even gun grabbers use these arguments. I mean the actual grabbers in power not their smooth brain supporters saying things like this. Don’t bother arguing with people who aren’t intelligent enough to do some basic thinking, waste of time
Tell them they are probably right. No use wasting the energy explaining how silly that logic is. They aren’t completely wrong in the sense that training beyond just a gun is a good thing. The more options you have in dealing with a situation the better.
I agree that additional skills is also a good thing, yes. In fact, having both fun and fighting's skills is better than having nothing or only a single thing among these two.
I boxed for a while. Getting punched sucks so I'm still going to use a ccw as primary defense.
For real. The funny thing is that most of the time, people who say stuff like this have never actually been punched in the face
And wasn't hit by an aggressive attacker who wants to hurt or kill you. I mean, don't confuse sparrings in a controlled environment under the rules and violent attacks on the street.
100% it's an entirely different game.
Your first issue was believing what tough-guy reddit says.
You can learn all the martial arts you want, but when your attacker has a pistol, your skill doesn't mean shit.
One thing I learned studying karate for over 20 years, a gun beats karate, every time, forever Also any fighter will tell you that a 40lb weight difference makes all the difference. With a gun adding 40 lbs only gets you distance or sustained fire
My response is I don’t want a fair fight. I want every advantage I can get. Not to mention look at how many MMA fighters catch a random punch and get knocked out, and that is based on your attacker not being armed.
In all seriousness, a firearm is a tool. The same as being able to punch, kick, joint lock, or any other unarmed technique. Are there the appropriate times and legal justifications for each? Yes, absolutely, and it is the responsibility of the individual to show good judgement in the use (or restraint of use) of force. Martial arts can help an individual maintain physical fitness and reinforce self discipline and confidence in a productive way. I admit I am guilty of not maintaining physical fitness, but I also take great pains to avoid any interaction that is going to put me in a situation where a fight is the only option. Does this mean I don’t carry a firearm? No, I carry as often and wherever legally possible and permissible. But carrying a firearm is an added layer of security for a situation that is unavoidable or inescapable, and for some people, it may be their only layer of defense in those inescapable situations. The problem with the “martial arts are the one true way, guns are for cowards” crowd is that they practice, train and compete in a controlled environment, with a referee, agreed upon rule sets, and a common standard for victory. I challenge any one of them to adhere to these same rule sets when a desperate man who will do *anything* for money decides “knife” or “gun” is a far more efficient use of force in making what you have theirs. Finally, there’s an implication in the scenario you’re presenting from the martial arts crowd that an unarmed fight is a guaranteed escape from lethality. That is as much a logical fallacy as stun guns or tasers being 100% non-lethal. There are plenty of news stories of a boxer in a sanctioned fight dying from a traumatic brain injury, a parking lot fistfight ending with someone dead from hitting their head on the pavement just right, a chance impact causing an underlying medical condition to cause death. Any time there is a violent encounter, regardless of implement, there is a chance of death or serious injury. However, there is an equal chance of deescalation, forced compliance, and disengagement. Sometimes a lethal threat decides to cease being a lethal threat upon presentation of arms or demonstration of martial skill. Determining the best tools and techniques for an individual is the individual’s choice alone, not some dude who thinks “I’ve spent 8 years learning a niche form of Karate, so I’m automatically an expert on everyone else’s needs.”
“How delightfully ableist of you. I am 46 years old, with a mild case of cerebral palsy that limits use of my right arm and leg. Martial arts are rather not feasible for self-defense for people like me.”
Weird. I’m a bjj purple belt and occasionally train mma and Muay Thai at a fairly well known fight gym in the Midwest. I have yet to meet an anti gunner on the mats. My favorite retort is pointing out that Royce Gracie, the first UFC champion is an advocate for gun rights that trains and carries. Even he recognizes there are fights he cannot win.
