Do Firearms Make Martial Arts Obsolete?

0

Do Firearms Make Martial Arts Obsolete?
Original Poster: vladimir
Forum: Hand to Hand Combat
Posted On: 04-03-2007, 23:05

Orginal Post: vladimir: This post is just to see what peoples? opinions are regarding this and the reasons behind them. I personally believe the statement is false and rather ridiculous, although I have met people who believe it.

Post: Bushi:

No.

Do Nuclear Weapons make a military obsolete?>

Post: angryrocker4:

Nope. Firearms in themselves, as has been discussed in another thread, are a martial art. Im willing to bet that all of you have some sort of gun defense/offense stuff in your respective arts. It’s really dependent on the situation, some rare guys can take a shot and still whoop some ass.>

Post: TKDman:

why would any non-troll on this website answer yes?>

Post: setsu nin to:

Firearms are part of martial arts so they cant make it obsolete.>

Post: Tease T Tickle:

[quote=Bushi No.

Do Nuclear Weapons make a military obsolete?[/quote 
They would if the nations that had the nuclear weapons actually used those weapons. Do you really think we would’ve sent troops into Iraq if we could turn the desert to glass?

[quote=TKDMan why would any non-troll on this website answer yes?[/quote 
Am I a troll? Wait, don’t answer that.

I agree with setsu nin to and angryrocker4. Firearms should be considered part of the martial arts and by that status, cannot render the martial arts obsolete.

Vladimir: Why do you consider the opposite to your position ridiculous? I didn’t realize that you had such a grand understanding of the universe that all positions you maintain are nigh unquestionable.>

Post: vladimir:

[quote=Tease T Tickle Vladimir: Why do you consider the opposite to your position ridiculous? I didn’t realize that you had such a grand understanding of the universe that all positions you maintain are nigh unquestionable.[/quote 

I don’t consider it that ridiculous, I actually put that word because I wasn’t sure how people would react to the topic and since this is a Martial Arts forum, I decided I would be safest to distance myself from the idea that MA is obsolete.

Here?s my opinion on the whole issue. I consider unarmed MA?s mostly for self-defense if you are in an environment in which you can?t or don?t believe you?ll have/need a weapon. If I was going into an environment where there was a good chance that a fight could break out, I would take a weapon of some type. Also you might not always be able to get to your weapon in time. Along with that many MA?s help with awareness and confidence.>

Post: TKDman:

[quote=Tease T Tickle 

[quote=TKDMan why would any non-troll on this website answer yes?[/quote 
Am I a troll? Wait, don’t answer that.

I agree with setsu nin to and angryrocker4. Firearms should be considered part of the martial arts and by that status, cannot render the martial arts obsolete.[/quote 
You just answered no, so why would I consider you a troll?>

Post: Tease T Tickle:

[quote=TKDman You just answered no, so why would I consider you a troll?[/quote 

Because this topic got started because of my repeated claims that training for unarmed combat is about as useful as licking a flagpole in a snowstorm.

I do not hold the typical martial artist beliefs, especially the one that hostile encounters in the modern world are best solved by striking and/or grappling. On a martial arts website, where an acceptence of firearms into martial training is minimal if not just lip service, I catch a lot of bullshit for putting faith in a 9mm before putting it in my fist (especially since so many ballistic experts here think the 9mm is a horrible round :roll: ).>

Post: samurai6string:

Okay, I give a point to triple Triple T and Angryrocker for explaining the basic logic of firearms not making MA obsolete because firearms are an MA in and of themselves. However, you have to consider circumstances, and what tool to use, obviously, the best martial artist EVER, isn’t going to stand much of a chance if he/she is caught out in the open in the sights of a trained gunman with a semi automatic rifle at 80 yards.

TTT> 9mm is a good round, but up close I’ll take a 22 anyday, goes in and bounces like a pinball……>

Post: samurai6string:

TTT> but if you’re in an argument about 9mm, someone must be trying to tell you that a 45 is better, which is crap.>

Post: Bushi:

[quote=Tease T Tickle [quote=Bushi No.

Do Nuclear Weapons make a military obsolete?[/quote 
They would if the nations that had the nuclear weapons actually used those weapons. Do you really think we would’ve sent troops into Iraq if we could turn the desert to glass?[/quote 

If you use similar logic toward the original question then it could be answered yes.

Example: MA are made obsolete by firearms, because everyone gets shot when they fight, because everyone has guns and they always use them in every situation.

I mean since we are using hypotheticals.>

Post: Tease T Tickle:

[quote=Bushi If you use similar logic toward the original question then it could be answered yes.[/quote 
That was my point.

Quote:
Example: MA are made obsolete by firearms, because everyone gets shot when they fight, because everyone has guns and they always use them in every situation.

Unlike nuclear warheads, I think this example is much more congruent with reality – at least here in America. Outside of high school fights for reputation or “honor,” most non-sporting fights involve weapons and while knives are probably used just as extensively, the gun is a much more effective killing tool and as such should be considered more heavily than the blade.
I know you’re trying to defuse my argument because you don’t agree, but I want you to really consider this: The purpose of an individual involved in combat is to kill his opponent. The easiest way for an individual to kill his opponent(s) in combat is a firearm. Martial arts do not train individuals to maintain, deploy and use firearms effectively. Therefore, the existence of the gun makes martial arts obsolete in the same way the Internal Combustion Engine made horse-drawn carriages obsolete. Horse-drawn carriages will still work, but you won’t be able to get where you need to go as quickly, the ride won’t be as smooth, etc.>

Post: Bushi:

I see what you are saying, but only in the sense of the “martial” aspect, but as for the “art” aspect I would say No.

