Warp Spider

Fish-tron!

I wouldn't be so quick to bash the haymaker. It's slow, but packs a wallop if you can land it. Combined with a distraction of some kind or other way to create an opening it can be effective.

No offense, but a paintball gun firing a .68 caliber projectile at 300fps is very different from a handgun firing a 9mm or .45 caliber projectile at 1500 fps. Paintball guns are also handled very differently than a real gun. Simuntions are a more appropriate way of practicing with real firearms, but are definately more expensive and likely more dangerous. Neither fully simulates the variety of injuries that you can sustain from being shot, though if you are shot repeatedly it hardly matters.

I answered all of the specific questions you've asked, do you expect me to make a video library?

No offense intended, but with your talk of "smiting zombies" I wouldn't be surprised if this were true. I never said anything about zombies, goblins, or anything like that. Not only is the existence of such creatures highly unlikely, even if they did exist, which I doubt, that wouldn't make them evil. Human beings are the only creatures with a soul and the only ones capable of being evil. The only "holy light" that I command spews forth from a flamethrower and a compact assault rifle.

I vote there be only two punishments: for "victimless" crimes like tax evasion, give them a fine, anything else summary execution would be good. Coupled with frequent sting operations the population would be too terrified to commit any crimes, knowing that they would be perforated by 5.56mm and tungsten-steel composite shot, often within moments of committing a crime.

Why aren't you on a RPG forum? Why a martial arts one? I can't believe this escaped you, but I'll repeat it. No relation to roleplaying. Just because something has the same name does not mean there is any relationship between the two. Role playing games (unless you count tactical simulation, which is in a sense a form of role playing, but I imagine you meant pen and paper-type roleplaying) do nothing to further the goal. PS They chase me away from the mental hospital every time I go near it, so I doubt they'll be coming for me anytime soon.

I think they usually have that stipulation because "open style" tournaments have a lot more potential for you coming to serious harm.

Actually the martial art I practice has nothing to do with dungeons and dragons, thank you very much. The attitudes of the western world may have changed, but that doesn't mean that the Lord's work is done. And it shall be done! PS My art has no belts. Belt are of little use in smiting the unholy, unless weighted at one end or covered in razor blades.

It's worth considering that guns have more uses than just shooting people repeatedly until they stop moving. Just as you can use martial arts to inflict varying degrees of harm, you can use a handgun similarly. For the lightest amount of punishment you can use a pistolwhip, which is not a pleasant thing to have happen to you but is decidedly non-lethal. "Less than lethal" rounds are also availible if that's your fancy. If the laws weren't so anal retentive I'd carry a compact submachinegun all the time, but unfortunately I can't, so until I've finished building a substitute that, while similar in function, does not technically fall under the definition of a firearm, I'll have to stick with fighting.

I practice Paladin, as it says in my sig.

I think the implication was that he was staring at her hindquarters, located directly below the coccyx.

Because real fights don't break out in the middle of a field with padding everywhere and both opponents facing each other. Most environments where you are lightly to get into a fight are loaded with weapons or environmental features that can be used in a fight. In the UFC you are not permitted to wear cleats or steel-toed boots. Eye gouges and biting are not allowed. Biting, especially, is something most grappling styles leave themselves totally open to. In a real fight there is almost always several things that can be improvised as a weapon, even if it's as simple as a rock on the ground. A person may not be able to make much of a swing if you've got them pinned down, but if they've got a rock in their hand it will still pack a wallop. There's also changes in elevation, and the takedown is much more effective than the fight that follows. I'd rather have someone try to choke me on the ground than have that same person deliver a piledriver on pavement. If you get in a fight "on the street," there are often cars around. Sometimes moving ones that you could throw a person into the path of. That's certainately an option you don't have on the ground. If the other person has a concealed weapon and you go to the ground, chances are you'll find it buried 4 inches into your back. A good grappler can take a poor striker to the ground easily. A good striker can deliver a knockout strike when a poor grappler makes that same attempt. If they are of roughly equal ability, it's a toss-up. The UFC is not realistic because the real world is not padded, not level, and not constrained to a small octagon. Weapons are plentiful and varied. The attack may come from anywhere at any time. It could be nearly pitch black out, you could be choked by someone's chain necklace. Getting punched by a guy with a huge ring on makes a mess. There are no weight classes in real fights. The end results of fights in the UFC, like that article states, are very different than in real life. I don't mean to bash grappling, but the fact is, not all fights go to the ground, and grappling can backfire. There's a move called a curb-stomp that tends to occur in a failed takedown. You won't learn that one in the UFC.

