Quote:
|
When there are so many bare handed systems one could learn that would keep you safe, should we be out there using firearms or blades?
|
I think that if there were even one empty-hand system out there that could be developed as simply and as reliably as firearms or blades, then there would be more of an ethical question. The trouble is, there is no such thing as an empty hand system that will equip you as well as a weapons system for life's most violent encounters.
It's an uncomfortable truth that people don't like to hear, much less accept. But in many ways, it's like the statement, "In a one-on-one fight, a pure grappler has an advantage over a pure striker." It's the truth, but it's uncomfortable and filled with "what-ifs." Equally true is that weapons were developed by the very same people that developed empty hand systems, and for the same reasons. Weapons did what hands and feet and elbows and knees could not, and it's always been that way. Weapons will make it easier to defend yourself against a wider variety of threats and with far less effort and training. If you're leaving the emotional aspect out of it, then it will be especially effective.
Ask yourself this hypothetical:
We'll take two people of equal height, weight, build, and experience. These will both be rank novices with little to no fighting background. We each have six months to train them to be effective fighters, and then we're going to put them in a situation in which they have to fight for their lives. They will fight against two assailants who may or may not be armed, and running away will not be an option. It will truly be anything goes. Your student gets training in kickboxing, MMA, BJJ, or whatever empty hand system you'd like. My student gets trained in pistol and edged weapons work. Who's your money on in the end?
To bring the point home, imagine it this way. It's still a fight to the finish, but I have to fight your student and you have to fight mine. How comfortable are you with that?
In the hypothetical scenario above, there are some real differences in attitude, mindset, and severity of use. But that's part of what makes weapons so useful. Firing a bullet is a commitment you can't take back. Deciding on that course of action puts you in a frame of mind that is just impossible to reach with empty-hand tools. If it is possible, it's damned difficult. The fact is, weapons prepare you better than any empty hand system ever could for the goal of defending your life and limb against life threatening assaults. When the rules are nil, the conditions all favor the bad guy, and it really is a matter of life and death, weapons are better.
The only moral or ethical question left after that is, "Is the right to self-preservation unethical?" and I don't think it's unethical at all.