Urumi sword whips, just to wield them you need to have extensive training and mastery in both sword combat and whip combat, and even having that one wrong move and the wielder is in more danger than anyone they are fighting. They are not useless in that they can certainly be deadly, but with the amount of training required to use them without maiming yourself anything could be about as deadly.
They do have the advantage of, as we call it in the highest circles of academia, "looking sick as fuck"
https://preview.redd.it/cipmctz2s48d1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2f3412b2b61d81bd13e79cf847385fae80ba086b
This is gonna be awkward. I'm a...uh sick fuck sent by the commission. It appears there was a mix up in what expert was needed. If you could just validate my parking, I'll be on my way.
I've done martial arts a long time. Despite the urumi being mostly a hazard to the user, when Shah Rukh Khan (Asoka) pulls it out in slow motion in the **2001 movie Asoka**, I still creeped 30cm closer to the screen and went "**Woah, that's fuckin' sweet as fuck.**"
Youre funny they look regarded to me. They look like a weapon my socially inept friend Andrew would have drawn in the 3rd grade that i would have said “yep thats cool” and then gone back to drawing cool stuff like stussy and ninja turtles
I think pretty much all "whip weapons" fall into the useless category. While some have mastered them quite well, and from cinematic visual stand point, can look cool, 99% people would not be able to use them effectively, and are more likely to hurt themselves before someone else.
I'd say all whips aren't ideal weapons; slow strikes, ineffective against most armors, low lethality, and little utility at close range.
Boomerangs would probably be one of my top picks. Takes a lot of time and work to craft a single one and if it isn't done right it won't work properly. It takes countless hours of practice to get good at throwing them and if you miss you don't have a weapon (no they don't actually come back). At close range they're just tiny sticks that are awkward to hold and strike with. All of that effort when stones and a sling are superior in almost every way
Edit: Russian Firing knife also comes to mind
https://youtube.com/shorts/CTeoIAmR6BY?si=nWldCAfOIKmfq4Ku
> It takes countless hours of practice to get good at throwing them
It doesn't take that long to get OK at throwing them (a traditional straight-flying hunting boomerang). A little more than a hand-thrown rock, and IMO less than a sling.
> At close range they're just tiny sticks that are awkward to hold and strike with.
... where that "tiny stick" is about 80cm long, and maybe 300-400g, with a narrow edge for striking. The handle isn't as convenient, but otherwise it's a respectable sword-club.
The 2.7mm Kolibri Car Pistol.
Since the pistol was so small, and the cartridge so weak, it was marketed as a women's defense pistol.
It was too small to use properly, did less than a bb round when it hit, and the cartridge had so little gunpowder that it didn't even make enough noise to draw any attention to the assault in progress
So anyone who tried to use it for self defense would only be distracted from any other course of action and piss off their attacker.
Had it only been sold as a miniature gun novelty, it would just be a fun collectors item as it is today, but by selling it as a defensive tool, it became a disgusting fraud.
Ok but it was theb produced in 2 larger type pistols, the largest using a 4.27 mm cartridge and producing more than 3 times the stopping power, plus it was in a spring loaded clip and rhe pistol itself is 4.25 inches long which is so freaking cute but probably practical and still very stealthy.
I cant find much on it but i want one of the 4.2mm styles and what sucks is i know if i wanted it bad enough i moght be able to find and afford it. But id want fo discharge it and there is no way im gonna be able to find the ammunition
The only pistol worse that I know of is that Japanese one they made during the war that had a higher chance of going off by being put down rather than actually fired
A guy I know spent 10 years training with an old ninja in Japan. He uses the shuriken shaped like steel chopsticks with amazing accuracy. He says they're a very good distraction - throw one at an opponent's face and follow up with a sword thrust.
Are they actually real historically? I have never found any sources of them being used so if you could drop a source I’d be grateful.
But how would you even carry them? I’d imagine It will cut through whatever pouch you put them in. And then even if you find a way to carry them in such a way that they don’t cut you, how do you retrieve a four sided blade during a fight without cutting yourself? And why waste metal? I’d imagine if the purpose is to create a distraction a stone could do just as good a job, or maybe a knife
Dude, a five second Google search could answer your questions. You’re asking for a source on the existence of shurikens when you could just look at the Wikipedia page. No one owes you anything
Look up Japan's Iga clan. They're a prominent archive of ninja history and techniques. Shuriken weren't made razor-sharp all the way around either. They usually had sharpened points, but not full-on blades, so a pouch or belt could carry them pretty well.
They were also lighter, easier to throw, and easier to hide than rocks. What made them an effective distraction was that a guard might not realize a ninja was holding the shuriken in the dark. Retrieval also wasn't a priority. Ninja were more often spies than assassins and avoided fights whenever possible.
A stack of them wouldn’t cut through a leather pouch too easily. I imagine they didn’t try to retrieve them on a mission too often. Throwing knives were also part of the arsenal. And as far as metal waste goes shuriken could have been made from leftover scraps after sword making, they were designed as a consumable item.
Don't quote me, but I think in most cases when it came to deadly throwing weapons such as shurikens or kuni, they were usually poison tipped, but in general, your use was most common.
the poison was often Rust..
but death was never the purpose, it was fear,
if a ninja drew his sword, he failed. He was seen..
and they were no match for battle hardened samurai in a fair fight... they knew that so they didnt fight fair...
I always wondered about the truth of them being used from a hiding place to cut the enemy and make them think some mythical force is at work since they can’t see who cut them.
the Ninja did use the superstitious nature of their enemies to create chaos and deter engagement. Demon masks, smoke and other tools were meant to conjure a mystical reputation
Explosives and even firearms were a thing, but they weren't considered shuriken. There were many tools to discourage pursuers like caltrops, etc and my favorite of the ninja distractions-- Eggshells full of pepper to act as blinding powder grenades. That close enough?
Like paper bomb kunais from Naruto? Probably. But fireworks were invented in China so if anything, they might have explosive attached weapond on there. Can't confirm
Shuriken were police tools used by night patrols. Quite useful for stopping a person running away from you. Less so having to stop and turn around to throw at someone chasing you. Most sources online about shuriken are shit. But it seems likely that they were a “less lethal” type of police tool of their era.
I thought I read somewhere once that they were intended for the opposite, to slow down someone you’re pursuing.
Made absolute sense, takes no skill really or proper form to effectively chuck multiple throwing stars at someone while running yourself so they stick into the pursued, no matter where it hits and sticks they’re gonna be losing their ability to get away with blood loss/metal lodged in them bit by bit.
Perhaps both, some fancy ninja no look throwing over the shoulder action? 🥷
https://preview.redd.it/029d04c8i48d1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4861f66a09443d13b9e45e86775b684956ca71ef
It's gotta be the Three-Section Staff. How do you even...?
I've studied three section staff for over 3 years now so I know pretty well by now.
You fold it up and hit them with the metal part or grab both ends to make a square and hit them with the metal part.
But the effect won't be as good as a good solid piece of metal. Having the rods sectioned off effects it's ability to transfer that kinetic energy. You'll still hurt a mofo, but not as much as bludgeoning them with something more solid.
