Killing People with your bare hands

[mswas]

I wish more people knew how to kill with their bare hands. I wish it were a normal part of our culture to learn these skills. That way, the gun argument would be less of an issue. People who could do it would be less afraid of attack, and people who couldn't would have no way to impose their will upon someone who they are intimidated by, because they'd have no gun to take away.

I've studied a few martial arts, and I probably could kill someone with my bare hands 'in theory'.

The best thing I've learned from Martial arts though is how many lethal objects there are all around all the time. So while I am totally against gun control, I don't really have a desire to own one, it just seems like the social pressure makes the gun less worth it, and I think if someone broke into my apartment I can think of a number of things I could hurt them really badly with long before I could fish my gun out from wherever it was.

I think the dumbest thing about the pro-gun control crowd is simply that while it might diminish the number of accidental gun deaths, the saturation of guns in America is so high, that getting a gun will be easy for a long time, even if it's not legal. So gun control has very little bearing on the people who are willing to shoot you intentionally.

Also, the irony of it is, if people weren't trying to tell me what to do. i.e. take away guns, I'd probably feel less compelled to own one. (Even though I already said I wasn't terribly compelled to own one.)

Erek

[CynicalGabe]

Oh, I see, we should not have gun control because it wouldn't be 100% effective instantly. Makes sense.

We also should not have laws against murder, because, really, if someone wants to kill you, are they really going to stop because its against the law?


Yeah, yeah, fallacy, schmallacy.

[mswas]

Actually I think practicality is a very important consideration when making a law. I am sorry you don't see it as being an important facet to the legal process. Luckily for you the government seems to be in your court.

[calm kiwi]

In that case what laws would you want?

Should it be illegal to give a lion a blow job because it is impractical and no one has ever done it (I hope) and that's the legal books finished?

I would venture to say that every single crime on the books is there because someone once did it, thus making it practical.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by calm kiwi

Should it be illegal to give a lion a blow job

When blowing lions is outlawed, only outlaws will blow lions.

Towards the OP: The gun is the 'great equilizer', because even a little old lady with arthritic joints can still use one effectively. It also requires a heck of a lot less training to learn how to shoot than to become a black belt in Aikido.

[calm kiwi]

And the lions will rejoice.

[mswas]

Little old ladies can learn to kill with their barehands too, when one is a master it is not the strength in their arms, but the precision of their touch that is lethal.

But I am just as happy with Grandma blowing the perp away with her 357 even if I would be prouder if she used Dim Mak.

As for the incredibly dumbass comparison to fellating a lion, I was the one proposing NOT making extra laws due to impracticality, not proposing laws against doing things that are impractical.

I like the "game balance" that grandmas have with 357s against thugs trying to steal her VCR. If guns were illegal then Grandma woudl be the one without the 357, not the thug.

Erek

[calm kiwi]

But there ARE laws against beastiality. You seemed to be saying that if it a crime was practical then it shouldn't be a crime, just something we should train grandmas to deal with.

I'm happy you are confident in making sure only grandmas not grandma killers have guns. When do you suppose the first "Crims-Grandmas, Swap guns for life" conference will happen?

[mswas]

Calm Kiwi: I never said anything about taking guns from the Grandma killers. They need the gun so the Grandma can get off with self-defense more easily when she blows a hole in his chest you can toss a calm kiwi through.

Anyway, I think the second amendment is as vital today as it was ever. However, this argument is about the inability of kneejerk liberal pantywaists to take away my deadly ninja claw, and not about gun control.

[calm kiwi]

I'm well fucked then. I have no Ninja skills and I can't own a gun.........unless I take up duck hunting and get a gun licence.

Guess I'm just stuck with the law....sans lion Bj's

[LouisB]

Originally Posted by calm kiwi

And the lions will rejoice.

But will lambs lie down with them?

[furt]

Sweet merciful Og, another Clinton thread?

