Why the big swords anyway?

[NEVRINx54]

compensating...

 

[Starke]

The one kind caveat I will give you (and I gave Pete) is this. If an individual armed with a firearm, who does not have it ready is ambushed by ...well, anyone with melee training of any kind (weapon or no), within two meters, the chances of him being able to bring his weapon to bare in time is exceedingly slim. And in the case of modern combat training, attempting to draw at this range is discouraged.

This. The ambusher will win. The thing is that the swordfighter will need to ambush to win.

Actually in hand to hand, with equivalent training and skill, the advantage goes to the defender in most cases. But, that is an entirely different debate.

 

[SlowShootinPete]

But by that same token why would a gunfighter be inherently more agile than a sword fighter? That wouldn't be true either.

Indeed it wouldn't. Because I never said that.

And who ever said there had to be reason? That kind of thing is perfectly realistic. And no matter what the situation there is always the factor of human ingenuity and creativity, which would always provide an X-factor that could determine the outcome of a fight regardless of what weapons are in play.

Ingenuity and creativity on the part of one combatant has nothing to do with weapon effectiveness. They are independent variables.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_variable

 

[Starke]

Of course, then again, if someone can run around swinging a huge sword, he or she can probably tackle and submit whoever even without any knowledge of hand to hand martial arts.

Unarmed fighting and armed fighting are very different things, though.

I never said anything about a sword fighter being inherently more agile than a gunfighter. But by that same token why would a gunfighter be inherently more agile than a sword fighter? That wouldn't be true either.

Yeah... he was talking to someone else. Like me, a third party who wandered into this, grabbed a big stick and started thumping on people.

And who ever said there had to be reason? That kind of thing is perfectly realistic. And no matter what the situation there is always the factor of human ingenuity and creativity, which would always provide an X-factor that could determine the outcome of a fight regardless of what weapons are in play.

As someone who is actually quite guilty of this in his own writing. You're using an indefinite term, what is "this kind of thing" you speak of? I could guess, but its a writing flaw you should probably try to correct. Again, not a snipe, this is a genuine editorial critique.

 

[SlowShootinPete]

Gun too slow in ambush

Gun lose ambush

Defender win ambush.

Aaaaahhh mixed messages

I am confuse

 

[Starke]

Gun too slow

Gun lose ambush

Defender win ambush.

Aaaaahhh mixed messages

I am confuse

Defender with hand to hand training will win an ambush. Defender without hand to hand training is fucked. In an ambush guns are irrelevant.

Sorry.

 

[SlowShootinPete]

Gun too slow

Gun lose ambush

Defender win ambush.

Aaaaahhh mixed messages

I am confuse

Defender with hand to hand training will win an ambush. Defender without hand to hand training is fucked. In an ambush guns are irrelevant.

Sorry.

Oh.

I was going on the assumption that the gun-user had no specific training in hand-to-hand, and relied completely on their weapon.

 

[Starke]

Gun too slow

Gun lose ambush

Defender win ambush.

Aaaaahhh mixed messages

I am confuse

Defender with hand to hand training will win an ambush. Defender without hand to hand training is fucked. In an ambush guns are irrelevant.

Sorry.

Oh.

I was going on the assumption that the gun-user had no specific training in hand-to-hand, and relied completely on their weapon.

Yeah, that was a tangent. Now that your brain is broken and the is warrantee void... I claim cookie.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

The sword Pier Gerlofs wielded was 7ft actually and is on display in a Dutch museum. He was reputedly a giant of a man as well, almost inhumanly strong, but how true that is no one actually knows since we're talking around 500 years ago. He was also a pirate, how cool is that?

The sword in that picture however I have no clue about, just one of the results when I did an image search.

Awesome ... I'll have to look it up. How the hell he even managed to walk through a door with a 7' sword is beyond me ... you have to open the door, hold the blade out like you were about to meet a charging opponent, and walk inside :3

"Hey Innkeep ... I need two rooms ... one for me and one for the sword" :3

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Because,

the number of enemies should not impede your swing.