Good analogy though.>

Post: mktexan:

[quote=Tease T Tickle [quote=Bushi If you use similar logic toward the original question then it could be answered yes.[/quote 
That was my point.

Quote:
Example: MA are made obsolete by firearms, because everyone gets shot when they fight, because everyone has guns and they always use them in every situation.

Unlike nuclear warheads, I think this example is much more congruent with reality – at least here in America. Outside of high school fights for reputation or “honor,” most non-sporting fights involve weapons and while knives are probably used just as extensively, the gun is a much more effective killing tool and as such should be considered more heavily than the blade.
I know you’re trying to defuse my argument because you don’t agree, but I want you to really consider this: The purpose of an individual involved in combat is to kill his opponent. The easiest way for an individual to kill his opponent(s) in combat is a firearm. Martial arts do not train individuals to maintain, deploy and use firearms effectively. Therefore, the existence of the gun makes martial arts obsolete in the same way the Internal Combustion Engine made horse-drawn carriages obsolete. Horse-drawn carriages will still work, but you won’t be able to get where you need to go as quickly, the ride won’t be as smooth, etc.[/quote 

I disagree with you tease. Althought i do agree a firearm is much more effective means of taking down an opponent, it is not always the most practical way. ITs not like if i get in a fight at work or at drill i can simply whip out my handy 9mm and pop a cap in some one. in combat i disagree with you as well .martial arts are also esentil to victory on the battlefield. Battles today are becoming more in urban envirometns, closer fighting. hand to hand skils are esential to victory in a conflict. Martial arts have not been made obsolete. That is like saying that the M-1 Garand has been made obsolete because the M-16 is out. it all depends on the situation, its all about when and where.>

Post: 8LimbsScientist:

What happens if your drunken cousin at the family reunion gets too rowdy and poses a danger to others? Do you whip out your glock and fill him full of holes? Or do you use restraining techniques you learned from martial arts?

What if you get in a fight in a bar? Some guy comes swinging at you with his fists? Do you pull out your gun and shoot him several times? If you do you are going to jail, unless he was a linebacker and you weigh 80 lbs.

Anyway, where do you keep your gun? Do you think you’ll always be in a position to draw it and fire? We are civilians (most of us) who go about our daily lives and are SUDDENLY in a self-defense situation. No one calls from a mile down the road, “Hey I’m going to come kill you and steal your shoes…I’d get prepared if I were you.” Even if you keep the gun in a holster on your person, if someone is coming at you with fists flying or worse, a knife, you need to deal with that situation immediately, not just accept multiple stab wounds or blows as you attempt to get your gun out.

You aren’t allowed to bring a gun on an airplane…does that mean you also give up your ability to defend yourself? I think not!

For civilains, unarmed self-defense will ALWAYS be an important part of our training.>

Post: EU-dude:

[quote=”Tease T Tickle” [quote=Bushi If you use similar logic toward the original question then it could be answered yes.[/quote 
That was my point.

Quote:
I know you’re trying to defuse my argument because you don’t agree, but I want you to really consider this: The purpose of an individual involved in combat is to kill his opponent.

:(
this is what is called paralogism- it’s a form of a sofism, only ur not aware of the error you try to convince other people of. in your case i believe this was produced by confusing between purpose and consequence.

the purpose of an individual involved in a combat is as much the killing of the counterpart as is the purpose of an execution squad to fight the individual executed. it’s only an accident in both cases. the actual purpose of one involved in combat is neutralizing by various mean (among which one is killing) his adversary.

in fact the more you advance in the study of martial art the more you get accustomed to techniques that produce neutralisation without much harm being done- same goes for firearms: the better shooter can disable his opponent without killing him (not harming him i guess it’s impossible, unless you could stun a dude just by exibiting shooting proficiency!).

i believe martial shall never be made obsolete as long as there is proximity between individuals and folk don’t walk with guns, armed in their hands- even then disarming techniques might work in some cases.>

Post: EU-dude:

[quote=8LimbsScientist 

What if you get in a fight in a bar? Some guy comes swinging at you with his fists? Do you pull out your gun and shoot him several times? If you do you are going to jail, unless he was a linebacker and you weigh 80 lbs.
.[/quote 

man, say ur just joking around- this shit would work where you live? i mean if you shout to kill a dude who’s 150 lbs heavier than just because he took a swing at you. 8O>

Post: vladimir:

edit>

Post: samurai6string:

I don’t know EU-dude, over here outweighing someone by a good 150, especially if you are really small, might be considered deadly force. I not totally sure, but remember, alot of times it’s what you can convince a jury of in that kind of situation. I mean FLorida just enacted shoot first laws.>

Post: mktexan:

[quote=EU-dude [quote=8LimbsScientist 

What if you get in a fight in a bar? Some guy comes swinging at you with his fists? Do you pull out your gun and shoot him several times? If you do you are going to jail, unless he was a linebacker and you weigh 80 lbs.
.[/quote 

man, say ur just joking around- this shit would work where you live? i mean if you shout to kill a dude who’s 150 lbs heavier than just because he took a swing at you. 8O[/quote 

so if i cant reasonably defend myself agaisnt a heavy preson with my hands i cant use other means to stop them? it doesnt mean that if i have a firearm i am going to shoot to kill the person. it depends on the situation>

Post: EU-dude:

[quote=samurai6string  I mean FLorida just enacted shoot first laws.[/quote 

what’s that? second: u guys still got the chair or the shot?>

Post: Tease T Tickle:

[quote=8LimbsScientist What happens if your drunken cousin at the family reunion gets too rowdy and poses a danger to others? Do you whip out your glock and fill him full of holes? Or do you use restraining techniques you learned from martial arts?[/quote 
Better solution: You don’t invite troublesome people – family or not – to your gatherings. If my cousin can’t control his liquor, he’s not coming near my family.

