Gary S said...
"I have said that if protecting oneself in the shortest amount of time with the least
amount of effort and money is ones only concern, they should simply just buy a gun."
This sort of statement is a peeve of mine (though not a pet one). I have seen comment similar to this seems to come up sometimes when an individual (or lots of them) want to learn self defense in a relatively short period of time. The times I have seen it it has come from traditional stylists responding to questions like "what martial art can I learn well enough to defend myself in in a relatively short period of time?" Perhaps I am wrong in your case, but when coming from others this response has seemed to reflect a bit of a defensive "sour grapes" attitude.
There are many situations in which someone might either not be able to have a firearm, or where using one might not be appropriate. For example, there are places where one cannot have a firearm, or where having one can get you in a massive amount of trouble. These include large areas of airports, many government buildings, schools, airplanes, and in many cases some countries (such as England, where I lives for several years). While I hope it never happens to any of us, if by mistaken identity a person should find themselves in jail, you probably will not have much chance to defend yourself with a firearm.
Second off, there are times when maximim lethal force is not desirable. What if someone is a bouncer, a bodyguard, or an orderly in a mental institution? Do you really advocate shooting a drunk who happens to be too loud? Perhaps escorting them off the property with a wrist or arm lock would be a better idea? Should bodyguards shoot agressive autograph hounds who get too close to the actor they are escorting? Should an orderly shoot a patient who is reluctant to go back to his room?
Firearms can be appropriate, but they are not always the best choice. Some people have a definite need to learn hand to hand combat skills in as short a time as possible.
I have no strong opinion about this "teaching traditional along with potentially more popular quick self defense." I have not put much thought into this topic. Personally though, I tend to think that people should study whatever they want to, and whatever suits their needs, and that I should generally avoid condemning their motivation or choice (unless they are learning from an incompetent, a fraud, or an abusive person). When I fenced, I did it because it was fun. Nobody had to sell me on its combat efficiency. When I did Aikido (a very popular traditional art, that seems to be pretty healthy as far as attracting students goes), I did it because it was beautiful, not because I thought it would make me the ultimate street fighting machine.
(When I did fence there was an idiot who would sometimes watch us, and he'd sometimes say "well, if I had a gun I could kill you all dead." Wow! What a revelation! He didn't seem to realize that this was not what we were about.)
I don't know if Uechi is perhaps not as popular as it once was, or if many people drop out because they believe it is not for them. I have no idea, and I mean no insult to your style. I can understand the desire to be popular, but I suspect that you will always find people who sense that your style is right for them, and will stick with it.
Some people want to learn to be gourmet cooks, but most people who want to learn to prepare food just want to learn enough cooking to be able to feed themselves. Some people love gardening, and experiment with all sorts of flowers and shrubs. Others just want a lawn mower that works reasonalby well. Some people love the hobby of fine wine, and others are happy with a six pack of cheap beer. Should those who wish to pursue more esoteric interests condemn the much larger population who are not motivated to do the same?