# IS kung fu and swordsparring redundant in the age of guns?



## Creator

IS kung fu and swordsparring redundant in the age of guns?

I am writing a tale about eugenics but has a lot of martial arts involved. But Guns are common.


----------



## Harpo

See the two "Kill Bill" films......


----------



## The Ace

Interesting point.  I'm certainly reminded of the scene in 'Raiders of the Lost Ark,' when Indy is confronted by a swordsman and draws his revolver.

However, when the F-4 Phantom II was sent to Vietnam, everybody was beating his chest about the new all-missile armament which was supposed to make it invincible.

  The first request pilots made after evaluation was, you guessed it,  a gun.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton

It depends on how good the guns are: how accurate, how difficult or easy to load, how many shots you can get off before you run out of ammunition.  Guns and swords co-existed as weapons for a long time.  I know they had hand guns (or gonnes) as early as the 1300's -- maybe earlier, I am far from expert -- and swords were used in combat for centuries after that.  There could be other factors as well; as, for instance, whether or not a gun might be considered an honorable weapon or an aristocratic weapon in your culture.

One thing about swords:  you don't have to stop and reload them.


----------



## dustinzgirl

Like Teresa says, a lot of it depends on the gun itself (But the same thing can be said of a sword, too). It also depends on the skill of the person (but again, same thing can be said of the sword).

The real difference, I think, is that martial artists and sword fighters train up close and personal. They have no qualms about stabbing you in the gut with one arm around your shoulders. A gunfighter, now they train far away--that doesn't make them less deadly, but less likely when its up close and personal. Also, a gunfighter without his guns is pretty useless, in most cases. 

Think of Roland in DT, always moving, never coming up close, shooting from far away even at close range. He had to be able to shoot and move, shoot and move. If he stood still, he was dead because he did not have the defenses to miss a bullet or catch it in his teeth. If Roland would have been caught up close, without his guns, he would have been dead.

Now a sword master might not be able to kill you at forty paces, but I bet he's lithe enough to kill you from a pace before you know he crossed those forty paces. At least if he wants to be a good sword master. Think, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon...those were some of the best fight scenes ever, because they were no holds barred up close and personal--almost more honest than a gunfight. Martial artists and sword masters can fight blind, one armed, and one legged. I'd like to see a gunfighter pull that one off. 

Then there are the ones who do both, Jason Bourne for example, can both shoot and martial arts fight. That is the more versatile and believable warrior in this day and age, because after you take away a gun (that scene from lethal weapon 4 where Jet Li disarms the gun) the guy still has to be able to fight or be really dang cunning (like Roland) or he's pretty much dead.


----------



## The Ace

Good point, TE, remember that in the Peninsular Campaign, Wellington's line infantry could fire 3 rounds a minute, the French columns couldn't counter that.


----------



## Creator

But a kungfu master at gun point is still good as preparing to die right?


----------



## Sephiroth

Not if he can produce a field of _chi _in front of him.


----------



## Joel007

Guns give a huge advantage, but only if your opponent is in plain sight and has nowhere to take cover. How often does that really happen?

If you want to know if guns make hand to hand obsolete, ask the army. They should know. And yes, they still train vigorously in hand to hand combat. Guns jam or run out of ammunition.


----------



## Delvo

> However, when the F-4 Phantom II was sent to Vietnam, everybody was beating his chest about the new all-missile armament which was supposed to make it invincible.
> 
> The first request pilots made after evaluation was, you guessed it, a gun.


In most of this discussion, the big factor at work is range; it's pretty much always advantageous to be able to strike your enemy from a longer distance away. But with the F-4 story, there's another factor involved: limiting rules of engagement.

Missiles really are an advantage over guns; they not only have longer range but also don't require perfect aim and are harder for the target to stay out of the line of, because they can steer themselves to the target. But F-4 pilots were essentially not allowed to use them, or at least not to truly take advantage of their advantages. They had a rule against firing on a plane that they couldn't positively identify by eye. Positively identifying another plane by eye requires getting much closer than the range that missiles could have been fired from and turns the engagement from a long-range one into a short-range one, which throws away the longer-range weapon's key advantage. (Fighter planes' rules of engagement are different now, so the missiles' advantages over guns are no longer stifled like that. But most modern fighter planes do still have guns or at least the option to attach a gun pod.)



> Think of Roland in DT, always moving, never coming up close, shooting from far away even at close range.


What is "DT", and what does "shooting from far away even at close range" mean?



> Then there are the ones who do both, Jason Bourne for example, can both shoot and martial arts fight.


Bourne and people like him are fictional, but training in different techniques and tools for different circumstances has been pretty common for a long time. Modern soldiers routinely carry a heavy rifle/carbine into combat but also have a pistol and/or a big knife strapped on someplace to grab in an emergency, or even carry the smaller weapon(s) in situations where the big gun might not be appropriate in the first place. The pistol or other such backup/secondary weapon is called a "sidearm", which is a term that dates back at least to Medieval English archers who wore a short sword at one side for dealing with enemies who got too close for arrows. But the same principle also dates back pretty much as far as history does, with small swords carried as backup weapons to the main battlefield weapon, which was usually a hand-held spear.

Even groups that are famous for their supposed emphasis on martial arts, like the SEALs and Rangers, actually rely mainly on carrying lots of firepower and sneaking up on enemies who don't know they're there; if they have to fight hand-to-hand, something's already gone wrong. So their training does include some hand-to-hand fighting, but not nearly what most people seem to think. A civilian who studies martial arts for a while knows more hand-to-hand combat than them, but would be woefully underqualified to do their real job due to the lack of training in various firearms, explosives, other tools like night vision goggles and fiberoptic peeping devices, and group tactics... and possibly even lack of experience moving around while wearing stuff like heavy boots and body armor.



> But a kungfu master at gun point is still good as preparing to die right?


If he's right at the point of the gun, no; the person with the gun has given up the gun's main advantage, which is range, by getting close enough that his target can strike back at him or even just his gun. If you mean he has a gun pointed at him from at least several feet away, then yet, because at that range, the gun can inflict harm on a target but hands & feet can't.



> Guns give a huge advantage, but only if your opponent is in plain sight and has nowhere to take cover. How often does that really happen?


If the opponent can't be seen or takes cover, what other weapon do you think would work better than a gun?

But ya, in general, one weapon's superiority over another is almost never absolute; it depends on circumstances instead. And the persistence of circumstances in which empty-handed fighting methods and knives are still useful is what makes them still worth having. Remember, "circumstances" also includes not just directly combat-related stuff like draw speed and damage inflicted and range, but also side-issues like cost and convenience to the owner, bulk and weight, concealability, laws about their ownership and use, room to maneuver in at the given location, and so on. For example, I always have a knife with me but never take a gun out of the house. I know it doesn't have as much range, but it's more usable at very short range because there's no need to aim it, and it's also cheaper, less bulky, faster to draw, not banned under some circumstances where guns are, more justifiable/excusable to uppity anti-weapon people for its other uses, easier to hide, less noticeable even when it is visible, and quieter when used. And that's what made swords obsolete: not their inherent inferiority to another one single type of weapon for all purposes, but the lack of circumstances in the modern world where there isn't something else they're inferior to for the specific situation, whether it's guns or knives or something else.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton

You still haven't told us whether your world has modern firearms or not.  Some of the older types of guns were prone to misfires and hangfires, some weren't terribly accurate.  These things even the odds a bit.