Quote:
What if you get in a fight in a bar? Some guy comes swinging at you with his fists? Do you pull out your gun and shoot him several times? If you do you are going to jail, unless he was a linebacker and you weigh 80 lbs.

I don’t go to bars, and if I did, I wouldn’t do anything to rile anyone up. You’d be surprised how well being a nice guy works for self-preservation. It’s a lot easier than Muay Thai, trust me.

Quote:
Anyway, where do you keep your gun? Do you think you’ll always be in a position to draw it and fire?

MY gun? It’s buried in a cigar box over where my best friend was laid to rest three years ago. I’ve evolved to the point where I don’t need it. Eventually, I hope you understand what I mean by that.

Quote:
We are civilians (most of us) who go about our daily lives and are SUDDENLY in a self-defense situation.

Bullshit. I’ve been on both sides of that fence enough times to know that violence is far from random. If you don’t see the assailant coming, it’s because you fucked up somewhere, and if you have an assailant at all, it’s because you fucked up somewhere. Most victims don’t have the balls to own up to their personal mistakes.

Quote:
No one calls from a mile down the road, “Hey I’m going to come kill you and steal your shoes…I’d get prepared if I were you.” Even if you keep the gun in a holster on your person, if someone is coming at you with fists flying or worse, a knife, you need to deal with that situation immediately, not just accept multiple stab wounds or blows as you attempt to get your gun out.

And they don’t spring out like jack-in-the-boxes as soon as you pass the alleyway, either. They spot you and track you for a few blocks until they know that you’re alone, vulnerable and no one is likely to see you. If you can’t pick up a tail, you’re training the wrong methods.

Quote:
You aren’t allowed to bring a gun on an airplane…does that mean you also give up your ability to defend yourself? I think not!

Horse and car, re-read that part.

Quote:
For civilains, unarmed self-defense will ALWAYS be an important part of our training.

For dumb civilians maybe.>

Post: Tease T Tickle:

[quote=EU-dude this is what is called paralogism- it’s a form of a sofism, only ur not aware of the error you try to convince other people of. in your case i believe this was produced by confusing between purpose and consequence.[/quote 
Actually I’m fully aware of the logic in my argument, and at least I know enough about rhetoric and logical expressions to know that it’s “Sophism” not “sofism.” And I do not confuse purpose with consequence.

Quote:
the purpose of an individual involved in a combat is as much the killing of the counterpart as is the purpose of an execution squad to fight the individual executed. it’s only an accident in both cases. the actual purpose of one involved in combat is neutralizing by various mean (among which one is killing) his adversary.

if you really believe that the goal of the martial arts is neutralization, you’re living in some sort of fantasy world where people only exist for a brief period of time. You think that if you beat somebody ass in a parking lot that they won’t come looking for you to get even? You think that if you ‘neutralize’ a guy trying to rob you that he doesn’t have accomplices down the street ready to pounce on you? You don’t know much about REAL combat, do you?

Quote:
in fact the more you advance in the study of martial art the more you get accustomed to techniques that produce neutralisation without much harm being done- same goes for firearms: the better shooter can disable his opponent without killing him (not harming him i guess it’s impossible, unless you could stun a dude just by exibiting shooting proficiency!).

And in what kind of world would shooting out a kneecap instead of shooting out the skull be useful? To leave your opponent a chance to retaliate is to pave the way to your own demise.

Quote:
i believe martial shall never be made obsolete as long as there is proximity between individuals and folk don’t walk with guns, armed in their hands- even then disarming techniques might work in some cases.

The machine gun made killing on the battlefield incredibly efficient, and easy, as the gunner only had to hold the trigger and sweep the gun across a formation to kill virtually everyone. Semi-automatics, and even bolt actions, remained in use for some time. Obsolence does not equate to extinction. It just equates to a marked decrease in usefulness.>

Post: mktexan:

Tease T Tickle

You assume that every criminal know who they are attacking and have accomplices with them. Although that may often be the case, it is not in every case. Often people will try to mug someone because they have a weapon and don’t believe the person will fight back.>

Post: EU-dude:

tease, ur laughable!

i can’t believe i actually suspected you of intelligence and education. knowing how to SPELL in your native language has nothing to do with rethorics- that is , in a general sense, the art of building beautiful speeches. nor with logic- that is the branch of philosophy which deals relationships among propositions in terms of implication, conjunction etc. knowing how to spell sophism in english (which in my native language is sofism”) dosen’t prove rethorical skill or logic of any kind- it just proves you possess knowledge regarding ortography- AND YOU’RE A NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKER- i’m not! i only use this language to communicate with you, and since you’ve got the message why do try your best at looking silly by correcting me with your logical expression knowledge *(this formulation was so stupid it made me think you’re still a teen) which is in fact just ortography. lol

” if you really believe that the goal of the martial arts is neutralization, you’re living in some sort of fantasy world where people only exist for a brief period of time. You think that if you beat somebody ass in a parking lot that they won’t come looking for you to get even? You think that if you ‘neutralize’ a guy trying to rob you that he doesn’t have accomplices down the street ready to pounce on you? You don’t know much about REAL combat, do you? “

NOW BE HONEST- who hurt you? you say REAL combat as if it’s a sacred incantation- it’s not. and it’s quite easy, even you could do it.

do you think the purpose of a combat is to kill the adversary? DID YOU EVER F$$king fight someone? did you kill that person? are you on drugs again? are you so much of a chicken s### that you’d rather shoot a guy because you’re affraid he’d call his crew on your ass?

