If guns completely invalidate the need for melee weapons why not make the melee weapons deadlier in such a way that...

Silence.

Silencers are not silent.

Neither is stabbing someone to death.

You're fucking stupid. Of course a knife is better than having a stick shoved up your dick but a gun is still a better weapon.

t. someone that doesn't know proper knifework

its more of a rule of thumb
since a faster person can charge a larger distance, or draw his gun faster ,changing the distance

but for an untrained person charging another person, it might be good to keep this distance in mind, to give a rough idea of the chances of being shot

Then why are you and others implying there is never a situation where they are useful? I don't think anyone is arguing (given the tone of the setting) that you have some asshole who only uses knives in lieu of actual weapons but, believe it or not, there is a world outside of the military where people fight and kill each other and don't use proper military tactics and have military weapons and training.

I'm pretty sure in most situations against another human being there's going to be some form of him fighting or screaming or gurgling. Quieter than (most) guns sure, but far from silent.

It doesn't prove anything. If both participants have their weapon drawn the gun will win. If only one does then it's not a fair comparison.

>there is a world outside of the military where people fight and kill each other and don't use proper military tactics and have military weapons and training.
yeah its called the hood, and you know what they use? GUNS

Digging a trench with a knife sounds awful

a knife is easier to hide, and with a weapon more based around stealthy use, it would make sense for the knife to get the drop in the gun

the distance would likely increase if the gun had no knowledge of an attack and was facing the wrong way, which really ahould be tested

in the interest of science I also do propose that your scenario be tested as well, although with both weapons already levelled there is no ambuiguity in the result, since such a test removes the quick draw and stealth advantage of the knife

>the distance would likely increase if the gun had no knowledge of an attack and was facing the wrong way, which really ahould be tested
Yeah, and if the knife user was faced the wrong way and had no knowledge of the attack the situation would be hilariously one sided. The fact that you have to give the knife user the element of surprise proves my point. What if the gun user had the element of surprise?

>yeah its called the hood, and you know what they use? GUNS

>Thinking you can't get merc'd in yuppieville, whitepeopletown USA

newsweek.com/2014/12/19/wilmington-delaware-murder-crime-290232.html

But it can be done. Try doing it with a gun and then shooting someone.

Better yet, try shooting someone who has a knife after you are out of ammunition and decide who has the better weapon then.

Guns are incredibly powerful weapons. they are also incredible SPECIALIZED weapons that REQUIRE ammunition (also very specialized) to be useful. Take away any one aspect of a gun's utility and the entire thing is useless. Melee weapons are only useless in combat at a certain range, but their utility in other situations means you can never turly ignore them.

You're statistically unlikely to. The reason that article was written is because it's such an anomaly.

knife usually gets the advantage since it's the kind of weapon that is used in a stealthy manner

it is easier to hide, smaller, faster to bring to bear, and silent in use
the manner in which is deployed is biased to stealth
a full attack in the open is possible, but suicidal

surprise with a gun is possible, especially on a chaotic battlefielf, but without concealed carry, it's usually easy to spot someone who is armed with guns, especially when it is quiet

Knives are martials.

Guns are casters.

>

>Better yet, try shooting someone who has a knife after you are out of ammunition and decide who has the better weapon then.
If it's a longarm? Still the gun. A bayonet or even just buttstroking the fucker has better range than the knife.

You ever shot a gun in a hallway? Especially a dark hallway, like it can very often be in a CQ engagement like urban combat or tunnel fighting? It's extremely disorienting for both you and the target because of the loudness and the flash of the gun at such a close target. Close combat weapons do not dull your senses to use them, and at point blank range the difference between shooting somebody and getting close enough to stab them is in seconds.

I'm not saying melee>guns, but I am saying that there are things that guns have problems with at close quarters.

that being said, pistols are the ultimate close quarters weapon

>A bayonet or even just buttstroking the fucker has better range than the knife.

But you still need the knife to make the bayonet, user. It's a crucial component of this argument.

Ah yes. A question as old as time immemorial.

You don't need it to cave in his skull with a rifle butt, though.

That's fine but in this situation you're having the knife user premeditate the attack which gives him the advantage. What scenario are you using here? Do both of the people want to kill each other on sight and are unaware that they are near the other person?