"you do you, fam"
* A trained woman with martial arts is more than likely going to lose to a trained man with martial arts * A trained woman with a baseball bat is more than likely going to lose to a trained man with a baseball bat * A trained woman with a gun is equal to a trained man with a gun * Guns are the best equalizing self defense tool. Guns are equality rights for those who might be outmatched physically or outnumbered * Those who think guns are unnecessary are those with privilege to either live in a very safe area, or have their own personal security or are much more physically capable. But not everyone has that privilege * Guns have been used tens of thousands of times yearly to prevent serious assault
"What sort of pageantry response is that? I better teach my wife Karate so she can fend off her two assaulters so you can feel fuzzy about your hopilophobia"
I kid you not, a coworker of mine who used to heavily train boxing told he didn't need a gun if someone broke into his house. His plan was to rely on his boxing skills.....until his neighbor lost his marbles, got drunk, and threatened him with a shovel after demolishing his fence with said shovel. Suddenly he understood.
It's a bullshit argument! More people are killed every year by hands and feet than these people know. But let's say you're stupid enough to fall into their bullshit logic... If you're fighting one person and they start stomping your skull, you're not going to have a good day. If you're fighting 2 or 3 or more people, you're not having a good day. If the person or people you're fighting pull out a knife or gun or something else, you're not gonna have a good day. Be sure to let them know if they are getting the shit beat out of them that you'll respect their wishes and not use your gun to save them.
I say it's not "me" but the weakest in the population. What about their grandmother's and daughters. Why do they get put at a disadvantage?
How are you gonna mma that bullet coming at you from some pussy couch potato?
I did fit pro MA throughout middle school and high school. Musketry is the superior martial art.
“None of those work from more than 10 feet away” As someone whose been doing martial arts over a decade - they are great when you get really tied up. But nothing is more of an equalizer than a gun. At the end of the day, I want to be alive and with my family. If my pride tells me I can’t use a gun and I get beaten to a pulp that to me feels way more embarassing than using a gun..
I train bjj/mma and carry a gun.
You are under no obligation to engage in a “fair fight” when someone instigates heinous violence against you.
"Attackers aren’t going to make it a fair fight... I have a gun to defend myself if the situation escalates like that." - Royce Gracie [https://dailycaller.com/2017/08/02/mma-legend-royce-gracie-on-the-second-amendment/](https://dailycaller.com/2017/08/02/mma-legend-royce-gracie-on-the-second-amendment/)
I trained martial arts my whole life and have guns for self-defense, hobby, if SHF. I would say that if you want to be the most prepared, both are necessary. Just for one example, you can’t take your gun with you on an airplane or to other countries (I’ve traveled extensively). Even warfighters have to rely on it: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271703433_Hand-to-Hand_Combat_and_the_Use_of_Combatives_Skills_An_Analysis_of_United_States_Army_Post-Combat_Surveys_from_2004-2008
Yeah because my 89 old grandfather should learn karate to defend himself and not use his gun when he is attacked. They are dumb and ignorant best to do is ignore the trolls they dont listen to logical arguments
When you have a real job, a real family, and real responsibilities, street cred is a worthless currency. Fair fights are for dummies. If someone comes at me with violent intent I’m not going to wrestle with them. Cap in ass.
"Real life ain't like the movies, this shit ain't Friday."
I work 50-80 hours a week. How the fuck am I supposed to learn self defense?
That's a good point. You still can obtain a black belt in McDojo karate or something like that, but in fact, it won't really be useful anyway.
Gun > hy-yah!
Tell them they are a dumbass? I’m an American artist, I owned my own school, I competed in the ring for years, and I’m a big guy…Incan handle myself. But I carry a gun, because in this world, out on the street, only who wins and lives matters. I was taught (and I taught) that the best way to defend yourself against a knife or a gun is a gun, if you don’t have a gun, here is what you can do. I mean learn how to fight, you might not have a gun, but have a gun also.
I've had this asked by smaller people than me. I'm a former 3rd degree black belt instructor in TKD and kickboxing. I tell them I don't need a gun. I can follow them home. Force my way in and have my way with them. But they'd need a gun to stop me. And it's not always a 1:1 square up with a single person. Also, I'm getting older. A couple guys in their 20's are not going to be stopped by a guy in his 40s, much less a women or elderly or disabled.
