Gunfighting martial art or martial not

Sorry for the cringe title. I am also not sure where this goes as its an opinionated sort of thing. (to help myself i am laying out the premises and conclusion(s))

Opinions for if gun fighting would be deemed a martial art and if so why and if not why?

My argument:

P1: By definition, martial art means fighting skill, using firearms is a martial skill

P2: Firearms have replaced most other weapons (other than the bayonet) in modern warfare and have replaced other means of self defence in areas which allow them to be used.

P3: Firearms perform better than most other weapons in more situations.

C: Gunfighting is a martial art and outperforms other martial arts in most situations.

(P is premise C is conclusion.)

That is my argument, now for yours.

edit: Disclaimer, effectiveness vs Emu's is questionable.

 

Being trained to use a firearm properly is a martial skill/art. To be honest I'd not get hung up on the semantics as they are largely irrelevant.

 

That would be if i cringly mixed English and Japanese words toegther like Gunjitsu and Gundo (sounds like a disease) Thats on my list for fictional examples of gunfighting martial arts.

Pretty good fictional one all things considered.

(i have seen that film and own it, its pretty good in terms of how they made it)

 

Have you not seen the hello kitty AR plates you can get?

If it has any sort of individuality does not define something as a art it, in context.

Its similar to war, there is some degree of personal expression in how you conduct tactics and what firearms you prefer. Some opt for close in fighting, others would prefer long ranged, likewise with distance and opting for punches and kicks you need to learn both.

 

Hmmm...

By that measure, fighting with a spear and shield in formation wouldn't be a martial art, because personal expression would scupper it.

 

Is this supposed to be a roundabout way of thinking to yourself, "yeah, I'm a martial artist"?

Only if said situations involve homicide...

 

P1 yes
P2 nope
P3 nope

Conclusion flawed

I consider it an extension of a martial art as it is a tool as much as a self contained system - much like knifework being a subset of a larger overall picture

As your own exposure to firearms is limited i again wonder where you draw your conclusions from

 

3-Gun and cowboy action shooting are martial arts in the sense that Olympic taekwondo is a martial art. They're exciting and complex sports originally derived from fighting, with well developed competition circuits, but the direct real-life self-defense application is questionable.

Practical handgun training is useful self-defense if carrying is legal where you live and you actually do carry, and can be a martial art if you train regularly.

Trap and skeet and long-distance marksmanship can be a martial art in the sense that kyudo is a martial art. No self defense application, but self-improvement through focusing the mind and perfecting technique.

 

I actually had a conversation about this with the guys over at funker.
You need to be able to know how to control range, to grapple and to know when to draw. I know plenty of people that think because they have a gun they will be fine but don't bother to train how to grapple and spend all the time doing fixed point shooting.

 

This video series is exceptional and covers a lot of the issues around "gun vs...."

 

I'm sorry for your loss.

But you would not post an article about one particular karate black belt being killed in an assault as evidence that karate is never useful or never works. The same is true here. We could trade anecdotes all day about TMAs, MMA, RBSD, firearms training, aikido, whatever in life-and-death self defense situations, and the answers are never as clean as "it always works" or "it never works."

 

That wasn't the point I took from aikiMac's post.

More along the lines of needing to train for reality, rather than being good at hitting targets on the range, and also that self defence extends well beyond the fight itself (so, in this case it might be deep background checks on staff etc...).

 

In karate, you don't learn to fight just by doing kihon. But without drilling in kihon, learning body mechanics and technique, your kumite drills are a chaotic mess. A boxer doesn't learn to box just by working the heavy bag, but you need to learn to punch properly on a bag before you spar an opponent.

You don't learn to fight with a gun just by doing static shooting drills. But just like with kihon in karate, you need good stance, proper grip, sight alignment, trigger control, etc drilled into you first to get the full benefit out of tactical self-defense drills.

I'm going to duck the question of "background checks" just because it doesn't really relate to whether firearms training can be a martial art, just like British knife laws don't really dictate whether Filipino Martial Arts are truly martial arts.

 

Sure, you need the form before you start going freestyle. I just didn't get the message that aikiMac was saying guns never work when he said "self-defense is more than just having a gun on your person", more that you need training and practice in order to use it. Self-defence is awareness first, hence my comment about security and intelligence being the first line of defence.

 

I don't see anyone claiming otherwise to be fair...well our temp banned participant aside that is