I am not badmouthing D&D players, but only those who actually believe in the “nobility” and “moral superiority” of ancient weaponry like Self defense was some sort of Tolkenian quest extracted out of a game. @MalRoadkill sent me this nosebleed and I must share with the rest.

Let us begin:

Right out of the gate we can tell dear Alex has never seen, much less experienced true violence. Are all my enemies capable? the answer is YES! until proven otherwise. It is stupid to dismiss the capability of a human being to kill another because he has chose a life of crime or you believe yourself superior for some arcane training reason. You underestimate your enemy, you may be bound to the coroner’s slab. Arrogance is dedaly when it comes to Self Defense

The second thing we see here is that Alex believes there is no need to learn how to shoot. You have a gun, you are automatically Wild Bill or Jelly Bryce or Jim Cirillo and will project death with ease and disdain which leads me to believe Alex’s firearms knowledge possibly comes from TV and video games. The rest of us still have to train, still have to practice and even at my tender old-“ish” age, I need to take classes when I realize I suck at a particular skill set.

Let us continue:

First of all, yes you are insulting people with your faux airs of superiority.  Firearms are simply to operate while shooting properly and accurate is a skill that needs to be developed.  Are there people who shoot great naturally? Yes. Am I or you one of them? Hell no.

I will give Alex one thing: Basic Firearms’ skills take less time and physical effort than other defensive methods. The true advantage lies lost on him because he is probably a healthy male rather than a female or somebody not in the best of health. I can train somebody in a wheelchair to have at least a basic chance of survival against a bipedal predator with a handgun whereas I do not believe Alex can figure out how to come up with similar efficiency an impact or bladed weapon,

No, you just want people to defend themselves but only if you have the advantage. Guess what? We all want that and firearms provide us with that.  And as for “ But owning a gun isn’t just about defense” you are right, but not the way you think: It provides us with food, a hobby, a culture and even a political platform we share.  The harming or killing of those who want to inflict harm upon us is a byproduct of their actions and a consequence they must face for poorly choosing a victim with steel teeth and claws.

And yes, I freely admit it is convenient for me to have the right tool to survive a criminal. If you feel you must inconvenience yourself by defensing your loved ones with a melee weapon, have at it. I particularly like the idea of being across the room and deliver defensive firepower to stop the threat without me getting hurt. After all these many years, I am still partial about keeping as much as my blood safely inside my body.

Oh damn! We have us a real life Hawkeye! He must have them explosive rocket propelled arrow we see in the Avengers movies while doing the Samurai Zen archery shit. I believe the last time bow and arrow was used in organized warfare was in the 17th Century and after that, any culture that pitted B&A against firearms, lost brutally and were decimated. He is more than welcome to defend his life and the lives of his loved ones with such and inefficient system.   I chose to defend mine with easier and effective tools.

And we close with this bit of creative writing by a similar-minded individual:

My retort is a couple of old quotes:

“God made man, Sam Colt made men equal.”


1. Forget about knives, bats and fists. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns. Bring four times the ammunition you think you could ever need.

30 Rules of a Gunfight | Updated for 2019 | Authentic Masculinity

PS: How do you conceal carry a bow and arrow?

Spread the love

By Miguel.GFZ

Semi-retired like Vito Corleone before the heart attack. Consiglieri to J.Kb and AWA. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.

23 thoughts on “When you live in a world of Dungeons and Dragons’ Fantasy.”
  1. My son (who has a black belt) had an instructor who was asked about black belt against a gun. His response – “.357 beats black belt every day of the week”.

    1. I hold a 6th Dan Kukkiwon certificate in TKD. I’ll take the .357 or a .45 any day over hand-to-hand, and not just because I’m old and slow. It’s simply smarter.

  2. How does one CC a bow and arrow?

    It needs to be a compact carry style. 😉

    Follow up shots tend to be tricky, though.

  3. I’m not sure if that last one is serious, or he’s just taking the piss out of Alex. That line’s a well known copypasta.

  4. The historical fact that blades and bows were replaced by guns answers the question of superiority. What is usually forgotten is that not all gun owners are healthy young men. We live in a society where coercing or attacking the helpless has become common. Years ago, I was a divorced mother concerned about protecting my family. I had seen the aftermath of Katrina, and living on the Gulf coast concerned me. Now, I’m older and have developed certain disabilities that leave me much weaker and more vulnerable. Even at my best, I’d never want to be close enough to use a knife. I lack the speed, strength, and skill to wield it. But as long as my eye is good and my hand is steady, I can protect myself with my friends Messieurs Smith and Wesson.