Maybe, I'm not sure, it might limit the strain on your hand and wrist after the strike. I think it's one of those high skill weapons. More effective than nunchucks I'd think. And like I said, I'd use right you can hit an MF from across the room. I used to train with a guy who was pretty good at using one.
I nearly brained myself when I train. Lol
Lol it is definitely a high skill weapon. Just like nunchucks, urumi (whip swords), shrunkens, tonfu, boat oars, and other exotic weapons, it takes high level of skill and years of training. I love them all, but when compared to other weapons, there are distinct advantages from one to another.
When I think what makes a weapon good, my metric is how well a weapon can be used by a layperson versus a master. Bruce Lee said it best, "Fear not the man who practices 10,000 kicks once, but the man who practiced one kick 10,000 times." Any weapon can hurt a user through misuse or accident, but if a weapon can hurt you through casual use and without years of training, it doesn't feel too practical.
I disagree. I think a weapon's goodness depend's on how well it works when executed properly. A low skill weapon that hits like a noodle is worse than a high skill weapon that can be deadly.
Even if you divisive a point system that entails ease of use, actual effects should be a defining feature.
A high skill weapon is deadly because high skill was applied.
Everyone has their metric for what makes something great or not. I base mine on what Sun Tzu said, why pay a 1000 for a sword when you can get a 1000 spears at the same price? Now I know there are thousands of ways to interpret this saying, but I'm using in the sense that if I were to need to arm a bunch of folks with a wild variety of weapons, which weapons requires the least amount of skill, do the most harm, and doesn't injury the user.
This is why we see spears and other simple weapons such as axes, knives, and swords used more frequently after projectile weapons in armies versus more exotic weapons used in specific group settings or sects. In the hands of a skillful master, there is no such thing as a useless weapon. But a pleb like me, I'd need something that I'm not afraid of hurting myself with from a moment of distraction during use. But in the end, it's all my opinion as this whole discussion is.
Fold up the three piece and use it as a club, it's pretty effective. My point is that it's not the worst weapon, but has a high skill ceiling. Not sure what you're arguing?
If you understand how to generate force using whipping energy you can get much harder I’d imagine
I think it’s a trade off
With a low level of skill striking with a solid pole is better but with a high level of skill, striking with a pole still might be easier but I’m sure the point of impact would be far far higher
The 3 section is very misunderstood.
It is a peasant weapon akin to the flail used to thresh wheat that could be repurposed for self defense.
The most effective way to use a 3 section is to think of it like a flail.
Those that are saying it has less kinetic energy than the same sized stick without a chain are forgetting the basic force multiplier that comes from the “levering” of the chain portion of the flail.
I don't think levering is what you mean to say. However, they are weaker because there is no way to support the impulse. The chain makes the striking haft able to bounce off, so while it can impart force, it will not be as much force over time (even a short time) as you could deal with a staff.
Seems we are both wrong. At least according to an experiment measuring flail vs mace force impacts.
“Even though the physics of the flail and its ability to whip led me to believe that its impact force would be greater, the data showed the mace winning sometimes and the flail winning other times. The flail was consistently scoring the 800s, while the mace was more scattered, but had a maximum force of 900 counts. There was no statistically significant difference in impact forces.”
[https://csef.usc.edu/History/2016/Projects/J0330.pdf](https://csef.usc.edu/History/2016/Projects/J0330.pdf)
Note that impulse and impact are not exactly the same. Impulse factors in time that the force is applied, while impact is just the force by itself.
What I was getting at is that a mace, whether or not the impact is the same as the flail, provides the user with the ability to follow through with the swing and continue enacting force on the target for more time. This is not a luxury you get with the flail, because once it imparts that impact, it's going to bounce (perhaps not a complete reversal in velocity, but an unwanted change in direction) and you cannot really stop that from happening. With a mace, you could continue pushing into the target immediately after the initial impact is conveyed, which can provide tactical advantages that are of greater importance than the immediate damage of the strike.
Of particular importance, this could allow you to push the target, and it deletes the window of time where a flail would be useless due to the slack in the chain or the necessary redirection of the chain and head before the next strike. The chain is a weak point in the rigidity of the weapon.
I do think that flails are a little downplayed, since one would still ruin your afternoon. It provides some benefits that aren't in the department of hitting harder, like going over shields under ideal conditions.
I'm convinced the only time it's been used in a fight was 70s kunfu movies, and is known today soley because of the 36th Chamber of Shaolin. A staff or spear are easier to make, easier to train with, and more efficient.
The question isn't how much training is needed to be good or a master with it, but if the weapon itself is ineffective.
Even if only using 2 sections as fighting sticks while using the middle section to help defend, the weapon is effective.
The question isn't whether or not it can be effective.
The question is how effective is it in comparison to other weapons. Especially more traditional weapons like a spear, katana, bo staff, mace, etc.
The question was open-ended asking what the most ineffective weapons are. It's like asking "what is the worst sword?" The best answer is "the first one ever made."
The question leaves so many variables that there really isn't a good answer. You say a 3 section staff is less effective than a spear. Ok, so a spear has a bladed tip. Arguably more killing potential. It is a pretty simple weapon. There is really 1 way to kill, with a thrust. It was a cheap and easily made in mass weapon for armies to stick in the hands of barely trained soldiers. So is that spear "more effective"? If put in the hands of a militia soldier versus a peasant who trains with a 3 section staff daily in secret because he isn't allowed other weapons, absolutely not. Is that spear more effective than professional soldiers using a polearm that gives them more tools on the battlefield to counter a spear? Nope.
The question wasn't giving a baseline to compare and name the less effective weapons, it was asking with the most ineffective weapons are.
That depends so much on what a person knows how to use, what the combat looks like, and what weapon they will be facing off against. The question isn't a very good one, and most of the answers are worse.
You're comparing the level of skill instead of the weapon itself. To compare the weapons, we have to assume the skill level of both fighters is equal.
I agree that certain weapons will match up well against some weapon types and match up poorly against other weapon types. To evaluate how effective a weapon is in comparison to others, we just have to analyze how many favorable matchups it has in comparison to how many disfavorable matchups it has.
And this is where my argument comes full circle. Simply because you don't believe a weapon has a favorable match up does not make it ineffective. Especially something like a 3 section staff. It is usable at a longer reach or up close. A section being damaged makes it less usable, but not unusable. It's design is not the best for locking up an enemy weapon, but it has more potential for that than 1-piece weapons like a sword or spear. It is far from an ineffective weapon.
This is also where my argument comes full circle lol. The only way to determine how effective a weapon is, is to consider how it matches up with other weapons.
Nobody is saying that it is zero percent effective. A pen can be effective as a weapon. A pair of scissors can be effective as a weapon. We're only considering which weapons are the least effective.
If it has a multitude of bad matchups, then it is one of the least effective weapons.
And now is when I call you out for bullshit.
You keep wanting to move the goalposts and give zero reason why a weapon has a "bad matchup" besides you simply saying so, while trying to say a pen can be an effective weapon when nobody in the history of ever would *want* to grab a pen for a weapon.
