Guns and Martial Arts

Posted by Mostly Genius – November 22, 2008

Easy, Quick, Simple, Effective (Hell in a Handbasket)

One reason that firearms are absent from most martial arts is the same reason that firearms are absent at piano lessons. They aren’t related. Most martial arts are older than commonly available firearms, thus guns are just not part of their traditions. We assume that martial arts are designed to fight-off modern muggers rather than the muggers of ancient history.

Another reason is ignorance. Many martial arts instructors spent a lot of time on learning their art and don’t really know anything about firearms.

I don’t believe it is economic. Most martial arts schools are hobby businesses that don’t really provide a living for the instructors. I know a few people that are highly ranked within their systems and teaching is still a labor of love rather than a profit making enterprise.

Finally, while firearms are “easy, quick, simple, and effective” they are not applicable in all situations. A non-lethal threat that doesn’t respond to pepper-spray is going to require some other skill set to deal with. Martial artists who believe they are teaching self-defense are wrong not to cover firearms, but Shooters are wrong not to cover unarmed skills.

  • Great stuff. Nice to read some well written posts. A long way between them.

  • Good post.

    James

  • MostlyGenius

    Again I am not bashing martial-arts for not having firearms (or realistic firearms techniques), The reason that arts can stick around for ages is that they are highly selective about what they admit in.

    Combatives systems (as WT pointed out) do have their own sets of problems but I think they can serve as a foundation for future training.

  • James

    Once again,I agree,and see your point.Musashi indeed would waste no time on out dated concepts.Do you suggest that perhaps the simplified combatives systems would be more effective? When I say simplified,I mean no disrespect. I address the concepts of these systems because of their origins being rooted in older,more traditional disciplines.What would be your take on a solution?

  • "Martial arts that claim to address firearms are generally full of crap"

    Back in the days of Brillianter v1.0 you once said that it is left up to the individual martial arts practitioner to take what they have learned and interpret it in a modern context (I hope I paraphrased you correctly). I think that is a key point to remember about traditional arts. I agree that many traditional techniques are unsuitable for handgun disarms, however there are some that work very well as long as you have at least a basic understanding of firearms.

    Modern military style combatives have their own set of problems, so even though they tend to address the shortcomings of more ancient systems, they have a whole set of other issues (chiefly being lack of depth).

    PS: did you get my email?

  • MostlyGenius

    A lot depends upon the design goals of the martial art. The assumption is that a martial art at it's origins was for some kind of combat purpose. That purpose might have been vital and integral at the time of it's inception, but eventually it simply becomes dogma.

    Martial arts that claim to address firearms are generally full of crap regarding firearms. While you might be able to adapt a different technique to address handgun/long gun disarms it usually doesn't take into account the nuances of difference. Consider the Aikido/Jujitsu single wrist hold, it is a perfectly valid disarm - as long as you don't mind sweeping yourself with the opponents muzzle.

    The design goals are the issue. Martial Arts tend to exist to perpetuate tradition, rather than to adapt to new realities. If he were alive today, I don't believe Musashi would spend any time learning swordsmanship.

  • James

    I couldn't agree more,for the most part.Though there are some martial arts that claim to effectively address the "gun" question,the reality is that they have more of a tendency to instill a false sense of security,rather than provide an "answer.I am a practitioner of a discipline,and though it is a somewhat newer hybrid, it is still a merely a martial art.The only thing I disagree with you on is where you state that they aren't related.I believe that they are,at very least distant relatives.Both things,martial art and firearm,were designed with the same or similar outcomes in mind, to stop or at very least slow down the enemy. And though the two don't have much of a relationship,they are still part of the same flight of stairs. Am I missing the point?

blog comments powered by Disqus