[Yahoshua]

Ignoring the legal dillemma of firearms vs martial arts and bringing the topic back onto track:

Firearms and martial arts are both viable means of self-defense.

I consider martial arts to be less lethal in principle, as most forms of martial arts are meant to defend oneself against unarmed, armed, and multiple attackers. However, not everyone has the strength, the motivation, or the discipline to maintain proficiency in martial arts. As a quick example: How many of you do rigorous exercises everyday? By rigorous I mean a full plate of exercises like pushups, situps, lifing weights, running etc?

Firearms even the playing field since not everybody is built like Rambo. Firearms are essentially a tool to be used, the true purpose of said tool depends entirely on the user. A 60 year old man has a better chance of fending off multiple agressors with a firearm than he does of using his mad judo skills. And a small statured woman has a better chance of defending her life against a stronger opponent intent on robbing/mugging/raping/ unknown intentions etc. against her than by using brute force against brute force against ehr opponent.

Whether the intruder is the common village thief whom you had the unpleasant surprise of running into, or the neighborhood parolee on an alcohol-driven violent crime spree; both methods are viable means of self-defense. So long as the criminal obeys orders, they'll get out of the situation alive.

If I were to say that martial arts were for everyone*1, it'd be equivalent to me saying that everyone is capable of handling a .600 Nitro Express*2. Which is absolutely untrue, some people have weak wrists that can't handle the recoil, or they're afraid of the unfamiliarity surrounding firearms or martial arts.

So, to each his own so long as they're responsible enough to handle what skills or objects they possess and more importantly: That whatever methods they choose will WORK for them and keep themselves alive.

*1

*2