Lion about blow jobs is as bad as lion about anything else. And he was under Oath!

[calm kiwi]

Bill is a Serval amongst the big cats

[enipla]

Originally Posted by mswas

I wish more people knew how to kill with their bare hands. I wish it were a normal part of our culture to learn these skills. That way, the gun argument would be less of an issue.

Is this a whooossssh? Is your whole op a whoosh?

If it was part of our culture, the criminal would have these skills as well.

And I don’t care what kind of special ninja skills you give an infirm person. They will have no chance against a healthy younger person that has 100 pounds on them.

Also, self defense is not the only reason we own guns. It is often just a side benefit.

[BytopianDream]

I once killed a dragon with my bare hands.

"Kill the dragon with your bare hands?"
>Yes

[Monstre]

Originally Posted by enipla

Also, self defense is not the only reason we own guns. It is often just a side benefit.

I just had this mental image of a hunter leaping out of the deer stand, ninja style, onto an unsuspecting stag...

[Kythereia]

Whether you agree with gun control or not, you have to admit the idea of being able to kill someone with your bare hands is sometimes a very appealing idea...

[SteveG1]

There is one problem. To do it with your hands means you have to get close enough. Very close. There is also no guarantee that your enemy isn't a better fighter. Sure you can use a knife or pencil, even teeth etc, but you have to get close and be fast enough to connect. Also, as you get older the bones get weaker and more brittle. You may hit with enough force to crush bricks, but that sort of power does no good if YOUR bones break under the force. Then factor in arthritis. Granny is not doing any flying spin kicks if she is all crippled up with rheumatiz.
Colonel Colt supposedly built the "equalizer", in that small person could now protect themselves from the giants. People knew how to fight, but size does matter.

It's like the old tagline, "Never bring a knife to a gunfight".

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by mswas

Little old ladies can learn to kill with their barehands too, when one is a master it is not the strength in their arms, but the precision of their touch that is lethal.

Yes, I'm well aware of that.
Now tell me how my 84 year old grandmother who can barely walk is expected to get her butt down to the dojo and practice until she becomes a master? Or would it be easier to give her a handgun and take her to the range for practice?

Originally Posted by mswas

But I am just as happy with Grandma blowing the perp away with her 357 even if I would be prouder if she used Dim Mak.

You miss my point, while having gramma become a ninja master capable of administering the 'death touch' would be neat... (I guess), it's far less likely that she'd be able to actually take the required courses (and move fast enough in an actual combat situation) rather than squeezing a trigger.

So training young 'uns in Aikido or what have you is just fine, but even if I'm a young 'un, I'd still like to have the ability to pull a gun. Gun vs. Master Ninja, gun wins, with a bullet.

[CynicalGabe]

Originally Posted by SteveG1

There is one problem. To do it with your hands means you have to get close enough. Very close. There is also no guarantee that your enemy isn't a better fighter. Sure you can use a knife or pencil, even teeth etc, but you have to get close and

So the logic is that the only times you should fight are those in which you've given yourself an ubeatable advantage?

[Biggirl]

Originally Posted by CynicalGabe

So the logic is that the only times you should fight are those in which you've given yourself an ubeatable advantage?

This idea intrigues me and I would like to learn more. Please send my your informational video.

[Menocchio]

Originally Posted by CynicalGabe

So the logic is that the only times you should fight are those in which you've given yourself an ubeatable advantage?

Well, yes. And since you'll never have a 100% chance of victory, you should never fight unless circumstances absolutely force you to.

And even then you should give yourself every advantage you can, which means using a firearm, if availaible.

When it comes to self-defense, ain't no such thing as "fair".

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by CynicalGabe

So the logic is that the only times you should fight are those in which you've given yourself an ubeatable advantage?