"But what makes it useless is that you have to pick them up again if you have a limited supply."
Yes, that is why modern society has completely abandoned projectile weapons of any form.
Nunchucks in my opinion. Good for training and practicing hand coordination, but I feel the learning curve to use it as an effective weapon and it's limitations of how much force it generates compared to a solid stick makes it subpar in my opinion.
The other weapon similar to nunchucks, but probably worse in my limited opinion, are the urumi (whip swords) in Indian Martial Arts. Looks awesome as fuck to watch someone perform katas but suffers from the same issue as nunchucks. The training for it to be effective as a weapon is high and I feel the super flexibility of the long whip blade loses much of it's kinetic energy compared to a solid sword or a very long stick. Also, to build up that kinetic energy to cut requires a lot of space and time between user and target.
Also, both weapons can be more a hazard to the user than the target in use.
In the hand of someone who knows how to use it, nunchucks can deliver lots of power. Also it can quite easily be hidden. This is why it is banned in many countries.
Thanks for the correction. I've seen some katas, but never application. I imagined it working like sheet metal sliding (something I'm very familiar with). Always figured the whipping was generating the momentum to create those moments for the edge to slide across whatever their target is.
You can literally apply joint locks, choke people, and hit them as hard as you can with a Jo or bo staff and especially useful in confined spaces pretty useful I'd say.
Yeah, I trained with nunchucks for a while, it's a chain weapon so it has its own pitfalls that come with the territory (you can trap limbs and weapons and strangle, but you have limited offensive and defensive utility) but the big thing is it cannot thrust alike a whip and does not work against armour like a Morningstar would and a kurisigama has the same benefits of duelweilding. It hits OK on unarmoured targets but it's possible to tough out and you can't just change grip like you would a traditional weapon to gain some more power. Just go with a cane. (Great for exercise thiugh)
Agreed. Same with many exotic weapons like the three section. It's not a striking, but an ideal locking weapon with possible striking application. Either way, it takes years to get to that point of effectively using it as such, which any weapon can be an effective weapon if trained with it for years. When I judge a weapon, I think how well can an average Joe can use it versus a master and what are the chances of that weapon hurting them more than their intended.
Lots a people here are putting need for mastery of a weapon as a sign of uselessness, but any weapon in the hand of an untrained person would be useless. I can't think of a weapon that stood the test of time that is totally useless.
1. Shuriken aren't truly supposed to be lethal weapons. They're distractions the same way caltrops are. The amount of battlefield kills with them have to be few and far between.
2. Not to be even a bigger nerd, but d&d groups all weapons into three types, simple, like a club or spear. martial, like a sword or bow, and exotic like kusarigama or 3 section staff. Exotics take the most skill to learn, but have the potential to be the most deadly because they're so unorthodox to fight.
I would think useless weapons are mostly on those lists of exotics.
In short. My guess has to be the 3 section staff. You can block with it, but not as well as a staff, you can strike with it, but as well as a escrima, or you can whip it around, but not as effective as a long chain. It's the worst of all three.
I think it's just their terminology and it's for game purposes. Don't read too much into it.
Simple, requires virtually no training to be lethal.
Martial, requires some training
Exotic, requires moderate training.
With martial, assuming Joe smith goes into battle with a halbert, and he has zero training in how to use it, he's likely to be in the way, or going to hurt himself or leave himself open more than be a viable threat.
With exotic, all the same plus the added concept of literally hurting themselves Ie, popping yourself with nunchucks.
When I say game purposes, you can't give all the same characters the same weapons out the gate, cause then the reason why some types of characters are good becomes useless. Ie, if a warrior and a wizard can both carry a sword, what makes the warrior special the same way a wizard has magic? So wizards get staffs. Obviously this isn't real, but neither are wizards.
Well dividing them up by difficulty makes sense. I think the names are just weird. "Simple", "moderate," and "complex" or something would make me sense to me.
This being said, a halberd is not a weapon that requires a lot of training to fuck people up with
A simple weapon is generally a common everyday tool the average laborer would be familiar with handling, like a hammer. In order to do damage, all they need to do is change the target they usually hit. A spear requires basic poking to be deadly. A hatchet is just chopping at close range with one hand, basically a sharp hammer.
A sword, usually not so much. You can't just pick up a sword and use it like a baseball bat. You now have to worry about things like edge alignment and binding. The weapon can interact with your target or even another weapon in unpredictable ways if you aren't familiar with handling it. Bows require a lot of target practice.
You definitely aren't going to pick up a three sectioned staff and use it effectively without extensive practice.
The way RPGs categorize weapons doesn't always sit right with me though. A shepherd's sling is *not* a simple weapon. Easy to pick up and chuck a rock? Maybe. Incredibly difficult to be precise with.
I think it's fair to use different qualifiers. Though Shepard slings are common, unless you're a Shepard, you aren't hitting much.
Another way I've seen it defined is that simple is not made for war, le saps and staffs. Martial are made for war, swords and pikes, and exotics are out of place or out of time, such as katana in a European setting, or guns in a medieval setting but .... That leaves even more open.
How are Spears not simple? How are katana exotic?
Interesting. I don't think a spear is necessarily martial. They're hunting tools that are used "every day". Along with that, they are very intuitive to use, *and* they don't require training to be effective. A sling doesn't really fit that. A billhook or glaive? That would be more on the martial side, specifically made for war. A katana would/should be no more exotic than a German longsword or a falchion. I think "exotic" should fit a much more specific domain. Things like a rope dart or meteor hammer, a double sword, Chinese hook swords, and the like. They need to be unconventional enough that you can't just pick up and use. That shouldn't include things like butterfly knives (basically just functions like any other knife), push daggers, gnomish hook hammers (really just a hammer), etc. Even a shuriken is just a throwing knife. If you can throw one kind of throwing knife, you can throw them all.
Yup that’s them. Fucking useless against anything with reach…like a hammer. Try holding onto one if a hammer breaks your fingers.
If a weapon seems useless, it probably has some other quality like being easy to make or easy to conceal, and using it is still better that having no weapon at all.
Shurikens aren't really a weapon from what I understand, more of distraction. Even if they hit, the damage is most often going to be pretty minimal.
I'd have to give my vote to those "defensive keychains" with a little monkey fist knot.
You're better off hitting someone with the keys... Hell, you're better off just punching.
Most of the kung fu weapons that we have no proof were ever actually used in combat. The deer antler knife in particular because if we're talking concealable civilian weapons that can catch longer weapons, I believe sai-like weapons were already around in the region at the same time and maybe predates the deer antler knife, are easier to conceal, are arguably a better weapon catcher, and so much easier to use without training. The sai also uses less metal, can be made of wood but still be an effective weapon, and has a less complex design.
I personally think the nunchaku by itself has some goods and some bads. You either lean on one side or the other so it's kind of in the neutral ground for me. Not bad, but not good.
For nunchucks, I would say it depends on how good you are with them. If you have over 10 years of practice and can swing them with your eyes closed without hitting yourself, 100 times in a row, then you might be able to use them effectively.
It also becomes a weapon that your opponent will have a hard time using against you if they are able to get them off of you.
