Let me make it clear that I am not pissing on ranged combat or saying that "only cowards fight from far away" or anything like that. I simply prefer, as the name implies, defensive combat over offensive combat, and ranged weapons do not provide defense. They are pure offense. I understand that you use cover and camo as your defense, and that you can use firepower to keep the enemy from gaining vantage points and all of that, but I have a personal preference for combat that occurs up close and personal.
I don't understand this. I can more easily kill you with a rifle at point blank range than I could at 300 meters. Regardless of cover or concealment, I am quite capable of using a rifle to prevent you from striking me in melee.
OK, sure. In unarmed combat, my arms and legs can block, parry, or trap yours. In fencing, my sword can block or parry yours. But if we fight with rifles, my rifle has absolutely no (realistic) means of shielding me from your bullets.
Attacking you so that you can't fire at me (e.g. shooting your head or even shooting your arm) does not count, that's an offensive action.
Defender on
0
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
I don't understand this. I can more easily kill you with a rifle at point blank range than I could at 300 meters. Regardless of cover or concealment, I am quite capable of using a rifle to prevent you from striking me in melee.
OK, sure. In unarmed combat, my arms and legs can block, parry, or trap yours. In fencing, my sword can block or parry yours. But if we fight with rifles, my rifle has absolutely no (realistic) means of shielding me from your bullets.
Attacking you so that you can't fire at me (e.g. shooting your head or even shooting your arm) does not count, that's an offensive action.
Are you intentionally overlooking body armor?
Just_Bri_Thanks on
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
0
Raneadospolice apologistyou shouldn't have been there, obviouslyRegistered Userregular
I don't understand this. I can more easily kill you with a rifle at point blank range than I could at 300 meters. Regardless of cover or concealment, I am quite capable of using a rifle to prevent you from striking me in melee.
OK, sure. In unarmed combat, my arms and legs can block, parry, or trap yours. In fencing, my sword can block or parry yours. But if we fight with rifles, my rifle has absolutely no (realistic) means of shielding me from your bullets.
Attacking you so that you can't fire at me (e.g. shooting your head or even shooting your arm) does not count, that's an offensive action.
I don't understand this. I can more easily kill you with a rifle at point blank range than I could at 300 meters. Regardless of cover or concealment, I am quite capable of using a rifle to prevent you from striking me in melee.
OK, sure. In unarmed combat, my arms and legs can block, parry, or trap yours. In fencing, my sword can block or parry yours. But if we fight with rifles, my rifle has absolutely no (realistic) means of shielding me from your bullets.
Attacking you so that you can't fire at me (e.g. shooting your head or even shooting your arm) does not count, that's an offensive action.
Are you intentionally overlooking body armor?
that's not a function of the gun
I realize that. However, as long as there have been weapons, whether ranged or melee, there has been body armor. Sometimes the weapons are better, sometimes the armor is better.
But ignoring it is like having a detailed discussion of rice crispies while ignoring the milk.
Just_Bri_Thanks on
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
0
Raneadospolice apologistyou shouldn't have been there, obviouslyRegistered Userregular
I don't understand this. I can more easily kill you with a rifle at point blank range than I could at 300 meters. Regardless of cover or concealment, I am quite capable of using a rifle to prevent you from striking me in melee.
OK, sure. In unarmed combat, my arms and legs can block, parry, or trap yours. In fencing, my sword can block or parry yours. But if we fight with rifles, my rifle has absolutely no (realistic) means of shielding me from your bullets.
Attacking you so that you can't fire at me (e.g. shooting your head or even shooting your arm) does not count, that's an offensive action.
Are you intentionally overlooking body armor?
that's not a function of the gun
I realize that. However, as long as there have been weapons, whether ranged or melee, there has been body armor. Sometimes the weapons are better, sometimes the armor is better.
But ignoring it is like having a detailed discussion of rice crispies while ignoring the milk.
yeah but you're comparing one cereal in milk with another by itself
if you include defensive capabilities for one weapons, include them for all weapons
sword -> suit of armor/protective clothes etc
Raneados on
0
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
edited January 2007
Can you edit that to include some punctuation? It might help me formulate a response if I know at which points you stopped for breath.
Just_Bri_Thanks on
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
diablo III - beardsnbeer#1508 Mechwarrior Online - Rusty Bock
0
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
edited January 2007
I had started to write out something long and involved, but I will skip it and just write this:
Considering the amount of training it takes to become competant enough to hold your own in a pitched battle using melee versus the time it takes to become skilled in the use and care of a firearm is a massive difference.
