Poll of the Day > I'm seriously considering forming a guild.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Zeus posted...

Swords throughout history have been backup weapons. Samurai in particular preferred the bow and polearms.

Depends entirely on the era of samurai you're talking about.

Yumi were certainly a popular weapon before the samurai converted over to tanegashima rifles in the 16th and 17th centuries, although yari and naginata weren't as favoured as you seem to think (they were mostly considered a peasant's weapon - the yari in particular - used to pull samurai off of horseback so the peasant militia could overwhelm and kill them). Naginata enjoyed a renaissance as samurai battles moved from mostly foot-battles to horseback, but shortly thereafter the introduction of the tanegashima curtailed its use dramatically (aided by the fact that, around the same time, it came to be seen as a woman's weapon).

Swords were used pretty much dating back to the proto-samurai in the 7th century; spears, on the other hand, didn't see widespread use until several hundred years later. And later, in the Edo period, swords were easily the most favoured weapon as the wide-open battles of earlier eras were quite rare.

Zeus posted...

Hands and legs, while good for close-combat melee and surprise attacks, are basically useless against most weapons and are therefore one of the worst types of weapons.

Spoken like someone who has never trained before.

While yes, you are at a significant disadvantage if your opponent is armed and you are not, that advantage is not insurmountable - your fists and feet are far from useless. Not to mention, short of violent amputation, they are the one weapon that you can never be disarmed of and which takes zero time to ready for combat.

Zeus posted...

They're also *heavily* prone to self-harm, which defeats much of their purpose as weapons.

To the untrained, yes. But that could be said of many weapons. Try using any weapon - gun included - without having practised and trained with it and you're putting yourself at serious risk of injury or death.

I'm assuming for the purposes of this argument that whoever is using these weapons has been trained to use them properly. The risk of injuring yourself with barehand fighting drops significantly if you actually know what you're doing.

Zeus posted...

Hell, if you don't tape your fists properly going into a fight, you break bones in your hand.

I'm assuming you're talking about a Boxer's Fracture. That comes from not knowing how to make a fist properly and what parts of the body you should be aiming for.

Again, this assertion is simply not born out by experience or basic common sense. Do you see hockey players taping their fists up before getting into a fight? No, and nearly all of them walk out of it with their bones still intact.
---

Noop_Noop posted...

Also, if you are looking for like minded people, I'm pretty sure reddit has an incel boards full of people who are just like us TC.

I've never been to reddit, so I have no idea how to get there, but I'm sure you, with your dazzling intellect, could figure it out.

Didnt someone make a topic here saying Reddit removed that board?

darkknight109 posted...

Zeus posted...

Most martial arts weapons aren't useful unless you plan on potentially killing your target, although a gun more effectively deters a person than countless other weapons.

The most common martial arts weapons around - sticks/batons/clubs and their variants - can do exceptionally well at disabling a target without killing them.

Or killing them if you really want to. Point is, that's not their only application, which separates them from guns (one of the basic rules of gun safety is "Do not point your gun at anything you are not prepared to kill").

Literally anything you attack should be done with the preparation of killing because that's always going to be a probable outcome.

darkknight109 posted...

Zeus posted...

And you don't need to be 20 feet away from a target to shoot them

The police say you're wrong. Specifically they say that if your target is less than twenty feet away from you and you do not have your weapon in hand, they will be able to reach you before you have time to draw your weapon, disable the safety, and aim it.

The police are overcautious and set conservative estimates, probably because it's factoring in that you *don't* want to kill the target so you aren't going to do anything like shooting from the hip.

darkknight109 posted...

Zeus posted...

not to mention that drawing a weapon is a concern with every weapon

True, but most weapons don't also have the additional steps of disabling a safety and aiming it. Hell, nearly all martial arts disciplines will teach you some variant of turning your draw into a strike. Iaido, for instance, broke off from kenjitsu from exactly that mindset.

Except you have to aim weapons to the same extent you have to aim with a gun -- ie, either a precise movement or attacking in a general direction (especially if you're fighting a target closing in on you since the likelihood of hitting only increases; keep in mind that most quickdraws -- contrary to your cowboy films -- *did* involve firing from the hip while moving the gun into position to aim more carefully for the next shots).
---

darkknight109 posted...

Zeus posted...

As for cops carrying batons and tasers, that's because they don't want to resort to lethal force which isn't a reflection upon the weapon. The whole point of martial arts is to subdue your opponent as quickly as possible with as little damage to you as possible. Guns are the perfect weapon in this regard.

*sigh*

No, you're wrong, and this is coming from someone with 25 years experience in the martial arts and who runs a martial arts school.

The point of martial arts isn't to "subdue your opponent as quickly as possible with as little damage to you as possible"; the point of martial arts is to do whatever you need them to do. That may be exactly what you said. It may involve non-lethal takedowns. After all, if you're dealing with a drunk friend who's getting a little punchy, you'll want to take him down without killing him, ideally without causing any serious injuries at all. Guns, in that particular application, would be an awful weapon. They would actually be worse than having nothing at all, because "nothing" can't inadvertently be turned against you.

You're thinking of strip mall martial arts, which is a bastardized form of actual martial arts. Martial arts originated strictly as a combat form -- whereas a lot of what's being taught now is closer to a dance recital, often training in forms derived from other forms which increasingly less practical application (the sort of rubbish seen on Vox where katana "experts" use the guard to for ridiculously elaborate blocking maneuvers that would get a person killed in an actual fight where an opponent wasn't doing exactly what you need him to).

Granted, that's not necessarily meant as a knock on anything you're doing. You might be emphasizing sparring over practicing forms and running something other than a sleazy strip mall studio.

darkknight109 posted...

Now, granted, there are applications where guns exceed other weapons by a vast margin. But that doesn't make them the ultimate weapon. If the only use of a weapon and martial arts was to kill, I might agree with you. But it's not. Again, this is why batons still exist and are still in widespread use despite the wide availability of personal firearms.

...batons are also cheaper, have fewer regulations prohibiting them, etc.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Spoken like someone who has never trained before.

While yes, you are at a significant disadvantage if your opponent is armed and you are not, that advantage is not insurmountable - your fists and feet are far from useless. Not to mention, short of violent amputation, they are the one weapon that you can never be disarmed of and which takes zero time to ready for combat.

Never trained? I'll have you know I attended some of the finest strip mall martial arts studios in my youth! Which, by the way, is *exactly* why I write that shit off as play and pretend rather than actual martial arts.

darkknight109 posted...

Zeus posted...

They're also *heavily* prone to self-harm, which defeats much of their purpose as weapons.

To the untrained, yes. But that could be said of many weapons. Try using any weapon - gun included - without having practised and trained with it and you're putting yourself at serious risk of injury or death.

I'm assuming for the purposes of this argument that whoever is using these weapons has been trained to use them properly. The risk of injuring yourself with barehand fighting drops significantly if you actually know what you're doing.

The risk of hurting yourself with most *actual* weapons is generally far lower than using your hands or feet. In theory, you could cut yourself on your sword if you handled it wrong, but a layperson just swinging it in front of them will have no such issues. Nor you do you need much expertise to not hurt yourself with a bat.

darkknight109 posted...

Zeus posted...

Hell, if you don't tape your fists properly going into a fight, you break bones in your hand.

I'm assuming you're talking about a Boxer's Fracture. That comes from not knowing how to make a fist properly and what parts of the body you should be aiming for.

Again, this assertion is simply not born out by experience or basic common sense. Do you see hockey players taping their fists up before getting into a fight? No, and nearly all of them walk out of it with their bones still intact.

While I'm sure *some* of it could purely be a matter of inexperience, etc, -- since a lot of people who hurt themselves hitting somebody are drunk (then again, most fights tend to involve alcohol) -- guys who are involved with various martial arts or MMA *still* can run into this problem.
---

>martial prowess: p good at shooting guns
>philosophic and creative mindset: sure
>above average intellect and cunning: sure
>good fashion sense: definitely
>a specialized skill that could come in handy for the guild: I'll bring some tinder sluts to the meetings, it's on y'all to not permanently dry their vaginas and scare them away tho

Can I be co leader? I think we would get along nicely
---

Zeus posted...

Literally anything you attack should be done with the preparation of killing because that's always going to be a probable outcome.

If you don't know what you're doing, I suppose that's true.

That said, any halfways competent martial artist can avoid killing someone with minimal difficulty. For me, short of a freak accident (which, admittedly, is always possible), I would have to be intentionally trying to kill someone for that to happen.

Zeus posted...

The police are overcautious and set conservative estimates, probably because it's factoring in that you *don't* want to kill the target so you aren't going to do anything like shooting from the hip.