The logic is that you fight only when you have to. But it helps if (like Batman) you are prepared. If someone forced their way into my home, damn right I want a grossly unfair advantage. Fair chances and sporting play ae for the sports arena or tourney, not the home invasion robber. :P

[mswas]

If I were within 20 feet of my attacker, I would prefer to have a knife to a rifle. A pistol is a little scarier at close range, but still a knife is more deadly. A gun has a very narrow area of impact, and you have to hit dead on to actually hurt someone with the gun, whereas a knife can slash/pierce and generally cause a whole bunch of damage when it connects. My Kung Fu instructor did a demonstration using a red magic marker how dangerous a knife is at close range. It changed my view on a knife vs a gun.

Also, a ninja would be at an advantage against someone with a gun, unless the person with the gun is also a ninja. It's very hard to hit a moving target, and a ninja knows how to be a moving target with ninjalike skills. So I'd put my money on the Ninja over the average person with a gun at the close range the fight would be at if you were even aware of the ninja's presence.

As far as granny goes. Perhaps teaching granny to be a ninja at this point might be a little late in life. However, if she had started earlier, she would be much more spry, and her arthritis would be less of an issue, and she'd be just all around healthier.

I am not advocating dumbasses asserting their fears upon others by taking away their guns using the newly aquired ninja skills as an excuse. I am just saying it would be cool to piss off those dumbasses by a large part of the society aquiring ninja skills because they wouldn't be able to take away their dreaded ninja claw with legislation. And yes, I am aware that criminals would also be ninjas. However, the ninjas would have less to worry about with other ninjas, because a warrior knows that when going into battle with another warrior the outcome is always uncertain, and they must be reserved, and only take it to an act of violence in an extreme situation. And I think that robbing a granny for her VCR would be beneath a true ninja. A true ninja would seek much more lofty prey, worthy of their skill.

[CynicalGabe]

I wouldn't call it fair chances since you are statistically more likely to have the gun taken from you by the intruder and used against you or your family than you are to successfully use it against the instruder.

[CynicalGabe]

And who says the Ninja can't have a gun as well?


Then, my friends, you are fucked!

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by CynicalGabe

I wouldn't call it fair chances since you are statistically more likely to have the gun taken from you by the intruder and used against you or your family than you are to successfully use it against the instruder.

Cite?

[Clothahump]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

Yes, I'm well aware of that.
Now tell me how my 84 year old grandmother who can barely walk is expected to get her butt down to the dojo and practice until she becomes a master?

Three years ago, I had the pleasure of watching the oldest person inducted as a Master Instructor in the ATA. She was 83, IIRC, at the time. Started in her 60s. Old folks can do it, too.

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

Or would it be easier to give her a handgun and take her to the range for practice?

You miss my point, while having gramma become a ninja master capable of administering the 'death touch' would be neat... (I guess), it's far less likely that she'd be able to actually take the required courses (and move fast enough in an actual combat situation) rather than squeezing a trigger.

IMHO, she doesn't need to do the "full course". All she needs to learn is some basic self defense based around pressure points, something that will swing the odds in her favor. And let's face it, most bad guys are not expecting Grandma to know where the brachial plexus origin is, much less be able to drill him on it.

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

So training young 'uns in Aikido or what have you is just fine, but even if I'm a young 'un, I'd still like to have the ability to pull a gun. Gun vs. Master Ninja, gun wins, with a bullet.

Umm....not necessarily. If they are more than 15 feet from me, I'll run because the odds are on my side that they will miss if they shoot at me. And if they are six feet or less away from me, I'll disarm them. It's that area 6-15 feet that bugs hell out of me.

[Odesio]

Originally Posted by CynicalGabe

So the logic is that the only times you should fight are those in which you've given yourself an ubeatable advantage?

Well, it seems reasonable that you would tip the scales in your favor as much as possible. My goal in a fight isn't to gain honor, street cred, or to acquire cash or valuables it is to protect myself and possibly someone else. Given my goals I'll do whatever I can to stack the deck in my favor. Of course given my goals it's also best to just avoid a fight whenever possible.