It takes two months for the US Army to impart the nessissary Basic skills to make a soldier functional on the battlefield. They throw on another month if they expect you to make extensive use of these skills. (Officially 14 weeks of training for an 11B.)
How long does it take to get to a point in any martial art where you can hold your own against more than one opponent? You can see my point where someone with a single week of training can reliably and consistantly kill anyone they are observant enough to spot.
Removing armor from the equasion totally, if I have a firearm and you don;t, I can kill you at leasure at any time before you get within arms reach of me. Provided you reach me and hit me first, I still have a good chance of killing you; and that with zero skill in hand to hand.
You say you may prefer hand to hand, but if you go into a gunfight without one you should be surprised if you manage to do anything but die. there really is no ballance between the two. Firearms are indeed that much more effective.
Just_Bri_Thanks on
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
all defender is saying is that he would rather do something where he impart defensive skills, and he is saying that using a gun for the most part would not allow him to do it
because in martial arts or in fencing he can block the opponents attacks, with a gun you cannot go on the defensive by his definition.
Dead Legend on
diablo III - beardsnbeer#1508 Mechwarrior Online - Rusty Bock
Bri, nowhere did Defender suggest that martial melee arts are superior to ranged weapons. You're arguing against a straw man you constructed entirely in your mind. It's ok though, I kind of made that mistake myself earlier in this thread.
all defender is saying is that he would rather do something where he impart defensive skills, and he is saying that using a gun for the most part would not allow him to do it
because in martial arts or in fencing he can block the opponents attacks, with a gun you cannot go on the defensive by his definition.
And my point was that you may not be able to defend versus a firearm with another firearm, but you can't defend versus a firearm with nearly anything else either. He can go all karate or kung fu if he wishes, but it will mean next to nothing if his opponent has a gun.
Just_Bri_Thanks on
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
all defender is saying is that he would rather do something where he impart defensive skills, and he is saying that using a gun for the most part would not allow him to do it
because in martial arts or in fencing he can block the opponents attacks, with a gun you cannot go on the defensive by his definition.
And my point was that you may not be able to defend versus a firearm with another firearm, but you can't defend versus a firearm with nearly anything else either. He can go all karate or kung fu if he wishes, but it will mean next to nothing if his opponent has a gun.
but he can disarm them using CQC
Kuribo's Shoe on
0
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
all defender is saying is that he would rather do something where he impart defensive skills, and he is saying that using a gun for the most part would not allow him to do it
because in martial arts or in fencing he can block the opponents attacks, with a gun you cannot go on the defensive by his definition.
And my point was that you may not be able to defend versus a firearm with another firearm, but you can't defend versus a firearm with nearly anything else either. He can go all karate or kung fu if he wishes, but it will mean next to nothing if his opponent has a gun.
but he can disarm them using CQC
I laugh so hard. If he wanted to use those skills, he would have to give his opponent a very convincing reason not to shoot him as he approached. Perhaps he should try hypnosis?
Just_Bri_Thanks on
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
all defender is saying is that he would rather do something where he impart defensive skills, and he is saying that using a gun for the most part would not allow him to do it
because in martial arts or in fencing he can block the opponents attacks, with a gun you cannot go on the defensive by his definition.
And my point was that you may not be able to defend versus a firearm with another firearm, but you can't defend versus a firearm with nearly anything else either. He can go all karate or kung fu if he wishes, but it will mean next to nothing if his opponent has a gun.
but he can disarm them using CQC
I laugh so hard. If he wanted to use those skills, he would have to give his opponent a very convincing reason not to shoot him as he approached. Perhaps he should try hypnosis?
dude all he has to do is use bullet time
Kuribo's Shoe on
0
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
the only things martial arts are used for these days are exercise, show/sport, and possibly supplemental training for the military and police
nobody really has kung-fu fights out on the street. still, if you're the sort of person who pisses people off almost daily (see Defender) it's probably a good idea to learn some sort of fighting style.
the only things martial arts are used for these days are exercise, show/sport, and possibly supplemental training for the military and police
nobody really has kung-fu fights out on the street. still, if you're the sort of person who pisses people off almost daily (see Defender) it's probably a good idea to learn some sort of fighting style.
Yeah, I had said earlier this evening that if I ever saw him I was going to punch him. Then I changed my mind, on consideration of the martial arts and all.