“And in what kind of world would shooting out a kneecap instead of shooting out the skull be useful?”

a world where people use their brains to think and not their knee-caps. you probably live in another one.

:lol:”Obsolence does not equate to extinction”:lol:

giving a shot at “big words” as you say? so your not a native english speaker too? or maybe you’re trying to make up words? or is it simply that your “rethoric and logical expressions” (i can’t even write this shit down without laughing) knowledge didn’t help you enough to spell OBSOLESCE.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

anyway, thanx for the spell check- it’s really useful for both of us if we keep on playing this game. :wink:>

Post: Tease T Tickle:

[quote=mktexan You assume that every criminal know who they are attacking and have accomplices with them. Although that may often be the case, it is not in every case. Often people will try to mug someone because they have a weapon and don’t believe the person will fight back.[/quote 
Are you positive about that? I’ve made that mistake before. After getting the snot stomped out of me once, I made sure I NEVER mugged anyone without backup. How many criminals do you know? Have they ever discussed with you their experience-tested methods for getting the job done easy?

[quote=whoever tease, ur laughable![/quote 
Fantastic ad hominem, since you were trying to attack my rhetoric before, I’m compelled to inform you that this drops the credibility of the rest of your claims. Thanks for doing my job for me.

[quote=Same guy i can’t believe i actually suspected you of intelligence and education. knowing how to SPELL in your native language has nothing to do with rethorics- that is , in a general sense, the art of building beautiful speeches. nor with logic- that is the branch of philosophy which deals relationships among propositions in terms of implication, conjunction etc.[/quote 
Actually, rhetoric – within the framework of argumentation – is just how to be persuasive. It has nothing to do with “beautiful” speeches. In fact, good rhetoric can be a single printed word. Spelling does get consideration for rhetoric because if you can’t convince the reader that you’re intelligent and educated – referencing another ad hominem of yours – then you can’t convince them of your conclusion. And notice my original claim – that you know nothing about logic and rhetoric evidenced by your horrible spelling – has little to do with what spelling does for those fields but that your horrible spelling reveals a lack of exposure to said fields. I’m willing to bet you never set foot in a respectable philosophy class or read anyone more thought-provoking than Wittgenstein.

I have a life to attend to. I’ll return with the rest of my deconstruction of your oh so wise reply.>

Post: angryrocker4:

Lets make this simple, real world fight=Im not stopping til they quit moving.

Court=I was in fear for my life and cant help he landed on his neck like that/the gun went off accidentally.

Neutralization=poor excuse for people who have the illusion anyone else would stop at that point in reverse position.

Tease=owned mktexan and EU-dude HAHA!

Guns= MA for those who train it that way, is not MA for morons who point and click.

Angryrocker4=viking berzerker immune to your sissy bullets! MWAHAHAHA!!!>

Post: EU-dude:

1. WITTGENSTEIN IS ONE OF THE MOST PROMINENT EPISTEMOLOGICAL THINKERS OF THE 20TH CENTURY. you have not read him.

2. you make spelling mistakes too, even if you’re a native english speaker ). hence, by using your own argument- you are not rhetorical

3. funny you used the first definition for rhetorics, the one from dictionary.com . let me enlighten you: rhetorics is the ancient art of the orator, who was a dude who held speeches in the agora , that is the male public assembly of ancient Athens. you can’t see spelling mistakes in a speech, but you can uncover made up words (obsolence, in which you put in the “n” instead of “s” just because your year told you so and your eglish educated brain could’t possibly stop you). the ultimate purpose in rhetorics is persuasion. but that is achieved both by arguments (and then it’s called maieutic, that was the oral persuasion art of socrates) and by beauty of form (and then it’s called rhetorics).

in fact the latin thinker seneca wrote a “poo” (oh my, did i mispell again, that’s book sugar nose) entitled on rhetorics in which he clarified the claims and means of rhetorics, and devided the rhetorical speech (as oppposed or distinct from political, military etc.) into four parts ( captatio benevolentie …).

in our days we misuse rhetorics for any form of compelling statement, that confusing distinct types of speeches (of whose existence you got no clue), maieutics (socrates), dialectics(art of persuasuion by opposing contraries), aporia (the art of zenon) and rhetorics (the art of persuasion through beauty of the literary form).

you should send me 10$ for the lesson. won’t find all this in just a dictionary definition, but keep trying. anyway, it’s cool there’s someone who claims education of such a high degree. though i have very little respect for you i enjoy your presence here. :wink:>

Post: samurai6string:

Hey EU-dude, where ya from? I’d guess Germany because you seem pretty meticulous, but I’ve been wrong before.