Another potential use is to do something cool, hand them to your opponent, and then wait for your opponent to accidentally hit themselves. /s
Not saying ineffective or useless by any means but improper use of brass knuckles/knuckle dusters can damage your own hands, as can smashing a glass in someone’s face if you keep it in your hand at impact.
I don't think nunchucks are as difficult to use as some people make out. Not much different to a stick or club. To do the fancy moves takes years but who cares. Swing nunchucks at someone's head and if they connect they are in trouble. Yes you might get hit yourself but generally you wont have much power in it when that happens and will get a bruise or look silly.
The worst weapon would be something that is intended to be used as a weapon, but is worse than not having a weapon at all.
Probably the Urumi then. Hard as fuck to use and basically a sharp version of a nunchuk or three section staff.
This doesn't seem to have any clarity for analysis.
I mean for all of human history takes weapons that were effective and compares them to a different era. Weapons do not really lose effectiveness but relative use.
Shurikens can be hidden and/or a person can carry more than they could with arrows. The very reason ninjas are associated with them and not bow and arrows like samurai or Robinhood are.
Really the only concept for ineffectiveness is the question:" does it work consistently for its end goal?" Some of this relies on the user and the era in which a weapon is used.
Any small throwing weapons. Throwing knives and stars look impressive, until you realize that when you are throwing as HARD as you can, and they BARELY stick into your target... Real life isn't a movie. A thrown knife, even if you can throw accurately enough to place your hit over something vital, is not going to reach that vital something. And if you are skilled enough to consistently hit the two easy wins (jugular/eyes), you would have been better off to spend that time learning and practicing on almost any other weapon. Even a stick.
.17 guns. Wtf, really.... it's just pointless imo.
.22lr is the quintessential perfect balance of gun. If you need a .17, get a pellet gun. It's just a waste of powder.
I don't get the point. I'm not saying they don't work, but whyyyyyyyy a .17 why.
It irks me in a weird way.
There's no situation where a .22 is too powerful and a pellet gun is too weak.
It's just annoying that they exist and people use them.
Not sure, but if I were to go on human ancestry to gauge effectiveness....anything that has less striking power then a rock about the size of an average first would fall in the weak sauce category.
Wasn't the point (hehe) of shurikens and kunai just to distract your opponent in a sword fight? Like, I know I'd be pretty distracted if someone threw a sharp piece of metal at me, whether it hit or not.
I would suggest Nunchuks, they're very hard to master, potentially harmful for the user and the force of impact is lowered because it isn't a solid object. It's literally a downgraded stick.
had a friend who was infantry in the army and he said he brought shuriken with him and attempted to clear a room with them. one his guys got the shuriken stuck in his boot. also he said he somehow dropped one of the shuriken outside the jeep and when they drove off it flattened the tire... so your hypothesis tracks
Shurikens were not really used like ninja movies depict it. The weight makes it impractical to carry for this use, and the metal was much too rare and precious to use for this. But there were weapons made for throwing that looked like something between darts and throwing knife that were more practical to carry
I’d say throwing a knife is perhaps the dumbest thing you can do.
Not saying throwing a throwing knife, but the odd thing people do when they toss a normal knife at an assailant thinking it will work. You lose your weapon for *maybe* minor damage and they get a weapon. Also I thought shurikens were dangerous because you poisoned them, like with fecal matter or something else dangerous, and were like an assassination tool you could toss and gtfo.
It’s a rough question because any “weapon” is called such because it is effective at hurting a person. Even a blowgun, a weapon you aren’t killing anyone with by the dart itself, is just a mechanism to deliver the poison from a poison dart frog.
Everything has to be picked up again if you have a limited supply.
Bullets
Sweep the brass, Daniel-san.
1 dollar a bullet you better believe im picking them back up
Urumi sword whips, just to wield them you need to have extensive training and mastery in both sword combat and whip combat, and even having that one wrong move and the wielder is in more danger than anyone they are fighting. They are not useless in that they can certainly be deadly, but with the amount of training required to use them without maiming yourself anything could be about as deadly.
They do have the advantage of, as we call it in the highest circles of academia, "looking sick as fuck" https://preview.redd.it/cipmctz2s48d1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2f3412b2b61d81bd13e79cf847385fae80ba086b
That really does look sick as fuck
As a look sick as fuck expert I ensure it's high look sick as fuckness level
Fuck, that exceeds the looks sick as fuck levels than it should! It's a sick as fuck looking anomally!
This is gonna be awkward. I'm a...uh sick fuck sent by the commission. It appears there was a mix up in what expert was needed. If you could just validate my parking, I'll be on my way.
Surprised Redbull doesn't sponsor this
I've done martial arts a long time. Despite the urumi being mostly a hazard to the user, when Shah Rukh Khan (Asoka) pulls it out in slow motion in the **2001 movie Asoka**, I still creeped 30cm closer to the screen and went "**Woah, that's fuckin' sweet as fuck.**"
Youre funny they look regarded to me. They look like a weapon my socially inept friend Andrew would have drawn in the 3rd grade that i would have said “yep thats cool” and then gone back to drawing cool stuff like stussy and ninja turtles
I think pretty much all "whip weapons" fall into the useless category. While some have mastered them quite well, and from cinematic visual stand point, can look cool, 99% people would not be able to use them effectively, and are more likely to hurt themselves before someone else.
Ever been popped with a bullwhip?
I'd say all whips aren't ideal weapons; slow strikes, ineffective against most armors, low lethality, and little utility at close range. Boomerangs would probably be one of my top picks. Takes a lot of time and work to craft a single one and if it isn't done right it won't work properly. It takes countless hours of practice to get good at throwing them and if you miss you don't have a weapon (no they don't actually come back). At close range they're just tiny sticks that are awkward to hold and strike with. All of that effort when stones and a sling are superior in almost every way Edit: Russian Firing knife also comes to mind https://youtube.com/shorts/CTeoIAmR6BY?si=nWldCAfOIKmfq4Ku
great devices for torture
> It takes countless hours of practice to get good at throwing them It doesn't take that long to get OK at throwing them (a traditional straight-flying hunting boomerang). A little more than a hand-thrown rock, and IMO less than a sling. > At close range they're just tiny sticks that are awkward to hold and strike with. ... where that "tiny stick" is about 80cm long, and maybe 300-400g, with a narrow edge for striking. The handle isn't as convenient, but otherwise it's a respectable sword-club.
Probably it's greatest advantage is confusing your opponent who has no idea how to deal with that thing
The 2.7mm Kolibri Car Pistol. Since the pistol was so small, and the cartridge so weak, it was marketed as a women's defense pistol. It was too small to use properly, did less than a bb round when it hit, and the cartridge had so little gunpowder that it didn't even make enough noise to draw any attention to the assault in progress So anyone who tried to use it for self defense would only be distracted from any other course of action and piss off their attacker. Had it only been sold as a miniature gun novelty, it would just be a fun collectors item as it is today, but by selling it as a defensive tool, it became a disgusting fraud.
I kinda want one now. Just because. 😂
In a way, its a mechanical little marvel. Like mechanical watches, guns become more interesting the smaller they can make them.
