I am doing a research paper on pocket sized impact weapons and was wondering your thought relating to a universal standard that can be used to compare them.
While I have come up with many factors and created objective criteria for them, I am having trouble thinking up a objective measure of effectiveness that makes sense for a research paper.
I have come up with delivery of force; concentration of force but it feels like I am missing something to have the best possible analysis.
Thoughts?
did you not take a basic physics class?
>>29714747
>delivery
>concentration
>and usefulness as other things
That's a pointless one though...i guess here's some more
>devastation
>psychological impact on user or witnesses
>force projection
>>29714775
>devastation
>force projection
What do you mean by these?
>>29714747
Whatever makes the target deader
Part of what is being figured out here.
Pic partially related
Delivery
Concentration
And, fuck, I'unno - universal availability?
>>29714747
Considering that knives aren't deadly anymore you can't go wrong with a blunt weapon
Well you or your lass can legally carry a sock at anytime. Hard pressed even your phone, keys or loose change can make a successful deterrent/self defence weapon.
>>29714970
>>29714986
Not really what was being asked but thank you for your response.
>>29714747
You should be aware of one major source of error in your study. Your responses and data you find will be very biased.
The simple truth is that many many people that have used or attempted to use blunt force weapons got there dumb asses killed and never reported back.
Perhaps simply rate their effectiveness on successfully getting away, getting one's ass kicked, or getting killed using them...
>>29714747
Length and "distance keeping" are prime factors.
Learning eskrima is the main key for melee weapons.
>>29714747
>it feels like I am missing something to have the best possible analysis.
Reach, how far you can be from the target and still have it be effective.
>>29715345
Such data does not exist.
Besides I am doing more of a functional analysis rather then a statistical one.
>>29715494
>>29715499
Reach is a important factor that I overlooked, most likely due to the type of weapons I am analyzing.
Thank you for your insight.
Side question.
Would you guys consider durability as apart of effectiveness or in a different category to be considered independently?
>>29714747
effectiveness of a blunt weapon is as indeterminate as the effectiveness of a gun.
just as some guns are great for certain purposes but terrible for others, you need to decide what you want your blunt weapon to do before you can determine how effective it is.
are you looking for speed, concealment, legality in a certain place, or ability to use defensively as well as offensively?
are you planning to use it on someone unarmed or one armed with a gun, blade, or blunt weapon of their own?
a quarterstaff is a personal favorite for its balance of range, speed, and defensive possibilities
but it doesn't hit as hard as a sledge hammer and it's not as concealable as a kubotan.
see what I'm getting at?
>>29717138
While I don't think you quite understood what I was asking, probable do to lack of clarity on my part, you did mention that gave me a idea.
>speed
While I was thinking of speed in relation to force, another interpretation could be speed as in rate of attacks.
But there are very few weapons I am analyzing where that would be a factor. Would also have to think of a way to phrase it better.
>>29717290
speed as in rate of attacks and also speed of the impacting surface.
an unbalanced weapon like a hammer or such hits hard, but its slower swing makes it easier to dodge or interrupt than something like a nunchuk
Funny you should mention a hammer and nunchuk
While a numchuk has a higher speed, most impart less force then a hammer due to mass. Surprisingly enough a hammer will actually have a higher rate of attack as well since nunchuk has to be re-chambered or redirected after a strike to regain control while the hammer can follow the opposing vector as the strike back to a ready position for another strike. There is no loss of control after impact.
Finally a hammer concentrates force far better then a numchuk.
So based on those three factors a hammer is a more effective weapon then a numchuk. Nunchuk has better reach though. So if that was included things would get a little more complicated without taking into account still other factors.
>>29714747
those look like specialized urethral sounding rods to me
>>29717873
How big is your dickhole if those look like sounding rods to you?
>>29717873
That reflects more on the workings of your mind than it does on anything else.
>>29717045
Different category.
Something could be very effective and not very durable or very durable but not very effective and vice versa. So durability is independent of effectiveness.
>>29717899
big enough to fit a pencil with the use of lube, and not a round one either.
>>29717925
you have no idea how right you are.
>>29718238
>tfw had a catheter done on me when I was 6 years old due to tract infection
>no pain to this day can come close to having a needle stuck up your peehole
I am unironically triggered and I am going to lie down and think about how I live in a world where people do that to themselves for fun
>>29716918
I am thinking now that reach maybe does not fit as neatly with the rest of the analysis relating to effectiveness. But since the topic of my paper is pocket sized weapons, there are only a few where reach is really a factor when comparing them.
Because of this I am thinking that it may be better to just acknowledge the advantage of reach on weapons that have it, but view it more as a kind of "bonus" value.
Unfortunately since my analysis is not built on a hard number based value system, but rather subjective interpretation, how this "bonus" effects the over all analysis is kind of fogy.
>>29719070
>the topic of my paper
>writing a paper comparing the effectiveness of pocket sized blunt weapons
>choosing a topic you don't already know inside and out
>coming to 4chan for help writing your paper
>coming to 4chan for help writing your paper comparing the effectiveness of pocket sized blunt weapons
that is the most autistic thing I've ever seen
>>29719124
To be fare I do know the topic of pocket sized blunt weapons quite well.
But creating a objective(ish) evaluation standard is ever so slightly out of my expertise.
Half the reason why I asked is here is because of the relative high speed of response and the fact people would still be up while I work on it.
The other half because you guys help kill the boredom of working on a very dry research paper.
Beside even if you considerate it autistic it has already proven effective for the purposes of this thread, which was just to sort of bang ideas around with and have fresh eyes to catch anything on the very specific instance I may have missed.
>>29718620
It it's done right with a smooth object it doesn't hurt.
>>29714747
>effectiveness
>any close combat weapon
Congrats on choosing one of the most subjective topics for objective study.