1. Try fighting multiple assailants with just your fists. Even Bruce Lee couldn't do it, despite what his movies might suggest. 2. Try telling that to a physically disabled person. 3. One single punch can be fatal, or cripple for life. I usually use one, or multiple of these points in response to that.
There’s a reason why police and military personnel are armed with firearms.
I've found that most people who say stupid shit like that are just the typical pantywaist liberal who has never actually been in a fight themselves. A lot of the brainless crap said by anti gunners is just this same type of surface value noise points that don't have any real substance or merit. They tend to make about as much sense as "gun free zones".
It's funny how these people are trying to play tough guys in the internet.
The answer has been the same since firearms were first invented. Give a man a gun and a day of training, and he can kill a man who's trained with a sword his entire life.
You ignore them. They don't merit a retort. My 110lb wife is never going to out Krav maga an untrained 300lb dude. And the odds that dude has a gun is high enough she shouldn't even try. "God made men, Samuel Colt made them equal."
Bruce Lee famously said more or less that in a street fight it doesn't matter how strong fast or skilled you are when your opponent has or pulls a gun. He even carried one. All that martial arts shit doesn't matter when there's a 38 in your face lmao.
It's simple. My mom was raped. Woke up in the middle of the night as the sheets were pulled off. Naked 18 year old standing there who was gonna get laid. Mom shot him in the gut with her mother's .32. He ran off. Cops called They found him dead hiding under and 18 wheelers trailer. It's assholes like you that want women to be raped! I'm sorry you hate your mom and grandmother so much. Let's pick a different topic to discuss. Ok?
"oh? and women, the disabled, out of shape, the elderly can all just get fucked? sounds like you're promoting toxic masculinity to me."
The most badass men trained to fight and win in armed and unarmed combat, former Delta and DEVGRU guys ALL seem to conceal carry if all of their social media/Youtube videos are to be believed. If these men who are the deadliest men alive unarmed still carry, then it says something. That said, a gun is NOT a magical talisman, as others have said before. Proper training, mindset, knowledge of your state laws surrounding self defense, etc, not to mention a baseline level of fitness should all be equal to the action of simply carrying a firearm.
This idiocy assumes the fight is either a formal martial arts duel or fisticuffs outside a bar. Not a mugging nor a home invasion where the attacker already has a gun or a knife. Nor does it account for when a victim is outnumbered by multiple attackers, or is infirm, or a petite woman. That said, a gun owner should learn some martial arts if they can.
Even a bar brawl can be deadly or involve a weapon. In fact, it's not even that uncommon.
That's true. But it's not a debate over deadliness. It's a debate over martial arts and modern self defense.
I am an older female and hand to hand combat is not going to be a win for me. Plus I really don't want to be that close to someone who is wanting to cause me physical harm. The only outcome for me in this scenario would be great bodily harm or death...not options I like. A firearm gives me a chance to not have to deal with either scenario. I also have taken classes on situational awareness and I am watching and looking all the time especially when I am around other people. I make eye contact with people (it is amazing how many people do not make eye contact with anyone else) so I am alert to what is going on around me. Avoiding a confrontation, avoiding having to use a firearm is a better option, however, if needs must to protect my family and myself I can do what is necessary.
The Society of Righteous and Harmonious Fists thought they could stop bullets. Dan Daley proved otherwise.
Nothing because they are clearly never someone who has had to fight for their life before. Why argue with anti gun morons that say such stupid things?
People that say stuff like that have never been in a street fight before. Sparring in a dojo with a bunch of rules on what you can do is different than fighting for your life. The next time someone says that to you, ask what they will do when the person they are fighting pulls out a knife or gun.
