Can all weapons be used defensively?
Which weapon has the fewest defensive applications?
>>46634283
All weapons can be used defensively, whether it's proper defence or just acting as a layer between your soft flesh and the blow. As for fewest applications? I'm not sure myself but knuckle dusters and tiny knives seem almost useless.
>>46634283
Offense can be defense and defense can be offense
Defense can be achieved with an offensive action and Offense can be decided by a defensive action by the attacker.
Don't get caught up in the two terms, they're just circumstances to a bigger picture.
Flails.
>>46634283
Guns or bows, perhaps. A sturdy enough gun might be able to tank a hit or two against a sword, but a bow seems like it'll easily snap whatever you try with it.
A crossbow can have a bayonet on the end, as can a gun, so they can be improvised stabbing weapons if things get too close, but a bow doesn't look like it has that option.
>>46634472
The arrows are stabbing weapons.
>>46634283
This unholy abomination has about 50/50 chance to rip into your own flesh, without any interference from your opponent.
Any attack against the chains has a good chance of self mutilation before you can get control back.
It does look intimidating.
>>46634533
>It does look intimidating.
A defensive trait...
>>46634368
>Dorn't get caught up in the two terms
>>46634517
There's also that, I guess.
>Grenade
Prove me wrong
>>46634283
Nuke.
>>46634663
mutually assured destruction says otherwise
>>46634641
Smoke grenade to obscure the team during retreat. Tear gas to disperse aggressors.
>>46634641
Grenade makes for decent emergency dead man's switch, which has defensive applications.
>>46634730
Now it boils down to semantic whether nuclear standoff counts as "using a weapon", because whole point kind of is that neither side actually will.
>>46634558
>>46634322
You could still parry with them. Wouldnt be much different then parrying with your hands but you can still do it.
>>46634472
Musashi killed a guy in a sword fight with an unstrung bow once and you can club someone to death with most guns without too much trouble.
>>46634839
I'd discount Musashi because that guy can kill you with anything he gets his hands on.
You can club someone to death with a sturdy enough gun but generally you don't want to mess up the firing mechanisms and give the thing a chance to burst in your face the next time you fire it.
>>46634816
If someone is shooting a gun at you you could always hide behind one. Thats using one defensively in my book.
>>46634883
No one said it had to stay working afterwards.
I got a bow in my room and its still a fiveish foot long stick at the end of the day. You could hurt someone pretty bad with it if you felt like.
Does deterrence count as a defensive application? If not, ICBMs are the ultimate in lacking any legitimate defensive use. Their real defensive value is merely in possessing them. Actually using them is pure offense.
>>46634533
>can entangle weapons
>gripped between two hands, a chain can fend off all manner of attacks
>long reach and the ability to wrap around shields forces your opponent onto the back foot
>of your using one in a fight odds are you have trained with the damn thing, so control should be less of an issue
>>46634283
What constitutes defensively? Is attacking an enemy's weapon defensive? If so, they say, the best defense is a good offense, and all weapons have a defensive use in that regard. Even nuclear weapons were usually meant for "counterforce" use.
>>46634283
Depends on what you mean by defense. Are you referring to the ability to block a physical attack during a melee brawl, or the ability to deter an attack before it even begins? If it's the case of the former then i'd say handguns would be a pretty shit defense weapon, but they could still be used to block an attack in a pinch. Technically any weapon could be used defensively, but whether or not they're successful is a different story entirely.
>>46634641
"THE PIN IS OUT."
To get into something that wouldn't be potentially defensive even by mutual assured destruction as deterrent, you would essentially need something that even anybody having the idea of it existing would trigger the destructive state.
Hopefully nobody can ever properly think of those.
>>46636979
On the other hand, if "defensive use" means "it'll keep you from being robbed, raped, or murdered", then nothing beats gun.
>>46637299
>nothing beats gun
Just make sure the other guy doesn't have a bigger gun. Or friends with more guns.
>>46634641
A lot of grenades are/were defensive, especially early ones. The Mills grenade/mills bomb for instance was meant for use by someone in cover to fend off attacks, you can't actually safely use it just standing in the open, you need to be in a trench or behind a corner when it goes off.
The distance where fragments from it were potentially lethal was something like 3x as long as an able-bodied man could throw it.
So yes, grenades can definitely "be used defensively" in OP's vague terms.
A defensive weapon is a weapon meant to aid you when you are attacked, as opposed to something designed to use ina planned attack on someone. A handgun is a defensive weapon since it lacks the range and hitting power you want for an offensive weapon, while being convenient to use and carry for when something unexpected happens.