----------



## Wayward Ho!

Creator said:


> But a kungfu master at gun point is still good as preparing to die right?



There was an interesting piece in a series called _Mind, Body, and Kick Ass Moves_ which featured a old Japanese gentleman who professed to be a ninjitsu master. When confronted with a gun at close range he could do the most amazing things with it. If I remember rightly he grabbed his opponent by the wrist and then took control of the weapon whilst still leaving it in his opponent's hand. The thinking behind this was quite interesting in that he didn't apply any pressure, and let his opponent think he was still in control.

I don't have much interest in martial arts myself, but the whole series is worth a watch. There is plenty of mind boggling stuff in it, as well as a good dose of mystical nonsense. The presenter of the show does a lot of things which he puts down to a life time of martial arts and chi training, but which I've seen the likes of Derren Brown do for a bit of lark.


----------



## The Ace

To be honest, the Phantom's big problem was that first-generation missiles weren't all that great.   The gun was reliable, the Americans were amazed by the 83% kill rate of the British Skyflash (a much-modified sparrow) their own missiles were lucky to hit 70% in ideal conditions.

 If you're carrying a gun, you've fouled up if your opponent is close enough to use a sword.


----------



## Connavar

Why do you think many martial arts train almost first on how to remove the opponents weapon? Check out any Kung Fu master and how he acts against someone with a Gun or a sword. They attack the hand like it was gold and they are miners! Just like Wayward is saying.

My brother trains Kung Fu, he has shown me several moves he can crush my hands  if i had a gun or a sword against him.

It depends on if the Gun user is good enough to kill anything at a distance. If you cant sneak up on him . Close up he is screwed against any martial arts warrior that is any good. A Gun wont help you beat a martial artist in one on one in at short distance. The martial artist will simply remove the gun and break a bone or two before the gunman reacts. Which is EXACTLY why most special soldiers are trained with some sort of martial arts like Seal,SAS or people like Jason Bourne. Which is why Bourne works, he isnt dead without his gun, he can kill people with his hands as much as his weapons.


But as Teresa said it depends on what kind of a gun, if it something sort of special gun like an uber fast automatic then you are screwed if you cant sneak up on the gun or you can move as fast Superman.


----------



## brsrkrkomdy

*When it comes to handguns, it depends on the size of the pistol.  If it's a .38 snub nose, it'll be difficult to grab.   Anything can happen once the gunman squeezes the trigger.  There are no second chances in grabbing the gun.  You'd have to be close to do that.   The gunman can actually nail your ass before you even touch him.*
*Also, several myths to remember, you can never dodge a bullet unless you move out of the gun's point of range before gunman pulls the trigger.  You'd have to be very fast to pull that off.  Second, you can never swat bullets out of air like flies.  Bullet's too fast for you to see.  Even if you get lucky in catching a bullet, that lethal projectile will plow right thru your hand and into your face.  Simple laws of physics.  Same goes for catching bullets with your teeth.  Teeth are too brittle for that.  That bullet will punch thru your teeth and out thru the back of your head.*
*There are absolutes in your weapon of choice.  Besides, you don't just shoot the guy once and expect him to drop.  You'd have to shoot him some more.  If you were to shoot a berserker armed with a battle axe, you'd better be a good marksman and shoot him in the head or heart.  Otherwise, he's gonna keep coming and bury the axe blade in your skull.  Cole Younger, one of the outlaws of the Old West, was hit with bullets eleven times and he still kept walking.  This is just one example.*
*So, is kung fu and swordplay redundant in age of guns?  I don't think so.  When you run out of bullets, swords and knives and axes usually come in handy.*


----------



## MontyCircus

Gong Fu is all about stage performance nowadays.  They don't even teach the "true" stuff any more.  Martial arts and sword training has pretty much no practical benefit.  But it's still really, really cool.


----------



## dustinzgirl

Creator said:


> IS kung fu and swordsparring redundant in the age of guns?
> 
> I am writing a tale about eugenics but has a lot of martial arts involved. But Guns are common.



Not according to this guy

BBC NEWS | England | Tyne | Police hunting mystery swordsman

And no, kung fu and swords are never ever never outdated. 

You should watch Kung Fu Hustle also, yes its supposed to be a parody but its absolutely freaking awesome.


----------



## Happy Joe

If the gun (rifle or pistol) is in the hands of a skilled/trained marksman the martial artist is history (if our shooter lets the opponent get within 10 feet he is incompetant (IMO), a gun is a long range hole punch not a weapon for infighting).  If the gun is in the hands of a typical citizen or policeman the martial artist stands a good chance. (I am thoroughly amused when the local police approach time to re-qualify with their weapons; they show up at the range and get a box of reloads then try to hit the (stationary) target. Some are pretty good but a lot of them are poor shots. If the target were moving and using cover most of these folks would quickly expend all of their rounds to no effect.)
If the martial artist can run the shooter out of ammo the shooter is history (few can reload quickly (a shortcoming in training?) and a gun without ammo is a poor club).
This all assumes that the martial artist has trained to use the art not just to look good doing the forms (most martial arts schools seem to train in non-contact mode which effectively trains the student not to hurt an opponent).
Enjoy!


----------



## JoanDrake

Generally in modern warfare the whole objective is to not to let soldiers do any personal combat at all. Bombs and artillery are supposed to do the major amount of killing. Soldiers are ideally supposed to herd their opponents into harm's way.

I think only recently the short bayonet was finally removed as standard eq on the M16. It was noted even during the ACW, however, that less than 2% of injuries came from bayonets.


----------



## Quokka

It will also depend on the situation, is it open warfare or urban settings where there will be violence? 

If the shooter has their gun drawn and is looking for targets the martial artist better be running but you may be suprised by just how much distance you need to be able to draw and fire successfully if you're being attacked by someone who knows how to use a knife and move effectively, particuarly if you're not expecting it. I can't remember the distances exactly but somewhere about 6-8 meters is probably touch and go either way and that's if the shooter reacts quickly and doesn't make any mistakes.

So there's certainly scope in a story for both depending on how it's set up.


----------



## Drachir

Historically all martial arts combat should have been obsolete as soon as the first reliable repeating firearm was invented.  That would be Mr. Colt about 1850.  However, there is nothing like martial arts training for conditioning, and there is always the occasional situation where even a modern soldier has to punch someone in the face - or elsewhere.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

I searched. Couldn't find a reference to Highlander.

Surely the point about a gun is that you have to know the opponent is an opponent to make it count. Most people don't draw a weapon (nowadays) every time they see a person walk in the room.


----------



## the smiling weirwood

What kind of combat are you talking about? Because in any situation where close quarters are involved or openly carrying weapons is prohibited then the person trained to use themselves as a weapon will have a huge advantage. You can't very well carry rifles and such around a civilized urban setting. 

In your story setting how progressed is weapons technology? Do they have revolvers yet?

What sort of eugenics are involved? That doesn't have anything to do with it, but I'm curious about your story.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

the smiling weirwood said:


> What sort of eugenics are involved? That doesn't have anything to do with it, but I'm curious about your story.


 
 Is this just a general interest or concentrated on your understandable interest in breeding intelligent trees


----------



## the smiling weirwood

You would rather not know...


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

OOOOOh No. Lets get the tin, open it up and see what kind of worms we're dealing with


Fill us in (metaphorically)


----------



## the smiling weirwood

Seriously I was just curious about his story.


