Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I've been in a fistfight, but nothing serious.

0 (0%)

I've been in a life-or-death fight.

0 (0%)

I've never been in a fight.

0 (0%)

I am MaximumZero, and I got in three fights this morning before breakfast.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 0

Voting closed: April 02, 2017, 08:55:24 am

[Strife26]

"We will bury you*"



_{*in obsolete, dangerous, rusting equipment.}

[stabbymcstabstab]

To be far tetanus can be fairly dangerous and when you have enough tanks to give to every group of drunken conscripts you don't really need quality.

[Arx]

RE: flails: Flails had some utility, since they could put a lot of force on a small point. Particularly in comparison to a mace(similar head, but a solid shaft as opposed to a chain), where the shaft absorbs some of the impact. The flail's chain could also be used to trip a foe as well. I would say they're a bit harder to use though, which made them less popular.

Guns don't kill people. Guns are used to kill people. Even when it's accidental and themselves. The gun can't do anything, they're inanimate objects that rely on exterior forces to perform the tasks they are designed for.

guns don't kill people bullets kill people. its turtles all the way down.

Not the entire bullet, mind you - only a portion of the whole bullet actually flies out of the barrel of the gun. The bullet wouldn't work without the propellant!

It's the propellant that kills people!

This especially true if you're using a revolver where there's a gap between the cylinder and barrel. This guy who I'm utterly shocked hasn't been mentioned in this thread explains.

Might not necessarily be lethal but would certainly cause a lot of damage.

Flails saw some military use, but the famous mace-and-chain was never used seriously and may never have existed at all. I believe the earliest known artifact is a "reproduction piece" from the eighteenth century.

As for why, because it's strictly worse than a regular mace. If you put the head on a chain, its momentum is limited to its own; on a solid haft, you can put a hundred kilos of armoured knight behind it. The chain is also a huge liability, since the mace part would bounce, swing too far, and so on, and someone with a real weapon could trivially catch the chain and rip it out of your hand.

[Neonivek]

To my knowledge most Flails didn't have long chains... they typically had two links unless they were multsectioned.

[AzyWng]

RE: flails: Flails had some utility, since they could put a lot of force on a small point. Particularly in comparison to a mace(similar head, but a solid shaft as opposed to a chain), where the shaft absorbs some of the impact. The flail's chain could also be used to trip a foe as well. I would say they're a bit harder to use though, which made them less popular.

Guns don't kill people. Guns are used to kill people. Even when it's accidental and themselves. The gun can't do anything, they're inanimate objects that rely on exterior forces to perform the tasks they are designed for.

guns don't kill people bullets kill people. its turtles all the way down.

Not the entire bullet, mind you - only a portion of the whole bullet actually flies out of the barrel of the gun. The bullet wouldn't work without the propellant!

It's the propellant that kills people!

This especially true if you're using a revolver where there's a gap between the cylinder and barrel. This guy who I'm utterly shocked hasn't been mentioned in this thread explains.

Might not necessarily be lethal but would certainly cause a lot of damage.

In a similar vein, semi-automatic pistols can be fairly dangerous if you've got your finger or thumb in the wrong spot.

[Hanslanda]

I can attest to that. Despite knowing better, I forgot to keep my thumb low enough while firing my old gun. I got a nice little cut from the slide for my mistake.

[TempAcc]

Aw man, if I were infinirich, I'd get me one of these.

Along with that one shotgun john browning designed.

[Parsely]

Flexibility of blades versus soft target. I linked to the time where he stabs a target with a rapier but it's a 10 minute video where he talks at length about it.

[Parsely]

One of the best depictions of small unit tactics I've ever seen in a movie.

[Hanslanda]

I have been practicing knife throwing and I am steadily getting better at it. I doubt it will ever be a handy skill but it's fun. I can stick the blade about one in three attempts now.

[GiglameshDespair]

If someone attacks you very slowly and you have three knives, well, you're set.

[Antioch]

If someone attacks you very slowly and you have three knives, well, you're set.

Only in 80% of the cases.

[Parsely]

And within those 80% of cases where you stick him with 1 out of 3 knives, there's also a pretty good chance that he will wound or kill you before he actually becomes incapacitated by his wound.

E:
The best form of self-defense is not having to engage in a fight in the first place. If you're about to be engaged in a fight where you've no chance of escape, which most of the time requires you to make a lot of mistakes beforehand, then in a sense you have already lost, because most of the time when two people fight neither one is going to walk away unscathed. Preparing to avoid a fight is much easier and more effective than preparing to win one.

[Aseaheru]

 Ooh, I missed this thread starting A shame, that.

 Personally, I would love to get a gun(or eight), but since the place I live in has a even more muddled set of gun regulations than most, its a tad unlikely.

 On a controversial but non-political topic, which is better(in bog-standard FMJ form, fired from a bog-standard rifle length weapon, at ranges of 300-400 meters), 5.45x39 or 5.56x45?

[Parsely]

When shooting at a person, it doesn't matter. Either way whoever is getting hit is going to have a bad day.

E: If the context is target shooting, then you're better off doing your own testing to see what works for you.