Oh, and those laws in Florida basically say that you do not have to make an attempt to flee a confrontation, nor do you have to wait for another person to fire at you before you can use a gun to fire at them. It was fairly controversial, and I remember gun control activists started going to Florida airports to hand out pamphlets to tourists warning them not to argue or get into fights with locals.>

Post: samurai6string:

….just saw the second part of your question, we still have both the chair and lethal injection, it just depends on what state you are in. I beleive some states still have the gas chamber, but I don’t beleive one has been used in like 25 years or more.>

Post: 8LimbsScientist:

EU-Dude

You must be able to convince a jury that you were in fear for your life in order to escalate to lethal force. A fist fight USUALLY doesn’t qualify as such, but it COULD be argued you were in fear for your life if you are a small woman and are being beaten on by a very large man. Thats what I was trying to get at. The question is, would a reasonable person feel that they were in danger of death if they were in your position?

Tease

Your argument assumes that awareness and choices are enough to avoid all physical confrontations. If that were so, why bother learning martial arts at all? Just teach the mental aspect. In reality, even with the best laid plans at times you’ll find yourself in physical danger. If you’ve modified your life to such an extent that you never are in a position to be in physical danger than I’m happy for you. The rest of us will continue to discuss martial arts.

Samurai6string

That law is the same as the laws in several other states, it isn’t anyting new. It simply states that you don’t have to run away from a confrontation, and if a person punches you you can punch back. If a person shoots you, you can shoot back.>

Post: samurai6string:

8Limbs, That is the jist of it, but he main point of the bill was that you no longer have to be fired upon first, if someone flashes a weapon, you can shoot.

_just remembered that you go to UCF, therfore live in that particular state, so you probably know about the law :oops: , but I’m pretty sure that you don;t have to wait to be fired upon.>

Post: 8LimbsScientist:

I think the new law is beautiful. The old way is too cumbersome. Some guy pulls a gun I have to wait until shots are fired before I defend myself?>

Post: samurai6string:

word, it makes sense, I think it just spooked some people thinking about the possible missuse.

Ex: I’m having a bad day, walking around scowling, I get too close to a senior citizen on the side walk and reach for the snickers bar in my back pocket while I’m walking past him, and he shoots me thinking I’m about to mug him. (I know the candy bar thing is almost cliche now, but it happens.)>

Post: Tease T Tickle:

[quote=EU-dude 1. WITTGENSTEIN IS ONE OF THE MOST PROMINENT EPISTEMOLOGICAL THINKERS OF THE 20TH CENTURY. you have not read him.[/quote 
because you know what I read! :lol: My job’s done, you proved you’re a total dipshit.>

Post: EU-dude:

romania, eastern europe (just in case!). here it’s illegal for anyone but cops, military, law officials and politicians to carry fireweapons. hunting rifles are in another section. u have to get a special permit 4 those , and you gotta keep them dismantled all the time but hunting time. most violent crimes employ knives as weapons, and when it comes to those gipsy fu**s:evil: (be very weary of them if you ever come to romania) big fucking ninja swords. when gangs fight here, if a single shot is fired police is on it like flies on fresh shit. usually catch the first suspect in 24 hours (abuse after abuse), then the others fall in a matter of weeks, that is if the opperation is heavy and they can’t flee to bulgaria (sort of mexico for eastern europe). if no fire weapon is envolved,well, there were cases where where literally slice in the centre of bucharest (i live here). again, if it get too public guys arte usually caught easily, which is funny since romanian police is renouned for its mind-blowing stupidity, being the thirdmost corrupted institution after doctors (1) and teachers(2)- these are current stats.

[quote=samurai6string 
Oh, and those laws in Florida basically say that you do not have to make an attempt to flee a confrontation.[/quote 

dude, that’s like enforcing wild west laws on the eastern coast.>

Post: Tease T Tickle:

[quote=8LimbsScientist Tease

Your argument assumes that awareness and choices are enough to avoid all physical confrontations. If that were so, why bother learning martial arts at all? Just teach the mental aspect. In reality, even with the best laid plans at times you’ll find yourself in physical danger. If you’ve modified your life to such an extent that you never are in a position to be in physical danger than I’m happy for you. The rest of us will continue to discuss martial arts.[/quote 
Maybe you haven’t been paying attention. My whole point for god-knows-how-long is that training in the martial arts for REAL combat is pointless. Just like STDs, not getting into a risky situation is the most effective manner to prevent bad things from happening. If you train for the fun of it, for sport or for some sense of personal enlightenment, then that’s fine. But if you really expect to be able to handle dangerous situations with Muay Thai, my old friend, then I pity you.

The more people bitch about what I’m claiming, the more i like the car-carriage example. If you need to go a short distance and don’t care about a smooth ride, then a horse-drawn cart is still usable, but if you needed to get to the other side of town quickly and hate bumpy roads, then a modern car is much better. I’m sure you’ll agree. So, maybe if Gus from the mailroom gets lippy with you, you can thai kick him in the leg and elbow him in the face to get the job done, but for the real, life-or-death situations, putting so much faith in martial arts is laughable. Again, I think you’ll agree.>

Post: zefff:

EU dude,

So there is very prolific news reporting in Romania then? I get double murders happening down the street and I wont ever hear about it here in UK.