I'm sorry if my posts seemed offensive, that was certainately not my intention. The point I am trying to make is, if people judge my based on the way I think and act I may seem dangerous. People might say I'm "not well." But the fact remains I'm not overly agressive or dangerous to people unless they were to attack me first. The children this man talks to may feel quite threatened by that man, but he may not have any hostile intentions at all.

The reason is, guns have a "legitimate" use for hunting. The use of two sticks joined by a chain for the purposes of training for a situation in which you theoretically would not be legally permitted to use them anyway (actual combat) is thus not covered by most laws. You can legally use a gun to shoot an animal in many places, so you are allowed to own one and practice with it. The legality of hunting with nunchucks is a grey area. A gun is definately more dangerous than a pair of nunchucks, but then again a car is even more dangerous and a healthy supply of dynamite even more so. The laws aren't based around danger, but around practicality. Curiously enough, some extremely dangerous devices have not been outlawed in many countries simply because the legislators never thought it could ever be a problem. Technically speaking, no law prohibits me from carrying a flamethrower in a shopping mall, or walking downtown with a rocket launcher. Thermonuclear devices likewise are not technically illegal to own or operate - though the sale and transport of radioactive materials is controlled, if you were to get some it could not be legally confiscated unless it was stolen.

No offense, but the sky isn't very heavy. You lift it all the time just by standing up.

Well.. not all car doors are alike. I doubt a katana would go easily through the car door of a Chrysler Imperial, while I could probrably put a bo staff through a car door from the late 90s. I can't speak for the more modern "rebounding" door panels. Although my mom's car has them, and the dealer mercilessly kicked the car repeatedly to demonstrate their resilience, she won't let me hit them with anything.

Well, I wasn't there, but as far as I can tell she has no proof, not even evidence, unless you smacked her hard and actually injured her. My personal recommendation would be to build a dungeon and lock her in it for the rest of her days, but I can understand that many would be opposed to that notion so I'd say get a lawyer if she really does press charges. Chances are she will be told by her own lawyer that unless there's some kind of injury or bruises she doesn't have a chance.