Marc

[Odesio]

Originally Posted by CynicalGabe

I wouldn't call it fair chances since you are statistically more likely to have the gun taken from you by the intruder and used against you or your family than you are to successfully use it against the instruder.

Cite? I mean I know that statistically you're more likely to use a firearm against a family member or someone you know but that makes a lot of sense to me. After all, I'm more likely to be assaulted or murdered by someone who knows me. Uh, I think we all are actually I don't mean that I'm such an asshole that people who know me just can't help but smack me around.

So once you eliminate gunowning homes with a history of domestic violence, drug use, and criminal records then how likely am I to be shot with my own weapon?

Marc

[Zoe]

This is a toughie. We depressives would have to learn to kill ourselves with our bare hands on impulse.

[picker]

So the logic is that the only times you should fight are those in which you've given yourself an ubeatable advantage?

Not to beat a dead horse here, but that is exactly what you should strive for should you find yourself in a situation where you must use force.

If you can't avoid a fight, best end it quickly. If the situation is so critical that violence is the only option, I would do everything in my power to gain every tactical advantage I can, and my only focus would be upon rendering my enemy unable to harm me, either dead, unconscious, or fleeing the fight. Every second that my attacker/opponent is on his feet and intent on violence is a second that he can hurt me or mine.


It's the same philosophy they use in teaching police to shoot: center mass. There are no shots to wound or disarm. In a complex, chaotic and adrenaline filled situation, even the best range shooter can't be assured of a disabling head, arm or leg shot. Aim for the biggest target there is, center mass, cause the priority is stopping the target. One missed shot to the head can give the other person time to shoot you or an innocent victim. Fuck that.

This is not to say every physical confrontation should result in the use of deadly force. Far from it - the use of deadly force is a very serious decision and is only justified in the most extreme situations. The single most important aspect of effective self-defense is learning to instintively and accurately gauge the appropriate level of response, and to use every skill, tool and advantage you have to take control of the dangerous situation without exceeding the level of appropriate response.

[CynicalGabe]

Originally Posted by Zoe

This is a toughie. We depressives would have to learn to kill ourselves with our bare hands on impulse.

*snork*







Be back in a few, I'm looking for my oft-requested cite.

[Excalibre]

Originally Posted by mswas

Also, a ninja would be at an advantage against someone with a gun, unless the person with the gun is also a ninja. It's very hard to hit a moving target, and a ninja knows how to be a moving target with ninjalike skills. So I'd put my money on the Ninja over the average person with a gun at the close range the fight would be at if you were even aware of the ninja's presence.

Uh-huh. Yeah, I bet.

Not to mention that we don't live in medieval Japan, so the word "ninja" has no meaning anyway.

[CynicalGabe]

I cannot find my cite right now. I will return to this thread when I find it. Not sooner.

[Homebrew]

Originally Posted by mswas

And I think that robbing a granny for her VCR would be beneath a true ninja. A true ninja would seek much more lofty prey, worthy of their skill.

Robert? Is that you?

[quote]Real Ultimate Power

Hi, this site is all about ninjas, REAL NINJAS. This site is awesome. My name is Robert and I can't stop thinking about ninjas. These guys are cool; and by cool, I mean totally sweet.

Facts:
1. Ninjas are mammals.
2. Ninjas fight ALL the time.
3. The purpose of the ninja is to flip out and kill people.[quote]

[enipla]

Honneeyyy??

Yes, what is it dear?

Ummmm. I think..... Yeah. Call 911.

What’s the problem?

Well. Um. I kicked somebody’s ass.

WHAT?

Some little shit was in our garage, and I hit him. I think he was after our old Playstation.

[Martin Hyde]

Killing someone with bare hands is something even the untrained could do. It doesn't take a genius to realize strangling someone will kill them if you do it for long enough.