So if Defender ever catches a random stray bullet that someone misplaced from a mile away I had nothing to do with it!
I had started to write out something long and involved, but I will skip it and just write this:
Considering the amount of training it takes to become competant enough to hold your own in a pitched battle using melee versus the time it takes to become skilled in the use and care of a firearm is a massive difference.
It takes two months for the US Army to impart the nessissary Basic skills to make a soldier functional on the battlefield. They throw on another month if they expect you to make extensive use of these skills. (Officially 14 weeks of training for an 11B.)
How long does it take to get to a point in any martial art where you can hold your own against more than one opponent? You can see my point where someone with a single week of training can reliably and consistantly kill anyone they are observant enough to spot.
You bring up an interesting point. The real skill in martial arts training is defense. With a week of training, or just five minutes of me talking about your mama, you could punch hard. It's many times harder to slip a punch or parry a sword-strike than it is to punch or slash someone.
This is what makes the difference between a military art and a martial art, and this difference basically started appearing when civilian combat and military combat diverged significantly, when swords and other melee weapons were no longer the tools of choice for the military, and they started using shit that civilians couldn't carry around every day.
Also, in defense of martial arts, the military stuff only works when you have your gear. Someone jumps you in an alley, pulls a knife in a bar fight, your rifle isn't gonna help you because it's not there. Unarmed arts are ALWAYS there unless your actual body is broken. I've been in that situation before, and guess what? Carrying around a loaded assault rifle? Not practical. If I knew only rifle-fighting, I'd be dead today.
Removing armor from the equasion totally, if I have a firearm and you don;t, I can kill you at leasure at any time before you get within arms reach of me. Provided you reach me and hit me first, I still have a good chance of killing you; and that with zero skill in hand to hand.
You say you may prefer hand to hand, but if you go into a gunfight without one you should be surprised if you manage to do anything but die. there really is no ballance between the two. Firearms are indeed that much more effective.
I'm no Sun Tzu here, but I'm a half-decent strategian, and I've read a lot of tactics manuals and stuff like that. I am also totally pretty OK at Warcraft. So I understand strategy. If I were to fight someone at 100 yards, like locked inside a colosseum, with no cover, and I could choose between a katana and, I dunno, a tavor...look, I'm not an idiot, I'm taking the ranged weapon.
the only things martial arts are used for these days are exercise, show/sport, and possibly supplemental training for the military and police
nobody really has kung-fu fights out on the street. still, if you're the sort of person who pisses people off almost daily (see Defender) it's probably a good idea to learn some sort of fighting style.
You'd be pretty dumb to be so sure that you are safe that you don't have any means of self-defense. Anybody can do something stupid and get jumped. Anybody can be walking home at night and encounter some kind of crazed hobo. Anybody can fall on the bad side of an angry drunk. Not knowing how to fight is like driving around without your seat belt on. Hey, you don't PLAN to get into a collision, right? So you don't need a seat belt, because nothing ever happens unless you choose for it to happen.
EDIT: You also missed the single most important aspect of martial arts training, which is the development of a person's character. That internal strength is far more important than the ability to hurt people or get through fights without getting hurt.
As awesome as punching marine mammals in the face (the whale being the raddest of all to punch), that is a pretty weak reason to bring on a possible species war. Marine mammals, may I remind you, have all of the strengths of mammals, with none of our weaknesses. They can strike from anywhere-- a river, a pool, the ocean, or even that eight dollar bottle of water you're drinking right now. If they ever joined forces with the often marginalized airborne mammals, their domination would be nothing short of a blood bath on an international scale.
Posts
it is good
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=11433016
personally i find Mr Wolf and MamaBear the best
OK, sure. In unarmed combat, my arms and legs can block, parry, or trap yours. In fencing, my sword can block or parry yours. But if we fight with rifles, my rifle has absolutely no (realistic) means of shielding me from your bullets.
Attacking you so that you can't fire at me (e.g. shooting your head or even shooting your arm) does not count, that's an offensive action.
Are you intentionally overlooking body armor?
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
that's not a function of the gun
rane ol buddy i ask ye to listen to it
please
give me some feedback, i feel that this man deserves some love from ya'll
I realize that. However, as long as there have been weapons, whether ranged or melee, there has been body armor. Sometimes the weapons are better, sometimes the armor is better.