The police are also trained to a much higher extent than a layman, so I'd say the conservativism balances out.

That said, if you want to say you know gun combat better than the police... well, you do you.

Zeus posted...

Except you have to aim weapons to the same extent you have to aim with a gun

Not especially.

Thanks to the magic of trajectories, a few centimetres difference in where you're aiming a gun is the difference between a hit and a miss; that same few centimetres difference with a melee weapon is the difference between hitting someone on the exact point on their body you were aiming for and missing that point, but still hitting them with an attack that's almost assuredly going to put them in a lot of pain.

Zeus posted...

You're thinking of strip mall martial arts, which is a bastardized form of actual martial arts.

Cute that you think you know my experience, but let's continue.

Zeus posted...

Martial arts originated strictly as a combat form

This right here already shows you know very little about what you're talking about.

There are hundreds of different martial arts forms in the world, which had a myriad of different roots and intentions. Some, like jiu jitsu or krav maga are true "martial" arts, coming from a military background with intended battlefield applications. Some, like karate or kobudo, were founded for civilian applications, typically - though not always - by law enforcement. Some, like judo or kendo, started as battlefield arts but were subsequently reformed for civilian life. Some, like muay thai and Brazillian jiu-jitsu were founded mostly as sports.

Each of these have different intentions and assumptions behind them and, consequently, different applications. Battlefield martial arts tend to be focused on killing in as rapid and efficient a manner as possible; civilian arts tend to lean more towards incapacitation than killing, as the primary objective is not the death of the attacker, but either their arrest (for law enforcement) or opening an opportunity to escape (for civilians). Combat sports typically spend little time worrying about applications suitable for multiple attackers, because such a situation would never arise in the tightly-controlled situations of a sparring ring, while civilian arts tend to put more emphasis than most on attacks from unexpected angles or positions (because, unlike the battlefield or an arena, being attacked in the street is more likely to be by surprise).

None of these applications are "wrong" or lesser than the others, much as the endless politicking of the martial arts world might try to dictate otherwise; it simply means they had different intentions behind their creation.

To try to distill thousands of years and hundreds of styles of disparate martial arts down to a statement as facile as ""martial arts originated strictly as a combat form" is oversimplistic and factually wrong.
---

Zeus posted...

...batons are also cheaper, have fewer regulations prohibiting them, etc.

Which, in and of itself, is a point in their favour.

Zeus posted...

Never trained? I'll have you know I attended some of the finest strip mall martial arts studios in my youth!

This actually explains a lot about your opinions and what you think you know about martial arts.

Zeus posted...

The risk of hurting yourself with most *actual* weapons is generally far lower than using your hands or feet.

Like, say, getting permanent hearing damage from firing a gun? I'd say that risk is far higher than any damage you're risking with empty hand combat because, short of walking around with ear plugs in all the time, it's almost impossible to avoid.

Zeus posted...

In theory, you could cut yourself on your sword if you handled it wrong, but a layperson just swinging it in front of them will have no such issues.

You really should spend some time watching beginners learn weapons training before you make a statement like this, because believe me, someone who doesn't know what they're doing can find all sorts of inventive (and often humorous) ways to injure themselves. And that's with something as simple as a stick - for anything with a blade, any reputable school won't let you get in a position where you're blindly swinging it around, for the same reason no reputable gun range would tolerate someone with shitty trigger discipline or who carelessly swings their gun around.

Zeus posted...

While I'm sure *some* of it could purely be a matter of inexperience, etc, -- since a lot of people who hurt themselves hitting somebody are drunk (then again, most fights tend to involve alcohol) -- guys who are involved with various martial arts or MMA *still* can run into this problem.

Sure, and someone who's logged thousands of hours at the local gun range can still shoot themselves in the foot if the adrenaline is running and they forget to unholster their weapon all the way before squeezing the trigger.

Again, this is not something unique to empty hand fighting.
---

Seems like a cool idea.... Why not!

>martial prowess in at least one school - HEMA/Longsword (Arming sword+shield, Battle axe, Spear, Quarterstaff) - 5 years, Kickboxing 2 years.
>philosophic and creative mindset - Studied Taoism
>above average intellect and cunning - 119 iq
>good fashion sense - I guess?
>a specialized skill that could come in handy for the guild - Worked in sales for over 10 years.
---

darkknight109 posted...

The police are also trained to a much higher extent than a layman, so I'd say the conservativism balances out.

Except no, that actually makes it worse. The police shoot to wound. You can *ONLY* realistically do that when aiming carefully. If you shoot from the hip, you can easily kill somebody because you have less control over where that bullet is going. However, no matter where the bullet strikes, it's going to slow down the target for the next shot... and that's assuming that the target doesn't flee.

darkknight109 posted...

That said, if you want to say you know gun combat better than the police... well, you do you.

The problem with your appeal to authority is that the cops are trained to shoot a *very* specific way. They have guidebooks and procedures, but they're teaching them to be cautious, overly conservative, etc. More importantly, almost none of them ever discharge their pistol in the line of duty. And even a casual shooting enthusiast is probably a better and more reliable shot than most cops despite police testing.

darkknight109 posted...

Not especially.

Thanks to the magic of trajectories, a few centimetres difference in where you're aiming a gun is the difference between a hit and a miss; that same few centimetres difference with a melee weapon is the difference between hitting someone on the exact point on their body you were aiming for and missing that point, but still hitting them with an attack that's almost assuredly going to put them in a lot of pain.

Apples and oranges. You're comparing shooting at longer range vs an up close melee attack. At that point you should be comparing shooting to throwing your melee weapon.

darkknight109 posted...

This right here already shows you know very little about what you're talking about.

There are hundreds of different martial arts forms in the world, which had a myriad of different roots and intentions. Some, like jiu jitsu or krav maga are true "martial" arts, coming from a military background with intended battlefield applications. Some, like karate or kobudo, were founded for civilian applications, typically - though not always - by law enforcement. Some, like judo or kendo, started as battlefield arts but were subsequently reformed for civilian life. Some, like muay thai and Brazillian jiu-jitsu were founded mostly as sports.

And this right here shows that you know little about what you're talking about. You're comparing contrived forms of martial arts already bastardized from the get-go. There are a lot of martial arts which originated within the past decades or centuries which mimic the ones used in actual combat but are intended solely as sport. Martial arts ORIGINATED from warfare. The ones which came later were based on the ones which originated from practical combat like warfare. You're basically arguing slavery with extra steps isn't slavery.

darkknight109 posted...

To try to distill thousands of years and hundreds of styles of disparate martial arts down to a statement as facile as ""martial arts originated strictly as a combat form" is oversimplistic and factually wrong.

To try to obfuscate sports martial arts created 50 or 100 years ago based on actual martial arts originated from practical combat is nothing more than peeing on the subject.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Which, in and of itself, is a point in their favour.

Not really? It has no effect on the ability of the weapon.

darkknight109 posted...

This actually explains a lot about your opinions and what you think you know about martial arts.

Everything you've tried to say was the kind of stuff those guys preached. Then one day I watched one of the instructors get his ass absolutely handed to him when he fought another dude and I realized what a joke the kind of stuff being taught is. After that, I've learned a fair deal about ancient warfare while taking far too many history classes in college, reading books on the subject, and watching some historical weapons channels along with a few practical martial arts channels.

darkknight109 posted...

You really should spend some time watching beginners learn weapons training before you make a statement like this, because believe me, someone who doesn't know what they're doing can find all sorts of inventive (and often humorous) ways to injure themselves. And that's with something as simple as a stick - for anything with a blade, any reputable school won't let you get in a position where you're blindly swinging it around, for the same reason no reputable gun range would tolerate someone with shitty trigger discipline or who carelessly swings their gun around.

If little kids can manage to swing sticks in front of themselves without injuring themselves, I somehow suspect adults can manage. It's mostly just the fancy shit which doesn't work anyway that people need to worry about.

darkknight109 posted...

Sure, and someone who's logged thousands of hours at the local gun range can still shoot themselves in the foot if the adrenaline is running and they forget to unholster their weapon all the way before squeezing the trigger.

Target practice shouldn't be conflated with combat training.
---

Zeus posted...

Except no, that actually makes it worse. The police shoot to wound.

Literally no one, save perhaps a police sharpshooter with a rifle, would ever consider shooting to wound. If you shoot, it is because you have determined that the person is too much of a threat to be left alive. Sidearms are simply too inaccurate for shooting to wound.

Standard police practice is to aim for the centre of mass - that's not shooting to wound by any stretch of the imagination.

Zeus posted...

The problem with your appeal to authority is that the cops are trained to shoot a *very* specific way. They have guidebooks and procedures, but they're teaching them to be cautious, overly conservative, etc. More importantly, almost none of them ever discharge their pistol in the line of duty. And even a casual shooting enthusiast is probably a better and more reliable shot than most cops despite police testing.