[SteveG1]

No. Strangling is slow. It assumes you have superior brute strength on your side. It ignores the fact that the other person will be fighting back. It forces you to use both hands, leaving you open to being punched, gouged in the eye etc. It is ridiculously easy to break the hold ("keylock" the thumb, pry the hand off, turn it into an arm bar, break the thumb and elbow). Strangling is OK in Frankenstein movies, but not real life. Far better to pick up a phone or end table and bash him on the head.

On the subject of ninjas - there are some wrong assumptions being made. Ninjas were professional "contract" killers. Their methods were based on what is simple and effective (do whatever works). A ninja would use anything that was handy, being very pragmatic. So yes, a ninja would use a gun if he had one available. Besides, whether it is a gun, throwing stars, swords, whatever, that asumes you can get to the damn thing first. They also relied on stealth and surprise. If you are being robbed or worse, that means the other guy has surprise on his side. Ninjas were assassins. They were not battlefield fighters.

[picker]

They were not battlefield fighters.

Whoever told you that is a total liar. Just like other mammals, ninjas can be mean OR totally awesome.When they're not cutting off heads or flipping out most of their free time is spent flying, but sometime they stab. (Ask Mark if you don't believe me.)

[mswas]

Alright, since there seems to be a significant enough percentage of you intent upon impressing people by debunking the use of the term 'ninja' with your superior knowledge of the word 'ninja' even though most of us already know what a 'ninja' is, let me explain my usage of the word ninja.

First of all. AFAIK the idea of the 'Ninja' is in dispute. I've never seen an actual record of 'Ninjas' in medieval japan. Yes there were assassins that resemble what we refer to as a 'Ninja', but the American idea of a Ninja is in dispute AFAIK. So generally for purposes of this discussion, I have been using the colloquial American version of Ninja, which means "One who can kill one with barehands and much badassery"

For the sake of argument, we'll say that Ninjas did exist. If they were assassins, they were assassinating Samurai who WERE battlefield warriors. Therefore they had to be badass enough to kill Samurai. If a Ninja can kill a samurai who has a Katana by sneaking into a house made of rice paper, then he is probably fairly capable of killing your average American suburban steer by sneaking through a house made of drywall, even if the steer owns a .357. I believe this, because the steer is not trained for combat at all, even if he goes to the shooting range once a month, he is still at a distinct disadvantage against one who is combat trained and can defeat a battlefield warrior, for the American steer is not a battlefield warrior. I know in American gun culture we love our guns, but in the close quarters that are the average room, a bladed weapon like a Katana or a Wakizashi in trained hands is FAR more lethal than a .357 in the hands of someone who can only shoot a paper cutout in the chest. Therefore the use of the word 'Ninja' in this discussion is not inappropriate despite the fact that you have an extra amount of limited knowledge of medieval japan than you seem to assume everyone else in the discussion has.

So now you know what a Ninja is, and I don't have to use my power ninja strike to shove your half-assed pedantry all the way up your ass.

Erek

[CynicalGabe]

Originally Posted by picker

Whoever told you that is a total liar. Just like other mammals, ninjas can be mean OR totally awesome.When they're not cutting off heads or flipping out most of their free time is spent flying, but sometime they stab. (Ask Mark if you don't believe me.)

Already used that one in this thread.

[picker]

Already used that one in this thread.

Sorry, Gabe. I think it's important that we recognize Mark's contributions. I didn't mean to step on your toes.

mswas, not to sound too pedantic, but I would suggest you refresh your knowledge of ninja history.

That link should clear things up for you.

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by picker

Whoever told you that is a total liar. Just like other mammals, ninjas can be mean OR totally awesome.When they're not cutting off heads or flipping out most of their free time is spent flying, but sometime they stab. (Ask Mark if you don't believe me.)