----------



## Shadowmancer

I don't think that the question is whether or not it is redundant; rather, the question should be is it relevant? To answer the first question though, I feel that neither kung fu or swordsparring are redundant. I do feel that they are relevant and even with our current level of technology, it would be a shame if these arts, and I stress arts, were lost. History and the past are never redundant in my opinion.


----------



## Scifi fan

I was a part-time martial arts instructor, so I'm biased, but unarmed combat definitely has a role in modern warfare. When an army advances into enemy lines, there will be close quarter fighting, and the combatants must be given the full range of skills. This includes bayonet fighting, pistol shooting in cramped urban environments, and, yes, unarmed combat.

By way of history, when the atom bomb was developed, many thought the rifle was obsolete, but that didn't happen.


----------



## Werewoman

To answer the original question, no, I don't think they are redundant. Write what you like, and your fans will like it, too.

I have practiced marksmanship for about 20 years. I have a CCP (concealed carry permit) and I am almost always armed. I also compete in 'scenarios' which is madatory IMO if you are going to carry a gun. This way, I am not just shooting at stationary tartgets but placed in a possible situation where I may need to use my weapon. Scores are determined by such criteria as head shots, kill shots, not shooting unarmed perps and/or hostages, rescues, etc. - you get the idea. Also shooting from different positions - standing, running/walking forward and/or backward, kneeling, prone (sorry, no Bruce Willis roll & shoot - that only works in movies), behind barriers, between barriers, etc. Then there's speed, the faster, the better, of course and that includes reloads so I practice that a lot, too.

Of course, if all that fails, I can always fall back on Krav Maga.

And no, I am NOT paranoid.... 

<evil laugh>


----------



## Scifi fan

I agree - write what you like. But you will have to explain to a reader why someone would use martial arts or the sword in an age when he can use pistols or machine guns. As I posted earlier, unarmed combat will be important, but you have to have some air of credibility.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

Well as I explained earlier. Unless you shoot anything that moves from a hundred yards and forego any human contact there will be times when you are only inches away from other people.

So close that they will be able to do anything they like before you've even had chance to whip out your weapon let alone use it.


----------



## Happy Joe

> you will have to explain to a reader why someone would use martial arts or the sword in an age when he can use pistols or machine guns.


 
There are many situations where carrying a firearm will not be allowed; airplanes, bars and courthouses are currently forbidden locally. I can see where trade zones in a post apocalyptic scenario might forbid weaponry (see Beyond Thunderdome) to help preempt a large scale raid or an attempt to seize power. In a post apocalyptic scenario (or after the election of socialist Obama) expect ammunition/firearms to become restricted, harder to find and expensive.

When hiking (traveling light) I occasionally carry a firearm, near so called civilized areas; in the wilderness, I don't feel the need (they are quite heavy and become a pain to lug around after a couple of days) but almost always have a staff at hand (not primarily for defensive purposes, though it could serve in some instances, but because it makes rugged country easier to traverse).
When Jeeping and camping (traveling heavy) I almost always have a firearm to hand as the vehicle carries the weight and additional bulk much better.
When hunting, I do little of this any more, I used to have a big bore hand gun to hand as Mr. Bear may want me, in addition to elk or deer as part of his winter preparation (when cleaning the game the bow/rifle is often not within reach).

While I have been tempted to take up the Katana (for some thing to do), I have never been tempted to carry a sword (although if a civilization were postulated where dueling were important a sword might be necessary, or a socially acceptable/desirable accessory). 
I have carried a machete hiking in jungle and for a couple of years in the States but it was too heavy for the use it gave in the northern wilderness areas, so it now occupies a shelf in the library.

Enjoy!


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

It'll be handy for slicing the book covers off to use as a bookmark then.


----------



## Happy Joe

I subscribe tho the Adam's Family style of home decoration...

..."Their house is a museum"...

Enjoy!


----------



## Scifi fan

Swords can be used in close combat, and, instead of using rifles with bayonets, swords can be more effective.

That's a presumption, but I really don't know, because I've never used swords in close combat. Then again, I've never used rifles with bayonets in close combat either. Of course, I've never been in combat, close or otherwise, so there.


----------



## ray gower

By and large swords are irrelevant, their range of use is too limited, no more than two arm lengths and the user must be skilled in its use. A bayonet attached to a rifle requires far less skill.

Beyond two arms a hand held firearm has serious benefits, though remember a pistol or revolver has almost zero accuracy beyond 50 feet and a limited refire rate; A man, running, can cover that distance in rather less than a user can fire a second time.

Inside two arm lengths a knife is superior, there is less restriction and therefore more options in wielding the weapon. At this distance any hand gun is almost useless.

When thinking of Kung-Foo, or any other form of fisticuffs, in an actual combat melee, remember that the fight never lasts more than 3 blows or 2 seconds. If you haven't disabled your opponent inside that then one or other will be in serious danger of being clobbered by somebody else. Leave the protracted dance routines to films and Bruce Lee.

Accurate range for a musket is about 50 yards, most modern assault weapons are typically zeroed for fighting at this range as well, though some are accurate out to 400. More classic rifles: SMLE, K98, Springfield etc. were accurate at ranges up to 1000 yards


----------



## Scifi fan

> When thinking of Kung-Foo, or any other form of fisticuffs, in an actual combat melee, remember that the fight never lasts more than 3 blows or 2 seconds.



I agree. I was trained to take out my opponent in one or two blows.


----------



## AE35Unit

I'd love to get into Kung Fu,Karate and other martial arts,just love that whole way of life, their philosophy.
I'd also love a go at archery and sword fighting!


----------



## Scifi fan

AE35Unit said:


> I'd love to get into Kung Fu,Karate and other martial arts,just love that whole way of life, their philosophy.
> I'd also love a go at archery and sword fighting!



Go to the school and master that you're comfortable with. In the end, it's not the fighting style; it's the master, his instructors, and the students that will help you fulfill your potential. 

Visit the schools, watch a few competitions, speak to some people, and then decide. Always remember, though, that it's buyer beware.


----------



## sloweye

Looks like i forgot to repost my argument after the crash.

YouTube - Gun Disarm from Front with Shinobimystic

YouTube - Krav Maga Gun Defense Demonstration

YouTube - ST '07 demo 12 (Uyen Pham, Michele Elefante: gun defenses 1)


----------



## Happy Joe

> though remember a pistol or revolver has almost zero accuracy beyond 50 feet and a limited refire rate


 
In the hands of a novice; yes (probably not even 50 yards)... although I can hit dinner plate sized targets beyond 100 yards/meters with my officers' model (short barreled) .45 (and I am getting old, blind and shaky...).  There are exceptions to most preconceived ideas.  The folks that are good with a pistol can hit targets at distances and rates that make average rifle shooters look silly.  
With practice and training the fire rate of pistols is often as quick or quicker than sporting arms.  BUT... remember; its not how much noise you can make (maybe the enemy will go deaf?) its how may rounds you can place on target (one will do the job; worrying about rate of fire is silly, IMO).
That said, a pistol is primarily a backup weapon, if the rifle is disabled or not immediately accessible.
Bayonets are useful on todays battlefield primarily as a knife (camp accessory).  Knife fighting is also a loosing proposition (both participants will end up in the hospital, at best)... always bring a gun to a knife fight, preferably a 12 gage riot gun (pump shotgun).  The person that allows someone with a knife to get within 10 feet of them is notable only as a contributor to the evolution of the species.  
Historically, the answer of the populace to bladed weapons (knives/swords) has been the staff.