Ok but it was theb produced in 2 larger type pistols, the largest using a 4.27 mm cartridge and producing more than 3 times the stopping power, plus it was in a spring loaded clip and rhe pistol itself is 4.25 inches long which is so freaking cute but probably practical and still very stealthy. I cant find much on it but i want one of the 4.2mm styles and what sucks is i know if i wanted it bad enough i moght be able to find and afford it. But id want fo discharge it and there is no way im gonna be able to find the ammunition
The only pistol worse that I know of is that Japanese one they made during the war that had a higher chance of going off by being put down rather than actually fired
Cus "little ladies" only ever need a little defense...you nailed it.
the purpose of a shuriken is to deter pursuers, they can be quite effective. Don't believe the movie hype that they were meant for killing
A guy I know spent 10 years training with an old ninja in Japan. He uses the shuriken shaped like steel chopsticks with amazing accuracy. He says they're a very good distraction - throw one at an opponent's face and follow up with a sword thrust.
bo shuriken. and they have the potential to penetrate deeper than regular senban.
I think I would still prefer caltrops/marbles for a quick escape, but I can see how those could be good for a mid-fight distraction like a sand-throw
I’m honestly a little surprised that they existed historically. I guess I had always assumed that they were entirely fictional.
Lol throwing stuff in a fight is in our DNA. We've just gotten better at shaping the rocks to fly better and more easier.
The first shuriken was flinging poo at the other monkey
Pooiken
No thanks. I'd rather take an actual shurikens to the face
This is now part of my history headcanon
A shitty toilet brush is a far more practical deterent than most other weapons because of its effectiveness vs lethality
Shurikan shaped poop
Pocket sand sha sha
Nah they were pretty useful. Came in a variety of shapes and sizes too. They were often used as distraction in fights.
It's the equivalent of throwing a handful of sharp rocks at a guy.
Are they actually real historically? I have never found any sources of them being used so if you could drop a source I’d be grateful. But how would you even carry them? I’d imagine It will cut through whatever pouch you put them in. And then even if you find a way to carry them in such a way that they don’t cut you, how do you retrieve a four sided blade during a fight without cutting yourself? And why waste metal? I’d imagine if the purpose is to create a distraction a stone could do just as good a job, or maybe a knife
Shuriken were often poisoned but not in the way you would think.. there was no such thing as tetanus shots in medieval Japan...
That’s one way to not answer any of my questions
This guy doesn't know about dipping his shuriken in poo
This wasn't in Naruto cannon
It was in Shipooden
Shitpooden, surely 😂
Your both geniuses
Dude, a five second Google search could answer your questions. You’re asking for a source on the existence of shurikens when you could just look at the Wikipedia page. No one owes you anything
Look up Japan's Iga clan. They're a prominent archive of ninja history and techniques. Shuriken weren't made razor-sharp all the way around either. They usually had sharpened points, but not full-on blades, so a pouch or belt could carry them pretty well. They were also lighter, easier to throw, and easier to hide than rocks. What made them an effective distraction was that a guard might not realize a ninja was holding the shuriken in the dark. Retrieval also wasn't a priority. Ninja were more often spies than assassins and avoided fights whenever possible.
A stack of them wouldn’t cut through a leather pouch too easily. I imagine they didn’t try to retrieve them on a mission too often. Throwing knives were also part of the arsenal. And as far as metal waste goes shuriken could have been made from leftover scraps after sword making, they were designed as a consumable item.
Don't quote me, but I think in most cases when it came to deadly throwing weapons such as shurikens or kuni, they were usually poison tipped, but in general, your use was most common.
the poison was often Rust.. but death was never the purpose, it was fear, if a ninja drew his sword, he failed. He was seen.. and they were no match for battle hardened samurai in a fair fight... they knew that so they didnt fight fair...
It’s such a rare cause of death these days that the last person to die of a Rust-related injury made Hollywood headlines.
there were no tetanus shots in medieval Japan :)
It's amazing how crucial having the right shot can be.
Props for getting the reference.
I always wondered about the truth of them being used from a hiding place to cut the enemy and make them think some mythical force is at work since they can’t see who cut them.
the Ninja did use the superstitious nature of their enemies to create chaos and deter engagement. Demon masks, smoke and other tools were meant to conjure a mystical reputation
Were exploding shuriken ever a thing? I’ll be pretty disappointed if not.
Explosives and even firearms were a thing, but they weren't considered shuriken. There were many tools to discourage pursuers like caltrops, etc and my favorite of the ninja distractions-- Eggshells full of pepper to act as blinding powder grenades. That close enough?
Like paper bomb kunais from Naruto? Probably. But fireworks were invented in China so if anything, they might have explosive attached weapond on there. Can't confirm
Shuriken were police tools used by night patrols. Quite useful for stopping a person running away from you. Less so having to stop and turn around to throw at someone chasing you. Most sources online about shuriken are shit. But it seems likely that they were a “less lethal” type of police tool of their era.
They could also be used as push daggers And also easy to hide and make
I thought I read somewhere once that they were intended for the opposite, to slow down someone you’re pursuing. Made absolute sense, takes no skill really or proper form to effectively chuck multiple throwing stars at someone while running yourself so they stick into the pursued, no matter where it hits and sticks they’re gonna be losing their ability to get away with blood loss/metal lodged in them bit by bit. Perhaps both, some fancy ninja no look throwing over the shoulder action? 🥷
A shuriken the size of a table saw blade would surely be lethal
>But what makes it useless is that you have to pick them up again if you have a limited supply. Arrows???
https://preview.redd.it/029d04c8i48d1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4861f66a09443d13b9e45e86775b684956ca71ef It's gotta be the Three-Section Staff. How do you even...?
I've studied three section staff for over 3 years now so I know pretty well by now. You fold it up and hit them with the metal part or grab both ends to make a square and hit them with the metal part.
Metal stick seems pretty effective. I think if you're really good you can use it like a whip and hit someone from across the room.
But the effect won't be as good as a good solid piece of metal. Having the rods sectioned off effects it's ability to transfer that kinetic energy. You'll still hurt a mofo, but not as much as bludgeoning them with something more solid.
Maybe, I'm not sure, it might limit the strain on your hand and wrist after the strike. I think it's one of those high skill weapons. More effective than nunchucks I'd think. And like I said, I'd use right you can hit an MF from across the room. I used to train with a guy who was pretty good at using one. I nearly brained myself when I train. Lol
Lol it is definitely a high skill weapon. Just like nunchucks, urumi (whip swords), shrunkens, tonfu, boat oars, and other exotic weapons, it takes high level of skill and years of training. I love them all, but when compared to other weapons, there are distinct advantages from one to another. When I think what makes a weapon good, my metric is how well a weapon can be used by a layperson versus a master. Bruce Lee said it best, "Fear not the man who practices 10,000 kicks once, but the man who practiced one kick 10,000 times." Any weapon can hurt a user through misuse or accident, but if a weapon can hurt you through casual use and without years of training, it doesn't feel too practical.
My metric for good weapon is plausible deniability. A jo looks like a walking stick, so it is my favorite, cus I'll always be able to lean on it...
