|
Post by randomnobody on Jan 21, 2010 1:34:08 GMT
Lucky for me I've already been diagnosed, a few times, as a sociopath. ...Not that I'd enjoy it... ...what? ...Shall we go with the bat idea?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2010 4:08:54 GMT
The other thing that many don't think about in all this sword self defense crap is that if you defend yourself with a sword you are going to court and even if it was self defense there is such a stigma attached to swords and the wounds they inflict that you already have a bias in the jury's mind. Because people today are mindless emotional-reactionary twits. Gun in SD: Legally justified, good, even honorable. Your story will be passed down the generations. Sword/knife/axe in SD: "What are you, some kind of a f****** maniac?! Premeditation!" What's the difference between blowing somebody's head across the walls and merely slashing/severing it. One is spectacularly more violent. But only one still gets you imprisoned. Why?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2010 7:35:39 GMT
The other thing that many don't think about in all this sword self defense crap is that if you defend yourself with a sword you are going to court and even if it was self defense there is such a stigma attached to swords and the wounds they inflict that you already have a bias in the jury's mind. With my knowledge of swords, if I were ever on a jury I don't think I could ever consider a sword being used in self defense. In medieval days yes, in this day and age no. This is the legacy that is left to us by hollywood and criminals who choose to use swords. If you want to defend yourself at home, get a bat. Sword: the guy with the gun wins because in about 99% of situations the person with the sword or other implement hesitates, the person defending against the robbery hesitates and gets themselves killed or injured. Do you know how hard it is to bring a weapon into play against another human being if you are not a psychopath, a sociopath or well trained in actual combat situations? Everyone who indulges in these hypotheticals generally have no idea what they are talking about, if they had an idea they wouldn't need to ask. a 4 ft ot 3 ft staff is nice if you dont fancy baseball... and i definitely have to agree BW the hesitation factor would play a big part for an untrained individual (and i mean combat training). lots of folks that like swords practice or train, that is not the deal. to take a man's life without hesitation takes combat training or experience. the baltimore student may of simply reacted out of fear and luck... according to PD. also the psycho thing could come into play, but that would qualify as killing experience huh. anyway, the whole thing comes down to what you can get your hands on when the semprini hits the fan... and my jian is by my nite stand. i did have a rogue opossum kill a litter of chow puppies and almost kill the mother... wish i had my dadao then...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2010 16:29:37 GMT
The other thing that many don't think about in all this sword self defense crap is that if you defend yourself with a sword you are going to court and even if it was self defense there is such a stigma attached to swords and the wounds they inflict that you already have a bias in the jury's mind. With my knowledge of swords, if I were ever on a jury I don't think I could ever consider a sword being used in self defense. In medieval days yes, in this day and age no. This is the legacy that is left to us by Hollywood and criminals who choose to use swords. If you want to defend yourself at home, get a bat. Sword: the guy with the gun wins because in about 99% of situations the person with the sword or other implement hesitates, the person defending against the robbery hesitates and gets themselves killed or injured. Do you know how hard it is to bring a weapon into play against another human being if you are not a psychopath, a sociopath or well trained in actual combat situations? Everyone who indulges in these hypothetical generally have no idea what they are talking about, if they had an idea they wouldn't need to ask. Maybe where you are from, where I live, the law wouldn't give a crap HOW you killed them, Home Invasion, dead perp, case closed. And I ask again, when did people go to battle carrying baseball bats? Swords are many times more efficient, and if you didn't want to use a sword for one of the many reasons people have gone into on this forum, a crowbar is a far superior weapon to a baseball bat. So is a double bladed axe, the wood chopping kind, or the full size single-bladed axe, or even a bo staff! And some of us who do indulge in these scenarios DO know what we are talking about, I have been in home invasions before, and I have been set on fire before(an accident), so I have experience with life threatening situations, and react very fast and do not hesitate
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2010 16:46:36 GMT
The other thing that many don't think about in all this sword self defense crap is that if you defend yourself with a sword you are going to court and even if it was self defense there is such a stigma attached to swords and the wounds they inflict that you already have a bias in the jury's mind. With my knowledge of swords, if I were ever on a jury I don't think I could ever consider a sword being used in self defense. In medieval days yes, in this day and age no. This is the legacy that is left to us by Hollywood and criminals who choose to use swords. If you want to defend yourself at home, get a bat. Sword: the guy with the gun wins because in about 99% of situations the person with the sword or other implement hesitates, the person defending against the robbery hesitates and gets themselves killed or injured. Do you know how hard it is to bring a weapon into play against another human being if you are not a psychopath, a sociopath or well trained in actual combat situations? Everyone who indulges in these hypothetical generally