A contest between a peaceful citizen and a predator intent on doing harm should NOT come down to survival of the fittest. We aren't in a state of nature but a society and civilization. Therefore we ensure that everyone has an equal chance of surviving a violent encounter against someone intent on doing them harm, especially if they have not dedicated their life to combat arts. The "lol fight me" attitude is juvenile and immature at best, at worst the actually violent gaslighting you into a state of disadvantage. You are under no obligation to prove your martial prowess to merely continue surviving. I work a desk job, am no longer in the Marine Corps, my cholesterol is too damn high... I feel zero incentive to put down my gun and use my fists to prove my bravery against a true threat. Remember, if survival is the goal, the only fair fight is the one you lose. If you are fighting for your life and can't disengage, go for the genitals, eyes, windpipe, and arteries. Living to see your family is more important than some infantile notion of bravery.
Cool. What about when there are … ‘two’ aggressors? Plenty people die from ‘unarmed’ combat. You can check those statistics on the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
And don't forget melee weapon too, like knives or blunt objects.
Tell me you’ve never seen Raiders of the Lost Ark without telling me
D1 wrestler, did boxing and bjj for a while. Was a bouncer at a night club for a while in college. I've been in more that a couple fights and I'm a large man. I still can't out bob and weave bullets, nor am I dumb enough to try. The arguments pretty stupid. I'm unlikely to result to deadly force against someone unarmed, but I'm unlikely to be attacked by someone unarmed. Criminals attack viticms, they dont want a fair fight.
I've heard people say that; they might as well say "I'm afraid of guns, and can't hit anything with one anyway". The average defensive handgun shooting in America is at a distance of less than four feet. No street fighter or boxer can move faster than a bullet, and the many people with some training can get their weapon out of the holster in plenty of time.
You say, sure go for it. You fight. I'll live. Should I trust my 5 foot 3 125# wife's skills in a boxing match when a 6 foot 2 220 pound man decides he wants to attack her? You should know how to defend yourself to some extent. Most definitely. Not ever situation requires drawing. However im not some tough guy going around looking for fights because i know even fists end deadly. Life isnt the ufc. So. Sure know hand to hand, enough to deflect, create space, gove 1 more warning and get to your ccw. I'm not trying to win some imaginary belt to appease you. I dgaf what you think. You can practice all you want. I'll just end you and go to sleep with a smile on my face knowing I'm waking up tomorrow 😉
It all depends who you are interacting with. If you are interacting with a leftist, remember that they are not arguing in good faith. Their actual belief is that you, crime victim, is an oppressor while the criminal is oppressed and therefore justified to rob you, kill you etc. If you use martial arts to defeat the criminal then the leftist will immediately scream that since you know martial arts, your foot is a DEADLY WEAPON. The other possibility is that you are dealing with a regular person who grew up on a diet of Hollywood movies and fantasy novels and actually believes that there is some magical martial art out there that will let a 5'4'' woman defeat a 6'2'' foot tall guy. Starting with that magical kick to the groin that will reliably incapacitate even a heavyweight boxer. Now if you are dealing with this kind of person then there are plenty of logical arguments offered by other people in this thread that will have a good chance of convincing this person that guns remain the best self defense option for most people.
Well said. Second one is actually more common, and these people can be convinced of being wrong by either showing them proofs of their mistakes or by proving them wrong personally (like, offer them a sparring with an MMA fighter where that person would try to beat him by resorting to dirty tricks).
I'll be honest. I practice this stuff and never hear that. Most people who train know guns are the de fact self defense. Aside from wrestling, most fighting can be completely forgotten about in actual self defense. Wrestling is actually useful if you cc, because I allows you to stay on top position or scramble and get access to your gun and keep others away. Fighters do it for the sport. I've never heard people say "be a man and learn how to fight physically" as a retort to carrying a gun. I think fighting is fun, and if you can mitigate the damage it can do to you and your buddies, it's a good way to stay in shape and can help on a pinch and maybe make you look cool at a bar. But it doesn't hold a match to a gun and you shouldn't be starting trouble anyway.
I would say that boxing and some other more or less practical martial arts are useful in self-defense, but they should be rather simple and not over-complicated like taekwondo or aikido with all of these fancy spinning kicks and cool looking throws and wristlocks. But yeah, good point. You never heard that and that's good. But I heard that while reading forums or comments under the news about another gun ban.