What Romania like nowadays? Ive heard great things and would love to visit.>

Post: setsu nin to:

zefff

EU-dude is talking crap…>

Post: EU-dude:

[quote=Tease T Tickle [quote=EU-dude 1. WITTGENSTEIN IS ONE OF THE MOST PROMINENT EPISTEMOLOGICAL THINKERS OF THE 20TH CENTURY. you have not read him.[/quote 
because you know what I read! :lol: My job’s done, you proved you’re a total dipshit.[/quote 

hey, TT bag, had you read wittgenstein you’d have not uttered in a written fashion he is unchallanging- same as saying that kant shallow, proves lack of understanding. wittgenstein built a philosophical system, your stirner fuck wrote just one lame ass book, sort of a disney version of nietzsche.

ur not an idiot, and i guess ur not a bad dude. but ur simple minded and ridiculous. and, in one sense or the other (didn’t made up my mind yet) u feed upon your own excrements. bon apetit! :wink:>

Post: EU-dude:

romania is the place i’d love to stay in, were the economy a little more open to private enterprise. i’ve got 2 reasons:friends and girls.

i’ll start with the second. girls here are simply beautiful when compared with the fat ugly fucks i’ve seen in italy or spain. but ugly man. i used to walk on the streets of verona a few years ago and barely seen a couple of vaguely cute girls. here u just go out and about half the young girls u see are very attractive(for after 30+ romanian chicks become dull with a tiresome look across their faces). hungary also has great asses, but the greatest- take my fucking word for it, are in ucraina(romanian denomination). women there are easy goers (here they fuck if they believe they’ll have a relationship with you) and great looking. if you like big suculent tits and big pale blue eyes, there’s no place -except maybe germany, still havean’t visited it- better than ukraine.

and this brings me to the second one- ukraine is just so very dangerous. mafia there has and frequently uses guns. as in a lot. kind of like i heard they do in detroit. here it’s really a problem that very few people think about. i mean i guess virtually no ordinary guy thinks he could get shoot. and if you’ve got friends along with you (or you know the local wise-guys (you just gotta know them, that should do) you have little thing to worry about. it’s great that in contrast with bulgaria or all the other eastern europe countries for the same matter, you can breathe also some civilised airand meet some open minded people, usually guys who travel a lot or maintain contact with western europe.

it’s quite cool that living here you have a decent perspective over the western world but you can also percieve things that for an american would be hard to grasp, a certain oriental mentality and the way this affects all sort of people.

u can come here as a tourist, do the usual dracula castle tour, but u can also come as a traveler, which i believe would be a much more fullfilling experience, since you wouldn’t stumble upon the mediocrity of tourist attraction, but also get to know a certain mentality that depicts the very border between east and west.>

Post: Tease T Tickle:

[quote=EU-dude [quote=Tease T Tickle [quote=EU-dude 1. WITTGENSTEIN IS ONE OF THE MOST PROMINENT EPISTEMOLOGICAL THINKERS OF THE 20TH CENTURY. you have not read him.[/quote 
because you know what I read! :lol: My job’s done, you proved you’re a total dipshit.[/quote 

hey, TT bag, had you read wittgenstein you’d have not uttered in a written fashion he is unchallanging- same as saying that kant shallow, proves lack of understanding. wittgenstein built a philosophical system, your stirner fuck wrote just one lame ass book, sort of a disney version of nietzsche.[/quote 
Let’s see, Wittgenstein proved the arbitrariness of language, which is about as obvious as saying that the sky is blue, and Kant did the great work of defining ethical action as “treating people as ends, and not as means,” watch out, so much thinking was involved there!
Stirner did more in his one book than you can possibly imagine, and in fact many scholars regard Nietzsche as copying Stirner’s work, so the Disney-version claim makes little to no sense.

Try your hand at Emil Cioran. I’d like to see how you handle other thinkers that want to destroy reality rather than build fallacious concepts of it like Wittgenstein and Kant.>

Post: angryrocker4:

EU-dude, you must have high standards, when I was in vicenza italy in the military, all kinds of hot chicks were around, none of them actually italian though. All hungarian or some other.>

Post: EU-dude:

[quote=angryrocker4 EU-dude, you must have high standards, when I was in vicenza italy in the military, all kinds of hot chicks were around, none of them actually italian though. All hungarian or some other.[/quote 

exactly. many hot chicks-ALL foreigners.>

Post: sullivan92604:

I’ve said it before…I know a few people who were shot with a 9mm and are still fully functioning. One is a champion kickboxer now, 2 are still on active duty with the police, and one still does construction with the bullet still lodged about inch from his spine. The only guy I personally know that was hit with a 45 round almost bled to death from getting shot in the left leg and still has complications from it.

Thats why the police in my area are ditching there 9mm and going with 40cal or 45cal. We have had plenty of shootouts and the cops dont trust there old 9mm’s.>

Post: EU-dude:

[quote=sullivan92604 
Thats why the police in my area are ditching there 9mm and going with 40cal or 45cal. We have had plenty of shootouts and the cops dont trust there old 9mm’s.[/quote 

please, where do you live?

hearing you guys speak about shoot first laws, and cops who preffer 45, in hope they’ll make the vctim bleed to death, fuck there’s a slight step until they all load up on 357 magnums- fuck, it’s more fun if you can take a whole leg off with one shot! but what hack- bring out the dum-dum (i hope you guys know this) make sure they blow up.

here in romania cops don’t got loaded pistols usually, and it was a dead cop a few years ago that forced authorities to impose an interior order that states cops must have a clip on them- which does not imply the gun should be loaded with it. still, NO ONE shoots at cops, and phisical attacks happen seldom, attackers caught 90% of the times to say the least.

back here there’ve also been some cases when soldiers fled their units with weapons and ammunition. unless they come out hands up they get snipered down. one time a dude was so scared he shoot himself in the chest.

no fire weapons= a safer place. this sure applied for romania.>

Post: Tease T Tickle:

[quote=EU-dude no fire weapons= a safer place. this sure applied for romania.[/quote 

Safety is an illusion.