    By the way, I play D&D. I have a gun. My son used to be in the Society for Creative Anachronisms. He “forged” his own helm and armor! He has a gun. We know the difference between a game and reality.

    And another thing! If the Fellowship had found guns in the Barrow-downs, they would have used them to defeat Sauron. The story isn’t about weapons or skill in battle but about good and evil, about facing impossible odds to defeat evil. The nobility and moral superiority doesn’t come from the weapons but from the courageous men and women willing to risk their lives to protect their world from tyranny, destruction and death.


    1. With all due respect to Tolkien:

      I do not love the shotgun for its close range power, nor the rifle for its reach, nor the pistol for its practicality. I love only that which they defend.

      Agreed that the nobility and moral superiority displayed in LotR do not come from the weapons they wielded. The Fellowship and its allies wielded swords, knives, axes, and bows.

      Guess what? So did the Orcs.

      Sure, the Orcs’ weapons were crudely-fashioned and brutal while the good guys’ were finely-crafted works of art, but morally speaking, a sword is a sword. It’s a tool; it doesn’t carry any kind of inherent nobility that a gun lacks, and if the Fellowship had discovered guns they would have used them. If the Orcs had discovered guns they would have used them.

      In an existential war for survival, you use any advantages you can find!

      1. Almost every member of the Fellowship had an enchanted weapon — the blades the hobbits found in the Barrows had been enchanted to take on the Witch King of Angmar, aka the Lord of the Nazgul. That’s why Merry was able to stab him.

        Gandalf wasn’t just a “wizard” — he wore one of the three Elven rings, the ring of fire. Curiously, most of his flashy magic as Gandalf the Grey involved fire… He was also a Maiar, the same type of supernatural being as Sauron and the Balrog; Gandalf was just under a compulsion to not use most of his power and knowledge and focus on leading and inspiring the peoples of Middle Earth against Sauron. Oh, and he carried a VERY ancient and powerful enchanted sword.

        Gimli and Aragorn had decades practice with their weapons — Aragorn was 82 when the hobbits met him. Legolas had CENTURIES of practice.

        The Fellowship used every tool they could get their hands on to help their mission — Saruman’s palantir was used to taunt Sauron, and Aragorn called on the most notorious oath breakers in Middle Earth to pay their debt and fight beside him.

        None of them were constrained by chivalry or sportsmanship — they were in a war for survival and against darkest tyranny and cruelty. If the dwarves showed up at Minas Tirith with a Ma Deuce and a wagon full of ammunition, they’d have been welcomed.

        1. Glamdring, THE FOE HAMMER.

          Merry and Pippin had Bitter and Beater right?

          I can’t remember if it was the movie or the animated movie, but I remember when the goblins recognize the weapons due to what is practical a genetic hatred of them and the way they announce with utter disdain and fear the names.

        2. Yep. Bilbo and Frodo’s sword “Sting” was only a sword in hobbit hands. It was created as an enchanted knife, to be worn alongside either Gandalf’s sword, “Glamdring”, or another sword in the set, “Orcrist”, which was carried by one of the Dwarven kings (I don’t recall the name at the moment) who was a good friend of Gandalf’s (and later Bilbo’s).

          Ancient and powerful weapons, all three.

  5. The comment from mike at the end is a classic mall ninjaism. Iirc it was some neckbeards year book quote.

    And you hit the nail on the head. This dude has never experienced true violence or even simulated violence. He probably hasnt even watched a single live leam video of whay it looks like to get stabbed or beaten to death so thats why it is still some noble thing to him.

  6. In his little world: The bad guys will always attack one by one like they do in a well choreographed martial arts flick. .The first shot always misses, allowing him to respond.

    Bow and arrow? He has never used it hunting deer and learned that you often need to track your target as it bleeds out in 50 or sometimes 500 yards.

  7. Martial arts skills are… well… for the most part useful against others trained in the same martial art. Know TKD, you can successfully spar against others who are trained in TKD. Bring a different martial art skill set into the equation, and the results are a toss up.