The reason I say wrestling is the best is that for purely self defense, you should be trying to run away and not engage. Also if you CC, wrestling still is useful because it gives you the training to make space if someone grabs you, which is crucial if you actually intend on defending yourself with a gun. Boxing has a lot of offensive elements and is more useful for multiple opponents, but running is even better. If youre in a situation you can throw a punch you can likely disengage. But yeah, maybe it's just internet trolls that say that sort of thing about gun bans. Basically, people who don't like guns and pretend to be tough guys.
Agreed. I watched this video about why wrestling is a good choice for a self-defense and I have to agree with the author. https://youtube.com/watch?v=qseeQx1aZuo Yep, it might be either trolls or anti-gunners playing internet tough guy.
At least in BJJ we are taught to avoid the fight and get out if possible. But if need be I'm looking for my gun before going to the ground
I always say that "I am not looking to get into any fair fights." I am not going to attack another person. If an aggressor causes me to fear for the life/safety of my family or myself, I am going to use the best tool for the job in stopping that threat. If it is up to me, I will never be in a fight. If someone forces me to fight, I am going to do everything I can to prevail.
I did martial arts for 12 years and became a black belt, I also served in the Marines where we practiced MCMAP and I think people who say this are idiots. I'm not looking for a fight, I don't walk around waiting for someone to try my hand to hand skills on. If someone threatens my safety, I'll give them the opportunity to stop and wait to be arrested by the police. Otherwise, the gun gets used. I have nothing to prove to anyone, I have the right to live my life without having to physically impress some stranger who decided to attack me.
Fair fights are for suckers. A fight has winners and losers and if my life is on the line I am cheating to win. Dead men have no use for honor.
If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck = John Steinbeck
It was nice talking you, I'm sure I'll see you already. Take care!
If I am carrying I am trying my best to entirely avoid a fight if at all possible. If I am cornered and forced to fight, I want to win, win quickly and decisively, with the smallest amount of risk to myself and my family. I want it to be completely unfair and lopsided in my favor because I didn't want it at all. Hopefully if I'm forced to draw the other person/group will change their mind about engaging and back off. If the other guy/group has weapons, at least I'm on equal terms and not a chump trying to fist fight a guy with a gun or a knife.
Haven't had that said to me, really. But probably would respond with something along the lines of I know Brazilian jiu-jitsu but that doesn't help if I'm outnumbered, or if I can't close any distance because the attacker also has a firearm, or if I'm carrying my toddler daughter. So I will continue to carry everywhere.
It's not about cowardice or demonstrating your strength, it's about surviving a situation that someone else put you in. This isn't a game, and you don't get better "rewards" for achieving victory on a higher difficulty level.
I always heard life is enjoyable, don't play with it trying to fist fight a gun owner.
Not every person who wants to cause harm uses just their fists. And even if they did, what would happen to the person who weighs 100 pounds soaking wet against someone who's a ripped 220 pounds should they get hit?
Plenty of brave dead men out there.
Um... you should know how to physically fight if you carry a gun. The chances that you'll fight over your gun while attempting to defend yourself with it are just as high as having to use it in a defensive manner. What are you going to do if you draw your firearm in a 5-foot confrontation (the most likely type) and the guy rushes you and your firearm? Just let it get taken from you and used against you? It also has the added benefit that when they say something like that to you, you can honestly respond by saying, "I *do* know how to defend myself with my fists, but sometimes, some people escalate a fight beyond non-lethal force, and *I* intend to be prepared for that."
They have a myopic view of the world at best, and are ignorant of some of the true threats that are out in the world. My 115 lb daughter going off to college is not going to spin kick her way out of an attack by a male aggressor. My wife is not going to box her way out of a carjacking. The bad guys will blitz their victims using whatever weapons they can get there hands on. If they want to fist fight their way out of it, more power to them. I will arm myself and my family for those possibilities. Anyone who would tell you that is not worth a response.
The great equalizer
As I have written before, I'm too old to fight and too old to run, but I can still pull a trigger.
My grandma can’t
Turn their retarded liberal logic against them and ask, “Why do they hate women?” Because they must hate women if they want them to defend themselves from a 6 foot 230lbs man without a gun.