 

[SlowShootinPete]

I claim cookie.

I think not!

Not while there are so many guns on hand in this thread. >

Because,

the number of enemies should not impede your swing.

That's not a sword, it's a pillar with an edge.

 

[Sougo]

I have a big penis.
I have a big sword.

Enough said.

 

[A1]

A bullet will almost always hit?

If it's pointed at you, yes. I believe that's what he meant by similar circumstances: without dodging, the sword will hit; without dodging, the bullet will hit. You can dodge the sword, but it's unlikely you can dodge the bullet.

Dodging a bullet is indeed different from dodging a sword. You would have to make your move either before or at the very same time that the bullet is fired. But needless to say dodging a bullet is indeed something that can be done and has undoubtedly been done.

 

[Starke]

I claim cookie.

I think not!

Not while there are so many guns on hand in this thread. >

But... blue shells are for disruptor loads...

 

[SlowShootinPete]

Dodging a bullet is indeed different from dodging a sword. You would have to make your move either before [the bullet is fired] or at the very same time that the bullet is fired die. But needless to say dodging a bullet is indeed something that can be done and has undoubtedly been done.

I took the liberty of editing your post.

But... blue shells are for disruptor loads...

ಠ_ಠ

 

[Starke]

A bullet will almost always hit?

If it's pointed at you, yes. I believe that's what he meant by similar circumstances: without dodging, the sword will hit; without dodging, the bullet will hit. You can dodge the sword, but it's unlikely you can dodge the bullet.

Dodging a bullet is indeed different from dodging a sword. You would have to make your move either before or at the very same time that the bullet is fired. But needless to say dodging a bullet is indeed something that can be done and has undoubtedly been done.

Yeah... no. You see, dodging a bullet means getting out of the way of the gun. Dodging a bullet when the gun is fired means being in the Matrix, or spraying people juice everywhere.

The former has been done. Hell, I've done it with someone fucking around with a 6mm airsoft pistol. The later. No, it has resulted in really stupid TV ads and a shitty film franchise.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Dodging a bullet is indeed different from dodging a sword. You would have to make your move either before [the bullet is fired] or at the very same time that the bullet is fired die. But needless to say dodging a bullet is indeed something that can be done and has undoubtedly been done.

I took the liberty of editing your post.

Depending on the range, you could dodge by moving right as it fires.

 

[SlowShootinPete]

Dodging a bullet is indeed different from dodging a sword. You would have to make your move either before [the bullet is fired] or at the very same time that the bullet is fired die. But needless to say dodging a bullet is indeed something that can be done and has undoubtedly been done.

I took the liberty of editing your post.

Depending on the range, you could dodge by moving right as it fires.

You'd have to be far off. Bullets move in the neighborhood of thousands of feet per second.

 

[Starke]

Dodging a bullet is indeed different from dodging a sword. You would have to make your move either before [the bullet is fired] or at the very same time that the bullet is fired die. But needless to say dodging a bullet is indeed something that can be done and has undoubtedly been done.

I took the liberty of editing your post.

Depending on the range, you could dodge by moving right as it fires.

Yes, if you are firing the gun from orbit, crimson is right. Okay, to be fair, at a 1/7th of a mile (no idea to what that works out in anywhere else) you have one second to get out of the way. Needless to say, most handguns are slightly inaccurate at that range.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Dodging a bullet is indeed different from dodging a sword. You would have to make your move either before [the bullet is fired] or at the very same time that the bullet is fired die. But needless to say dodging a bullet is indeed something that can be done and has undoubtedly been done.

I took the liberty of editing your post.

Depending on the range, you could dodge by moving right as it fires.

You'd have to be far off. Bullets move in the neighborhood of thousands of feet per second.

And slow down quickly. But yes, "dodge" would be an almost accurate phrase. "Accidentally getting out of the way by luck" would be better.