I'd love to see your source on that claim that someone who goes to the gun range on weekends is a better shot than someone whose job literally involves firearms proficiency testing.

That being said, actual combat involves more than just how accurately you can shoot at a stationary target in a gun range. Adrenaline will significantly impair your aim. Cops, who are more readily exposed to danger in the course of their duties, are far more likely to be able to accommodate the sudden rush of adrenaline than someone whose only experience with a sidearm has been against animals and/or paper cutouts.

Zeus posted...

Apples and oranges. You're comparing shooting at longer range vs an up close melee attack. At that point you should be comparing shooting to throwing your melee weapon.

Why would you ever throw a melee weapon, unless you're a huge fan of making life difficult for yourself?

Regardless, this isn't apples and oranges, because your original contention was that all weapons have to be drawn. This is true, but melee weapons drawn in close can still do damage on the initial draw; guns can't really do that, unless you go for a pistol-whip.

Zeus posted...

You're comparing contrived forms of martial arts already bastardized from the get-go. There are a lot of martial arts which originated within the past decades or centuries which mimic the ones used in actual combat but are intended solely as sport.

Which, if you bother to actually read my post, is one of the categories I listed, so I don't know why you're even bringing it up.
---

Zeus posted...

Martial arts ORIGINATED from warfare.

Depends which arts you're talking about.

Again, there are different applications for combat, which is why so many different arts exist. What works on the battlefield won't necessary work on the street and what works on the street may not work in the octagon. Martial arts derived from warfare aren't magically better than those whose focus is on street combat; they simply have different applications and are working off of different assumptions.

Zeus posted...

To try to obfuscate sports martial arts created 50 or 100 years ago based on actual martial arts originated from practical combat is nothing more than peeing on the subject.

Literally the only art I listed that was created between 50 and 100 years ago is krav maga, and that one's used by the IDF.

Zeus posted...

Not really? It has no effect on the ability of the weapon.

But it has an effect on your ability to carry and use it.

I mean, if we're going down that road, a tank would beat a gun in terms of its raw destructive power and ability to protect its user from harm, making it a far more effective weapon. That said, I doubt anyone would seriously consider a tank as the "ultimate weapon", because of how impractical it is.

Zeus posted...

After that, I've learned a fair deal about ancient warfare while taking far too many history classes in college, reading books on the subject, and watching some historical weapons channels along with a few practical martial arts channels.

Ah, I see. You're one of those guys who thinks reading a few books with a grimacing guy on the cover and watching MMA on pay-per-view will teach you how to fight.

That actually explains a lot more about what you think you know about martial arts.

Zeus posted...

If little kids can manage to swing sticks in front of themselves without injuring themselves, I somehow suspect adults can manage.

You suspect wrong then.

Also, there's a world of difference between little kids play-fighting with sticks and actual combat fighting, and I find it kind of funny you'd assume they're analogous. If someone came at me swinging a stick like a little kid, I'd be thrilled to pieces, because that sort of wild flailing is almost completely ineffective.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Literally no one, save perhaps a police sharpshooter with a rifle, would ever consider shooting to wound. If you shoot, it is because you have determined that the person is too much of a threat to be left alive. Sidearms are simply too inaccurate for shooting to wound.

Except police *do* routinely shoot to wound rather than kill and are encouraged to do so.

darkknight109 posted...

I'd love to see your source on that claim that someone who goes to the gun range on weekends is a better shot than someone whose job literally involves firearms proficiency testing.

You mean somebody who shoots on a weekly basis is going to be a worse shot than somebody who might have a proficiency test every few years and only truly practice right before that? Is that where you're going?

darkknight109 posted...

That being said, actual combat involves more than just how accurately you can shoot at a stationary target in a gun range. Adrenaline will significantly impair your aim. Cops, who are more readily exposed to danger in the course of their duties, are far more likely to be able to accommodate the sudden rush of adrenaline than someone whose only experience with a sidearm has been against animals and/or paper cutouts.

I believe I addressed part of it although, more importantly, you're overestimating police readiness. If officers did actually regularly live in those situations you wouldn't have so many shootings during routine traffic stops.

darkknight109 posted...

Why would you ever throw a melee weapon, unless you're a huge fan of making life difficult for yourself?

Regardless, this isn't apples and oranges, because your original contention was that all weapons have to be drawn. This is true, but melee weapons drawn in close can still do damage on the initial draw; guns can't really do that, unless you go for a pistol-whip.

As I've mentioned numerous times, you *can* shoot on the draw.


Kinda well-known tactic.

darkknight109 posted...

Depends which arts you're talking about.

Again, there are different applications for combat, which is why so many different arts exist. What works on the battlefield won't necessary work on the street and what works on the street may not work in the octagon. Martial arts derived from warfare aren't magically better than those whose focus is on street combat; they simply have different applications and are working off of different assumptions.

Again, it's where they originated. The later non-combat ones were largely inspired by combat ones. Unless you think the other arts would have come out of thin air.

darkknight109 posted...

But it has an effect on your ability to carry and use it.

I mean, if we're going down that road, a tank would beat a gun in terms of its raw destructive power and ability to protect its user from harm, making it a far more effective weapon. That said, I doubt anyone would seriously consider a tank as the "ultimate weapon", because of how impractical it is.

Vehicles are really their own category, though. And technically a jet beats a tank.
---

i like that game designer is on the same level as doctor and lawyer.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Ah, I see. You're one of those guys who thinks reading a few books with a grimacing guy on the cover and watching MMA on pay-per-view will teach you how to fight.

That actually explains a lot more about what you think you know about martial arts.

I would take that comment more seriously if your experience didn't sound so McDojo.

darkknight109 posted...

You suspect wrong then.

Also, there's a world of difference between little kids play-fighting with sticks and actual combat fighting, and I find it kind of funny you'd assume they're analogous. If someone came at me swinging a stick like a little kid, I'd be thrilled to pieces, because that sort of wild flailing is almost completely ineffective.

The argument wasn't whether it was effective, it was whether the action could harm the user. If somebody picked up a baseball bat or sword and struck somebody, the odds of hurting themselves from the attack are almost nonexistent. The odds of a layperson hurting themselves off a punch are substantially higher.

And, let's be honest here, a layperson with a bat probably wouldn't too badly for themselves. It's why much smaller, weaker individuals can overpower larger, stronger opponents with one.
---

Zeus posted...

Except police *do* routinely shoot to wound rather than kill and are encouraged to do so.

No, they don't.

http://www.forcescience.org/fsnews/40.html
http://abcnews.go.com/US/police-trained-shoot-wound-experts/story?id=40402933
https://www.policeone.com/police-trainers/articles/245523006-How-to-explain-to-the-public-why-cops-dont-shoot-to-wound/
http://www.ajc.com/news/national/here-why-police-don-shoot-wound-the-case-deadly-force/IV4ohtIm6r8FaEMj78u1bO/

Seriously, where did you even pick up on this? "Shoot to wound" is one of the most well-known fallacies amongst shooting enthusiasts. Attempting to do so is neither safe nor reliable and no police department that I'm aware of encourages or even allows such behaviour. Standard police procedure when using a firearm is "aim for centre of mass, fire as many bullets as necessary to neutralize the target."

Zeus posted...

You mean somebody who shoots on a weekly basis is going to be a worse shot than somebody who might have a proficiency test every few years and only truly practice right before that? Is that where you're going?

So no source. Gotcha.

Anyways, firearms proficiency tests in law enforcement occur a minimum of once a year; more commonly, they occur every few months. Any law enforcement agency that only conducted testing "every few years" would actually be breaking the law, as several court rulings have said that police must train with firearms "regularly".

Zeus posted...

I believe I addressed part of it although, more importantly, you're overestimating police readiness. If officers did actually regularly live in those situations you wouldn't have so many shootings during routine traffic stops.

Interesting you mention that. Having trained with cops (and trained them myself a couple of times), they're fairly unanimous in their view that a traffic stop is one of the most stressful parts of their job, because it's impossible to tell if you just pulled over a little old granny who wasn't paying attention to the road, or a gang-banger high on crystal meth ready to shoot you the second you come up beside the window.

Moreover, your statement is based on a false assumption - namely, that there are lots of officer shootings at traffic stops.

http://www.nleomf.org/assets/pdfs/reports/Preliminary-2016-EOY-Officer-Fatalities-Report.pdf

Based on that report, just three out of 135 officers killed in the line of duty were killed during traffic stops.
Zeus posted...

As I've mentioned numerous times, you *can* shoot on the draw.


Kinda well-known tactic.