Saddam never used biological weapons, and a gas chamber doesn't really count as chemical weapons in my books. You might also note that almost every country in the world has at least one nuclear reactor, that has very little to do with nuclear weapons. Reactor uranium is not weapons-grade, and needs to be heavily refined to be made into effective warheads. Further, there's no real proof that he tried to get nuclear weapons. Note that North Korea has nuclear weapons and has expressed a willingness to use them. The Middle East has always been at war and always will be. No external force can stop it short of total assimilation or annihilation. They're religeous wars, and you can't negotiate with these people to change their religeons. In case you weren't aware, noone in the Arab nations likes Americans, and the only ones who claim to are just doing so so you'll bomb their enemies. You don't understand the real politics here. China doesn't give a crap about Japan or South Korea. China is bigger than the rest of the world put together. They have more internal politics than the rest of the world has global politics. North Korea will not attack China because they love China and want to be annexed by China. They have wanted to for some time but China doesn't really want them. Further, in case you weren't aware, North Korea's threats were not directed at Japan or South Korea, basically their stance is "stay out of Korea or we'll turn the east coast into a parking lot." Patriot missiles are crap. Well over half of all patriot missile impacts have hit FRIENDLY TARGETS. The vast majority only impact the ground. In anti-missile terms, an "intercept" does not mean the missiles collided with each other, it means they crossed paths and did not collide. Lets look at the first Iraqi missile launch... one missile was "intercepted" but not impacted. The remainder were not even tracked by the Patriot missiles. To put it simply, Patriot missiles are TERRIBLE, and I could personally make a far superior guidance system for under a thousand dollars per missile. In your comparison to Iraq you might also consider that Iraq is presently kicking your butt. Sure you hold Baghdad but your soldiers keep dying. I'm sure your talk about "we're winning the war" is a big comfort to the parents of those marines who are dying every day. You are right that North Korea hasn't done anything wrong, but really, your war on terrorism is being bungled so badly it's a global joke. Strongarm tactics like that will not work against terrorism, as you can see. You go in guns blazing and the bad guys disappear. Whatever happened to Osama bin Laden? You know, the guy who started it all? Where is he? He's probrably sitting on the beach in Cuba watching CNN with Saddam and laughing his butt off. Invading countries suspected to harbor terrorists or who support terrorists does nothing. The government can't find the terrorists and you won't be able to either, though by coming over you've saved them the commute, so now they can attack Americans just by leaning out their window. I don't support the war in Iraq, but now that's it's started, finish the job. Once you've done that, say and do absolutely nothing. Anything that the US does these days only makes the global community hate them more, no matter what it is. PS Sending 7 marines to help defend Liberia is not only a joke, it's an insult. The rebels are heavily armed with artillery and tanks, and are shelling the US embassy in Liberia as we speak. Bush is a laughable military tactician.

Uhh, that's not really true. "Long Sword" is a specific type of sword similar to a "Broad Sword" which was a common weapon among well equipped infantry in Europe during the Middle Ages. The "Long Sword" was a "gentlemans" version, thinner and quicker, but considerably heftier than a rapier or sabre. It was generally carried by knights or other noble persons. A "short sword" was a shorter version of the "long sword," for people who didn't care to swing a blade that was nearly as tall as they were. A broad or long sword would generally carve through most plate armor if swung with a good bit of force. Plate armor provided good protection against bludgeoning weapons such as clubs or flails, but was quite poor againt edged weapons. (though chain armor was often worn underneath to provide protection from stabbing attacks) Europe possessed far superior metallurgy than the east during the middle ages, when "long swords" and "short swords" were made, thus the statement about how it is a superior weapon. They held an keener edge longer and would remove the edge from an eastern weapon if they clashed. Katanas have a much more advanced forging method, but their metallurgy at the time was far inferior so the end result was a weaker blade that would not hold an edge as well. You are correct that they were "folded." They would take two different "blade shaped" metals and pound them together. This made it flatter but wider, of course. They then folded it in half to counter that so it was less flat but thinner. They then pounded it flat again. This process was repeated numerous times.

Well, in a way. North Korea has only made threats to counter pressure from the United States. They only want to be left alone, but even a rat will fight when cornered. The addition of uranium fission warheads to their arsenal of course makes them a bit more dangerous than a rat, however.

Actually a long or short sword was a superior weapon to a katana or wazikashi respectively. Also I think that BJJ was derived from TJJ, not from Judo.

Actually I think they both require about the same amount of skill. Anyone can point a gun and pull the trigger, though their accuracy will not be that great. Likewise, anyone can swing a blade, but their strikes may not be very accurate. Interestingly enough, many people would probrably have more trouble with guns because a lot of people fear the gun they are using and refuse to actually pull the trigger. A person who is frightened will often still hold a blade in front of themselves whereas you could often walk right up to that same person if they were holding a gun without them shooting you. However, this doesn't generally affect persons with some experience with guns. Personally, I'd prefer a gun, but that's just me.

I think both are good things to teach. Some "self defense" situations may involve more than one side with multiple persons per side. Usually it won't be like a "rumble" from the 50s, but still, often a mugging/other attack involves multiple attackers, and does not always occur when you are alone.

No offense, but bones are a lot stronger than wooden planks or even cinder blocks, and cannot be broken efficiently using the same technique.