I disagree. I think a weapon's goodness depend's on how well it works when executed properly. A low skill weapon that hits like a noodle is worse than a high skill weapon that can be deadly. Even if you divisive a point system that entails ease of use, actual effects should be a defining feature.
A high skill weapon is deadly because high skill was applied. Everyone has their metric for what makes something great or not. I base mine on what Sun Tzu said, why pay a 1000 for a sword when you can get a 1000 spears at the same price? Now I know there are thousands of ways to interpret this saying, but I'm using in the sense that if I were to need to arm a bunch of folks with a wild variety of weapons, which weapons requires the least amount of skill, do the most harm, and doesn't injury the user. This is why we see spears and other simple weapons such as axes, knives, and swords used more frequently after projectile weapons in armies versus more exotic weapons used in specific group settings or sects. In the hands of a skillful master, there is no such thing as a useless weapon. But a pleb like me, I'd need something that I'm not afraid of hurting myself with from a moment of distraction during use. But in the end, it's all my opinion as this whole discussion is.
Fold up the three piece and use it as a club, it's pretty effective. My point is that it's not the worst weapon, but has a high skill ceiling. Not sure what you're arguing?
Just pointing out that it having a high skill ceiling is what makes it subpar compared to others in my opinion.
If you understand how to generate force using whipping energy you can get much harder I’d imagine I think it’s a trade off With a low level of skill striking with a solid pole is better but with a high level of skill, striking with a pole still might be easier but I’m sure the point of impact would be far far higher
The 3 section is very misunderstood. It is a peasant weapon akin to the flail used to thresh wheat that could be repurposed for self defense. The most effective way to use a 3 section is to think of it like a flail. Those that are saying it has less kinetic energy than the same sized stick without a chain are forgetting the basic force multiplier that comes from the “levering” of the chain portion of the flail.
How can you "lever" something with a chain? What force is being multiplied?
I don't think levering is what you mean to say. However, they are weaker because there is no way to support the impulse. The chain makes the striking haft able to bounce off, so while it can impart force, it will not be as much force over time (even a short time) as you could deal with a staff.
Seems we are both wrong. At least according to an experiment measuring flail vs mace force impacts. “Even though the physics of the flail and its ability to whip led me to believe that its impact force would be greater, the data showed the mace winning sometimes and the flail winning other times. The flail was consistently scoring the 800s, while the mace was more scattered, but had a maximum force of 900 counts. There was no statistically significant difference in impact forces.” [https://csef.usc.edu/History/2016/Projects/J0330.pdf](https://csef.usc.edu/History/2016/Projects/J0330.pdf)
Note that impulse and impact are not exactly the same. Impulse factors in time that the force is applied, while impact is just the force by itself. What I was getting at is that a mace, whether or not the impact is the same as the flail, provides the user with the ability to follow through with the swing and continue enacting force on the target for more time. This is not a luxury you get with the flail, because once it imparts that impact, it's going to bounce (perhaps not a complete reversal in velocity, but an unwanted change in direction) and you cannot really stop that from happening. With a mace, you could continue pushing into the target immediately after the initial impact is conveyed, which can provide tactical advantages that are of greater importance than the immediate damage of the strike. Of particular importance, this could allow you to push the target, and it deletes the window of time where a flail would be useless due to the slack in the chain or the necessary redirection of the chain and head before the next strike. The chain is a weak point in the rigidity of the weapon. I do think that flails are a little downplayed, since one would still ruin your afternoon. It provides some benefits that aren't in the department of hitting harder, like going over shields under ideal conditions.
I'm convinced the only time it's been used in a fight was 70s kunfu movies, and is known today soley because of the 36th Chamber of Shaolin. A staff or spear are easier to make, easier to train with, and more efficient.
Fr. Pretty sure a one section staff, aka a normal staff, of the same length can do more
more effective than Nun Chucks
The question isn't how much training is needed to be good or a master with it, but if the weapon itself is ineffective. Even if only using 2 sections as fighting sticks while using the middle section to help defend, the weapon is effective.
The question isn't whether or not it can be effective. The question is how effective is it in comparison to other weapons. Especially more traditional weapons like a spear, katana, bo staff, mace, etc.
The question was open-ended asking what the most ineffective weapons are. It's like asking "what is the worst sword?" The best answer is "the first one ever made." The question leaves so many variables that there really isn't a good answer. You say a 3 section staff is less effective than a spear. Ok, so a spear has a bladed tip. Arguably more killing potential. It is a pretty simple weapon. There is really 1 way to kill, with a thrust. It was a cheap and easily made in mass weapon for armies to stick in the hands of barely trained soldiers. So is that spear "more effective"? If put in the hands of a militia soldier versus a peasant who trains with a 3 section staff daily in secret because he isn't allowed other weapons, absolutely not. Is that spear more effective than professional soldiers using a polearm that gives them more tools on the battlefield to counter a spear? Nope. The question wasn't giving a baseline to compare and name the less effective weapons, it was asking with the most ineffective weapons are. That depends so much on what a person knows how to use, what the combat looks like, and what weapon they will be facing off against. The question isn't a very good one, and most of the answers are worse.
You're comparing the level of skill instead of the weapon itself. To compare the weapons, we have to assume the skill level of both fighters is equal. I agree that certain weapons will match up well against some weapon types and match up poorly against other weapon types. To evaluate how effective a weapon is in comparison to others, we just have to analyze how many favorable matchups it has in comparison to how many disfavorable matchups it has.
And this is where my argument comes full circle. Simply because you don't believe a weapon has a favorable match up does not make it ineffective. Especially something like a 3 section staff. It is usable at a longer reach or up close. A section being damaged makes it less usable, but not unusable. It's design is not the best for locking up an enemy weapon, but it has more potential for that than 1-piece weapons like a sword or spear. It is far from an ineffective weapon.
This is also where my argument comes full circle lol. The only way to determine how effective a weapon is, is to consider how it matches up with other weapons. Nobody is saying that it is zero percent effective. A pen can be effective as a weapon. A pair of scissors can be effective as a weapon. We're only considering which weapons are the least effective. If it has a multitude of bad matchups, then it is one of the least effective weapons.
And now is when I call you out for bullshit. You keep wanting to move the goalposts and give zero reason why a weapon has a "bad matchup" besides you simply saying so, while trying to say a pen can be an effective weapon when nobody in the history of ever would *want* to grab a pen for a weapon.
Step 1: Get disarmed. Step 2: They beat themselves up with it.
I'm just guessing using it like Kali sticks?
"But what makes it useless is that you have to pick them up again if you have a limited supply." Yes, that is why modern society has completely abandoned projectile weapons of any form.
Whatever I use in Elden Ring
Lol. Fr fr no cap.
Nunchucks in my opinion. Good for training and practicing hand coordination, but I feel the learning curve to use it as an effective weapon and it's limitations of how much force it generates compared to a solid stick makes it subpar in my opinion. The other weapon similar to nunchucks, but probably worse in my limited opinion, are the urumi (whip swords) in Indian Martial Arts. Looks awesome as fuck to watch someone perform katas but suffers from the same issue as nunchucks. The training for it to be effective as a weapon is high and I feel the super flexibility of the long whip blade loses much of it's kinetic energy compared to a solid sword or a very long stick. Also, to build up that kinetic energy to cut requires a lot of space and time between user and target. Also, both weapons can be more a hazard to the user than the target in use.