have no idea what they are talking about, if they had an idea they wouldn't need to ask. Maybe where you are from, where I live, the law wouldn't give a crap HOW you killed them, Home Invasion, dead perp, case closed. And I ask again, when did people go to battle carrying baseball bats? Swords are many times more efficient, and if you didn't want to use a sword for one of the many reasons people have gone into on this forum, a crowbar is a far superior weapon to a baseball bat. So is a double bladed axe, the wood chopping kind, or the full size single-bladed axe, or even a bo staff! And some of us who do indulge in these scenarios DO know what we are talking about, I have been in home invasions before, and I have been set on fire before(an accident), so I have experience with life threatening situations, and react very fast and do not hesitate Swords really are glamour weapons, always have been. After all, the real work in combat was done by pole arms, axes and bludgeons. Your katana special might not cut sufficiently thick enough clothing on an attacker, but nothing's standing up to an aluminum bat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2010 17:11:03 GMT
i did have a rogue opossum kill a litter of chow puppies and almost kill the mother... wish i had my dadao then... Wait, a Possum did that?! How'd it get To the puppies and the mother when they were soon enough after birth to still be vulnerable to something as small as a possum?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2010 17:16:05 GMT
And I ask again, when did people go to battle carrying baseball bats? They were called clubs and cudgels and, in evolved form, maces. No, actually a crowbar is Not more efficient or more effective. Seriously, take a crowbar out and hit your pell with it. Now do the same with a bat. The crowbar may do more damage on the first blow, but the bat recovers several times as quickly and deals only Slightly less damage. That recovery is extremely important in a fight if: you miss; you're blocked; or you have multiple opponents.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2010 17:34:31 GMT
A sword is not more efficient than a bat, neither is a crowbar, also spears were more commonly used on the battlefield than swords. The sword can cut and leave mess but unless you know what you are doing, good luck killing someone with a sword. With a bat you can TKO someone without killing them and killing should always be a last resort. The bat is lighter and faster and is balanced for striking, not to mention you can effectively use it for self defense, the time it takes to get in under a bat and cause injury is alot shorter than facing a crowbar. Sure the crowbar will stave in the skull but comparatively it is slower and because of the weight you lose your speed.
Also yes, I live in a country where a burglar can sue a homeowner if they hurt themselves during a burglary. There was case here where a burglar fell through a skylight and paralysed himself and the homeowners had to pay legal and hospital costs, stupid but the law is the law.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2010 17:59:01 GMT
Yes, people did go to war with clubs, but that was before more efficient weapons were invented. And, as Taran pointed out, they evolved into maces. Far more efficient than a bat. Also, a bat is subject to grabbing and blocking. I would like to see someone grab a razor sharp sword, or block it with an arm It has been a long time since I swung a bat, but if my memory serves me correctly, it was quite a bit heavier, much slower than most of my swords, and not appricably lighter than one of my more slender crowbars, plus its quite conceivable you could run someone through with a crowbar, not so with a bat. Swords aside, with a spear or bo staff, I am sure I could really mess up some no-goodnick armed with a baseball bat Dual framing hammers would work pretty good too In my opinion, a baseball bat is pretty much a last ditch weapon
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2010 17:59:02 GMT
The other thing that many don't think about in all this sword self defense crap is that if you defend yourself with a sword you are going to court and even if it was self defense there is such a stigma attached to swords and the wounds they inflict that you already have a bias in the jury's mind. With my knowledge of swords, if I were ever on a jury I don't think I could ever consider a sword being used in self defense. In medieval days yes, in this day and age no. This is the legacy that is left to us by hollywood and criminals who choose to use swords. If you want to defend yourself at home, get a bat. Sword: the guy with the gun wins because in about 99% of situations the person with the sword or other implement hesitates, the person defending against the robbery hesitates and gets themselves killed or injured. Do you know how hard it is to bring a weapon into play against another human being if you are not a psychopath, a sociopath or well trained in actual combat situations? Everyone who indulges in these hypotheticals generally have no idea what they are talking about, if they had an idea they wouldn't need to ask. If the invader is standing there and the homeowner comes in with a bat or sword and hesitates to see who the invader is or how the invader will react but the invader decides to pull out the gun and pull the trigger then yes. I can see than happening. I would not call that lack of training or weakness on behaf of the swordsman. Hesitation might be necessary whether you have a gun or sword in your hand. Who are you killing? A violent nutjob or the stupid kid down the street? Even if you have a .357 magnum in your hand and you hesitate to see what is going to happen and your opponent decides to pull the trigger first then you're no better off than if you had had a sword. I think that if a gun were to win a fight it would be becasue the gun wielder has more distance not becasue the sword wielder is afraid to use his weapon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2010 20:16:36 GMT