And well-known for being inaccurate.

Unless you feel like firing "gansta style" (and consequently missing all your shots), your best bet at actually hitting the target is to hold the gun with both hands, arms extended for bracing. You can fire from the hip, but not really with any accuracy (hence why "shoot from the hip" has entered the common lexicon as a synonym for doing something haphazardly, and without planning).
---

Zeus posted...

Again, it's where they originated. The later non-combat ones were largely inspired by combat ones. Unless you think the other arts would have come out of thin air.

I don't know of any "non-combat" martial arts, so I think you're talking out of your ass again.

Zeus posted...

Vehicles are really their own category, though.

Are they? If that's the case, are guns their own category? Melee weapons? Empty hand forms?

Zeus posted...

I would take that comment more seriously if your experience didn't sound so McDojo.

I've said nothing about the type or styles of the arts I practice, nor what is involved in my training, but you've somehow come to the conclusion that I run a McDojo.

So, taking this with your early statement that you know about martial arts because you've seen guys talk about it on TV, I guess you're really good at drawing really dumb conclusions from almost no data and assuming that makes you a genius.

Zeus posted...

If somebody picked up a baseball bat or sword and struck somebody, the odds of hurting themselves from the attack are almost nonexistent.

The odds of botching the swing and leaving themselves wildly exposed, however, are extremely high. Hell, if I put a sword in a layman's hands, I'd honestly be impressed if they could manage more than a superficial cut. Swords are deceptively difficult to use for someone who's never done so before.

Zeus posted...

And, let's be honest here, a layperson with a bat probably wouldn't too badly for themselves. It's why much smaller, weaker individuals can overpower larger, stronger opponents with one.

Assuming their attacker is unarmed and of roughly analogous levels of training/experience, I'd agree.

That said, what's your point?
---

darkknight109 posted...

Seriously, where did you even pick up on this? "Shoot to wound" is one of the most well-known fallacies amongst shooting enthusiasts. Attempting to do so is neither safe nor reliable and no police department that I'm aware of encourages or even allows such behaviour. Standard police procedure when using a firearm is "aim for centre of mass, fire as many bullets as necessary to neutralize the target."

...from talking to actual cops. You know, the guys who are going to draw their weapon and use it.

darkknight109 posted...

So no source. Gotcha.

So you actually believe that somebody is going to be a better shot by not shooting? Gotcha. Kind of like how Dreaming King thinks he's a better swordsman by not training.

darkknight109 posted...

Based on that report, just three out of 135 officers killed in the line of duty were killed during traffic stops.

Interesting that you completely misread my comment. My comment wasn't in regard to any danger, they *face* but instead the danger they *pose* during routine stops. Especially considering that's 3 officers killed during traffic stops vs all the people they killed during traffic stops.

darkknight109 posted...

And well-known for being inaccurate.

Unless you feel like firing "gansta style" (and consequently missing all your shots), your best bet at actually hitting the target is to hold the gun with both hands, arms extended for bracing. You can fire from the hip, but not really with any accuracy (hence why "shoot from the hip" has entered the common lexicon as a synonym for doing something haphazardly, and without planning).

I'm not sure if you're hilariously misinformed or flat-out ignorant, but hip-shooting is a reliable tactic against close opponents *and* accuracy matters far less when your target is right in front of you. And yes, it's even discussed in police periodicals.

http://www.policemag.com/channel/careers-training/articles/2016/03/shooting-from-the-hip.aspx

But sure, only draw your gun and fire when it's at arm's length. See how long you live doing that.
---

darkknight109 posted...

I don't know of any "non-combat" martial arts, so I think you're talking out of your ass again.

Pretty much every style that doesn't teach functional fighting and whose forms look like dancing would easily qualify. If you teach something that isn't heavy on sparring, it's not really meant for fighting.

darkknight109 posted...

Are they? If that's the case, are guns their own category? Melee weapons? Empty hand forms?

Categories aside, it would be classified as a personal weapon. And, because it can be easily concealed, it's a more valuable weapon.

darkknight109 posted...

I've said nothing about the type or styles of the arts I practice, nor what is involved in my training, but you've somehow come to the conclusion that I run a McDojo.

So, taking this with your early statement that you know about martial arts because you've seen guys talk about it on TV, I guess you're really good at drawing really dumb conclusions from almost no data and assuming that makes you a genius.

Given that you purport 25 years of training yet argue that martial arts have no basis in warfare, it's a safe bet that you run a McDojo -- or are one of the unpaid student-teachers at one -- and push a style that's all forms and no substance.

darkknight109 posted...

The odds of botching the swing and leaving themselves wildly exposed, however, are extremely high. Hell, if I put a sword in a layman's hands, I'd honestly be impressed if they could manage more than a superficial cut. Swords are deceptively difficult to use for someone who's never done so before.

Which is why they're better off with a bat.

darkknight109 posted...

Assuming their attacker is unarmed and of roughly analogous levels of training/experience, I'd agree.

That said, what's your point?

Not at all. An actual weapon drastically changes things. Franky, the fact that you think a trained martial artist can beat gunmen and armed assailants with just his arms, legs, and ki puts you right in that Dreaming King camp.
---

Zeus posted...

...from talking to actual cops. You know, the guys who are going to draw their weapon and use it.

You must talk to some pretty terrible cops, then, because no one who is actually competent at shooting would ever advocate shooting to wound.

Zeus posted...

So you actually believe that somebody is going to be a better shot by not shooting? Gotcha. Kind of like how Dreaming King thinks he's a better swordsman by not training.

Nice deflection and way to completely disregard the rest of my comment that you excised that quote from.

Zeus posted...

Interesting that you completely misread my comment. My comment wasn't in regard to any danger, they *face* but instead the danger they *pose* during routine stops. Especially considering that's 3 officers killed during traffic stops vs all the people they killed during traffic stops.

So you're suggesting that the reasons why cops kill so many people... is because they're not ready for combat? That makes absolutely zero sense. If anything, that suggests overreadiness, seeing danger where there is none. Someone who wasn't properly prepared for combat would be more likely to be the one killed, not the one doing the killing.

Zeus posted...

I'm not sure if you're hilariously misinformed or flat-out ignorant, but hip-shooting is a reliable tactic against close opponents *and* accuracy matters far less when your target is right in front of you. And yes, it's even discussed in police periodicals.

http://www.policemag.com/channel/careers-training/articles/2016/03/shooting-from-the-hip.aspx

I love how your source opens by citing the 20 foot rule that you were busily trying to disprove earlier in this topic. Now, however, you seem to be tacitly admitting I was right. Glad you've finally come around.

Plus, I mean, your source even admits that I'm right regarding the point you were arguing against:

"Hip shooting can give you the edge you need to defeat an assailant that's close to you. Is it as accurate as bringing the gun up to eye level before you shoot? No it's not"

So there you go. I never said you won't do damage, but you're putting a lot of faith into an inherently inaccurate method of attack, where any melee weapon - including unarmed attacks - would be significantly more precise. Remember, the argument isn't whether or not guns can still kill people at close range (obviously they can), but whether or not a melee weapon would be better (which it would be).

Zeus posted...

Pretty much every style that doesn't teach functional fighting and whose forms look like dancing would easily qualify. If you teach something that isn't heavy on sparring, it's not really meant for fighting.

Sure, but the number of arts that meet that descriptor is vanishingly small. Even something primarily designed for fitness and flexibility, like Tai Chi, is better than nothing.
---

Zeus posted...

And, because it can be easily concealed, it's a more valuable weapon.

So you're agreeing that things like concealability - rather than just raw killing power - are valid factors to take into account when determining the effectiveness of a weapon. Good. I don't disagree. However, if you recognise that, you should also recognise that the legal availability is just a puissant a factor, because it will limit where you can legally carry and use your weapon. There are many places in the world where civilians simply could not take handguns; by contrast, there's nowhere you can be "disarmed" of any skill at empty hand fighting you may have.

Zeus posted...

Given that you purport 25 years of training yet argue that martial arts have no basis in warfare, it's a safe bet that you run a McDojo -- or are one of the unpaid student-teachers at one -- and push a style that's all forms and no substance.

Who said the arts that I practice (there's more than one) weren't based off of warfare?

You're really reaching here, Zeus. I get that you're hoping to be correct with one of your wild guesses and maybe score a point or two that way, but so far you're way off the mark. Let's see... you've guessed that I run a McDojo, that I'm a student teacher, that my arts aren't warfare arts, and that we don't do much sparring. You're 0-for-4 so far; care to keep guessing?

Zeus posted...

Which is why they're better off with a bat.

Untrained layman? Yes, a bat is a significantly better option with much less of a chance to hurt yourself (though swinging poorly will leave you even more exposed given how a bat is weighted) and the fact that swords are actually difficult to use properly.

