swillden said:
Based on what it did to the plywood, I have no doubt that if you could get it out and hit someone with it, they'd be seriously hurt.
Pain and incapacitation are not the same.
swillden said:
Likely worse than if you shot them.
I'm willing to bet that this is true. But again: Pain and incapacitation are not the same.
swillden said:
A handgun is obviously effective at much longer ranges, and also at shorter ranges.
The biggest advantage of the handgun is that it requires less in the way of fine motor skills in order to be effective. Edge control and cut ergonomics are crucial. You have to be able to sever the right tendons in order to remove the physical ability for a limb to harm you. And the human body is built with many such tendons -- backups are available (unless your threat's already an amputee or something).
A handgun, by contrast, requires less sophisticated motor skills. Just squeeze the trigger and keep the sights lined up as well as possible.
The reason firearms ultimately replaced swords in combat is not because they're more effective. You can get AMAZING effectiveness out of a trained swordsman. It's because guns are more effective for less total effort. Accuracy is accuracy regardless of what you're shooting and so it's easier to get an effective marksman at relatively lower costs.
swillden said:
A sword requires room to swing.
Not necessarily. You can employ a drawn cut -- rubbing the edge in a saw-like motion across the target. This will do wide, shallow damage. Not enough for immediately incapacitation but it will ultimately force him to bleed out. If you get a tendon, related dexterity is lost, which is nice, but it doesn't incapacitate other limbs with other muscles. When severing the proper tendons, you can remove dexterity in any of a variety of limbs and you don't need a good, chopping swing.
swillden said:
As far as concealment, though, this sword is amazing.
But will you be able to deploy this weapon quickly enough? Unraveling it from the belt is kinda tricky. Then you have a flimsy blade that can cut but poses no hard, physical barrier against your threat. Part of the reason a sword is effecitve is because it's a stiff rod of steel that, unless your threat has amazing H-bar mutant powers, poses an impassible barrier between you and your threat.
Making the blade out of a flimsy, bendable piece of tinfoil hardly obstructs the blows of a threat. Sure, it'll "cut him up rough" but will it be strong enough to keep him from doing the same to you?
Nobody in the videos has demonstrated an ability to deploy this weapon with a single hand. Requiring the commitment of both hands assumes you're not already involved in a grapple or that both hands are un-wounded. But if that's the case, shouldn't you be far enough away to make use of your gun?
I have my doubts, based on the geometry and design of the blade, that it can cut straight out of the belt as you'd really need it to in a very close encounter. Even if you did, I have my doubts that using it would keep you from becoming hospitalized.
Sure, these arguments can go as much for a handgun -- but again, handguns require you to demonstrate less skill to gain the needed incapacitation at the same distance that a sword would be effective.
Take it from someone who's felt the difference between a cut bamboo pole and a defiantly-bouncing one. Variation in edge control -- even by a few millimeters -- can mean the difference between a stopped threat and an angry, bleeding crack-head.
Tarzan1888 said:
The truth is If I looked like the model and I was dressed like the model, I could probably carry a Howitzer and no one would notice..... :gun2:
I think Tarzan wins today. The rest of y'all just get to wait until tomorrow to earn the "Awesome Post" title.