On the subject of firearm accuracy, here is one of my favorite shooting games;
Take a golf ball (yes I said a golf ball) throw it as far as you can in a area that is safe to shoot in.
Now shoot it with a hand gun; after a couple of hits it will be too far away to hit easily... (if you can't hit it you need lots more practice).
Next take out a small caliber rifle and hit it a couple of more times (by now it will be difficult to see with iron sights)
Using a scoped high power rifle put it out of its misery...
Take another golf ball....

Enjoy!


----------



## ray gower

With respect, if the Sergeant Rock Ape had caught me using a bayonet as a camp accessory the only edged weapon I would have seen in what would have been a short service life would be a Lancashire potato scraper! Though I admit the current SA80 scabbard has a very effective tin opener.
The bayonet is still a highly regarded close quarters weapon, valued for not only its effect as a pointy stick, but for the effect on the enemy before it gets there, which is why the army still trains extensively in its use.

As for target shooting with a revolver or pistol at plates 100 yards away, try getting somebody to throw the complete dinner set including the pots and pans at you and see how many rounds you can pop off, before you have to duck, you have about 15 seconds before the first tea cup hits you at that range. If you hit anything outside 70 feet (yes feet not yards) you will be doing well. The ability to fire quickly is more important at this range than outright accuracy; blind luck is as likely to score as trying to aim at anything.
Incidently, this is how the famous SMLE mad minute evolved- Hit as many targets as possible at ranges from 400 to 30 yards in 60 seconds. The record used to be 47 rounds and 30% accuracy. Can't remember who held it, but he was in the Swindon Yeomanry.


----------



## Happy Joe

...Just watched the UTube vids... I want to see the same demos with a committed gunner wielding a loaded paint ball gun... what I saw in the vids was not realistic. Especially since the weapon should never be within grabbing or striking distance.

I did see a remarkable demonstration video some years ago with members of a (Japanese?) police force trying to shoot an elderly martial arts master, without success... the elderly gent was laughing the entire time.

Enjoy!

(Edit) I'm glad to see that no one in your service misuses a weapon (not so with the US forces).
Moving targets are much more difficult however I have yet to have anyone throw any thing at me from 100 yards (wouldn't have to worry about ducking if they did by hand). I was merely saying that 100 yards is not out of the question as an effective pistol range for man sized targets (yes, I have practiced with both moving and stationary targets) but not for someone that is only acquainted with a weapon (rifle or pistol). And no, I would not recommend it as the pistol is a short range backup/defensive weapon (though it is far more capable than most people realize).
For a soldier to rely on a pistol for offense in a target rich environment would be little sort of suicide if the other side has rifles.

Enjoy!


----------



## sloweye

My origenal posts (pre-crash) were alot better but i couldnt seem to find them again.
Here in the uk the gun situation is smaller than in the states, your more likely to have to defend against knife or multipal oponants, which can be delt with using martial arts without much problem.
 and i would rather know the combat technics i learned than not.


----------



## Happy Joe

Perhaps I am overly emphasizing firearms (a good part of my martial training has been in (and outside) of bars with some informal sparing experience with friends who have taken up martial arts).

Even in the use of firearms breath control (and heart rate control) is important (I target shoot best in a meditative state where the weapon completely surprises me when it goes off).  Further; I believe that the other aspects of martial arts training are also very desirable, I wish that I had the time/opportunity to pick some of them up.

People skills have been more important to me in tight situations; enabling me to walk out of places where I should not have been.

Enjoy!


----------



## sloweye

I spent alot of time learning practical aplications to what i was learning, the skills i picked up have been more than useful. confidence is a key to stoping things before they start.


----------



## Delvo

Since the original post was about a work of fiction that is intended to have lots of martial arts involved in it, I have to worry about something. I'm not disputing that this stuff still matters at all, but fiction writers generally have a temptation to overuse it because it puts the weapon wielder in more danger, at least partially evens out what would otherwise be a very lopsided fight, and involves more direct interaction between the opponents, thus creating more opportunity for drama at the expense of common sense. In other words, there are circumstances under which it makes sense, but the dramatic temptation will be to use it under other circumstances where it doesn't.

If a writer finds himself/herself writing a scene with a swordfight in it, (s)he should check to make sure that it really needs to happen that way, asking himself/herself "Why didn't one of them hide behind some kind of cover and just shoot the other from yards and yards away?". Maybe there's a legitimate answer, but often there isn't, and letting the swordfight go on anyway in that case would be bad writing.


----------



## Happy Joe

Agreed; However if a culture were postulated where dueling were important (potential loss of face, for example) then swords might be used, even when a person has a pistol in the belt or a rifle/shotgun in the scabbard on the saddle.  Such dueling would, I believe, normally be to first blood rather than to the death.(Sometimes, when I see the extreme lack of manners in today's society I think that dueling might not be such a bad thing).
Another possibility is that ammunition expense/availability might be a real issue and would be saved for all but the most dire of circumstances.  A light submachine gun, or full auto capable carbine sized rifle, is (relatively) easy to carry.  However, the ammunition to support it in regular use over an extended period gets unwieldy and very heavy, the same goes for a shotgun.  The combat load of ammunition of a modern soldier is approximately 200 rounds (depends on the nationality) (ray gower can probably amplify on this) in the 1860s (American civil war) it was, I believe 25 rounds.

Something that many authors do not seem to relate to is the difference in swords and their application the rapier, for example is a highly skilled duelist's weapon, whereas; a katana, a saber or a broadsword is much more a battlefield weapon; more useful for quickly chopping the peasants, or lightly armored men at arms.  A basic incompatibility exists between the point speed of the rapier and the typically slashing cut or chop of the broad form.  Although if masters of both forms were to face off it might be an interesting match if both were familiar with the reach/advantages of the other's weapon.

Enjoy!


----------



## sloweye

YouTube - equilibrium

YouTube - Equilibrium Final Fight


----------



## Happy Joe

Typical Hollywood entertainment/BS with wire work, unlimited ammo and Beretta machine pistols.

A good range performance of the classic El Presidente scenario, real world semi auto;
3.02 El Presidente - Video

2007 MFS open;
YouTube - MFS Open 2007 IPSC Shooting competition - Debrecen - Hungary

NORCO regular club match (real folks); 
YouTube - NORCO IPSC SHOOTING REGULAR CLUB IPSC USPSA MATCH

Enjoy!


----------



## sloweye

Very, Very impressive. 
However i was going for the Gun/martial arts mix. 
The practical aspect of it is wholely unbelivabal but as sci-fi the gun kata is a workabal idea.



((Joe, watch the second clip of mine again, he dose change the Mags))


----------



## QSR Joshua

Police training emphasizes that deadly response against a blade wielder is acceptable if that person is with 25 feet. (The distance may be off a bit.) If I am really close to someone a blade is as good or better than a gun. Get a trained person close enough and they can disarm a person with a gun easier than one with a blade. (Blades cut and cannot be grabbed without damage.)

Guns are nice, but the fact is that all weapons are dangerous in the right hands, and there are times when a blade beats a gun, so they are not redundant.


----------



## Happy Joe

sloweye; Yeah, I saw the mag change but the number of rounds expended before the change far exceeds the mag capacity (by 4-5x or more).  The Beretta 93R has a fire rate of 1100 rounds per minute and a stock magazine capacity of 20 rounds.