But remember what I said earlier - I'm not assuming untrained laypeople are fighting here. I'm assuming someone with a reasonable level of training in the weapons being compared.

Zeus posted...

Not at all. An actual weapon drastically changes things. Franky, the fact that you think a trained martial artist can beat gunmen and armed assailants with just his arms, legs, and ki puts you right in that Dreaming King camp.

Frankly, the fact you think it's impossible puts you squarely in the delusional camp.

First off, I have no idea how this comment at all followed from what I wrote (which, literally, was that a smaller, armed person would be be able to beat a larger, unarmed person assuming roughly analogous levels of training).

Secondly, there are numerous instances of martial artists disarming armed attackers. Does that necessarily mean an unarmed defender will always win? No, far from it. A weapon is a significant advantage in a fight and from this argument's outset I've never denied that. But if you think that having a knife or a gun is an automatic "I win" button, you are simply wrong and you don't even need to be a martial artist to understand that; five minutes on Google will suffice.
---

This topic got stupid, which is saying something considering where it started out.
---

darkknight109 posted...

You must talk to some pretty terrible cops, then, because no one who is actually competent at shooting would ever advocate shooting to wound.

Well, considering that the vast majority of police officers never draw their weapon in the line of duty...

darkknight109 posted...

Nice deflection and way to completely disregard the rest of my comment that you excised that quote from.

Given that standards vary region to region, I'm not going to waste an hour fact-checking your off-the-cuff claim to see if it's generally correct.

darkknight109 posted...

So you're suggesting that the reasons why cops kill so many people... is because they're not ready for combat? That makes absolutely zero sense. If anything, that suggests overreadiness, seeing danger where there is none. Someone who wasn't properly prepared for combat would be more likely to be the one killed, not the one doing the killing.

It's hard to dissect all of the areas you went wrong in that post. For starters, you wrongly assume that every situation is combatant against combatant -- which, if that was the case, the better-trained individual would likely win. In reality, it's an armed officer against unarmed civilians who, due to exceedingly poor training and not being used to combat situations, regularly jump the gun when it comes to applying lethal force.

Seeing danger where none exists in no way prepares you for combat. Instead, it just makes you utterly unreliable and dangerous.

darkknight109 posted...

I love how your source opens by citing the 20 foot rule that you were busily trying to disprove earlier in this topic. Now, however, you seem to be tacitly admitting I was right. Glad you've finally come around.

Plus, I mean, your source even admits that I'm right regarding the point you were arguing against:

"Hip shooting can give you the edge you need to defeat an assailant that's close to you. Is it as accurate as bringing the gun up to eye level before you shoot? No it's not"

So there you go. I never said you won't do damage, but you're putting a lot of faith into an inherently inaccurate method of attack, where any melee weapon - including unarmed attacks - would be significantly more precise. Remember, the argument isn't whether or not guns can still kill people at close range (obviously they can), but whether or not a melee weapon would be better (which it would be).

Except it demonstrates how the weapon can be effectively at close combat... Literally your whole argument was that guns couldn't work at close range which this 100% refutes
---

darkknight109 posted...

Sure, but the number of arts that meet that descriptor is vanishingly small. Even something primarily designed for fitness and flexibility, like Tai Chi, is better than nothing.

Tai chi effectively is nothing.

darkknight109 posted...

So you're agreeing that things like concealability - rather than just raw killing power - are valid factors to take into account when determining the effectiveness of a weapon. Good. I don't disagree. However, if you recognise that, you should also recognise that the legal availability is just a puissant a factor, because it will limit where you can legally carry and use your weapon. There are many places in the world where civilians simply could not take handguns; by contrast, there's nowhere you can be "disarmed" of any skill at empty hand fighting you may have.

There's a list of priorities when it comes to weapons. Concealability ALWAYS ranks below raw power. However, a gun has the power AND the concealability. A knife has power and concealability. Hands are lacking in power and, in the most literal sense, can't be concealed at all.

darkknight109 posted...

You're really reaching here, Zeus. I get that you're hoping to be correct with one of your wild guesses and maybe score a point or two that way, but so far you're way off the mark. Let's see... you've guessed that I run a McDojo, that I'm a student teacher, that my arts aren't warfare arts, and that we don't do much sparring. You're 0-for-4 so far; care to keep guessing?

Hence why I said it seems a "safe assumption."

darkknight109 posted...

Frankly, the fact you think it's impossible puts you squarely in the delusional camp.

And you accuse me of strawmanning. I didn't say impossible. However, it's generally exceedingly unlikely. But feel free to think that you can easily be trained to catch a sword with your hands instead of your torso.

darkknight109 posted...

Secondly, there are numerous instances of martial artists disarming armed attackers. Does that necessarily mean an unarmed defender will always win? No, far from it. A weapon is a significant advantage in a fight and from this argument's outset I've never denied that. But if you think that having a knife or a gun is an automatic "I win" button, you are simply wrong and you don't even need to be a martial artist to understand that; five minutes on Google will suffice.

The odds are so slanted that it very nearly is an automatic win. Otherwise everybody would just go into combat barehanded because who needs weapons?
---

TC in a nutshell

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tlwda9S58Lg
---

Zeus posted...

Well, considering that the vast majority of police officers never draw their weapon in the line of duty...

So you're admitting that you (supposedly) talking to cops basically has no weight as an argument? Because that's the only way I can see this statement relating in any way to what has been said so far.

Zeus posted...

Given that standards vary region to region, I'm not going to waste an hour fact-checking your off-the-cuff claim to see if it's generally correct.

I mean, the court rulings apply to all of the United States, but if you want to concede the point and admit I'm right that's fine by me.

Zeus posted...

Oh wow, a meme that was tired ten years ago. You really got me here.

Zeus posted...

It's hard to dissect all of the areas you went wrong in that post. For starters, you wrongly assume that every situation is combatant against combatant -- which, if that was the case, the better-trained individual would likely win. In reality, it's an armed officer against unarmed civilians who, due to exceedingly poor training and not being used to combat situations, regularly jump the gun when it comes to applying lethal force.

Seeing danger where none exists in no way prepares you for combat. Instead, it just makes you utterly unreliable and dangerous.

I'm starting to think that you don't even remember what your original point was that you're arguing.

You said that cops aren't as ready for combat as someone who might go to the gun club a couple of times a month and if they were there wouldn't be so many police shootings. When I pointed out that cops are legally required to train and test regularly, you effectively conceded the point above, yet are still somehow trying to argue that cops shooting people proves they suck at shooting people, which may be the most batshit crazy thing I've ever heard out of you (which is, in and of itself, kind of impressive).

Zeus posted...

Except it demonstrates how the weapon can be effectively at close combat... Literally your whole argument was that guns couldn't work at close range which this 100% refutes

You quite apparently didn't understand my argument then. Maybe go back and try reading it this time.

Zeus posted...

Tai chi effectively is nothing.

I'm not going to pretend Tai Chi is combat training, given that's not what it's typically practiced for, but yes, it is better than nothing if only for the coordination and form it provides.
---

Zeus posted...

There's a list of priorities when it comes to weapons. Concealability ALWAYS ranks below raw power. However, a gun has the power AND the concealability. A knife has power and concealability. Hands are lacking in power and, in the most literal sense, can't be concealed at all.

Good, I'm glad you agree with me that there's more to weapon rankings than just raw power.

Anyways, yes, hands effectively can be concealed. If anything, they are the most concealable weapon of all because, unless you actually know the person you have no idea of the skill they posses at fighting unarmed. Someone who appears helpless may be anything but. Someone with, say, their hands up and no weapon in them cannot make use of any concealed weapon they may have on their person... except for the hands themselves.

Zeus posted...

Hence why I said it seems a "safe assumption."

Apparently not, because I don't think you've said one correct thing about my martial arts training so far, despite being utterly convinced that reading a couple of books and watching TV makes you a martial arts expert.

Zeus posted...

And you accuse me of strawmanning. I didn't say impossible. However, it's generally exceedingly unlikely

You did, actually. Specifically, you said this:

"Franky, the fact that you think a trained martial artist can beat gunmen and armed assailants with just his arms, legs, and ki puts you right in that Dreaming King camp."

I mean, I don't see many other ways to read that other than "I don't think martial artists can beat someone who's armed, regardless of the training either one has". If you meant something else, fine - next time say what you mean rather than complaining about me pointing out that a poorly worded argument is clearly moronic.

Zeus posted...

But feel free to think that you can easily be trained to catch a sword with your hands instead of your torso.

He says while accusing *me* of strawmanning.

Zeus posted...

The odds are so slanted that it very nearly is an automatic win.