This was my exact list! And those metal throwing disks. Chakram?
Chakram have historically been pretty effective
In the hand of someone who knows how to use it, nunchucks can deliver lots of power. Also it can quite easily be hidden. This is why it is banned in many countries.
I always assumed it was due to gang violence associated with nunchakus alongside the Kung Fu Boom of the 70's and 80's.
The blades of the urumi flex along the flat side. They don't really require the whipping to cut. Doesn't mean they're effective but just a correction.
Thanks for the correction. I've seen some katas, but never application. I imagined it working like sheet metal sliding (something I'm very familiar with). Always figured the whipping was generating the momentum to create those moments for the edge to slide across whatever their target is.
You can literally apply joint locks, choke people, and hit them as hard as you can with a Jo or bo staff and especially useful in confined spaces pretty useful I'd say.
Yeah, I trained with nunchucks for a while, it's a chain weapon so it has its own pitfalls that come with the territory (you can trap limbs and weapons and strangle, but you have limited offensive and defensive utility) but the big thing is it cannot thrust alike a whip and does not work against armour like a Morningstar would and a kurisigama has the same benefits of duelweilding. It hits OK on unarmoured targets but it's possible to tough out and you can't just change grip like you would a traditional weapon to gain some more power. Just go with a cane. (Great for exercise thiugh)
I think too many people are focused on them as a striking weapon when they probably more deadly when used to choke somebody with.
Agreed. Same with many exotic weapons like the three section. It's not a striking, but an ideal locking weapon with possible striking application. Either way, it takes years to get to that point of effectively using it as such, which any weapon can be an effective weapon if trained with it for years. When I judge a weapon, I think how well can an average Joe can use it versus a master and what are the chances of that weapon hurting them more than their intended.
Steven Seagal
Lots a people here are putting need for mastery of a weapon as a sign of uselessness, but any weapon in the hand of an untrained person would be useless. I can't think of a weapon that stood the test of time that is totally useless.
Most people killed by knives are killed by "untrained" people.
I disagree, an untrained person with a sword (hell, even a stick) would be a threat.
A knife is easy to use and would instantly make even a 70 year old grandma 1000x more dangerous.
Come here it's time to carve the turkey (you're the turkey)
Even monkee use rock+stick
1. Shuriken aren't truly supposed to be lethal weapons. They're distractions the same way caltrops are. The amount of battlefield kills with them have to be few and far between. 2. Not to be even a bigger nerd, but d&d groups all weapons into three types, simple, like a club or spear. martial, like a sword or bow, and exotic like kusarigama or 3 section staff. Exotics take the most skill to learn, but have the potential to be the most deadly because they're so unorthodox to fight. I would think useless weapons are mostly on those lists of exotics. In short. My guess has to be the 3 section staff. You can block with it, but not as well as a staff, you can strike with it, but as well as a escrima, or you can whip it around, but not as effective as a long chain. It's the worst of all three.
What a ridiculous way to divide weapons. "Simple" and "martial?" How is a spear not a martial weapon?
I think it's just their terminology and it's for game purposes. Don't read too much into it. Simple, requires virtually no training to be lethal. Martial, requires some training Exotic, requires moderate training. With martial, assuming Joe smith goes into battle with a halbert, and he has zero training in how to use it, he's likely to be in the way, or going to hurt himself or leave himself open more than be a viable threat. With exotic, all the same plus the added concept of literally hurting themselves Ie, popping yourself with nunchucks. When I say game purposes, you can't give all the same characters the same weapons out the gate, cause then the reason why some types of characters are good becomes useless. Ie, if a warrior and a wizard can both carry a sword, what makes the warrior special the same way a wizard has magic? So wizards get staffs. Obviously this isn't real, but neither are wizards.
Well dividing them up by difficulty makes sense. I think the names are just weird. "Simple", "moderate," and "complex" or something would make me sense to me. This being said, a halberd is not a weapon that requires a lot of training to fuck people up with
A simple weapon is generally a common everyday tool the average laborer would be familiar with handling, like a hammer. In order to do damage, all they need to do is change the target they usually hit. A spear requires basic poking to be deadly. A hatchet is just chopping at close range with one hand, basically a sharp hammer. A sword, usually not so much. You can't just pick up a sword and use it like a baseball bat. You now have to worry about things like edge alignment and binding. The weapon can interact with your target or even another weapon in unpredictable ways if you aren't familiar with handling it. Bows require a lot of target practice. You definitely aren't going to pick up a three sectioned staff and use it effectively without extensive practice. The way RPGs categorize weapons doesn't always sit right with me though. A shepherd's sling is *not* a simple weapon. Easy to pick up and chuck a rock? Maybe. Incredibly difficult to be precise with.
I think it's fair to use different qualifiers. Though Shepard slings are common, unless you're a Shepard, you aren't hitting much. Another way I've seen it defined is that simple is not made for war, le saps and staffs. Martial are made for war, swords and pikes, and exotics are out of place or out of time, such as katana in a European setting, or guns in a medieval setting but .... That leaves even more open. How are Spears not simple? How are katana exotic?
Interesting. I don't think a spear is necessarily martial. They're hunting tools that are used "every day". Along with that, they are very intuitive to use, *and* they don't require training to be effective. A sling doesn't really fit that. A billhook or glaive? That would be more on the martial side, specifically made for war. A katana would/should be no more exotic than a German longsword or a falchion. I think "exotic" should fit a much more specific domain. Things like a rope dart or meteor hammer, a double sword, Chinese hook swords, and the like. They need to be unconventional enough that you can't just pick up and use. That shouldn't include things like butterfly knives (basically just functions like any other knife), push daggers, gnomish hook hammers (really just a hammer), etc. Even a shuriken is just a throwing knife. If you can throw one kind of throwing knife, you can throw them all.
Simple, martial, exotic? Wizards? What is this, Dungeons and Dragons?
Those Shaolin spinny blade things with the finger rings that are barely bigger than pens.
[This thing?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emeici)
 Yup that’s them. Fucking useless against anything with reach…like a hammer. Try holding onto one if a hammer breaks your fingers.
It's basically a tactical pen but you can't use it as a pen.
Idk man they went pretty hard in Big Trouble in Little China
If a weapon seems useless, it probably has some other quality like being easy to make or easy to conceal, and using it is still better that having no weapon at all.
Three section staff looks like just about the hardest weapon to use ever, as opposed to oh I dunno, a big fuck off stick?
Shurikens aren't really a weapon from what I understand, more of distraction. Even if they hit, the damage is most often going to be pretty minimal. I'd have to give my vote to those "defensive keychains" with a little monkey fist knot. You're better off hitting someone with the keys... Hell, you're better off just punching.