Personally I'll take a rifle then a pistol (its what I'm trained for).  If the other person has a knife/sword and I am forced to a lesser choice I would go for a staff (Its, also, what I've trained for).  To attempt to enter into a blade vs. blade conflict involves a degree of hate that I don't posses.  (I have seen such conflicts and they have never been clean).

By and large I only carry a firearm when hunting or when in potentially risky situations.  Firearms (with ammunition) are excessively heavy to lug around all of the time.  I carry a Swiss army knife at all times (for its usefulness as a tool) and only carry a large folder or medium/small fixed blade when hiking/hunting/camping again for its usefulness not for any need for defensive/offensive use.

As said, before, if the attacker is close enough to grab my weapon; then I messed up (the only reason to have pulled the weapon was because I was in danger of demise and if so; the attacker is laying on the ground bleeding long before they get within grabbing/stabbing/slashing range).  (If you have doubts get some friends together for a round of paintball then make like you have a knife (use a rubber knife with paint on the edge) and see how often you "live").

Personally I believe that a good defense involves the capability for decisive offense.
Given a choice, I will never choose a fair or level playing field, weaponry, or training.

The only time when I can see a knife being effective when the other person has a superior weapon is if the adversary is approached with stealth and attacked without warning at very close range.  

Enjoy!


----------



## sloweye

I guess we are on opposit sides of the fence as far as weponry go's.
I also trained with the Bo & Jo staff's, which are great if you get into a situation where pool cues are being used, however bats and shorter sticks are offen used over here and the sword training is invalubal in those situation.

I dont really know much about guns, our gun defence courses were done using paint guns, and i've had the privlage of rattling a couple of rounds out of an SA80 with the Royal Artillery at an openday. (scored ok at that) and Air riffels since i was a kid, but thats about the limits of my gun experiance.

(and at least he changed the mag, most Hollywood films dont even bother with that)

I do dissagree with the 'hate' part of blade on blade. i am a placid person really, and most people i have had to spar with have had that mentality, i always found that a calm mind and a good knowlage of sword craft is a much better mind frame to win. Efficancy over agression


----------



## Happy Joe

I do agree with the sword aspect, (one reason I have been tempted to start work with Katana/saber techniques... much simpiler than rapier techniques, at least on the surface).
Part of my viewpoint comes from the wide availability of firearms over here, (much more likely to face someone with a firearm than a knife (a friend recently took a loaded .357 away from a 14 year old)). From what I see on the news/net its completely the opposite on your side of the pond. In that situation I would probably lean toward a club/medium (walking) stick technique for the reach advantage, I don't yet know enough about sword techniques (never play fair with weapons).

When hiking I tend toward a staff primarily for the reduction of travel effort (there is a subclass of people, mostly in the nearer backwoods, that obsess on knives). Because of the reach difference the staff would have a substantial advantage, where there is adequate room to move (and a pistol makes a confrontation a non-issue, IMO).
In barrooms, in my younger years, I most often used fists and feet along with chairs and tables (not enough room for staff work and lugging one around would be a pain). It is illegal to carry a farearm into a bar (not that that would stop most people) however, you really don't see them there often. I rarely frequent bars any more preferring to avoid urban settings.

It looks to me like the best response depends on the situation, environment and preparedness; one size does not fit all...

Enjoy!


----------



## sloweye

I would love to see the little punks faces around here if they pulled out there puny pocket knives and i pulled out My Wakizashi. Proudly, i can say that won't happen as i used to teach Teakwondo to a lot of them and Shotokan to a few more. i think they know better


----------



## Peter Graham

Hi Happy Joe,

It's totally off-topic, but I've been reading your posts with interest. Why do you have so much fear about being attacked? I know that certain parts of every country have a bad reputation, but you make Colorado sound like a gun-slinging back water full of the sort of armed career mentalists who turn up in 'Deliverance' and Lynyrd Skynyrd's back catalogue. Surely things aren't really that bad?




> Part of my viewpoint comes from the wide availability of firearms over here, (much more likely to face someone with a firearm than a knife (a friend recently took a loaded .357 away from a 14 year old)). From what I see on the news/net its completely the opposite on your side of the pond.


 
Mercifully, yes. A few of the drugs gangs carry guns, but as a general rule they tend to use them against each other rather than the general public. They often get it wrong or decide that eight year olds are a valid target, but I remain convinced that banning citizens from carrying guns (excepting those who need them, like farmers) and hammering those who are caught with them unlawfully is a Very Good Thing.



> In that situation I would probably lean toward a club/medium (walking) stick technique for the reach advantage, I don't yet know enough about sword techniques (never play fair with weapons).


 
Why? Your realistic chances of being attacked as you walk down the street or out in the country is close to virtually nil. It goes up a bit on friday nights in the city centres, but even so, it seems to me that violence (including defensive violence) just breeds more violence. Over here, the fear of crime far outstrips actual crime. Is it really so different over there? 




> It looks to me like the best response depends on the situation, environment and preparedness; one size does not fit all...


 
I would have thought that legging it is nearly always the best response, followed by handing over your wallet/car whatever and just chalking it up to experience. Unless you actually quite_ like_ fighting...

Regards

Peter


----------



## Connavar

Legging isnt always the best response.   If an unarmed punk try to rob me with only acting tough he will have to show he can beat me down before i give him anything.

If he has a gun or a knife its different.  Giving up too easy and early leads only more fear.

Dont know know any martial art except the usual punch the other guy out before he puts you down.


----------



## Happy Joe

> Why do you have so much fear about being attacked?


 
I don't fear being attacked... but I try to prepare for the worst case in some scenarios.  I don't fear because I am prepared.



> you make Colorado sound like a gun-slinging back water full of the sort of armed career mentalists who turn up in 'Deliverance' and Lynyrd Skynyrd's back catalogue. Surely things aren't really that bad?


 
I have lived in many places and all of them have had areas that were potentially dangerous (Colorado, for the most part, is less so than many of them).   I currently spend as much time as possible relatively far from civilization and try to prepare for many possible situations (the degree of preparation is dependent on my estimate of the odds of occurrence).  I started handgun training when I was spending a fair amount of time in the less savory parts of Chicago, found it to be an entertaining hobby and continued training for some years.  I have never been attacked in the backwoods but there is some hold over from my time in major metropolitan areas.

When in the true wilderness I am typically unarmed (though not totally unprepared)(most of the poorer examples of humanity seem to lazy to walk that far).  I have gone armed in the near woods since several meth addicts wandered through camp from a totally unexpected direction, giving the camp and the two of us a good hard look over...   Meth is an unholy addiction which seems to remove empathy or care for others from its aficionados (in my experience, if a drug can be termed evil methamphetamine is it).  
We regularly see/smell mountain lion sign and have bears wander through camp (less than 15 miles from town).  A large caliber defense against one works for the others.  
Far away from cities, the chances of attack from animals who are used to seeing people, or the criminal population who are used to preying on people drops, substantially, IMO.

In the nearer areas we have had bullets whiz through camp... shouting didn't stop it; but a .45 round through the trees above their heads did.  This one gets chalked up, not to malice but to lack of training/caring on the other people's part.  

When I lived in Colorado Springs (pop. approx 600,000) there were shots popped off regularly in the apartment complex across the street.

