Why are a lot of Fighters pro 2nd amendment and guns?

Status
Not open for further replies.
When scumbags decide to rob your house they usually travel in a pack. They are are cowards and want the odds stacked in their favor. As such, they usually are carrying a weapon. A gun for self defense makes all the deference.

A beautiful example...



Now explain to me how this small woman would have done without a gun against three men armed with guns? Would a MMA fighter have any chance against these three robbers armed with guns? If someone tried hand to hand against three guns they are dead.



Man that is scary situation she was lucky, these home invasion robberies are scary, I see your point

But the scary part of guns is what if your wife or kids find it and use it and accidentally shoot themselves?
 
You can train and train until you're the world champion, but it's not going to do you any good against someone with a gun. This isn't the movies.

Fighters are usually very manly men. Outdoorsy types. I'm sure a lot also hunt. The anti gun stuff mostly comes from limp wristed hipster types.

Dan Hardy is anti gun or anti hunting, Julie Kedzie is also anti gun and super feminist liberal freethinking atheist.

Not all fighters are pro gun or archaic
 
Because real men want liberty.

I'm guessing you're really upset at Trump right now for coming out against the 2nd Amendment, right?

Any 2nd Amendment supporter who supports Trump might as well just burn their NRA card right now. The fucking guy just had his lawyer make a legal argument that no well armed militia will ever keep him in check, because he's the highest cop in the land.

Yet for some reason, gun owners are fucking SILENT. Like they're secretly a bunch of submissive pussies or something....
 
Probably has less to do with understanding the Bill of Rights and more to do with being far more violent (and often dumber) than normal people.

Are professional fights more violent [in society; not in the obvious way of, you know, "being a fighter"] than their counterparts in other professions?

This isn't a particularly daft question, I'm just genuinely curious.
 
Man that is scary situation she was lucky, these home invasion robberies are scary, I see your point

But the scary part of guns is what if your wife or kids find it and use it and accidentally shoot themselves?


Well, my wife isn't retarded and isn't going to shoot herself. Her father taught her proper gun safety. My daughter can't get to any gun in my house. So it is a non issue for normal and responsible people.
 
Well, my wife isn't retarded and isn't going to shoot herself. Her father taught her proper gun safety. My daughter can't get to any gun in my house. So it is a non issue for normal and responsible people.
yeah thats my big fear, Guns scare me for some reason.

That boxer in the video I posted Mikey Garcia, he has a huge Ranch in redlands, California and he shoots on his ranch is that allowed in Cali? in the video he is teaching his little 4 and 5 year olds to shoot guns.

he also owns a grip of guns,why would you need that many guns, why not just get one or two at most for home protections?
 
Are professional fights more violent [in society; not in the obvious way of, you know, "being a fighter"] than their counterparts in other professions?

This isn't a particularly daft question, I'm just genuinely curious.
I don't think there's any data, but violent people are attracted to MMA. I would bet heavily that professional fighters are significantly more violent than average people in terms of assault/battery charges. And when you get into ammy scenes it's obviously even worse, tons and tons of complete scumbags.
 
I don't think there's any data, but violent people are attracted to MMA. I would bet heavily that professional fighters are significantly more violent than average people in terms of assault/battery charges. And when you get into ammy scenes it's obviously even worse, tons and tons of complete scumbags.

I don't tend to disagree with this notion, for what it's worth. I'd just love to see some data.

The kind of people who get into fistfights for a living probably have a lot of issues before they join that particular workforce.
 
I don't tend to disagree with this notion, for what it's worth. I'd just love to see some data.

The kind of people who get into fistfights for a living probably have a lot of issues before they join that particular workforce.
On average, yeah. We all know people all over the spectrum who love MMA but it really seems to strongly select for violence, not just athleticism and interest in karate. To me that makes more sense than "they know that karate doesn't beat guns."

Our data reporting and analysis on crime is in a sorry state in America imo. We don't really have a good excuse for not having a federal, publicly-accessible database of all crimes that populates easy-to-find, custom and click-sortable tables for all demographics.
 
A lot of people support the second amendment and own firearms. It's a very popular constitutional right. I don't think fighters are any different than the rest of the population. It doesn't matter if they're skilled fighters or not when it comes to defending their families against criminals who are often armed with something, and don't play by the rules. Of course those skills could come in handy, but if someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night you don't want to be in hand to hand combat with them if it can be avoided.
 
As said by others, anyone who fights for a living understands that guns are better tool than fists and feet. Also, a comfort level with violence that the general population probably doesn't have. Plus an inclination to believe that they are capable of solving their own altercations so long as they are prepared.

How exactly does a comfort level with violence have anything to do with owning firearms for self defense? The guns aren't violent. I doubt these guys are routinely using their firearms in violent altercations. I think fighters support gun rights for the same reasons as gunowners who aren't fighters.
 
How exactly does a comfort level with violence have anything to do with owning firearms for self defense? The guns aren't violent. I doubt these guys are routinely using their firearms in violent altercations. I think fighters support gun rights for the same reasons as gunowners who aren't fighters.

Fists and feet aren't violent either. Yet they are used in violent altercations. Guns are tools for violence. Martial arts are tools for violence. It doesn't matter if the violence is in the form of self-defense or proactive assault on others or hunting. It's all violence on a 3rd party. And the greater the comfort level with violence the greater the comfort level with tools for inflicting violence. It doesn't make the person a violent person outside of those circumstances when violence is necessary.

I doubt many of us are violent individuals yet we signed up for martial arts because we recognize that there might be a time where violence is inevitable and we want to be prepared to stop violence against us and visit it upon the other party. And to do that requires that we become comfortable with violence.

I wonder if you're maybe responding negatively to the word "violence" and not the concepts that it represents (which include self-defense)?
 
Unarmed fighting doesn't really work for defending yourself or other people. It doesn't matter how big or skilled you are, a small weak old bad guy with a gun or a knife will ruin your day.
Men in general are more supportive of guns and otherwise conservative politics, violent and high testosterone men even more so. That's based on hard data, btw.
screen_shot_2016-10-24_at_10.52.41_am.png

Sure, red isn't the same as being pro 2A but it's related. Black or latino men would still vote mostly blue too but at a much lesser rate than women. For example, black men are 2x as likely to vote republican than black women.

It's just something that flows in our blood, evolution made us more likely to want to kill our enemies than to go around screaming for help like women.
 
Fists and feet aren't violent either. Yet they are used in violent altercations. Guns are tools for violence. Martial arts are tools for violence. It doesn't matter if the violence is in the form of self-defense or proactive assault on others or hunting. It's all violence on a 3rd party. And the greater the comfort level with violence the greater the comfort level with tools for inflicting violence. It doesn't make the person a violent person outside of those circumstances when violence is necessary.

I doubt many of us are violent individuals yet we signed up for martial arts because we recognize that there might be a time where violence is inevitable and we want to be prepared to stop violence against us and visit it upon the other party. And to do that requires that we become comfortable with violence.

I wonder if you're maybe responding negatively to the word "violence" and not the concepts that it represents (which include self-defense)?
He may be conflating violence with being mindlessly violent to others. I'm a violent person, in the sense that I'm more than comfortable in using violence if needed, but I don't go around attacking random people because it's the wrong thing to do. My little sister on the other hand is non-violent, even if somebody was punching her in the face she is more likely to cry for help than defend herself.
 
Cage fighters usually tend to be on the lower side of IQ scale.. really nothing surprising here
 
Never bring Jiu-Jitsu to a gun fight.
 
Aren't a lot of these guys from, or now living in, the western US? Guns are part of the culture out there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top