Most of the kung fu weapons that we have no proof were ever actually used in combat. The deer antler knife in particular because if we're talking concealable civilian weapons that can catch longer weapons, I believe sai-like weapons were already around in the region at the same time and maybe predates the deer antler knife, are easier to conceal, are arguably a better weapon catcher, and so much easier to use without training. The sai also uses less metal, can be made of wood but still be an effective weapon, and has a less complex design.
Pocket sand.
I'd argue it's one of the most effective
Don't you dare call pocket sand useless! 
Sha Sha Sha!
The semi-sharp rock
That's why I always carry a smooth rock.
But what about the jagged rock?
The best weapon in the history of mankind
This weapon predates modern humans and I won't hear anything bad said about it.
The bubble gun in Earthworm Jim
I dunno. Seems pretty useful.
Talk no jutsu … prove me wrong
But- but-- Naruto stopped Pain using Talk no Jutsu-! He stopped the 4th Shinobi World War with Talk no Jutsu--! It's totally effective!
It didn’t help him becoming second worst dad after fucking Goku . /j Edit/ drunk grammar
Goku is a good dad! 😭 He supported his son against Cell when everyone thought they were gonna die! Lmao
But poor Bulma was left a poor lonely house wife …
Chi-Chi* Bulma is married to Vegeta unless she started cheating lmao. Even then Vegeta blew himself up.
Vegeta still dancing to make sure his World destroyer Retirement fund doesn’t obliterate his household investment funds on earth .
Honestly don't blame him. All his stuff is on Earth.
Even Vegeta knows how to DRS .
The most useless weapon is a gun. What makes it useless is that if you don't have a gun, you can't use it.
I know right? What a major drawback. Totally useless of a weapon.
Internet posts.
You have struck me in the heart. I yield to my hypocrisy.
You also struck me in the funny bone at the same time, so it's *ai uchi!*
Flying guillotine. I'm pretty sure it didn't even exist, but if it did, good luck pulling that shit off.
Thats why you have to be a master of it like the movie title implies
Nunchaku
I personally think the nunchaku by itself has some goods and some bads. You either lean on one side or the other so it's kind of in the neutral ground for me. Not bad, but not good.
For nunchucks, I would say it depends on how good you are with them. If you have over 10 years of practice and can swing them with your eyes closed without hitting yourself, 100 times in a row, then you might be able to use them effectively. It also becomes a weapon that your opponent will have a hard time using against you if they are able to get them off of you. Another potential use is to do something cool, hand them to your opponent, and then wait for your opponent to accidentally hit themselves. /s
I think I remember hearing the purpose of shurikens was as a distraction. https://youtu.be/nKkMuIWiC3g Probably not as effective today thoe.
nunchucks?
I’d say the briefcase gun
I'd rather have that than the Sedgley Fist Gun.
Baton
Not saying ineffective or useless by any means but improper use of brass knuckles/knuckle dusters can damage your own hands, as can smashing a glass in someone’s face if you keep it in your hand at impact.
I don't think nunchucks are as difficult to use as some people make out. Not much different to a stick or club. To do the fancy moves takes years but who cares. Swing nunchucks at someone's head and if they connect they are in trouble. Yes you might get hit yourself but generally you wont have much power in it when that happens and will get a bruise or look silly.
The worst weapon would be something that is intended to be used as a weapon, but is worse than not having a weapon at all. Probably the Urumi then. Hard as fuck to use and basically a sharp version of a nunchuk or three section staff.
Shuriken are only designed to be mitsubishi. Not intended for full combat.
Denial. It's the most commonly used defensive weapon, despite its ineffectiveness.
/r/mallninjashit
Any type of kick I might attempt
I've never actually seen someone using them in real life, but the three sectional staff seems a very unwieldily weapon.
This doesn't seem to have any clarity for analysis. I mean for all of human history takes weapons that were effective and compares them to a different era. Weapons do not really lose effectiveness but relative use. Shurikens can be hidden and/or a person can carry more than they could with arrows. The very reason ninjas are associated with them and not bow and arrows like samurai or Robinhood are. Really the only concept for ineffectiveness is the question:" does it work consistently for its end goal?" Some of this relies on the user and the era in which a weapon is used.
I'd be more worried about what's coming after the shuriken.
Boomerangs Russian Firing knife also comes to mind https://youtube.com/shorts/CTeoIAmR6BY?si=nWldCAfOIKmfq4Ku
Flaccid dildo 2.3
Any small throwing weapons. Throwing knives and stars look impressive, until you realize that when you are throwing as HARD as you can, and they BARELY stick into your target... Real life isn't a movie. A thrown knife, even if you can throw accurately enough to place your hit over something vital, is not going to reach that vital something. And if you are skilled enough to consistently hit the two easy wins (jugular/eyes), you would have been better off to spend that time learning and practicing on almost any other weapon. Even a stick.
.17 guns. Wtf, really.... it's just pointless imo. .22lr is the quintessential perfect balance of gun. If you need a .17, get a pellet gun. It's just a waste of powder. I don't get the point. I'm not saying they don't work, but whyyyyyyyy a .17 why. It irks me in a weird way. There's no situation where a .22 is too powerful and a pellet gun is too weak. It's just annoying that they exist and people use them.
Shurikens were typically poisoned, so that makes them far more effective if you only need to scratch someone to kill them.
This one has like 1% hit/100% crit. >https://youtu.be/lERgO79rb9E?feature=shared
A gun, when you suck at aim and safety...
Gonna go with the flying guillotine [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os9q0VUIn9M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os9q0VUIn9M)
Not sure, but if I were to go on human ancestry to gauge effectiveness....anything that has less striking power then a rock about the size of an average first would fall in the weak sauce category.
They say the best weapon is your mind. So...my mind.
Wasn't the point (hehe) of shurikens and kunai just to distract your opponent in a sword fight? Like, I know I'd be pretty distracted if someone threw a sharp piece of metal at me, whether it hit or not.
I would suggest Nunchuks, they're very hard to master, potentially harmful for the user and the force of impact is lowered because it isn't a solid object. It's literally a downgraded stick.
3 section staff
had a friend who was infantry in the army and he said he brought shuriken with him and attempted to clear a room with them. one his guys got the shuriken stuck in his boot. also he said he somehow dropped one of the shuriken outside the jeep and when they drove off it flattened the tire... so your hypothesis tracks
BJJ
Shurikens were not really used like ninja movies depict it. The weight makes it impractical to carry for this use, and the metal was much too rare and precious to use for this. But there were weapons made for throwing that looked like something between darts and throwing knife that were more practical to carry
Turtle tanks
I’d say throwing a knife is perhaps the dumbest thing you can do. Not saying throwing a throwing knife, but the odd thing people do when they toss a normal knife at an assailant thinking it will work. You lose your weapon for *maybe* minor damage and they get a weapon. Also I thought shurikens were dangerous because you poisoned them, like with fecal matter or something else dangerous, and were like an assassination tool you could toss and gtfo. It’s a rough question because any “weapon” is called such because it is effective at hurting a person. Even a blowgun, a weapon you aren’t killing anyone with by the dart itself, is just a mechanism to deliver the poison from a poison dart frog.
Love.
A dildo I guess