It isn't, but if it helps you sleep better at night to think that the piece you keep tucked in your back hip is an automatic "I win" button, be my guest.

Zeus posted...

Otherwise everybody would just go into combat barehanded because who needs weapons?

I mean, I already pointed out that weapons provide a significant advantage in combat. I'd say that would be a pretty good reason to use them if they're available, no?

The strength of empty hand - as I said at the beginning - is that it's always available, never needs to be drawn, and can never be disarmed. Plus, as I mentioned later, it's always effectively hidden-in-plain-sight.
---

darkknight109 posted...

So you're admitting that you (supposedly) talking to cops basically has no weight as an argument? Because that's the only way I can see this statement relating in any way to what has been said so far.

Actually, not supposedly. And asking actual cops is good to learn what the average cop may do, but that doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do.

darkknight109 posted...

I mean, the court rulings apply to all of the United States, but if you want to concede the point and admit I'm right that's fine by me.

Perhaps you could first demonstrate how those standards are set at the federal courts level...

darkknight109 posted...

Oh wow, a meme that was tired ten years ago. You really got me here.

"It's old, therefore it's not good! If it was good, it would be new!"

Seriously, it's like meme Shakespeare. Get off your high horse.

darkknight109 posted...

I'm starting to think that you don't even remember what your original point was that you're arguing.

You said that cops aren't as ready for combat as someone who might go to the gun club a couple of times a month and if they were there wouldn't be so many police shootings. When I pointed out that cops are legally required to train and test regularly, you effectively conceded the point above, yet are still somehow trying to argue that cops shooting people proves they suck at shooting people, which may be the most batshit crazy thing I've ever heard out of you (which is, in and of itself, kind of impressive).

Oh? And do you think there's some particular skill involved in shooting somebody seated in their vehicle only steps away from you? Because a complete novice could pull that off. That's not fighting, that's pure slaughter, the same as striking an unassuming target in the back with a weapon.

As for the issue of competency, you're wrongly assuming that a standardized test taken once every whenever -- often with little done between -- means that they're than people who routinely practice but aren't tested. If that's what you're driving at, it's an absolutely moronic argument. And while an argument like that is crazy by most standards, for you it's Tuesday.

darkknight109 posted...

You quite apparently didn't understand my argument then. Maybe go back and try reading it this time.

I don't think you understand your argument. This literally debunks the 20 feet rule which, again, is effectively target shooting and is based on a conservative standard.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Anyways, yes, hands effectively can be concealed. If anything, they are the most concealable weapon of all because, unless you actually know the person you have no idea of the skill they posses at fighting unarmed. Someone who appears helpless may be anything but. Someone with, say, their hands up and no weapon in them cannot make use of any concealed weapon they may have on their person... except for the hands themselves.

If somebody has hands, we're going to see it =p more importantly, if somebody has a weapon, they're going to stand out of reach where that weapon can be grabbed unless they're specifically moving in to attack. It's not like those goofy Hollywood cliches where an officer walks up to a suspect and has their gun touching them to facilitate a cool-looking disarm.

More so, somebody with their hands up *can* have access to concealed weapons on their wrists -- some of which are on the goofy side, but still are potentially damaging than just using your hands.

darkknight109 posted...

You did, actually. Specifically, you said this:

"Franky, the fact that you think a trained martial artist can beat gunmen and armed assailants with just his arms, legs, and ki puts you right in that Dreaming King camp."

I mean, I don't see many other ways to read that other than "I don't think martial artists can beat someone who's armed, regardless of the training either one has". If you meant something else, fine - next time say what you mean rather than complaining about me pointing out that a poorly worded argument is clearly moronic.

I hardly thought I'd need to clarify outright impossible with exceedingly unlikely, but sure, maybe I gave you too much credit when I chose my wording.

darkknight109 posted...

He says while accusing *me* of strawmanning.

Honestly seems to be the direction where this is going when you're arguing disarms, considering that most are highly situational and -- assuming that there's anything to them in the first place -- therefore hard to pull off in an actual fight.

darkknight109 posted...

It isn't, but if it helps you sleep better at night to think that the piece you keep tucked in your back hip is an automatic "I win" button, be my guest.

They really are, though. When your opponent's best move is to run away or hide behind something, even if you somehow don't hit them you're still better off.

darkknight109 posted...

I mean, I already pointed out that weapons provide a significant advantage in combat. I'd say that would be a pretty good reason to use them if they're available, no?

But you've also tried to argue that bare hands are a more effective weapon than weapons and that trained individuals can easily disarm opponents. Those are kinda mixed messages.
---

New year, same shit it seems.
---

away with ye vile beggar
---

Zeus posted...

And asking actual cops is good to learn what the average cop may do, but that doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do.

So you are admitting that you talking to cops is ultimately not a point in favour of your argument. OK then.

I should also point out at this venture that personal anecdotes don't really make convincing arguments. And, for what it's worth, what you claim that the cops you've spoke to say doesn't line up with what I've heard from the ones I trained and train with.

Zeus posted...

Perhaps you could first demonstrate how those standards are set at the federal courts level...

I can`t, actually, because that`s up to Congress and they`ve never put actual numbers to it. The courts simply set a precedent that training must be conducted "regularly". They didn't specify exactly what qualifies as "regularly", because that would be judicial overreach (legislative branch is supposed to decide those sorts of things). Most police departments have interpreted it to be "proficiency testing 4-6 times a year".

Zeus posted...

"It's old, therefore it's not good! If it was good, it would be new!"

Seriously, it's like meme Shakespeare. Get off your high horse.

You're not seriously arguing that a grossly overused quote from Billy Madison is witty and edgy, are you? Seriously, that line has been so completely and thoroughly beaten into the ground, you can probably find it somewhere on the other side of the planet by now.

Zeus posted...

As for the issue of competency, you're wrongly assuming that a standardized test taken once every whenever -- often with little done between -- means that they're than people who routinely practice but aren't tested.

Citation needed to prove that cops don't train in between their competency tests. Speaking purely anecdotally, most of the cops I know train practice with their weapons pretty regularly in their down-time (largely because they're in a profession where it's not an unreasonable assumption that they'll one day have to use them, so they may as well be good with them).

Zeus posted...

Oh? And do you think there's some particular skill involved in shooting somebody seated in their vehicle only steps away from you?

Not a lot. Then again, most of those people who are doing range practice are shooting at stationary targets in a highly controlled, stress-free environment, which is extremely far removed from what an actual combat scenario is like.

Zeus posted...

And while an argument like that is crazy by most standards, for you it's Tuesday.

Oh for fuck's sake, you've got to be kidding me. Can you really not come up with retorts of your own without having to resort to your favourite memes? And if not, could you maybe try using some from this century?
---

Zeus posted...

I don't think you understand your argument. This literally debunks the 20 feet rule which, again, is effectively target shooting and is based on a conservative standard.

Your source's opening says that - based on the exact study I was referencing earlier - it's all but impossible to get an accurate shot away at an incoming attacker who is closer than 20 feet, and that most attackers will be attacking from much closer than that anyways, so you're going to have to resort to a firing method that the author explicitly agrees is very inaccurate - just as I said earlier and just as you argued against - because that's the only way to get a shot off at all.

You've literally posted a source that proves my entire argument right and you're still trying use it to argue that I'm wrong.

Zeus posted...

If somebody has hands, we're going to see it

And if they have a concealed weapon, you'll see that too after they've drawn it.

In both cases, though, you won't realise the danger they pose until after they've attacked.

Zeus posted...

more importantly, if somebody has a weapon, they're going to stand out of reach where that weapon can be grabbed unless they're specifically moving in to attack

That's assuming that the person with the weapon is the attacker; if they're the person being attacked, they don't really have much choice in where/what position they stand in.

And, generally speaking, I always look at this from a defender's POV, because the odds I'll ever be in a position in my life where I'll need to be the one throwing the first punch are quite remote. Unless you are a criminal or are employed in a profession where violence is common (security, law enforcement, military, etc.), you are far, far more likely to be attacked than be the attacker.

Zeus posted...

It's not like those goofy Hollywood cliches where an officer walks up to a suspect and has their gun touching them to facilitate a cool-looking disarm.

More likely than you'd think.

Again, I'm looking at this from my own point of view, which is as a civilian whose most likely attacker is a criminal of some nature. Unless he's trying to kill me (possible, but unlikely), virtually all other criminal attacks (assault, kidnapping, rape, mugging) require the attacker to be close to their target. Few criminals will stand ten feet away from you, because that makes them more visible and less able to take things from you if they're trying to rob you.