    Buddy of mine used to teach Karate of some flavor, and he used to teach how limited it is to woman who got too “proud” of their newly acquired belt. Female student gets her yellow/green/whatever belt and does a bit of prancing around, thinking she is more than capable of defending herself.

    He would challenge a new male student to take the belt off of her. With almost zero training whatsoever, the male newbie always removed the newly acquired yellow/green/whatever belt. His statement to the woman, “if this was a real attack, you were just raped. Get a gun.”

    There is an old adage, the purpose of getting a Phd is not to demonstrate what you know, but to demonstrate how little you know. Getting your black belt is the same test.

  8. I see this mentality from a lot of martial artists. Case in point from a few years back: https://notonemoregunlaw.blogspot.com/2017/07/on-mr-jake-mace-kung-fu-and-tai-chi.html

    (TL;DR version: A person shouldn’t qualify for gun ownership until they’ve trained for years, learned unarmed martial arts, then bo, then nunchaku, then spears and swords, and earned his/her black belt. The black belt certificate comes with a Glock on top.)

    This fake moral superiority has no consideration for those who don’t love martial arts, or who didn’t spend their entire childhood training, or who chose instead to get educated for careers, or who are too old or busy or physically unable to start now. Even those in military service don’t qualify if they don’t also have a black belt.

    The lives of everyone fitting those descriptions (which covers about 99.9% of the population, and includes the doctors who will fix the guy if he gets hurt and the technicians who keep his power on and computers running so he can post this B.S.) are somehow worth less than a dedicated martial artist’s. Enough less that — unlike his own life — they aren’t worthy of effective tools to defend themselves.

    He believes it’s a morally superior concept, but history shows it’s morally bankrupt.

    1. Another big problem with that “martial arts first” notion is that it discriminates against those unable to participate. If you’re in a wheelchair, you’re not likely to be able to reach a black belt in karate, or pass a skill test in swordsmanship. But you’re if anything more in need of adequate self defense than Mr. Nunchaku.

      As usual, Oleg Volk illustrates it well, in many of his images. Here is a very clear one: http://olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/handicapped8619.jpg.html

      1. In a wheelchair, or elderly, or with a bad back, or ….

        In that world-view, my grandparents are disqualified. However I have words for anyone who says their lives aren’t worth defending because they grew up on rural farms with no martial arts schools anywhere nearby. Their collective life experience alone deserves protecting and preserving.

    2. A simple and appropriate comeback to the “learn martial arts first” notion is “you’re being ableist!”

  9. Er, yeah, sure.

    Yes, I know sword fighting. And axe using. And spear. And bow, and crossbow. Big whoop. It’s just more learning how to fight than actually fighting.

    Fuckit, I’ve got guns. And knives, and a spear and a sword and some other things…

    All have their uses. All have their limitations.

    But, as the 2nd best Escrima fighter in the US said to a group of people, “Gun Fu wins over Kung Fu.” (His escrima skills? Fabulous. Against a baton or sword? His response was to run away, fast, really fast. Or shoot.)

    As to ‘years of experience, yada yada yada,’ it’s a well known thing that Japanese archery legends were astounded that, after WWII, stupid barbarian GI Joes were able to shoot bows almost as well as them, without all the zen bullshit and spirituality involved.

    Is there a use for hand-to-hand weapons? Yes. But it’s better to know how to shoot and reload as most people won’t be doing close-in fighting.

    1. The point about avoiding close-in fighting is important. The purpose of self-defense is to stop the threat with minimal risk to yourself. A self-defense scheme that requires you to get in close contact is by definition far more risky than one that acts at a distance. That is one of the reasons why a gun is the best and most appropriate self defense tool.

  10. These clowns remind me of people I used to know in the SCA who thought using a gun to protect yourself in the real world was ‘dishonorable’.

    Because bad guys will go by SCA idiot rules. Or something.

  11. Firehand: agree. Know what’s dishonorable? Not “cheating”, and leaving your loved ones to grieve.

    1. Exactly right.
      I like this quote, which makes that point very clearly. Partly because of who said it.

      “He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.” — Mohandas K. Gandhi, “The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi”, cited at http://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/phil8.htm

  12. Even for those that live in a fantasy world, there’s a famous Indiana Jones scene that settles the issue of sword and martial arts against a gun.

Login or register to comment.