Guns completely invalidate melee weapons the same way cars completely invalidate walking. If you're in a situation where you get to pick, there's an obvious best choice, but you don't always have that choice.

Yes user, "pistols" are best CC weapon

I like where your heads at, but, lets flip that around.

Setting? the motherfucking future.
Guns? Guns do alllll the damage. all the types of guns do all the types of damage.
Melee? Melee is all about the debuff. it hacks through your void shields, it slices your ego defence

>It's extremely disorienting for both you and the target because of the loudness and the flash of the gun at such a close target.
Yeah that's why SWAT teams operating indoors leave their guns at home and only use hatchets you fucking retard.

>easier to hide/smaller
A concealable gun can be much smaller than the smallest knife I would consider fighting with, there are 7 round 9mm pocket pistols the size of a credit card, you could literally conceal them in your palm, somthing you cant do with a knife unless it folds, which at that point you are a joke.

>faster to bring to bear
But user literally the fastest conscious human movement recorded is the revolver quick draw

>stealth
You can shoot someone in the head with a gun thats in your pocket, you can literally kill someone with a gun while looking like a totally ordinary person. standing still

So Judge Dredd guns and Dune shield wall knife fighting?

>You can shoot someone in the head with a gun thats in your pocket, you can literally kill someone with a gun while looking like a totally ordinary person. standing still
Good luck aiming that shit

But they are.

>extremely maneuverable
>can be fired one-handed with little issue, freeing your other hand for other tasks
>can be dual wielded (though this is not recommended)
>lighter ammunition means you can carry more of it
>greater variety of ammunition, including rounds for hard and soft targets for most standard-issue models
>can carry more pistols with little difficulty if you need to
>smaller profile means that it can be drawn faster and is more difficult for the enemy to grab
>in a close quarters engagement, their lack of range is largely a non-issue

There may be better weapons when it comes to RoF or precision, but their maneuverability and size is an extreme asset in an environment where inches can mean the difference between life or death.

Basically, yeah. I think. Kind of. I mean, I'd be down with bullets doing like 25% damage if the shield is up and then having someone else with a knife or something having to get the shield down. It makes a nice cycle of having to get close to get the shield down, but having to stay away to use your damage dealing gun to its best.

That's why I posted a picture of a pistol you silly billy

I believe user posted a pistol with some legally creative attachments

pdw blow pistols out of the fucking water because you have to hold pistols two feet away from you while pdw are tucked in tight. You didnt even get step 1 right.

>two feet away
Muh center axis relock

SMGs are superior to pistols in CQB. There's a reason why SWAT and special forces use them instead of pistols.

>Yeah that's why SWAT teams operating indoors leave their guns at home and only use hatchets you fucking retard.

A. SWAT teams are trained professionals equipped with specialized gear deliberately designed to mitigate this problem.

B. SWAT operate in small-scale operations (in comparison to something like a military offensive), and their engagements often last minutes if not seconds. This means there is less time for disorientation to compound and affect them.

C. SWAT are almost always the ones beginning the engagement, and as such they fight on their own terms. They are ready for the noise and disorientation because they have time to prepare themselves for it, as opposed to being ambushed where instinctive reactions take hold before you have time to process what's going on.

D. SWAT makes very heavy use of disorientation weapons like flashbang grenades or gas, which reduces enemy effectiveness and gives them more time to pick their targets and overcome the initial shock of engaging in combat compared to their foe.

Like I said, guns have a shitload of advantages here, but at the same time they are not like in the movies - they're loud and disorienting as fuck, and that can kill you if you're not ready for it.

was created specifically to counter the massive gaping disadvantage that I mentioned, you have to hold your pistol far away from your body, just begging for an alien tentacle to snatch it away.

It's better than suffering infections from ripping your fingers to bits trying to get through matted roots in an effort to get ANY kind of cover...

>SWAT teams are equipped with specialized gear
Ah yes, goggles and earplugs. Very specialized equipment, shooting a gun indoors can be disorienting, but nowhere near the amount you're saying. I've been right next to the muzzle of an AR going off, it sucked but it didn't fuck me up. Indoor shooting ranges are almost all concrete and can be pretty small, I've been to one smaller than most household rooms, shooting off a gun didn't bother me then.