Are the people here mental? ...not most of them (at least not terribly) its really a wonder that there aren't more injuries though.



> banning citizens from carrying guns (excepting those who need them, like farmers) and hammering those who are caught with them unlawfully is a Very Good Thing.


 
I would much rather live in a civilization where a person has a right to self defense than one where a grandmother can be jailed for defending herself with a kitchen knife in her own home (the criminals laugh).  
The penalties for gun crime are higher here also but its not like the criminals really care about the penalties (here or there)(with or without guns).



> Why?


 
It is better to prepare and not need it than to be a helpless victim.



> legging it is nearly always the best response, followed by handing over your wallet/car


 
By rewarding antisocial behavior you are making repetition more likely, thereby contributing to the problem.

Enjoy!


----------



## Peter Graham

> I don't fear being attacked... but I try to prepare for the worst case in some scenarios. I don't fear because I am prepared.


 

But I'd wager you don't make the same levels of preparation for other potential worst case scenarios. When you leave your home suitably armed for possible conflict, do you also ensure that you take a first aid kit, a torch, flares, water purification tablets, snake venom, bear bells, a handheld GPS, fishing wire etc etc etc. If you do, then fair enough (although it must take you yonks to get ready for anything), but if you don't, then I'm not sure that your argument holds water. 

My concern - and it's nothing personal against you in any way (in fact, you seem like a thoroughly decent sort of a chap)- is that some people equate being armed with being free, whereas in fact being armed just encourages an overly carefree attitude to violence, gun ownership and the attendant misery of injury and death. True freedom comes from being able to walk in the woods without having to fear the sharp crack of a high powered rifle. A society in which personal handgun use is seriously restricted (albeit not banned entirely - even we don't have that) gives the individual a greater measure of that freedom.





> I have never been attacked in the backwoods but there is some hold over from my time in major metropolitan areas.


 
Fair enough, but you do make yourself sound a bit like one of these patriot types (although, I hasten to add, I suspect that you are not)! You know the sort of thing - holed up in a mountain cabin without electricity, believing that the world is run by a shadowy international banking cabal of Jewish space-lizards. 



> When in the true wilderness I am typically unarmed (though not totally unprepared)(most of the poorer examples of humanity seem to lazy to walk that far).


 
I agree with that! Britain is on a much smaller scale than the US, but even so, most of our scroats can't get more than 500 yards from their cars in the unlikely event that they stagger into the countryside. Once you are more than half a mile or so from the nearest road, the most dangerous human encounter you are likely to have is with a hiker who bores you to death talking about how quickly he managed to jog up the Three Peaks.




> We regularly see/smell mountain lion sign and have bears wander through camp


 
Although it is fairly unlikely that you'd ever need to shoot a bear, is it not? I've come across them myself in Canada and it seems pretty clear that when they are milling around camp grounds, they are usually more of a pest than a genuine danger to life (although not always, I will concede).




> In the nearer areas we have had bullets whiz through camp... shouting didn't stop it; but a .45 round through the trees above their heads did. This one gets chalked up, not to malice but to lack of training/caring on the other people's part.


 
You're talking about careless hunters, I imagine? 



> When I lived in Colorado Springs (pop. approx 600,000) there were shots popped off regularly in the apartment complex across the street.
> 
> Are the people here mental? ...not most of them (at least not terribly) its really a wonder that there aren't more injuries though.


 
Quite. But you describe a very high level of apparently irresponsible/unlawful gun use and I really don't understand why it doesn't concern you more. 




> I would much rather live in a civilization where a person has a right to self defense than one where a grandmother can be jailed for defending herself with a kitchen knife in her own home


 
I'm not sure if you are referring to something specific here, but if one ignores the more hysterical elements of our gutter press, the laws on self defence in the UK are clear and unequivocal. Any individual has the right to use reasonable force to defend themselves or others. What is reasonable depends on the circumstances (shooting an 11 year old for scrumping apples tends to be seen as excessive), but an individual who acts instinctively in the honest expectation of an attack has little to fear from prosecution, even if their reaction leaves their attacker seriously injured.





> It is better to prepare and not need it than to be a helpless victim.
> 
> By rewarding antisocial behavior you are making repetition more likely, thereby contributing to the problem.


 
That might be true if anyone was suggesting that being helpless was the best thing to do, but there is more than one way to skin a cat. Answering violence (or the threat of violence) with more violence is one answer, but it is not the only one. Very often, it is not the best one either. There are plenty of ways for a reasonably intelligent person to avoid and deal with confrontation _without_ using violence. One must ask oneself what the object of the encounter is - to ensure personal safety or to give the other party a good kicking in order to let them know that you are harder than they are? The two things are *not *the same.

And, of course, to apply your argument, rewarding antisocial behaviour with violence will just lead to the criminals carrying more weapons, thereby contributing to the problem!  

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Happy Joe

> do you also ensure that you...


Pretty much(at a minimum); although I favor bear spray over bells (its more useful for vicious dogs), (you may have heard the joke; "How do you tell if a Yuppie has been in the woods? ... Because the bear scat contains little bells and smells like pepper.")
I haven't needed flares and while antivenin would have been a good idea the last time I got hit by a buzzworm (its the rattlesnakes that don't rattle that you need to watch out for, (another use for the staff; to move them out of the way)); I lived anyhow, with little more damage than puncture wounds and a bad headache.
Packing takes about 20 minutes as the gear is normally ready to go, and the Jeep is pretty much a dedicated vehicle (its set up for crawling over mountains not as a comfortable daily driver).



> you do make yourself sound a bit like one of ...


I like electricity and flush toilets (though I don't need them).
...Now where did I leave my tinfoil hat?...



> My concern...


I tend to share some of your concern (with the exception of the freedom part) and the addition that many folks seem to view a firearm as a magic wand; thinking that having one equates to increased safety/security.  Unfortunately most do not have any concept of firearms safety procedures, or the dedication needed to become proficient in their proper use; thus procurement can increase their risk.
Note; when asked I almost uniformly recommend that people do not purchase a firearm.  Instead I recommend one or two cans of Bear strength pepper spray with dye.  This will stop all but the most drugged up criminal while dying them for easy identification and it is much more forgiving of mistakes; though still painful, it is not normally fatal.
(Locally this is not considered a weapon; but please inquire as to its status in your area before purchase).



> it is fairly unlikely that you'd ever need to shoot a bear, is it not?


Yes,  mountain lion attacks are also not likely though both do happen on a distressingly regular basis, every year or two (sometimes a couple of times per year).
The biggest hazards are lightning strike and hypothermia.



> You're talking about careless hunters, I imagine?


Unfortunately, no; armed Idiots...



> you describe a very high level of apparently irresponsible/unlawful gun use and I really don't understand why it doesn't concern you more.


Injuries happen relatively infrequently (including injuries from firearms related crime)... the fatality rate from traffic accidents is much higher; worthy of some concern but not worth getting paranoid about.  I do believe that firearms safety training needs to be completed before purchase is allowed... but I am in the minority.



> There are plenty of ways for a reasonably intelligent person to avoid and deal with confrontation _without_ using violence.


Agreed but violence remains an option and must be considered if other tactics do not work.  I do not advocate violence first, having found my way out of more tense situations without it than with it but occasionally it is the only viable recourse.



> rewarding antisocial behavior with violence will just lead to the criminals carrying more weapons, thereby contributing to the problem!


