Warp Spider

It was good, but it's not really a "thinking" movie like monkeygirl was looking for.

I think that a claymore basically has the same thing. It has a solid shell that is open at one end, so the blast is focus outward. However, there's also shaped charges that can be used for "lockpicking" and I'm not sure if they work the same way or not.

You may have heard the saying before: "Dead men tell no tales." If the guys still alive, it's really your word against his. And since he's the one badly beaten up, it would appear that you might have gone a bit too far. If he's not alive, it's your word against the state's suspicion that you may have been involved. Unless there's people who saw it and are going to testify against you, what evidence is there that you were even involved?

Some like it rough.

Well, the vest is just there to help direct the charge so that it will mostly be driven through the other person. (And if you're lucky, it might even protect you, though I can't say that with certainty) If you didn't have a vest on the charge would expand in all directions so it wouldn't be as efficient. It'd probrably still work without it.

Well, assuming you had one that looked like a regular cane, there's not much the police can do.* Generally, in the western world (which is where I assume you are from) all they can do is confiscate it from you, unless they can prove that you knew it was illegal, which is awfully difficult to actually prove. * varies by country

Dahahah, that would have kicked butt! BLH28 1, bad guys nothin'! Have YOU ever been in front of a judge on violence charges? Something tells me you have. Do tell...... Never on anything violence related. Those judges are all a bunch of crooks if you ask me! Kangaroo court is what it is! I have been told though (by a lawyer) that you stand a better chance of winning a murder case than you do an assault case, because there's noone to dispute your story. (though the stakes are certainately higher)

Well, if you're that close, I suppose that would work. In fact it gives me an even better idea. The bomber could wear a Level IV ballistic vest and strap the explosives to their front. (under trenchcoat) Then they could walk up near the people and give them a big hug then boom! That'd work so good! I'll have to keep that scenario in mind when plotting defenses in crowded areas. But yes, I was thinking that he would keep his distance a bit more which would provide lots of opportunity to "hit the deck" as it were.

If they are illegal where you live, you could just say it's a titanium reinforced cane. Seriously though, if they do search it and activate the blade, you can act all pissed off like they just broke it. If they ask where you got it, claim you bought it at a pawn shop. There's no proof you knew that there was a sword inside!

I guess, though a cross and a sap (used the way it was intended to be used anyway) are used very differently. Usually with a sap you want to hit the person on the back/top of the head (ideally from behind) around the "soft spot." I suppose you could belt a person across the face with a sap, that's not really what it's for. Kind of like how a nightstick can be a very lethal weapon - if you shove it down someone's throat instead of hitting them with it like you're supposed to.

No offense, but even if this thread dies another similar one will crop up before long.

I'm not sure what that means, but what I was saying is - the mutliple attackers will probrably not attempt to grapple you. This was in response to your comment "you will get grabed and you will grapple." I was presenting my experience, which is that in fact you will not be grabbed, instead striken. I'm not saying that either. You're taking my comments out of context. I never said that you could dodge four guys, but a group of guys is not likely to all try a simultaneous takedown on you, and even if they did... perhaps you hadn't considered the notion that a good standup fighter can probrably run quite a bit faster than their attacker. It's not difficult for a good striker to avoid takedowns in a non-enclosed environment because they can move away quickly. If they charge, fall back or counterattack. If there's multiple people charging, run to gain some distance, then bust out the subguns. If that's illegal in your area, swap subguns with mustard gas grenades and you're good to go. (Banned by the geneva convention, but still not actually illegal in most places) And I've seen even worse in fire fights. Being outnumbered 4 to 1 will rarely turn out in your favour, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try. What is your alternative? That varies wildly with "how you'd like to," but I haven't had any serious problems with not being able to move.

Dahahah, that would have kicked butt! BLH28 1, bad guys nothin'!

Use the pincer! They'll never see it coming! If you're worried about them seeing you, your forces can wait inside cargo vans and spill out when the time is right. Tactical Vests, PASGT helmets, and nightsticks/stun batons/G36 (depending on legalities) for everyone. Dahahah, the look on their face alone would be priceless! Actually the effectiveness of bombs like that is massively overrated. Explosives have to be buried within something to effectively damage it. For comparison, a nuclear bomb can take out a good chunk of a city. But it's also the equivalent of several thousand tons of standard explosive material. So, if we scale that down to the maximum amount this person could concievably carry, say 100 pounds of explosives, (and that would be a lot of explosives to strap to yourself) we're still talking about a relatively small explosion. There would be a lot of "fire," but the actual heat and shockwave in the majority of the apparent area of effect is actually quite small. The only real hazard to a small non-penetrating explosive like that is shrapnel, which can be more or less avoided by falling to the ground and covering your head. The reason suicide bombings are relatively effective inside buses, etc. is because it's enclosed and thus a large amount of pressure can build up. Plus the bus usually crashes too. The greater risk in this instance would be that person carrying a handgun or compact submachinegun, but if you have 2 or three cargo vans full of people carrying assault rifles, that danger is minimal. This is true, but the police are not going to lie in ambush to try and catch the guy. As serious as the situation may be, it's just some guy who apparently knows a lot that he has no feasable way of knowing. That's not a crime, and there is no law saying that you cant send a person unsolicited instant messages. As far as the authorities are concerned, this is no more serious than an ex-boy/girlfriend who won't stop calling or telemarketers.

Umm, no offense but gangster rap already GOT big again, when noone had even heard of 50 cent. Rap made a big comeback with Eminem, it's presently winding down if anything.

Tactics. Personal strength may make you a better fighter, but the ability to lay an effective ambush can make all the difference. Unless by tactics, you actually mean technique, which is completely difference, but I think you meant somewhere between the two.

Yo, whas down wit' yo bad, bad sewf, dog! Wes'side represent! Seriously though, I don't think I've ever heard a statement ended with "safe."

Are we talking about the same thing?

Well, since it's striking versus grappling that would imply that the grappling person wouldn't be permitted to use striking for the purposes of this comparison. Otherwise it would be both versus striking like you said, and obviously that's better.

In my experience when it is against multiple attackers they try to topple the person, then kick/stomp them on the ground. Noone from the large group wants to go to the ground with the guy because: A) Then they're blocking their buddies from striking; B) they run the risk of taking "friendly fire" from their buddies who try to strike anyway; C) "diffusion of responsibility:" they don't want to be MORE involved than anyone else in their group lest they be held more responsible should something go wrong. (like the cops show up) A standup fighter will generally be quite agile and able to avoid takedowns easier than one might think, given room to manuever. It's true that it's easier to close the distance than it is to increase the distance, but I think that that is offset by the relatively greater speed and agility of a person who trains primarily standup fighting.

Dear God, not Toronto! Last I checked those weren't exactly dangerous cities. Actually, no city in the US to my knowledge is particularly dangerous. You can easily survive in New York or LA even making the assumption that noone will harm you. Although those places have a bad reputation and may have a relatively high incidence of violent crime in the western world, it's still entirely possible to live your entire life in LA and never get attacked. Sarajevo would have been a better example.

They actually make very small caliber shotguns that you can safely use indoors for hunting mice. They're relatively low-powered so they won't chip everything, but they still pack enough punch to wound a mouse enough to stop it.

Use really dull swords, wear kevlar or spectra fibre, and practice! It's the best way!

Oh. Well then no. I know "how" to lift a 5000 pound weight, but that doesn't mean I can do it.

Actually, this topic IS grappling vs striking, hence the title. Obviously all three are better than just one, but a proponent of striking arts could also say, "well, we practice all three as well." The fact that they didn't traditionally have ground-fighting is moot, unless you are practicing to become a historian.