Regardless, if a criminal has a weapon pulled on you and is intent on doing you harm, you're very likely screwed regardless of whether or not you are armed. Try and draw your own sidearm if you like, they'll likely kill you before you get a chance to get a shot off. If they're close enough to attempt a disarm, that would honestly be my preferred action, because even if you can't get the weapon away from them, you can at least try to get it pointed somewhere else.

Zeus posted...

I hardly thought I'd need to clarify outright impossible with exceedingly unlikely, but sure, maybe I gave you too much credit when I chose my wording.

"I never said it was impossible, you're strawmanning!"
*points out exact sentence where he says it's impossible*
"OK, I totally did say it was impossible, but I figured you'd know that I didn't actually mean what I was saying!"

Again, don't blame me when you made a moronic argument and got called on it.
---

Zeus posted...

Honestly seems to be the direction where this is going when you're arguing disarms, considering that most are highly situational and -- assuming that there's anything to them in the first place -- therefore hard to pull off in an actual fight.

Equivocating disarms of knives and guns to catching a sword with your bare hands = strawman argument at its finest.

As to whether or not disarms are situational, that depends on what you are classifying as a "disarm". Standard practice when dealing with an armed attacker is to first immobilise the weapon (this will be a disarm if possible, but simply getting control over the arm using it will suffice if you can't manage a full disarm), then deal with the attacker. I can't think of any situations where you would want to let an attacker keep full control of his weapon.

Are they difficult? Sure, but not to the extent you might think. I have no idea what martial arts you trained in (and you did mention your training was brief and it occurred while you were young, neither of which work in your favour on this point), but if it was a grappling art or had a grappling component, you should be quite comfortable with having to disarm someone.

Zeus posted...

They really are, though. When your opponent's best move is to run away or hide behind something, even if you somehow don't hit them you're still better off.

The best tactic in any fight is to run away. Again, your goal should be to get away alive - running does that beautifully, and with no injury to boot. You only fight if, for whatever reason, you cannot run or have family or other dependants that need protection. Beyond that, standing and fighting in a fight you could run from is both dangerous and pointless.

A fight avoided is a fight won.

Zeus posted...

But you've also tried to argue that bare hands are a more effective weapon than weapons and that trained individuals can easily disarm opponents. Those are kinda mixed messages.

First off, no, I've never argued that trained individuals can "easily" disarm opponents. I've said it's possible, nothing more.

Secondly, if you actually take my arguments in full rather than trying to cherry-pick points out of them as you've done here, there's no mixed message at all. If you're talking about raw killing power, then yes, empty hands are going to be ranked pretty low; but my argument from the beginning - which you have since tacitly agreed with - is that there is more to a weapon than just how readily it can kill. Empty hand training has a number of advantages over all other weapons:
+It is always with you. It will never be tucked into a purse, get stuck in a holster, get left at home, or be checked by security.
+It takes zero time to ready.
+It can never be taken from you and/or used against you
+It is more precise in application than any other weapon and has the greatest degree of control. It can be used to subdue, injure, incapacitate, or kill as circumstances require. You can leave an opponent with no lasting damage, or deal them wounds that will be with them for the rest of their life.
+It never requires ammunition or maintenance
+It is legal everywhere

It is those elements of empty hand fighting that, to me, make it the ultimate weapon if you care to claim such a thing exists (quite honestly, I find the idea of an "ultimate weapon" to be a bit silly, because what weapon is best depends entirely on what your needs are).
---

darkknight109 posted...

So you are admitting that you talking to cops is ultimately not a point in favour of your argument. OK then.

I should also point out at this venture that personal anecdotes don't really make convincing arguments. And, for what it's worth, what you claim that the cops you've spoke to say doesn't line up with what I've heard from the ones I trained and train with.

No, it COMPLETELY justifies what I'm saying. This is how cops actually think and feel. This is what they're bringing into situations when they might draw their gun. Granted, no cop I know has ever shot an unarmed suspect seated in their car. Maybe some of your alleged cop buddies have or will.

darkknight109 posted...

I can`t, actually, because that`s up to Congress and they`ve never put actual numbers to it. The courts simply set a precedent that training must be conducted "regularly". They didn't specify exactly what qualifies as "regularly", because that would be judicial overreach (legislative branch is supposed to decide those sorts of things). Most police departments have interpreted it to be "proficiency testing 4-6 times a year".

So basically your claims are unfounded or unprovable? Gotcha.

darkknight109 posted...

You're not seriously arguing that a grossly overused quote from Billy Madison is witty and edgy, are you? Seriously, that line has been so completely and thoroughly beaten into the ground, you can probably find it somewhere on the other side of the planet by now.

You know why they chose a line from Romeo and Juliet for the title to The Fault in Our Stars? Because despite R&J being old and "beaten to death," it still works. But hell, if you're interested in intentionally derailing the rest of our discussion just to nitpick memes, I serve as good a man as you.

darkknight109 posted...

Citation needed to prove that cops don't train in between their competency tests. Speaking purely anecdotally, most of the cops I know train practice with their weapons pretty regularly in their down-time (largely because they're in a profession where it's not an unreasonable assumption that they'll one day have to use them, so they may as well be good with them).

Sure, I'll give you as much of a citation as you've provided for your "regular training" and countless other claims. Otherwise you can keep assuming that cops train as much as high-frequency enthusiasts who are spending their evenings at gun ranges.

darkknight109 posted...

Not a lot. Then again, most of those people who are doing range practice are shooting at stationary targets in a highly controlled, stress-free environment, which is extremely far removed from what an actual combat scenario is like.

Which still requires greater ability than shooting a seated man in his car (a completely stationary target) mere feet away. In fact, it'd be impressive if you somehow failed.

darkknight109 posted...

Oh for fuck's sake, you've got to be kidding me. Can you really not come up with retorts of your own without having to resort to your favourite memes? And if not, could you maybe try using some from this century?

I'll have what she's having.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Your source's opening says that - based on the exact study I was referencing earlier - it's all but impossible to get an accurate shot away at an incoming attacker who is closer than 20 feet, and that most attackers will be attacking from much closer than that anyways, so you're going to have to resort to a firing method that the author explicitly agrees is very inaccurate - just as I said earlier and just as you argued against - because that's the only way to get a shot off at all.

You've literally posted a source that proves my entire argument right and you're still trying use it to argue that I'm wrong.

...except that's not what it's talking about at all. It's discussing the validity of close-range shooting. The fact that it references your 20-ft claim while debunking it by pointing out how things can be fired closer doesn't somehow validate your wrong idea. After all, Snopes has to reference a myth and discuss what validity it may have before debunking it.

darkknight109 posted...

And if they have a concealed weapon, you'll see that too after they've drawn it.

In both cases, though, you won't realise the danger they pose until after they've attacked.

Except hands are always visible or known, weapons are not.

darkknight109 posted...

Few criminals will stand ten feet away from you, because that makes them more visible and less able to take things from you if they're trying to rob you.

Your gun doesn't need to be 10 feet away, just far enough that you can shoot them the second you see them move. Ditto for a blade, especially since if they're 10 feet away they can just run (which isn't a bad outcome on defense, but would be for somebody trying to capture a person).

darkknight109 posted...

"I never said it was impossible, you're strawmanning!"
*points out exact sentence where he says it's impossible*
"OK, I totally did say it was impossible, but I figured you'd know that I didn't actually mean what I was saying!"

Again, don't blame me when you made a moronic argument and got called on it.

Can I still blame you when you're trying to twist my words to suit your silly agenda? As in now?
---

darkknight109 posted...

Equivocating disarms of knives and guns to catching a sword with your bare hands = strawman argument at its finest.

Good for the goose, good for the gander. Oh wait, maybe that's too old for you.

darkknight109 posted...

if it was a grappling art or had a grappling component, you should be quite comfortable with having to disarm someone.

Spoken like Dreaming King.

darkknight109 posted...

The best tactic in any fight is to run away. Again, your goal should be to get away alive - running does that beautifully, and with no injury to boot. You only fight if, for whatever reason, you cannot run or have family or other dependants that need protection. Beyond that, standing and fighting in a fight you could run from is both dangerous and pointless.

A fight avoided is a fight won.

Yes, and whether they run or you run, you've avoided the fight. Hence the added benefit of a gun for the intimidation factor. A lot of punks with a little martial arts background will feel confident in trying to take a knife from you, but they're more likely to high-tail when they know you have a gun.

darkknight109 posted...

First off, no, I've never argued that trained individuals can "easily" disarm opponents. I've said it's possible, nothing more.

You might have a stronger case if you literally didn't just essentially argue that in the same damn post.

darkknight109 posted...