Its hard to see how the criminals could be more armed... convenience store night clerk is a relatively risky profession regularly robbed though only occasionally injured.

Enjoy!


----------



## dreamhunter

Creator said:


> But a kungfu master at gun point is still good as preparing to die right?


So is a gunman who's suddenly out of lead, or suddenly had his gun hand snapped, facing a martial artist of roughly similar size, of reasonably good physical condition n of adequate technical proficiency.

"Martial" simply means 'related to fighting', right? So any fighting art is in fact a martial art, including western boxing. Does boxing ever go out of fashion? I don't think so. Nothing that could help you get out of an awkward situation does.

Okay, you meant eastern martial arts then, mostly. Still, won't do anyone any harm to know a few useful, practical moves.

Besides the health n fitness benefits that regular, disciplined mental-physical training brings to you.

The main, sometimes possibly fatal, danger to someone totally untrained, facing an unexpected attack, is that of either: (1) freezing into complete inaction; or (2) panicking/rushing into uncontrolled, ineffective action, expending much energy with little result.

Basically, your nerves could fail you. Just when you need them most.

That's where a bit of previous basic training could come in handy. It's like drilling yourself with responses that become second nature in time of need.

Actually, it's something nature has built into everyone of us. Like it has into every other species.

Just watch a cat or a dog in action. Funny, but nobody taught it to fight, right? Only that we, the human species, have somehow managed to delete it from our internal memory. Well, something like that.


----------



## chongjasmine

I don't think kung fu  is redundant. It may not be as useful as in the past. But it is a good form of exercise and can help to keep a person healthy.


----------



## Metryq

It looks like a full spectrum of responses have already been posted. In a nutshell, the well-rounded fighter is best. A friend who's been studying various hand-to-hand arts since he was a child later went into special ops. He is an excellent marksman (pistol or rifle) and taught other snipers. He also learned knife fighting, which can be terrifying to an enemy. He recommends the movie _The Hunted_ (with Tommy Lee Jones and Benicio Del Toro) as an accurate representation of the highly trained knife fighter.

As others have noted, real hand-to-hand combat does not drag on, as in the movies. It is generally over with in seconds. And yes, there are techniques taught in the military that never come out in personal defense training classes.

_Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon_? Puh-leese.


----------



## Nik

Now slightly off-topic, but I remember a quote from a 'Hard' SF writer about possibilities of using gun on a hard space-suit, and rapier on a soft suit...


----------



## Starbeast

Creator said:


> IS kung fu and swordsparring redundant in the age of guns?


 
Anyone can point a gun and pull the trigger, but not everyone can wield a sword or use martial arts. That's why I like sword battles and hand-to-hand combat movies more than a gun fight films.


----------



## paranoid marvin

Well I'm sure that most soldiers today are trained to be pretty handy with their fists , and don't some regiments still have bayonets on their weapons? Certainly up to the age of mechanised warfare in WW1 the cavalry charge was a potent force, and even in WWI a horde of six-foot Tommies with biceps the size of Bournemouth charging with bayonets fixed must have been a fearsome sight for the enemy, 


And of course guns can run out of ammo or jam ; swords and fists can't.


----------



## Starbeast

paranoid marvin said:


> And of course guns can run out of ammo or jam ; swords and fists can't.


 
True, but in real life military forces like to blow every thing up with missles or by dropping bombs all over the place (and more often missing the intended target too). Also soldiers just shoot everybody (either by orders or for fun) as seen in Wikileaks & Youtube submitted footage.


----------



## Peter Graham

> and even in WWI a horde of six-foot Tommies with biceps the size of Bournemouth charging with bayonets fixed must have been a fearsome sight for the enemy,



...as amply demonstrated by the glorious British success on the first day of the Somme and the fact that the pernicious Hun was thoroughly beaten by Christmas.


----------



## paranoid marvin

Peter Graham said:


> ...as amply demonstrated by the glorious British success on the first day of the Somme and the fact that the pernicious Hun was thoroughly beaten by Christmas.


 
Well it would have worked if the artillery had done it's job...

Which, in the main, kills far more of the enemy than bombs+handheld weapons combined


----------



## Forgotten Realms

Well, I don`t know if someone has already posted a similar answer to mine - but I was a little lazy to read it all through:

I think that modern warfare doesn't make ancient fighting techniques redundant. It would be similar as if you would say: "Concrete replaces nature" or "technology replaces wisdom" (even it that is true sometimes). 
It should be a combination between the two, the modern combined with the old - just according to the prevailing situation. 
So, nowadays if you can wield a sword, you should also be able to fire a gun. 

As to single combat - man to man - it's always some kind of martial arts. If you have the choice you should pick the most effective one, means nothing too much fixed neither on leg nor on arm works, but a sound combination of the two. 
And as there are always different styles or ryus you can mostly rely on that nothern styles tend to employ more physical strength and power. If you don't have, better hang on to southern styles which base more on fastness and agility with surprise attacks, really "running" into your opponents and sure to make the first strike.

I don't know what else to say...


----------



## Metryq

Forgotten Realms said:


> So, nowadays if you can wield a sword, you should also be able to fire a gun.



That is similar to what some people say when comparing a hand-to-hand art (aikido, krav maga, etc.) with, say, a gun. "A gun can be taken away and used against you, but the fighting skill cannot."

While anyone may be able to fire a gun (an argument I might still contest), not just anyone can hit the target. A local club has a small indoor range where new members are tested before they are allowed to use any of the facilities unsupervised. From 20 meters, the applicant must be able to get 8 out of 10 rounds into a standard paper target (roughly 30 cm on a side). Forget the printed portion of the target—the applicant must simply hit the _paper_ at least 8 times. The way action heroes masterfully sling guns on TV, one might think this simple test is a piece of cake. You'd be surprised how many applicants don't make it the first time. 

It may not take much time to train someone to handle a gun, nor a great deal of practice to become at least a passable shot, but a gun is still far from a moron's weapon. And if you think a "machine gun" is the solution, think again. I've seen an experienced marksman demonstrate by sweeping an FN FAL on full auto with a 20-round mag at a span of five targets about 35 meters away. Only 1 of the 20 bullets hit a target. (Firing one shot at a time, he hit all five targets squarely in only 2 seconds longer than the full auto spray—but of course, he is trained and well practiced.)


----------



## Peter Graham

> Well it would have worked if the artillery had done it's job...



Artillery tends to find it difficult to do its job when the enemy refuses to line up in massed concentrations on the flat and wait patiently to be blown to pieces.  In all fairness to the British sense of fair play, we have historically done our bit to oblige - as that other glorious British military triumph, the Charge of the Light Brigade, shows - but it does seem to me that the bayonet charge - reminiscent as it was of tactics adopted in the age of horse and musket - was somewhat obselete when facing barbed wire, entrenched enemy positins and muderously effective machine guns.

Like the cavalry charge, the whole point of the bayonet charge was to break morale.  The idea was that the enemy would not face you and would flee.  Cavalry charges could often be foiled in the Napoleonic period by the simple expedient of forming infantry into squares and then convincing them not to break.  By the time of the Great War, the stagnation of movement epitomised by the trenches turned the sudden and unstoppable bayonet charge across open country into a frequently suicidal and slow trudge through mud and wire, thereby completely undermining its efficacy.

I might be wrong, but I'd wager that bayonet charges were far, far less likley to succeed on the Somme than they would have been in the Peninsula.

