Battle to the Death! How Will You Fight?

[Shock and Awe]

Imagine you are going to be paired against a random person that can be literally any of the billions of humans. You will be in a forest that is one square kilometer. There is one catch though, you can choose how the fighting will be done. It can be hand to hand, with melee weapons, or firearms. You cannot choose the specific firearm or melee weapon.

Personally I'd go for the guns because I've had more experience with those then with melee weapons and I just don't like the odds with hand to hand seeing as there are plenty of people bigger and stronger then me that don't have to have training to kick my ass.

 

[Jonluw]

I believe I could take on a good deal of people in hand to hand combat, but with melee weapons, I believe I could take down some people bigger than me whom I couldn't beat in a fistfight as well.
I'm no good with guns, and with melee weapons I can't be killed from afar.

So I think melee weapons ensure the greatest chance of survival.

That's a rather easy question, the real question is how I would fight.

Would I fight dirty? Aiming for gonads and what not?
Would I attempt to win through sneakiness and intelligence; setting traps and snares?
Or would I be bound to my honor, insisting on a level playing field?

 

[BathorysGraveland]

I would probably go with melee weapons, and then lie in wait in ambush at some thick part of the forest. He/she'll eventually come past and I'll take 'em from behind. Hopefully, anyway.

 

[Rowan93]

Firearms, because that's probably a less painful way to die when I lose.

 

[A Satanic Panda]

Death by Snu Snu!

Think about it. It would be one helluva fight to the death.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

So I am going to have to fight a random person out of all the billions of humans on the planet?

Although I am not particuarly strong or agile I am early twenties, with no disabilities, full motor functions and in good health. It would be highly likely my opponent would end up severely underaged, elderly, infirm, or just plain less physically stong than me, so I'd go with melee weapons, Firearms would even the odds, and I'm most likely to start in a much better shape than my opponent.

 

[DoPo]

Bears. I choose bears. That is a valid weapon category. Now, I will need to go practice my bear skills, so I can own you all when we meet in the forest.

 

[Phasmal]

Guns. If they get close enough for melee to matter I can always just use my teeth.
Yeah, I fight dirty.

 

[GrimTuesday]

I would choose Melee, for one thing, I'm really strong, and for another thing I'm a big guy and thus a really big target.

 

[Reiper]

As others have said, firearms are the great equalizer, and thus I would not fight with guns

However, swords and other melee weapons are likewise an equalizer (although much less so) and as such, I would opt for hand to hand combat only

I am not particularly strong, but I am a 21 year old male in pretty good shape. Lets look at some demographics

0-14 years: 26.3% (male 944,987,919/female 884,268,378)
15-64 years: 65.9% (male 2,234,860,865/female 2,187,838,153)
65 years and over: 7.9% (male 227,164,176/female 289,048,221) (2011 est.)

Now, no one in the 0-14 year old category, male or female, is going to beat me in hand to hand. So automatically 26.3% of the population I am safe from. Likewise, I doubt anyone over 65 will give me any trouble.

That leaves the 15-64. The vast majority of these people I could still beat (women / in-firmed / naturally weaker)

So yes, if you are a healthy young adult male, hand to hand is your best bet

 

[Scarim Coral]

Couldn't it be a battle of wits instead?

Fine I go with melee since I never used a firearm before (I'm from the UK) at least I can use whatever the melee weapons is well holding it.

 

[Kae]

Well I've got horrible aim so guns are out, my archery skills are so horrible that my instructor told me to drop out before I ended up hurting myself or someone else, not to mention I never managed to hit even the edge of the target so that's out, melee weapons are a safer bet but then again I can easily hurt myself while wielding any sort of them and considering my physical strength and my dexterity I'm more likely to hurt myself than others with swords, axes and even combat knives, which leaves us with hand to hand at which I'm not very good at but have a really high physical resistance to, so I'll choose that but even then considering how weak I am I have little chance, but it's my best bet.

 

[dyre]

Probably guns. I have some experience with shooting firearms, but almost none with melee. And frankly I'd rather shoot someone or get shot than gut some poor bastard (or get gutted). Besides, if getting shot hurt too much I could always turn the gun on myself. Assuming it isn't too long, anyway.

 

[Terminate421]

Guns, I'd camp till I win

 

[Esotera]

I'd go with a knife (maybe a combat knife, or failing that a very sharp butcher's knife). I'd wait for the other person to attempt to find and kill me, then ambush them. Hopefully I'd be able to get a few decent cuts in, then run off as fast as possible and leave them to die from the blood loss and shock. It's not a very honourable way to kill someone, but it's the only way I'm going to manage it without any training.

 

[Sean Hollyman]

Hand do hand, if it's all cool and slow-mo like in the Matrix.

 

[Jedoro]

I'll take firearms because it's fairly likely that I'm better with it than my opponent, and it's psychologically easier to kill with a gun than with a knife or bare hands.

 

[Reiper]

No idea why everyone is saying guns.

Unless you are really weak, you are hurting your odds, since even a 12 year old or a 60 year old lady just became a big threat

 

[TheTim]

Guns guns guns, I'm a crack shot so that would be my best bet.

 

[Longstreet]

Hand to hand all the way.
I am not a good shot with guns (even if i was i wouldn't choose em)

And above that I am more of a "if I must go down, ill go down fighting" type of guy, so yea, honor is involved.

As for how dirty i would fight, well that a complete different story