any idiot can pull a trigger? AKA the flame attractor thread.

[MatthewAlphonso]

This is a branch from the "Favorite MA Weapon" thread.

It was said there (among other places) that a gun should not be considered a M.A. weapon because "any fool can pull a trigger." but recent events have also shown that any fool can swing a sword and kill their friend/dog/rival. does this mean a sword should no longer be considered a martial arts weapon? yes it is true that any fool can pull a trigger to kill someone, but can that same fool hit their target on one unprepared squeeze? the gun takes almost just as long to master as the sword. any person can pick up (almost) any weapon and kill someone, but it takes skill to use that weapon well, this applies to any weapon be it a gun, a Katana, a European Broadsword, or even a flail. your opinions?

[koto_ryu]

It was said there (among other places) that a gun should not be considered a M.A. weapon because "any fool can pull a trigger." but recent events have also shown that any fool can swing a sword and kill their friend/dog/rival. does this mean a sword should no longer be considered a martial arts weapon? yes it is true that any fool can pull a trigger to kill someone, but can that same fool hit their target on one unprepared squeeze? the gun takes almost just as long to master as the sword. any person can pick up (almost) any weapon and kill someone, but it takes skill to use that weapon well, this applies to any weapon be it a gun, a Katana, a European Broadsword, or even a flail. your opinions?

Ninja used flintlocks and ballistic weapons, so actually they could be considered an MA weapon. Check out "Gun Fu", it may only be about paintball guns but it is pretty nice, you'll like it as it'll agree with your point of view.

[Broadsword2004]

Yeah I say a gun has to be a weapon; I mean heck, the Marine Corps. sniper school is some tough training and you can fail it easily. Being a sniper requires some precise shooting skills (though I think also a good part of the training is tracking, land navigation, etc....) but still a gun requires a lot of practice to be able to shoot good.

[Broadsword2004]

Whups, of course a gun is a weapon, lol, I mean a martial arts weapon.

And also there are ways of fighting hand-to-hand with a gun too, if you run out of ammo or something.

In the Civil War, a lot of the fighting was gun-to-gun without bullets, cuz you only had one bullet per shot then you had to reload, so when it got up close it was reg. ole' martial arts, but with swords and guns as melee weapons.

[HtTKar]

the gun takes almost just as long to master as the sword

Sure a gun is a weapon. Who could disagree with that?
But if you really think that it takes as long to master a gun as it does a sword you are mistaken. I play paintball all the time, and some of the girls that play would not do very well with a single shot pistol. But give them a 15-22 bps semi-automatic 3-6 shot burst rifle, and they can shoot just about anybody, (at least till their ammo runs out.) It takes a lifetime to master the sword. The reason a gun was not allowed in the other thread as their prefered martial art weapon, is the same reason tactical nukes, and tanks were not allowed

[koto_ryu]

Sure a gun is a weapon. Who could disagree with that?
But if you really think that it takes as long to master a gun as it does a sword you are mistaken.

How so? Think about all the different things shooting entails: wind, weather, movement, distance, timing, light conditions, open-sight or scope, combat ranges, hammer techniques, trigger control, breathing, natural point of aim, body alignment, attitude, etc. ALL go into shooting. A weapon is a weapon, and every weapon can take a lifetime to master.

[LoneWolf1]

Sure guns can take a lifetime to master but what do you think takes longer to master or even become profficient with, any traditional bow or any gun? nuff said. Plus when I talk MA weapons i don't consider guns simply because you can compare the skill between a proficient bowman and a thug with a AK-47.

[koto_ryu]

Sure guns can take a lifetime to master but what do you think takes longer to master or even become profficient with, any traditional bow or any gun? nuff said. Plus when I talk MA weapons i don't consider guns simply because you can compare the skill between a proficient bowman and a thug with a AK-47.

But if a person with an AK-47 can shoot a nickel from 500 meters, that alone is a feat in and of itself.

Take a pen with the cap off, hold it straight out in front of you with your arm locked out, and look at the tip. That's the size of a 6' man at 500 meters approximately. Now imagine shooting a guy open-sight from that distance. Takes quite a bit of skill.

[MatthewAlphonso]

you must also take into account that there is a major difference between shooting a BB gun at a stationary target in optimal conditions and shooting a live weapon, with intent to kill, at a moving target that's also trying to kill you.Hell, just the knowledge that this attack will kill a living breathing person, will affect your aim. This is the same problem with "test cutting", a wet tatami will never feel the same as a person.