Uh huh. Flying, phasing through walls, going invisible, walking on the wind, mind control yada yada yada. These were humans. That means no superpowers. That does not mean I would want to challenge one, as they were good fighters (they were professionals and had to be). The Samurai were the battlers. They built their whole life on that and constantly trained for it. In open combat and with no element of surprise, the samurai had the upper hand because that was his specialty. In modern times, a .357 or .44 or 12 gauge will make short work of a ninja, IF you know he is coming and you are ready for him. Remember, no superpowers. Their real strength was that you never knew if they were coming since they contracted in secret - they didn't announce it and call you out at high noon. The goal of a ninja was to get in, make the "hit", and get back out while being undetected. They did not flip out - they were professionals in every sense of the word. Pros do not flip out.

I'm not interested in the newer "American" definition, it is an invention of the movies. If it just means being able to kill with the hands and being a badass, practically any oversized town bully would qualify for that, as would every professional boxer or psychotic strangler. being a tough guy does not a ninja make.

[FinnAgain]

Steve, you've been whooshed.
After all, everybody knows that ninjas exist only to flip out and kill people. Why, one time a ninja was eating in a diner and someone dropped a spoon. Ninja killed the whole damn town.

[SteveG1]

ROFL. Immediately after the restaurant incident a tall Scotsman stood up, stated "There can be only one" and proceeded to vorpal the ninja

[FinnAgain]

Snicker snack.

[mswas]

Picker: Your level of pedantry is appreciated.

SteveG1: Your level of pedantry just makes you an ass.

The use of the word "Ninja" is supposed to be overly dramatic for the sense of levity. I'd think that if you know what the word "Ninja" means, you'd also know what the word "Levity" means.

The way this argument is going, I'd imagine that the people saying a Ninja isn't good at straight out fighting has never been in a fight themselves. If you are trained in hand to hand combat, and can manage to break into a noble's compound, and kill the noble, odds are you are a badass, any way you slice it. I hope your .357 makes you feel safer, but the truth of the matter is that there is an art to shooting, and target shooting only takes part of that art into account. Shooting in combat is QUITE different from shooting a target, even a moving target.

To say that a Ninja wasn't battle trained is ridiculous at best. They weren't trained for FIELD COMBAT for certain, but they were definitely trained for close quarter combat. A formidable warrior going into a melee with another formidable warrior is always serious, no matter what the differences in their training is. In a break-in situation, the Ninja is at an advantage, whereas a Samurai cutting down the Ninja on the battlefield is at a distinct advantage. So even if the Ninja has lost the initiative against the Samurai in the break-in situation, that doesn't mean that a Samurai, even an armed Samurai is at an automatic advantage against the Ninja. Two trained warriors must take each other seriously, period. Any Army Ranger, or Delta will tell you that.

If you need an example of this. Turn on Quake 2 or 3. Give one person the Rail gun, and the other person has to use his fists. The rules of the engagement being that the first one to score a hit wins. The reason for this rule is that in real life you won't have power armor on that can thwart a knife. So for this purpose the rail gun is a .357, and the fist would be a knife or bare hands. Me being someone who is fairly good at Quake, I believe that I could get in close and punch the person with the rail gun, more likely than they can hit me with that rail gun if they had little to no Quake experience. So for purposes of this simulation, I'd be the trained warrior, and the other person would be the average person with a .357. (The railgun is the weapon that hits instantly and is basically an automatic kill but has only a localized area of effect, it's the sniper weapon)

There are a lot of realities that go into shooting a gun that aren't being taken into account.

1) You have to be able to hit a moving target
2) If you do hit, you have to hit a vital organ

Now take into account being lethal with one's barehands. The likelihood of missing your target is MUCH lower than the untrained person with the gun. The ability to adjust to a miss is easier. You don't have to deal with recoil, and you can use any number of other striking surfaces on your body to disorient them. Once the trained warrior starts working their opponent, it is pretty much over.

As we've been (Jokingly for those of you immune to wit) referring to Ninjas in this debate, you'd probably not be aware of the Ninja until he's in the same room you are in, and he's much more likely to be aware of your presence.