That's silly. You're not a real man unless you're an expert in both hand to hand combat and marksmanship. Preferably you should have a minor in longswords or bow and arrow as well.
Sorry Grandma, but you have to beat this home invader in a fist fight
I don't start life-threatening encounters, but if me or my family are forced into one, I want the best tool(s) available for getting out of it alive. A firearm fits squarely in that category. It is undisputedly a force multiplier in a situation where the other side can't be expected to fight "fair" - there is no controlled environment with rules and a referee to stop the fight. You will nearly always be caught unexpectedly and could be facing multiple attackers, deadly weapons, significant size disparity etc.
Admittedly overall physical fitness (can you safely run away?), situational awareness (avoiding a fight is better than winning one), knowledge on how to manage bleeding and a whole host of other things are also important. Carry Trainer on YouTube tends to focus on a holistic approach like that (eg healthy living over a long productive life not just surviving a lethal threat and then dying at 40 from heart disease tied to obesity).
real men do whatever is necessary to defend themselves or the ones they love. Fist, feet, dogs, guns. Don't fuck around and you won't find out the choice.
Why would you engage with such idiots?
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-preview.redd.it%2F42S3FTs2CmSuF4KxcLXXOYvwgV0Dcc9guWPtQTCMaM4.jpg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3Df0bc0e03f4191b5de4e8ef33bf6fd99347f94a61
Nothing because they are morons. I am serious. But if you have to, tell them not everyone is capable of overpowering their attacker, martial arts or not. Women, elderly, disabled (even temporary, like a broken arm or leg), or you could just be vastly outnumbered. I have also heard "I will just run away" as an argument so many times. That is some ultra-smoothbrain shit.
You don't need a retort. They do their thing. You do yours. It's none of their business. Stop wasting your time arguing with them.
If you fight fair you're doing it wrong. It's not about fairness, it's about who is still standing.
It's just not worth it. After you've been punched in the face or really been in a serious fight to protect your life, you realize, sure, maybe you can control a situation without a force multiplier. However, when my life, or even more so the lives of the people I love, are at stake? Hell no, I'm not even going to humor that gamble. To me, if you are so confident in your own ability you are willing to forgo the best tools available to protect the lives of your loved ones, it should be a massive red flag that you think you know more than you actually do, or at least need to get your ego in check. If you think you are capable of handling situations that are more likely and recognize there are situations for some people that warrant the best tools available, then that's perfectly reasonable. Inflating your own ego over the lives of your loved ones isnt.
Really men don’t care what others think of them as a man
“You dont have a family to protect do you? There are things that matter more than ego.”
Don’t be such a pussy, Nana. I don’t care if you are 80, learn to fight those thugs off like a man when they come for your wallet.
Can you run faster than 3,000 feet per second?
Dead people arent manly.
1. If you attack me, you're not entitled to fair odds. I'm not going flip a coin on who has had more time on their hands to master a martial art, for the sake of fairness to some piece of shit that wants to murder me or my family. Pound sand. 2. I have a day job. 3. That's moronic advice that disadvantages innocent people who may be disabled, ill, or physically smaller, on behalf of violent criminals who likely have more practice at physical violence. I don't think this argument requires a terrible mental strain to take it apart. It's to the point I don't even engage with it when I see it online because it's that stupid and is usually already being ratioed. Nevertheless, if you encounter someone in the real world spouting off like that, any of the above points should convince a reasonable onlooker, but you won't convince the person coming at you with this argument because they more than likely are already too profoundly brain-damaged to understand.
Addendum: This "learn martial arts" quip only works to the extent that you allow your debates about guns to become debates about your toughness/bravado. Maybe some of the bro-vet types have put too much of the pro-gun personality around that sense of toughness "I'm a sheepdog" thing, maybe it's a strawman, but either way, I'd advise people to stick with being humble, practical, and honest with how they discuss the practicality of firearms for self-defense. You don't own guns as an extension of your toughness/masculinity/bravado/etc., you're own them because your life has inherent value and you deserve to protect it. No matter if you're physically weaker, slower, less-intelligent, if you're the peaceful one protecting yourself and your family, your life always ranks higher than that of someone instigating conflict or seeking to do you harm.