But ignoring it is like having a detailed discussion of rice crispies while ignoring the milk.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
yeah but you're comparing one cereal in milk with another by itself
if you include defensive capabilities for one weapons, include them for all weapons
sword -> suit of armor/protective clothes etc
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
edit: sup tfs
Considering the amount of training it takes to become competant enough to hold your own in a pitched battle using melee versus the time it takes to become skilled in the use and care of a firearm is a massive difference.
It takes two months for the US Army to impart the nessissary Basic skills to make a soldier functional on the battlefield. They throw on another month if they expect you to make extensive use of these skills. (Officially 14 weeks of training for an 11B.)
How long does it take to get to a point in any martial art where you can hold your own against more than one opponent? You can see my point where someone with a single week of training can reliably and consistantly kill anyone they are observant enough to spot.
Removing armor from the equasion totally, if I have a firearm and you don;t, I can kill you at leasure at any time before you get within arms reach of me. Provided you reach me and hit me first, I still have a good chance of killing you; and that with zero skill in hand to hand.
You say you may prefer hand to hand, but if you go into a gunfight without one you should be surprised if you manage to do anything but die. there really is no ballance between the two. Firearms are indeed that much more effective.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
all defender is saying is that he would rather do something where he impart defensive skills, and he is saying that using a gun for the most part would not allow him to do it
because in martial arts or in fencing he can block the opponents attacks, with a gun you cannot go on the defensive by his definition.
when I use a weapon, it's a baseball bat
And my point was that you may not be able to defend versus a firearm with another firearm, but you can't defend versus a firearm with nearly anything else either. He can go all karate or kung fu if he wishes, but it will mean next to nothing if his opponent has a gun.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
but he can disarm them using CQC
I laugh so hard. If he wanted to use those skills, he would have to give his opponent a very convincing reason not to shoot him as he approached. Perhaps he should try hypnosis?
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
dude all he has to do is use bullet time
hi5
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
nobody really has kung-fu fights out on the street. still, if you're the sort of person who pisses people off almost daily (see Defender) it's probably a good idea to learn some sort of fighting style.
Yeah, I had said earlier this evening that if I ever saw him I was going to punch him. Then I changed my mind, on consideration of the martial arts and all.
So if Defender ever catches a random stray bullet that someone misplaced from a mile away I had nothing to do with it!
Edit:
I am sorry you feel that way.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
No doubt some other few people are going to claim I am stupid in the interim.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Why in gods name would you eat a sea weasel? They are the devils pets.
i don't think you could take an otter, boy
i think they would have you stuck with their javelins and dead with their slings before you could even get close
Come get it.
You bring up an interesting point. The real skill in martial arts training is defense. With a week of training, or just five minutes of me talking about your mama, you could punch hard. It's many times harder to slip a punch or parry a sword-strike than it is to punch or slash someone.
This is what makes the difference between a military art and a martial art, and this difference basically started appearing when civilian combat and military combat diverged significantly, when swords and other melee weapons were no longer the tools of choice for the military, and they started using shit that civilians couldn't carry around every day.
Also, in defense of martial arts, the military stuff only works when you have your gear. Someone jumps you in an alley, pulls a knife in a bar fight, your rifle isn't gonna help you because it's not there. Unarmed arts are ALWAYS there unless your actual body is broken. I've been in that situation before, and guess what? Carrying around a loaded assault rifle? Not practical. If I knew only rifle-fighting, I'd be dead today.
I'm no Sun Tzu here, but I'm a half-decent strategian, and I've read a lot of tactics manuals and stuff like that. I am also totally pretty OK at Warcraft. So I understand strategy. If I were to fight someone at 100 yards, like locked inside a colosseum, with no cover, and I could choose between a katana and, I dunno, a tavor...look, I'm not an idiot, I'm taking the ranged weapon.
They will crush you like a clam on their tummies.
As Maverick would say, "Hell yeah."
You'd be pretty dumb to be so sure that you are safe that you don't have any means of self-defense. Anybody can do something stupid and get jumped. Anybody can be walking home at night and encounter some kind of crazed hobo. Anybody can fall on the bad side of an angry drunk. Not knowing how to fight is like driving around without your seat belt on. Hey, you don't PLAN to get into a collision, right? So you don't need a seat belt, because nothing ever happens unless you choose for it to happen.
EDIT: You also missed the single most important aspect of martial arts training, which is the development of a person's character. That internal strength is far more important than the ability to hurt people or get through fights without getting hurt.
Fucking lame ass dogs deserved to get eaten.