[quote=sullivan92604 Thats why the police in my area are ditching there 9mm and going with 40cal or 45cal. We have had plenty of shootouts and the cops dont trust there old 9mm’s.[/quote 

Go to an ER and ask how many people come in with 9mm gunshot wounds. Ask how many walked back out. Just because you know some guys or some shit doesn’t mean fuckall in the grand scheme of things. Please use reason.>

Post: EU-dude:

[quote=Tease T Tickle [quote=EU-dude no fire weapons= a safer place. this sure applied for romania.[/quote 

Safety is an illusion.

[/quote 

bro, you’re teasing me:roll: , luring me into a debate that’s gonna degenerate into solipsism. safety is a state of mind more than a state of facts. does that make it an illusion? the answer to this question tell more about you than most i read from you so far. please be specific.

PS if you can keep correcting my english i would very much appreciate it.:D>

Post: samurai6string:

THere are other factors involved in the 9mm vs 45 debate. IMHO, and in the HO of the government, a 9mm is a little easier to wield. I mean compare a Desert Eagle 40 to a Reuger 9mm. Big guns with big bullets are scary, but a higher velocity smaller round is more effective IMHO.>

Post: Tease T Tickle:

[quote=EU-dude bro, you’re teasing me:roll: , luring me into a debate that’s gonna degenerate into solipsism. safety is a state of mind more than a state of facts. does that make it an illusion? the answer to this question tell more about you than most i read from you so far. please be specific.

PS if you can keep correcting my english i would very much appreciate it.:D[/quote 

If I keep correcting your English, you’ll only think that I want to continue talking to you. I do not.

Safety is an illusion because organic life is fragile.>

Post: angryrocker4:

The cops in my area use glock 357 sig’s with hollow points. I love hollow points!!!>

Post: samurai6string:

I want to know were you live rocker, are there gangs of roving elephants commiting street crime? 357s??? dang. :)>

Post: EU-dude:

can you conceptualise safety in the absence of danger? for the fragility you mention is quite an apophatical proof of safety, that is when danger is present or possible, but just as an outside factor or an ideea.>

Post: Tease T Tickle:

[quote=EU-dude can you conceptualise safety in the absence of danger? for the fragility you mention is quite an apophatical proof of safety, that is when danger is present or possible, but just as an outside factor or an ideea.[/quote 

That’s why I hate those who refuse to accept nihilism, you actually think that the words you’re typing mean something.

Apophatical proof…for fuck’s sake get your head out of your professor’s ass.

Anyway, cockroach, see if you can follow this:

1. In reality, there are a number of dangers. Violence, disease, natural disasters, old age, accidental falls and scrapes, etc.
2. The fragility of human life makes each and every one of those dangers worth strong consideration.
3. We cannot eliminate a number of those dangers, such as natural disasters and accidents.
4. Therefore, we are always faced with danger.
5. If we are always faced with danger, we are never safe.
6. Therefore, safety is an empty term with no real phenomenon linked to it.

So, when I say that safety is an illusion, and the fact that humans are fragile proves that claim, you should understand fully that your death is certain and believing that your ability to see tomorrow is a certainty is delusional at best. I only hope that when you die, you suffer tremendously.>

Post: vladone:

tease you’re pretty stupid. the fact that we’re not immortal doesn’t mean we’re fragile. in fact, considering all the dangers you listed, i think it’s pretty impressive that so many of us wil live to die of old age (proof that we are not fragile). i agree that safety is an illusion in as much as there are so many variables over which we have no control, but “believing that your ability to see tomorrow is a certainty is delusional at best” .. come on, you got to be serious. just because it’s under 100% doesn’t mean we’re fragile. 99.99999% chance that i’ll live tomorrow (that’s how much i give myself and pretty much everyone else on this forum) is not fragile. also, if you belive in danger you can’t argue against safety. i agree with eu-dude on this one.>

Post: bamboo:

Quote:
no fire weapons= a safer place. this sure applied for romania.
Quote:
Safety is an illusion.

Tease for the win.

How many guns did they use in rwanda?
Not too many guns in prison, is that a safe place?
Tell the abused child or the young man stomped to death by homophobes.

Stop the posturing by dropping names and terms from your textbook and use common sense.

Quote:
tease you’re pretty stupid. the fact that we’re not immortal doesn’t mean we’re fragile

TTT doesn’t need me to defend him, but i’ll save him the time.
The incredible, complex human organism can be taken out by a single, simple virus. Sounds to me like fragility.
So Vladone, by missing this oh so obvious example, who gets the stupid hat now?

-bamboo>

Post: bamboo:

Quote:
i agree that safety is an illusion in as much as there are so many variables over which we have no control, but “believing that your ability to see tomorrow is a certainty is delusional at best” come on, you got to be serious. just because it’s under 100% doesn’t mean we’re fragile. 99.99999% chance that i’ll live tomorrow (that’s how much i give myself and pretty much everyone else on this forum

Read what you wrote, you agreed with his point through the logic of the variables then discounted them by making up a statistic?

You have no clue what might happen after the next breath of your existence. Your entire life depends on a single breath, careful eating.

-bamboo>

Post: vladone:

what virus, what are you talking about? be specific, don’t bring in some remote possibility. yes i CAN die of some virus, or whatever else, but does that happen? NO. the chance that something might or can happen, doesn’t mean it will. i think you watch too many movies, army of the twelve monkies, outbreak, that type of shit.

yeah, i agree in part that safety is an illusion, but between safety and fragility there is a very long way. i’m just saying we’re somewhere in between.
edit: if we were that fragile we would have been wiped out long ago>

Post: vladone:

quote

Tease for the win.