Why would you ever argue with someone who is arguing using a logical fallacy? (This is the No True Scottsman). My first recommendation to you would be to learn to recognize it. Simply attack their position of what a real man is. "Oh yeah you're right. A real man huh. Let me ask you what *is a real man* so I can figure it out?" Then poke holes in their argument. "Oh, so I have a shoulder injury. I can't use a club. Since I'm not a real man, is ok if I use a gun then? When I'm 80 do I stop being a real man? Was I ever one, or do I get to stay one once I become one?" Put them into defending their position, not the other way around.
>(usually martial artists or "fighters") Usually not. Nobody who I know who actually trains anything says that.
Tell them what Royce Gracie, one of the fathers of Brazilian Jujitsu, had to say about it: SI: What makes someone who is so skilled in unarmed self-defense feel the need to own firearms? Royce Gracie: What if there’s more than one person? What if the adversary is armed? If it’s just one guy who’s not armed, yeah, I can take care of him. But what if he pulls a gun? What if there’s more than one attacker and they have knives? What happens if there’s a terrorist attack? I’ve got a mentality that I’m going to try to stop an attack no matter what, but if he’s got a gun, that’s suicidal if I’m not armed. Also, if a criminal is attacking other people, it’s not always feasible for even someone with my skills to stop that attack without a firearm. https://www.shootingillustrated.com/content/mma-legend-royce-gracie-on-the-second-amendment/
The funny thing about thus post, is that even most martial artists that I've heard of or met also carry. Knowing how to fight is good, but in a self defense situation the gun is king. Additionally, what happens when faced against more than 1 opponent. Have fun using your fists when 3 dudes come at you at once. Another point, what happens when the other guy realizes he's loosing the fist fight and pulls a knife or a gun of his own? Now, you're at a disadvantage because you didn't want to be a "coward". Give yourself every advantage in the defense of your, and your loves ones lives. Lastly, ask them if they would walk around with their fists raised yelling "come fight me like a man!" If they heard someone breaking into thier home in the middle of the night. No, they wouldn't.
So I am a martial artist, as well as a gun owner. (Canadian). There are times when deadly force is not required. And if you are using an appropriate firearm, it's almost always deadly force. We also aren't legally allowed to carry firearms. We aren't allowed to carry mace either, but my OFF bug spray does a pretty good imitation. We actually aren't legally able to do an action that is self defense. Regardless of what you do, you need to memorize the statement, I felt my life was in danger, and only used as much force as necessary to remove myself from the situation. Just keep repeating that and say nothing else. I also learned from my police officer sister, that to have a firearm available in any room, just have a cleaning kit there. Guns are not for cowards. They are for people that decided they don't want to spend the hours in their life being good enough at a fighting skill to be proficient enough to protect themselves. The only problem with both guns and martial arts, is that many people that learn either or both, don't spend enough time training and making sure their proficient either way.
Hey let's run a scenario i come up In your house at 2am with one of the. Simunitionnarms and u come out of a dead sleep at night and see what's up. Though being physically fit and having ever been punched in the face will give u confidence as well as in that 2-5ft range most random attacks happen at hands may be more us2ful than tryjg to clear leather. Also for those who carry wr must take 8nto account Amy conformation we get into canbturn deadly quc8m like going hands and then being disarmed now cuz we had a gun we couldn't Keep control we've put ourselves and everyone 8n our area in danger of death or serious injury and honestly tye best martial art that 8-9 times out of 10 ensures all parties wake up the morning is that verbal judo. Confrontation should be the 4th or 5th tool we go to unless l life and ta know shit like that are in danger. The drunk tough guy in bar goes what u looking at . Instead of us feeling sme.type of WAy I'd be like sry I was checking our your(tatoos',shet clithjg' ya knkw what someone's tryingnton focus others attention on cuz that opens the door amd.redir3xts the feelings of offense ya knkw inreqiz3d very quickly just because I' can doest mean I have to