Eh, knives are only useful in extremely situational instances. In a future where exoskeletons and power armor exist, I'd expect a melee weapon to be integrated into the suit. A punch dagger or something that can deploy extremely quickly and capitalize on an enemy's mistakes up close and ugly sorta makes sense. They'd still probably issue a decent knife or multitool for general purpose utility, too.

If you have a strength enhancing exoskeleton just punch him in the throat with the force of a sledgehammer.

Presumably in an indoor range the people in there arn't trying to kill you and you arn't fighting for your life by any means. Sure, you have ear and eye pro but I think the guy you responding to is saying there is tons more compounding the situation such as the adrenaline rush and the potential of people fighting back to kill you.

>what is an omni-tool

If anything, adrenaline is going to mitigate disorientation almost entirely, since that's what it's known to do. His original point that firing off a weapon is going to be enough to disorient you to the point where you're a sitting duck, the "people trying to kill you" thing is true of any situation where violence is being used, even with swords.

Yes but that's what training for as well. You could have the adrenaline but you need the training and discipline to act when it hits or you're just hopped up at best or panicking at worst.

Melee weapons should ALWAYS be better than ranged weapons up close. That should be as some sort of initiative or defensive bonus. Taking away acuracy from guns doesn't work very well unless we're talking about using a rifle up close. Still, the bonus initiative is enough reason to go for a melee weapon.

nanite grenade. enjoy your grey goo apocalypse, fags.

Training and discipline only really allow you to control the adrenaline rush from combat, you're still hopped up, but in the best way possible. It only helps with panicing only because you're inured to life or death situations, adrenaline has nothing to do with people losing it in a firefight, fear is what causes that.

>If guns completely invalidate the need for melee weapons
They don't though. If that was true melee weapons would have completely vanished from the world by the time of the american civil war. They didn't.

Within 6ft of someone a melee weapon is still more powerful than a gun. Most good RPGs have negatives for firing weapons in close combat for this very reason. D&D for example you provoke an attack of opportunity if you fire a ranged weapon in close combat and there are negatives for firing into close combats.

This video illustrates how a knife or sword can defeat guns in close ranges:
youtube.com/watch?v=vtALzvImGeQ

When you're scared of getting stabbed and the target is fast moving and very close to you, its a lot harder to hit them than you think. Sometimes you can hit them and they will still keep stabbing - running on adrenaline.
Its hard to put someone down immediately with a headshot when they're darting around stabbing your friends.

If you know someone is about to attack you and you have your gun trained on them and ready to fire you will have a better chance and depending on the range you will likely 'win' the encounter. But if someone jumps out of a dark alley and puts a knife to your throat, a gun isn't very useful at all.

Proofread your posts please.
>1. BE EXCELLENT TO EACH OTHER.

>a firearm is less effective than a melee weapon in 6ft
To poorly trained combatants, yes. Anybody with actual training or someone who's just a natural fighter, hell no. A gun is just as effective, if not moreso than a melee weapon if your both prepared for a fight. Surprise attacks change the playing field entirely however and are probably the only time a melee weapon can truly shine, it is difficult to use a rifle in a grapple for example, a handgun is about as effective as a knife in a grapple though.

A sledgehammer has more force than a bullet.

I mean, yeah, but a sledgehammer is also unwieldy, large, comparatively heavy and spreads it's force out along a wider area, it's hard hitting sure, but a bullet can cause just as much, if not more damage in a much more compact, lighter frame.

>a handgun is about as effective as a knife in a grapple though.
citation needed

Well think about it, a handgun is just as long if not shorter than an actually useful knife and can be held securely in a single grip. There's no reason it'd be less effective in a grapple just because it shoots a projectile (barring circumstances like avoiding over penetration) anything that'd prevent you from using a pistol in a grapple, would also prevent you from using a knife in one.

