I believe that todays weapons such as guns and bombs are the lowest form of weaponry. A child can pull a trigger or press a button. Old world weapons(staffs,swords,the body)are true art forms and take practice over years of training to master . I just want to know if there are others out there who feel how I do.

Agreed!

i third that. the weaponry of the modern age is the weaponry of sloth and cowardice, and generally the owners of such weaponry fit the description above. the only discipline that guns require you to learn is maintenance of the weapon. you'll never learn the responsibility that should come naturally with the discipline of learning martial arts because there is none required to use a firearm. i'd sooner be maimed by a master swordsman than shot by some punk kid wielding an errant firearm. plus, a swordfight has a much lower chance of injuring some innocent bystander, unlike your average drive-by.

Disagree with you all.

You seem to have romanticised the past by attributing honour and glory to people who used the weapons of their time.

Garbage.

The samurai at their time were the thugs of the day.

A thug then would be a thug now, regardless of the weapons used.

JohnL

I agree, John. Also, if you think that firearms use requires no discipline or mastery, I beg to differ. How many thugs do you think could clear a stovepipe or a bolt override? How many could reload smoothly under fire? Anyway, there is no honor, or winners, or heroes, in combat. Simply the living or the dead. Whatever keeps you alive is good.
Evil, you think that, generally, firearms owners are sloth-ish and cowardly? What do you base this on?

the basis is the gun-owners of my small area. however, i've come to realize that those slothish and cowardly gun-owners (who'll run up on you from behind with a pistol)were cowardly before. i have been hasty in judgement, because a any weapon in the hand of a coward will be used in the manner of one. and there are responsible owners, true. but anyone who owns a weapon should(but won't always) should know about the maininence and care of their weapons (lazy/sloth). as for reloading under fire (assuming the fight lasted longer than the initial four bullets), it's not likely for anyone. your "average" modern gunfight won't last long enough to empty a clip(if either gunman has any skill at aiming). perhaps we are romanticizing swordsmen for using what was available, because john is right, a thug is a thug, but i have yet to see a gunfighting-based martial art.

mar·tial ( P ) Pronunciation: (märshl)
adj.
Of, relating to, or suggestive of war.
Relating to or connected with the armed forces or the profession of arms.
Characteristic of or befitting a warrior.
Maybe it's not an art, but shooting is definitely martial. http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm
Read the charts. Three of these guys had time to reload. Three of them switched to backup weapons. Not "typical", but definitely informative.
As far as the people in your area, they are called "hicks" or "rednecks". My suggestion is to make a million dollars, buy their trailer parks out from under them, and laugh.

Shooting skillfuly takes practice and discipline.Proper gripping of the weapon must be learned, proper breathing, knowing how to acquire the proper sight picture, blocking out distractions, proper maintenance and care of the weapon.
If the punks who did drive bys had learned to shoot, there would be no one injured besides the intended target.
Any idiot can pick up a sword, gun, knife etc. and harm others indiscriminantly. It is not the weapons fault, but the brainless moron wielding it.

In my opinion talking about honourable and dishonourable weapons is silly, naive and childish. Weapons when used to hurt and kill are BAD THINGS. I don't care if its a blade or a missile.

The point about weapons based martial arts, is the development of the person who holds/controls the weapon. The sword is an extention of self as is the staff, as is the fist and the foot.

Bad people do bad things. Its that simple. Violence needs intent to harm as a necessary condition, thus the tool becomes irrelevant. The question becomes 'is the action justifiable in the circumstance?', and the answer can only ever be based on individual value judgment systems.

[This message has been edited by Yoseikan Student (edited 06-01-2003).]

Yoseikan, your whole post contradicts itself. The first paragraph says weapons use is ALWAYS bad, and that dishonor has nothing to do with it. The third paragraph says the question is whether your action was justifiable or not. HELLO! If justifiable, it is honorable. If not justifiable, dishonorable.
PS, who here has actually FIRED a gun, so we can tell if you speak from experience or from ignorance?