Why do so many people seem to think they are going to have to use a sword to defend themselves against zombies in the future?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2010 20:21:32 GMT
i did have a rogue opossum kill a litter of chow puppies and almost kill the mother... wish i had my dadao then... Wait, a Possum did that?! How'd it get To the puppies and the mother when they were soon enough after birth to still be vulnerable to something as small as a possum? texas dude... opossum are as big as a dog. about the size of a beagle was the one that did that to the puppies and they were 4 wks old. damned machete just glazed off the damned thing. i had to bludgeon it to death with the machete... of course it wasnt well sharpened after cutting trees the day b4.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2010 20:22:55 GMT
Lucky for me I've already been diagnosed, a few times, as a sociopath. ...Not that I'd enjoy it... ...what? ...Shall we go with the bat idea? nah... ya dont say!!!hmmm....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2010 20:27:52 GMT
A sword is not more efficient than a bat, neither is a crowbar, also spears were more commonly used on the battlefield than swords. The sword can cut and leave mess but unless you know what you are doing, good luck killing someone with a sword. With a bat you can TKO someone without killing them and killing should always be a last resort. The bat is lighter and faster and is balanced for striking, not to mention you can effectively use it for self defense, the time it takes to get in under a bat and cause injury is alot shorter than facing a crowbar. Sure the crowbar will stave in the skull but comparatively it is slower and because of the weight you lose your speed. Also yes, I live in a country where a burglar can sue a homeowner if they hurt themselves during a burglary. There was case here where a burglar fell through a skylight and paralysed himself and the homeowners had to pay legal and hospital costs, stupid but the law is the law. as a medic i have to disagree w/ your statement about tko w/o death by bat. blunt force trauma to the chest cavity can result in a tension pneumothorax and collapse a lung or put pressure on heart, and misalign the trachea to occlude the airway. it can also result (in the right area) in a pericarial tamponade that would fill the sac around the heart w/ blood and squeeze the heart so it cant circulate blood resulting in a lack of perfusion. (as bad as having a heart attack). and we wont even get into blunt force head trauma. blunt force trauma to the head or torso are priority one calls and are life threatening.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2010 20:32:16 GMT
Why do so many people seem to think they are going to have to use a sword to defend themselves against zombies in the future? I guess the same reason people think they are going to be defending themselves against zombies at all: Fun.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2010 20:32:35 GMT
It has been a long time since I swung a bat, but if my memory serves me correctly, it was quite a bit heavier, much slower than most of my swords, and not appricably lighter than one of my more slender crowbars, plus its quite conceivable you could run someone through with a crowbar, not so with a bat. It has, indeed, been a long time. The average bat weighs about the same as a Jian (on the lighter side of swords). You're looking at between 32 and 36 ounces for most bats. Crowbars are more often around 3 to 5 pounds. And what is slower about the bat vs the sword is how you use it. If you swing it like, well, a bat, you're going to have a hard time (so will anything you hit). If you use it more like a mace, however...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2010 20:36:04 GMT
Why do people insist on talking about doing violence to an attacker without killing said attacker? If you're going to hurt the guy, you are legally and civilly Safer to finish his ass off. If you are unwilling to KILL him, then hide in your room and lock the door and hope the cops get there in time.
Anything else will land you in jail, the poorhouse and/or a coffin. Even in Texas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2010 20:54:32 GMT
Why do so many people seem to think they are going to have to use a sword to defend themselves against zombies in the future? I think most people who are attracted to weapons also like the think about having to use the weapon even if the scenario is unlikely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2010 20:58:51 GMT
Why do people insist on talking about doing violence to an attacker without killing said attacker? If you're going to hurt the guy, you are legally and civilly Safer to finish his ass off. If you are unwilling to KILL him, then hide in your room and lock the door and hope the cops get there in time. Anything else will land you in jail, the poorhouse and/or a coffin. Even in Texas. I have heard this before. I suppose its probably true. I don't think I would be afraid to kill a dirty violent criminal but if it were dark and I didn't know who I was killing I might want to hesitate before I go and pull the trigger. edit: how do I quote two different people in the same post?
|
|
|
Post by djhere on Jan 21, 2010 21:06:18 GMT
As much as I love my Kat-my 12 gauge pump is what I would grab,along with Bowie and a machete.In a case of civil unrest and a breakdown of socieies norm and the absence of law.I will enforce my own-take no prisoners!Expect no mercy from those you encounter-I would not seek out violence but I would not hesitate to defend myself,the ones I love and that which I deem nessacary to my health and survival.Break into my house and I will do whatever it takes to stop you-if you die!Oh well....one less piece of garbage for the rest of the world to deal with.If you choose to do evil you should except the results of your actions,just as I expect to do for mine own actions.
|
|