Regards,

Peter


----------



## THX-1138

No, but it's less relevant. It's no longer necessary to arm soldiers with swords, but they do indeed train soldiers in melee combat.


----------



## TL Rese

i luv sword-fight scenes - i think hand-to-hand combat is always more interesting to watch than guns and blowing-up stuff.  in reality, yea, it's prob pointless to have a sword when the other guy's got a good working gun (and knows how to use it), but w/ fiction, it'd be good to try to write a scenario where the characters have to use their swords, if you want to create sword-fight scenes.  or do it in a more subtle way, so the reader doesn't wonder, "why doesn't he just use a gun?" - like in kill bill, which was mentioned earlier.


----------



## Quokka

I agree with that, in some ways it's harder to justify why a charcter would be using a sword than it is to realistically have them survive, barring a head on charge into gunfire, I mentioned earlier in the thread about the ~7m rule if someone needs to unholster a weapon, so for storyline purposes it's as much about having a convincing set up for why they dont use guns as it is finding ways to keep them alive, preferrably ones that don't rely on secret societies or immortal pyramid schemes.


----------



## soulsinging

I think one key distinction is that a gun is in a lot of ways, a last resort. Its only value is in the user being willing to pull the trigger, which in a lot of situations won't work. I think I've heard it described as something like you don't pull the gun unless you're willing to finish it. So the value in hand-to-hand combat or lesser weapons is their ability to promise pain or coercion or submission, which is often the goal in a fight. You can "escalate" in response to the resistance of your opponent without it being a choice between bandying hot air or dead bodies.

Think of the many painful holds involved in something like kung-fu. It offers a much better way to subdue someone without necessarily killing them, whereas with a gun (unless you're knee capping someone) it's pretty much all or nothing. You can point it and argue, but if they don't think you're willing or wanting to pull the trigger, it's useless.

In a practical sense, if you're trying to get information or reason with someone, you might be willing to bust a few teeth, but if you're firing a gun you're in a whole lot worse trouble if you can't prove to law that you were in mortal danger. You can throw a few punches though and often get what you want without risking life in prison.


----------



## Metryq

soulsinging said:


> You can "escalate" in response to the resistance of your opponent without it being a choice between bandying hot air or dead bodies.



I understand the point you're making, but I've been told repeatedly by those trained in a formal art that the whole point of the training is to end the fight as quickly and efficiently as possible. _Longer_ fights mean _more_ damage. Real fights don't last 6 minutes, like the high point of the movie *They Live*.

Properly trained, one can certainly disable an opponent without killing him. However, pretty much all of these trained fighters have told me that they're very good at avoiding the fight in the first place.

(Just to be pedantic for a moment, "martial arts" has been used many times in this thread to mean "hand-to-hand" combat. Technically, using guns, swords, etc. are all martial arts.)


----------



## soulsinging

Metryq said:


> I understand the point you're making, but I've been told repeatedly by those trained in a formal art that the whole point of the training is to end the fight as quickly and efficiently as possible. _Longer_ fights mean _more_ damage. Real fights don't last 6 minutes, like the high point of the movie *They Live*.
> 
> Properly trained, one can certainly disable an opponent without killing him. However, pretty much all of these trained fighters have told me that they're very good at avoiding the fight in the first place.



That 2nd to last sentence is what I meant. You've got a lot better chance of winning a fight and not having someone be dead if it's hand-to-hand as opposed to using guns. And in most cases, that makes for a lot more tension. That's why in movies and tv, guns make all kinds of bizarre and unrealistic noises to draw attention to there even being a gun... it builds the tension that the cold fact of a gun to the head just can't convey in an artistic sense and lets you banter during the fight (#4 on page 2, gratuitous cocking of guns for dramatic effect):

http://www.cracked.com/article_18576_5-ridiculous-gun-myths-everyone-believes-thanks-to-movies.html


----------



## hopewrites

True you want the fight to be over quickly, but that doesnt mean it wont start up again if you have an immovable opinion against an unstoppable change. They will fight it out again and again each learning something about the other from each encounter. 
Eventually the fight is over, ether when the immovable move, the unstoppable stops (or changes course) or when one or the other is dead.
If you go the gun rout, even starting with shots to the foot, knee, arm, hip ect. you end up at Dead a lot sooner and with fewer chances at another path.
You also end up with people who's aggression has not been utterly spent by their struggle, people likely to take their violence to some other place and time to vent it on people less or not involved.
Granted the most hand to hand fighting I ever engaged in lasted maybe 2seconds before i was tossed across the room by the bouncer, but it was enough to spend us both aggressively, and get to the root of the problem.


----------



## Lilmizflashythang

21 feet. The average distance that an attacker can clear before a gunman can draw, aim, and fire his weapon. Sucks to be the gunman within the 21 feet, sucks to be the attacker without the 21 feet.


----------



## Metryq

Lilmizflashythang said:


> 21 feet. The average distance that an attacker can clear before a gunman can draw, aim, and fire his weapon. Sucks to be the gunman within the 21 feet, sucks to be the attacker without the 21 feet.



This assumes the gunman is completely useless in all other manner of fighting, and/or that the attacker can do more than a lumbering tackle. I know an ex-Marine who taught other snipers, has been studying aikido and other hand-to-hand arts since he was 10, is a frighteningly efficient knife fighter, and who competes in quick-draw contests for sport. Inside 21 feet or _well_ beyond, one would be hard-pressed to get an advantage on him.

While working as a repair tech at a university, I sometimes enjoyed visits from "T" between classes. She was from Burma and had studied various hand-to-hand arts since childhood. For her, it was common exercise. I was in my shop, hanging a cable on the board behind my door, when T stepped in to say hello. I got the silly idea to startle her. I reached out and snapped my fingers right next to her head.

If I had blinked at the wrong time, I would have missed the blur of one her hands making a vice-like grip on my wrist and the other just behind my elbow. I was drawn forward like a piston and almost learned about human flight when T managed to squelch her trained reflexes and let go of my arm. "DON'T DO THAT!" she barked.


----------



## JoanDrake

One thing that's not been discussed here much is that sometimes it's just not considered fair to use a certain type of weapon...I know that seems funny in an era when we depend on WMD but remember that gas was never used in WWII, even though both sides had large reserves and the Germans had even developed new forms.  It was forbidden by International Law and even the Germans wouldn't use it because they were afraid it would be used on them.  

If you remember in Star Wars when Obi-Wan is about to be killed by Darth Sidious (or whoever the 4 armed robot was, I forget,) he just sees a blaster laying there, picks it up and blows him away....then he throws it away in disgust..."filthy weapon", he says, totally forgetting that it just saved his life.  Killing, even in wartime, may not be just a simple calculus of lethality


----------



## Mirannan

Scifi fan said:


> I was a part-time martial arts instructor, so I'm biased, but unarmed combat definitely has a role in modern warfare. When an army advances into enemy lines, there will be close quarter fighting, and the combatants must be given the full range of skills. This includes bayonet fighting, pistol shooting in cramped urban environments, and, yes, unarmed combat.
> 
> By way of history, when the atom bomb was developed, many thought the rifle was obsolete, but that didn't happen.



Heinlein expanded on that theme at length, in Starship Troopers. The basic point is that any military needs a range of options, causing variable amounts of death and destruction, to cover various threats. To take a semi-random example, 2000-lb bombs are of rather limited use in a hostage rescue scenario.


----------