We haven't even touched upon other skills that come with the superior skill that a warrior has over a lay person. More attention to detail, training in fighting while disoriented, enhanced senses, greater ability to discern detail in the dark. None of these skills are super human in any way, yet they add to the advantage the trained warrior unarmed has over the armed untrained suburbanite.

I have limited training to be certain, and am far from being a ninja. However, I have trained to fight in the dark, and even trained to fight in flickering light where I cannot depend upon my night vision. So even with my minimal training, that creates an advantage I will always have. I can only imagine how much that advantage would increase if I attained mastery. I've learned disarms, and I've seen how easy it was for my teacher's to take the object we were using to simulate the weapon from me.

Once with my Budo instructor I had the wooden knife, he took my arm back over in an arm lock and I instantly dropped the knife caught it in my other hand, stabbed him in the thigh, and then drew it across the back of his knee where the artery will exsanguinate anyone in less than 5 minutes. This surprised my teacher, he was even stunned for a moment when I stabbed him with a fake knife that did no damage. Of course, I wasn't in as much pain as I would have been had he actually broken my arm, but my point is to illustrate what even minimal training can change in a fight.

I do recognize that these examples are not actual life or death scenarios, and the one thing a life or death scenario brings into the equation is fear of death. I think it is important to remember that the trained master won't be paralyzed by his fear of death, and will be thinking much more clearly as a result.

In short, having a gun is a false sense of security for anyone that doesn't have combat training. They aren't nearly as lethal as many people think, and the number of shots fired at people that don't hit their target is far greater than the number of shots fired that actually hit their target. With a gun, your point of impact is about 1/3 of an inch trying to hit a target that is about 1.5-2 feet wide. When you fire the gun, the point of impact has to be centered on the target, it only moves in a straight line, so the area that can be potentially damaged by that bullet is a 1/3 inch cylinder going straight out from the barrel of that gun. A knife however, doesn't have the range that a gun has, but it can pierce, or slash, and the area within which it is lethal is much greater at close range than that of a gun. Not to mention that once the knife penetrates it can move around inside a person's guts, and does not require a vital hit when it first penetrates.

So I know this thread isn't about knives vs guns, but I wanted to give that as an example, because I think most people are more viscerally aware of the impact of a knife upon the human body than they are of the impact against pressure points. Most people don't even know pressure points. When I give massages I can look at the way someone is standing and tell where in their body a knot is and just take my finger and put it right in that area, and I know some pressure points throughout the body that can either be used to relax a person, or severely hurt them. There are many ways that knowledge of such things gives someone a supreme advantage over one who does not have knowledge of such things. These are not necessarily super human, and can be explained scientifically.

So I still think that the average person with a gun is at a distinct disadvantage against a trained warrior.

I could go on forever about the transfer of inertia through one's body in order to strike, the ability to sense the other person's inertia, awareness of where the gun's point of impact is at any time, and so on to illustrate my point.

Erek

[CynicalGabe]

You forgot to factor in the awesomeness of a Ninja wailing on a guitar. I bet you didn't even know that in the year 600 C.E., for some old queen's birthday, 60,000 ninjas wailed on their guitars and killed a country.

If you don't believe that ninjas have REAL Ultimate Power you better get a life right now or they will chop your head off!!! It's an easy choice, if you ask me.

Ninjas are sooooooooooo sweet that I want to crap my pants. I can't believe it sometimes, but I feel it inside my heart. These guys are totally awesome and that's a fact. Ninjas are fast, smooth, cool, strong, powerful, and sweet. I can't wait to start yoga next year. I love ninjas with all of my body (including my pee pee).

[Frank]

Originally Posted by mswas

If you need an example of this. Turn on Quake 2 or 3. Give one person the Rail gun, and the other person has to use his fists.

Everything I know about life I learned from computer games. And comic books. Everything I know about life I learned from computer games and comic books. And porn movies. Everything...