For the sake of reference, I'm going to compare a generic combat knife (KA-BAR) and a generic handgun (Glock 17). The first knife I got off google weighs about 3/4 of a pound, while the handgun weighs about 2 pounds. The knife has a 7 inch blade and an overall length of just under foot (about 18 cm and 30cm respectively) the handgun is about 8 inches long over all and 5 inches high (20 cm by 13 respectively) they both are more or less the same size when gripped, the knife however is easier to conceal since it's a straight line instead of a boxy shape like the handgun.

what is 'a modern battlefield'? oftentimes a city

what is 'dick sucking range' (the effective range of a knife)? ~20ft

>If guns completely invalidate the need for melee weapons

>somebody posts the 21 foot rule
How'd I call it? the 21 foot rule is at best a general rule of thumb that doesn't account for any lapse in reaction time or the skill of either combatant. It's by no means the end all, be all of the "knife vs gun" argument as it's only really measuring someone drawing, aiming and firing.

bringing up a rule of thumb as an approximation is better than saying it's useless beyond 1ft
le meme etc but there are a diversity of close combat scenarios presented by urban battlefields in which knives are extremely credible threats

That's true, but everyone simultaneously acts like a gun is useless after the 21 feet at the same time, which is why the 21 foot rule is a meme. But I agree, a knife is very much a credible threat, which is why instead of "escalating force" you do your best to put nice neat holes into his chest with your gun.

How does concelament help you in a grapple?

Well, that's an overall strength of a knife, though of course it has it's situational uses. The big point of the post was that the knife and the gun are roughly the same size (the slide of the gun is probably slightly shorter if you compare them length wise since overall length includes the grip, which is angled slightly.)

>If guns completely invalidate the need for melee weapons

Well they don't really. It's about context.

I have yet to see a video of a stabbing victim screaming "But guns invalidated the blade!" while they bleed to death.

Knife? Or probably finnish army entrenching tool.

Gun with a gunned sword all the way

>that doesn't require it numerically to do more damage than the gun?
Why can't it?
One swing from a broadsword could take your fucking leg off. A rifle bullet? Not so much, but it does so all the way out to 300 meters.

My preferred option is to have melee fighters with bonuses to damage and able to close to melee range. Shadowrun does it fairly well; melee weapons do murderous levels of damage, and most of the work is at close range anyway by necessity of having to get stuff off them.

what about habing a secondary gun like... literraly any armed forces ? each time you can fit a knife, you can fit a gun

I mean, I guess in fantasy you can say that, but in reality swords don't really hack off limbs all that often, it was an exceptionally rare occurance if not mythical. A rifle round may not sever limbs, but the internal damage it can cause is just as severe, if not more so. We're talking shattered bones turning into shrapnel, mangled tissue, massive hemorrhaging, arterial damage. Exit wounds get nasty, gunshots can easily cripple.

you are either the most hipster numale of sweden, or never hold a gun in your fucking life.

I'm pretty sure you are both.

but user, that's redundancy. No need to get tautological.

Some times you want to quietly murder a guy and sound suppressed fire is too loud. Or maybe you don't want the cops to know a gun was involved, or it's near a crowded area and you don't want people to know it happened at all.

Oh and pistols are great in a grappling situation. But a knife is much harder to trap and control. It's a trade off thing.

Stabbing someone in the neck from behind Danger Dan style is also iconic as fuck.

so a modern-day murderhobo party would need
>pistols or smgs for cqc
>something silenced for spyops, also garrottes and knives/sharpened entrenching tools for extra silence and potential tool use
>high-powered sniper rifles for long range scenarios
>rpgs and explosives because they're motherfucking pcs
anything else?

>still thinking "realism" is a legit reason to wall off your worldbuilding
Just say that your world doesn't use same physics and logics, aspergergling

He's a memer who knows jackshit about guns. If you want to go full realistic operator tier, the best weapon is a carbine in an flat shooting cartridge. It's superior in CQC thanks to rifle round, controllable, still maneuverable because it's small, still retains accuracy out to 300 meters and can be suppressed. For precision shots of course you want some flavor of custom tuned bolt action, handguns are solely for backups and explosives for PC shit.

Ammo. By the third wave of orks it's just you and your chainsword.

Nothing beats tactical shovel )

Wrong, stick beat shovel. If shovel break stick in half you have two stick. Stick always win.