Secondly, if you actually take my arguments in full rather than trying to cherry-pick points out of them as you've done here,

Says the guy who was just cherrypicking mine.

darkknight109 posted...

f you're talking about raw killing power, then yes, empty hands are going to be ranked pretty low; but my argument from the beginning - which you have since tacitly agreed with - is that there is more to a weapon than just how readily it can kill. Empty hand training has a number of advantages over all other weapons:
+It is always with you. It will never be tucked into a purse, get stuck in a holster, get left at home, or be checked by security.
+It takes zero time to ready.
+It can never be taken from you and/or used against you
+It is more precise in application than any other weapon and has the greatest degree of control. It can be used to subdue, injure, incapacitate, or kill as circumstances require. You can leave an opponent with no lasting damage, or deal them wounds that will be with them for the rest of their life.
+It never requires ammunition or maintenance
+It is legal everywhere

It is those elements of empty hand fighting that, to me, make it the ultimate weapon if you care to claim such a thing exists (quite honestly, I find the idea of an "ultimate weapon" to be a bit silly, because what weapon is best depends entirely on what your needs are).

And those advantages pale in comparison to a gun which has a greater intimidation factor than other weapons (if "empty hands" are counted at all, they're the least intimidating), it has a relatively high lethality rate, it can be effectively used regardless of the user's physical strength (and even size, to some extent), and it can effectively assail multiple opponents at once.

As a defense measure, you'll need to actually use those hands so you risk injury regardless. By comparison, simply pulling out a gun or blade can end some fights because the opponent will back off.
---

God, would you two just drop it and let the topic die already?
---

Dreaming_King posted...

God, would you two just drop it and let the topic die already?

How's the whole "guild" thing working out?

Zeus posted...

No, it COMPLETELY justifies what I'm saying. This is how cops actually think and feel. This is what they're bringing into situations when they might draw their gun.

No, this is how the cops *you've spoken to* think and feel. That's why this entire line of reasoning is badly flawed - you're talking about one group of cops in one geographic area and assuming that applies to all cops everywhere.

Wherever possible, I've based my arguments on research and widely adopted policy, which I'd say beats out your chats with a couple cops you supposedly know.

Zeus posted...

Granted, no cop I know has ever shot an unarmed suspect seated in their car. Maybe some of your alleged cop buddies have or will.

Police shootings are pretty rare here - when they happen, they're usually national news. So no, I don't think any of the cops I've interacted with have ever shot an unarmed suspect, though admittedly I've never bothered to ask.

Zeus posted...

So basically your claims are unfounded or unprovable? Gotcha.

I mean, I've already cited them, so they are neither unfounded nor unproven, but if you want to keep sticking your fingers in your ears over this, go right ahead.

Zeus posted...

Sure, I'll give you as much of a citation as you've provided for your "regular training" and countless other claims.

Alright, I'll wait then. Because I've so far cited far more sources for my arguments than you.

Nice attempt at a deflection, BTW. You want me to buy your argument, let's see a source for it.

Zeus posted...

Which still requires greater ability than shooting a seated man in his car (a completely stationary target) mere feet away. In fact, it'd be impressive if you somehow failed.

And your point is?

Zeus posted...

...except that's not what it's talking about at all. It's discussing the validity of close-range shooting.

By pointing out that it's impossible to get an accurate shot out at that range and so you need to attempt a flawed - and, once again, by the author's own admission inaccurate - firing method to have any hope of actually hitting your target.

Zeus posted...

Except hands are always visible or known, weapons are not.

Hands are visible, sure, but the ability of the person to use them as weapons is not.

As soon as someone has a weapon in hand you know they are armed; even before that, you can make an educated guess if you see them trying to draw something. But someone who simply has their hands up in front of them might be just trying to defuse the situation or they could be someone who has decades of training under their belt - you have absolutely no way of knowing until the punches start flying and by then it's pretty much too late to do anything about it.
---

Zeus posted...

Your gun doesn't need to be 10 feet away, just far enough that you can shoot them the second you see them move.

Again, if a criminal is attacking you, they're very likely to be close (unless they really are intent on killing you right from the get-go). And whether they are robbing you, kidnapping you, or trying to rape you, they will need you to move at some point and they will need to be close to you at some point.

And I hasten to add that if the situation you're describing actually played out and someone has a weapon drawn on you from this perfect distance, you're pretty much fucked regardless of what weapon you have on you. If the person you're facing can shoot/stab/slash you fast enough that you can't attempt a disarm, they'll be able to shoot/stab/slash you long before you can draw a gun out of a holster. So, really, that's not a point in any weapon's favour.

Zeus posted...

Can I still blame you when you're trying to twist my words to suit your silly agenda? As in now?

Well, what part of that are you taking exception to? Because all of it's accurate. You did accuse me of claiming you said something that you didn't, I did point out where you said exactly what I said you did, and, you did subsequently blame me for taking your words at face value rather than reading your mind and knowing that your moronic comments were meant as hyperbole.

Do you want me to quote the exchange again or is that going to bring another accusation of "twisting my words" from you?

Zeus posted...

Good for the goose, good for the gander.

I mean, there's the slight issue that I never strawmanned in this topic and even quoted you to prove it...

Zeus posted...

Spoken like Dreaming King.

I guess they haven't covered that part in your TV show yet. Don't worry, I'm sure when you get to the Season 5 DVD it'll be in there somewhere.

Zeus posted...

Yes, and whether they run or you run, you've avoided the fight. Hence the added benefit of a gun for the intimidation factor. A lot of punks with a little martial arts background will feel confident in trying to take a knife from you, but they're more likely to high-tail when they know you have a gun.

If you're using a knife for self-defence, you're doing it wrong and asking for a whole pile of legal trouble to boot. Blades are second only to guns in their ability to kill, even accidentally. Most any other weapon I can think of - including empty hand - is better suited for self-defence; knives should really only be used if you grabbed one that happened to be nearby when you got attacked (because you're fighting in a kitchen, I guess?).

Also, didn't you *just* try to argue that disarms are next-to-impossible? If so, why are you worried about someone trying to disarm you?

And the problem with "intimidation" is that you're triggering the fight-or-flight instinct and hoping that the person settles on the latter; it's entirely possible they'll go for the former and if they have a gun as well, seeing one pointed at them might just scare them into shooting theirs. Not a good outcome.

Zeus posted...

You might have a stronger case if you literally didn't just essentially argue that in the same damn post.

I said disarms were possible, and that if you train properly (and based on what you've said thus far, you haven't, so I don't blame you for not knowing this) you should be comfortable with them; I never said they were easy.
---

Zeus posted...

Says the guy who was just cherrypicking mine.

Sorry, not seeing it. Admittedly, trying to keep track of your train of thought when you seem to change your arguments so frequently whenever I disprove one does get a bit difficult.

Zeus posted...

And those advantages pale in comparison to a gun which has a greater intimidation factor than other weapons (if "empty hands" are counted at all, they're the least intimidating), it has a relatively high lethality rate, it can be effectively used regardless of the user's physical strength (and even size, to some extent), and it can effectively assail multiple opponents at once.

Intimidation factor: Yes, agreed, a gun is more intimidating than any other non-firearm (though see above for the caveat on that)
High lethality: Not really an advantage in my books. I've trained with a pretty wide variety of weaponry, so I feel pretty confident in saying I can kill with just about any weapon you care to put in my hands (or no weapon at all). The difference is, with empty hand (or various sticks and truncheons), I have much greater control over the scope of injuries that I will inflict. With a gun or a blade, there's a high chance that whoever you are fighting against is going to die. That's fine if you being attacked by a jacked-up crack head intent on cutting your throat open, less helpful if it's a drunk guy at the bar who is getting physical.
Effective regardless of strength: This applies to pretty much all weapons and many (though not all) empty hand martial arts as well. Half the reason why martial arts are effective is because they allow you to subvert the "bigger + stronger = winner" equation in a fight. You may be two metres tall and 120 kilos, but your throat, your joints, your groin, and your head are as vulnerable as anyone else's.
Multiple opponents: Honestly, if you're up against multiple opponents, you're probably fucked if you're trying to stand and fight. By far your best option is running.

Zeus posted...

As a defense measure, you'll need to actually use those hands so you risk injury regardless.

As you do with most other weapons, especially when your adrenaline is pumping. Fire a gun in an enclosed space? Hope you enjoy your tinnitus! Put your fingers in the wrong place when drawing a knife? Ouch, that's a nasty cut! Hope you didn't need those fingers intact for something like, say, holding onto a knife.

Zeus posted...

By comparison, simply pulling out a gun or blade can end some fights because the opponent will back off.

In my experience, if you have time to try the "intimidation" tactic, you have time to try a far more effective tactic known as "talking". That said, there's a decent chance that if you actually wind up in a situation where you have to defend yourself, you likely won't have time for either.
---