How many guns did they use in rwanda?
Not too many guns in prison, is that a safe place?
Tell the abused child or the young man stomped to death by homophobes.

Oh, so your three examples definitely prove that banning guns doesn’t lead to a safer place. eu-dude i think just made a statement regarding romania, not the whole world; didn’t seem to me like he tried to generalize it like you.>

Post: zefff:

Is there some trickery going on here?

Could TTT and EU be the same person and welcome to the bright spark Vladone!

I was going to reply to issues in this thread but the way its gone off topic into some ridiculous BS zone is absurd.>

Post: Tease T Tickle:

vladone: Spend some time in an ER. If you really think that it’s difficult to die, you’re foolish.>

Post: zefff:

I think Vladone has failed to realise (a LOT, but chiefly), that his own mortality has been made more secure because of the reduction in quality of life and security for others elsewhere..but I really didnt want to get drawn into this low grade conversation>

Post: bamboo:

Vladstone

stop, just stop. :roll:>

Post: vladone:

quote

Vladstone

stop, just stop.

well i’m convinced>

Post: samurai6string:

see? wasn’t that easy? you should try that more often Bamboo! :)>

Post: Tease T Tickle:

[quote=zefff Is there some trickery going on here?

Could TTT and EU be the same person and welcome to the bright spark Vladone![/quote 

If that were true, then I must have blacked out each time EU needed to post, and send me incredibly stupid private messages asking me which philosophers I read, how I can manage two majors at the university, etc. That is, if I am EU dude, then I’ve turned into the narrator from Fight Club and have an alter ego I only assume when I think I’m sleeping.>

Post: samurai6string:

I assume you think you’re asleep. Try that on for size.>

Post: samurai6string:

Hey, whatever happened to EscrimaConcepts? Shouldn’t he be on here telling us about how timing and footwork make firearms obsolete?>

Post: vladimir:

[quote=samurai6string Hey, whatever happened to EscrimaConcepts? Shouldn’t he be on here telling us about how timing and footwork make firearms obsolete?[/quote 

:lol:>

Post: Robert_RedBeard:

I am just jumping blindly into this topic.

I have read none of the posts. I saw the Question in the title and wanted to address it directly.

I do not think Firearms make Martial Arts out dated.

I think Firearms make Martial Arts that fail to adapt to them out dated.

The knowledge of firearms must be absorbed and proper technique developed for a Martial Art to not become out dated.

Now I might read some of the posts. I just wanted to give the initial question attention first.>

Post: graham1:

Warfare with all manner of weapons at all different levels will continue while there is a vast amount of money to be made out of it.>

Post: jaggmoe:

i like to bust caps in ppl’s shopulders and legs enough to make them seriously near death but not to kill!!>

Post: graham1:

Sure you do, dearest.>

Post: Sparky-bjj:

Quote:
i like to bust caps in ppl’s shopulders and legs enough to make them seriously near death but not to kill!!

eh…??????>

Post: Sparky-bjj:

In the debate about life being fragile and all. I do agree we’re enormously fragile and that it doesn’t take much to make the human body die. But on the other hand we did manage to survive and dominate the whole planet. As individuals humans are weak and fragile, but as a whole we’re pretty hard to get rid of…We constantly think of ways to make ourselves less fragile and we’re pretty succesful at that. On the other hand we also think of ways to make other people ‘more fragile’. Offcourse eventually the human race will get wiped out by something (propably ourselves), but I don’t see that happening tomorrow. We’ve learned to adapt to many conditions and it’s pretty hard to make us all die.>

Post: graham1:

I don’t know so much about humans getting better. Medical & public health sciences are certainly coming on in leaps & bounds, controlling or eradicating diseases that used to kill thousands in epidemics, but at a cost that our immune systems don’t have to do half the work that our parents’ & grandparents’ generations did. Our advanced technological society has also done away with a good deal of the physical work previous generations engaged in.

In the 1990’s the Mirror newspaper ran an article in which fitness & strength levels And fighting abilities of (then) present day soldiers like SAS, Royal Marines, Rangers, US Marines were compared with soldiers of various armies fighting in the Napoleonic Wars. The article came to the conclusion that as life was a great deal harder a two centuries ago, infantrymen then would most likely easily beat modern day commandos in hand to hand combat.>

Post: Tease T Tickle:

[quote=Sparky-bjj But on the other hand we did manage to survive and dominate the whole planet.[/quote 

That right there pisses me off beyond words.

Just because we can see the great wall of china from outer space doesn’t mean we dominated shit. Just because the lights of the city at night can block out the twinkling of stars doesn’t mean we dominated a damn thing. Everyone has bacteria in their colon. Everyone has mites living in the follicles of their eyebrows. Every house, cabin and apartment building is host to more insect life than human life. Every INCH of this planet is covered with thriving life. Only a small fraction of that biomass is human. There is more area left unexplored at bottom of the ocean than inhabited by the children of men.

What the fuck did we dominate? And just because we made it past the stone age doesn’t mean we survived. We will die well before the cockroach. Keep that shit in mind.>

Post: lakan_sampu:

Quote:
Hey, whatever happened to EscrimaConcepts? Shouldn’t he be on here telling us about how timing and footwork make firearms obsolete?

lolz! you got that right… 8) Maybe he’ll tach us how concepts would make firearms obsolete.>

Post: SAINT:

does death make living obsolete?>

Share.

About Author