Okay, what the fuck is your problem?
Yes. Are you really stupid enough to believe all suppressors will magically mask all sounds of a bullet like they do in the movies? Do you even know how suppressors work?
No for the first, and only in faint concept for the second (pressure the supersonic air generated by the bullet leaving the barrel by supersonic speed to subsonic level). However, are you seriously telling me that its not worth using it at all? I mean, trying to take out a person quietly is risky procedure in the first place, and it is usually enough if the rest of of the unlucky guy's comrades aren't alerted.
Also, there are not only silencers, but special ammunition that makes very little noise. And if you are that goddamn nitpicky, let me point out towards the wonderful weapon called the "crossbow" with "poisoned bolts". And I also recall that there are very nasty poisons out there.
Provide proof to back up your assertion. Now. I want to know how weapons that can involve explosive vaporization as part of their effects woudl be "silent".
The quote I used was from here:
http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg172-e.htm
Red herring. Where the fuck did I say anything about charging? I'm talking CLOSE QUARTERS combat. Try to fucking pay attention.
In order to attack a foe with a ranged weapon, with a melee you have to get close. And unless you can magically behind the foe, or make him forget that you are even there, you have to charge. Close quarters combat or not. Also, does the term "close quarters" automatically mean "hand-to-hand"?
Oh, so I suppose you jumping to the conclusion that I meant something like a katana in combat (your own words, no less) was purely accidental?
Yes it was. First word that came to my head. If I mention butterfly knifes, would that be better?
Seriously, did you even read my response before making your idiotic knee-jerk reply?
Yes I have. And I pointed out that I myself described two weapons that are not super-sized swords or massive weapons, but small and concealable. I also keep pointing out that not only military use should be considered for these weapons.
The marines do. We can ask one of the marines on this board if you like. I have a feeling they wouldn't consider a knife or the ability to fight in hand to hand as "uesless" as you seem to think it is
I recall that the Marines are also equivalent of the elite (NOT special forces, elite) forces, and are trained in a wide variety of areas. I knife is not necessarily a combat weapon. I admit that it isn't unlikely that they might need it, but I wager that almost every soldier has a higher body count from his gun then his knife.
The "time spent" on either is irrelevant to that little fact. Though since you chose to bring it up, maybe you'd care to provide some further proof to back up THOSE claims too?
I need to back up the idea that modern militaries are most likely to train their soldiers with ranged combat weapons, that they are more likely to use and depend on? I mean, which one would you consider more redundant from a typical soldier's equipment, a gun or a knife? Having both is ideal, yes, but which one would you take?
What the fuck are you implying anyway? Yes, I know that soldiers are somewhat trained in melee combat, but isn't their the dominant weapon their guns?
"
- PeZook