[HtTKar]

major difference between shooting a BB gun at a stationary target in optimal conditions and shooting a live weapon, with intent to kill, at a moving target that's also trying to kill you

yes. precisely why most violent crimes are committed with a gun or bomb. Because it's easier mentally to shoot someone than it is to carve them up with a knife, or slice through them with a sword. The less involvement a weapon takes, the more likely it is to be used in violent crimes. And yes, sniping a target at 500yrds would be a feat. But so is shooting a bow 80yrds, or throwing an axe 40yrds and hitting target. But using an AK47 to shoot a target at 40yrds is a piece of cake. Its true that there is a lot to take into account when using a gun, such as horizontal velocity and vertical accelleration, but at short range ~50yrds or less, a gun, even a pistol is very easy to use.

I am not saying that a gun is not a weapon. The reason it was left out of the my favorite weapon thread was to keep things realistic. A nuclear weapon is also a weapon. Being able to blow up a whole city with one bomb is truly a feat. Any weapon used for war is a martial arts weapon. But should people be allowed to say that a nuclear bomb is their favorite MA weapon?

[Broadsword2004]

A nuclear weapon is entirely different. A bomb is something that can take skill to figure out how to create it, but then they can be cake to make if you've got the materials. As for using the thing, that doesn't take much skill on the person.

If you mean in terms of brainpower, then yeah, a nuke takes a lot of skill as you need intelligence to make sure you're detonating it in the correct place, a method of delivery, etc....but we mean weapons that a person uses with their own arms and hands. Same with a battle tank. A tank takes some brains to operate it, but uyou don't really use "the weapon" with your arms and hands. You give the weapon commands through switches and buttons and such, but you yourself aren't actually aiming the weapon in your own arms.

You can say, "Well a rifle simply takes a command when you pull the trigger," but YOU have to keep the rifle steady and aimed correctly. A tank you just aim it, and then it is aimed; you don't have to hold it steady, and then hold it steady AS you pull the trigger.

I once read all the calculations a M1 Abrams tank's computer makes right before it fires, and holy crappola, you wouldn't believe everything it takes in. But then it thus does all the work for the shooter.

With a rifle, YOU are the tank.

I would say all weapons require great skill to use, but things like tanks, missiles, battleships, etc....are more brain-type weapons. The physical skill for using them is pretty much pressing a button usually. But weapons like axes, swords, lances, and rifles are physical weapons that require a good deal of physical skill to use them too.

A gun is a weapon you use with your own hands, like a sword or a knife. As for crimes, most people use guns because a gun is simpler to use in such situations and you can use it from a distance. A knife you have to fight the person with and they can avoid you if they know how to. They could pick up a chair and throw it at you; also, blood is a factor. It's easy to spot a criminal if a murder happened in an area and then you see someone covered with blood. A gun lets someone kill a person from a distance without the blood.

I would not say a sword takes more time to master than a gun. One might be a natural at sword-fighting, but have the aim of a one-eyed old man. It depends. Just because a gun doesn't require swinging around doesn't mean it takes a less time to master it.

Some people are natural shooters, hitting bulls-eyes right when they start shooting. Most aren't. And some people are natural sword fighters, possessing great coordination from the start. But most aren't and have to work very hard to become very proficient with either weapon.

Remember, the idea of mastering a sword usually, in the end, means one clean cut that will kill the opponent. Because the swordsman has such precision and accuracy, just one slice and cut and the opponent is dead. Same with a gun. One clean shot and the target is dead.

So the basic idea in the end with both weapons are kind of the same.

The difference is the sword is for making the clean cut when the person is close, whereas mastery of the gun is hitting the person when they are at such a distance away that it is hard to hit them.

[LoneWolf1]

Good point, I think I over simplified although I don't really want to except a gun as a MA weapon it is more or less, really it's just trained different than most MA because of it's sole intent to kill. Now a sword also is intend to kill but the majority of people don't train with the intention of using it to kill. The whole subject it's really touchy.

[koto_ryu]

Good point, I think I over simplified although I don't really want to except a gun as a MA weapon it is more or less, really it's just trained different than most MA because of it's sole intent to kill. Now a sword also is intend to kill but the majority of people don't train with the intention of using it to kill. The whole subject it's really touchy.

Especially cause you can use firearms not to kill And let's not forget bayonet techniques, buttstrokes, pistol-whipping, and parries and the like

[HtTKar]

weapon of war

True,true, true.
as I said

I am not saying that a gun is not a weapon. The reason it was left out of the my favorite weapon thread was to keep things realistic. Any weapon used for war is a martial arts weapon.

[koto_ryu]

True,true, true. as I said

Guns are probably more realistic nowadays than swords and kusari gamas though