((the following examples of the Gun and knife are relative examples fill with the comparative item as needed.))

Chapter One: Force

Force for the sake of this section is defined as:

"The capacity to do work or cause physical change; energy, strength, or active power."

or

"A vector quantity that tends to produce an acceleration of a body in the direction of its application."

The understanding of force in a certian situation is crucial to staying alive, very rarely when all things have gone to hell. Very rarely is a time when you are force to resort to force in any form is this 'an ideal situation' more commonly it is a definable 'worst case senario.'

The one commonly lost concept is that from a single person, force is always equal... One person can only generate so much force per strike, and this force is essentially equal.

If thats so, then how does one generate more force?

The answer is simple, they dont... They simply concentrate that force. for example punching someone in the Gut, and punching someone in the solar plexus will genertate significantly different reactions from even the strongest of opponents. It is the same amount of force concentrated, the force dosent change, but the application of said force multiplies its effectiveness significantly.

Application of force is a double edged sword, on your side one is able to know that when chooseing between punching and opponant and stabbing them is a simple one when the options are at hand...

...again the force is equal but the multiplier here is the tool used...

If we look at the ratio of force to effect ratio of several well known weapons theres little question as to the order they fall under.

The Knife beats the fist, the Sword beats the knife (barely), the firearm beats the sword (by large margins). But why then would a man choose an inferior weapon over one more efficent? that it seems falls under personal ethics, and I will simply state my opinion on the matter before movign on.

"Survival knows no honor, The educated choice of inferior tools is a sign of ego, not skill."

Ironically the higher the efficency of the weapon the lower its flexibility...

The bare hand is more able to adapt to a situation, than a knife or sword, and a sword or knife reacts better to changeing situations than a firearm.

Why is this?

It is because as efficency increase its role is made more permanant...

A Firearm was designed, built, and improved upon to punch holes in things... it does this amazingly well and is the pinacle of force to effect

a Knife/Sword was made primarily to cut, and again it does this supriseingly well but it still requires much more physical force to effect than a firearm.

A hand was not Made to do anything except to hold, and therefore its flexibility is decreased as its effect is suplimented only by the tool it holds...

Soo.... if the hand has removed itself from the running it comes down to the edge or the blade or the bullet of a firearm.

As I mentioned before; The Firearm is less able to adapt to change as compared to the knife. This is true, but why then will the response to a gun drawn in close quarters be more noticable to a knife drawn in close quarters.

Simply, range. A knife is a tool that works only as an extension of the hand. It can only effect an arc equal to the length of the arm Plus the length of the knife blade itself (we are reffering only to base examples, throwing knives are excluded at this time) Therefore it is no suprise that useing a knife/sword require more physical skill because you are required to be within that arc to have any physical effect, and more so to have a lethal effect you must be within arms length, which brings the effective range down even more. which brings us to the envitable declaration:

A Knife/Sword fighter MUST to have skill or s/he will DIE...

Adaptablity at the sake of efficency, and protection. is not much of an advantage now is it? it requires an 'ideal situation' in a time where as Ive mentioned previously is a definable 'Worst Case Situation'

A firearm cannot react like a knife, and in close quarters it is more vulnerable to being pushed out fo the way... there is proof of this, but... unlike the knife/sword where its effective attack envelope can be anywhere from 50 to 1000m beyond the length of your arm... thats substantial room for error... you are not bound to be in such a situation, meaning more options, and a higher chance of survivability.

Second, the force implied can be several hundred times that of knife stab or a punch as you are not physically exerting the force on the target, the firearm is which means all things being equal the Firearm is STILL more efficent when compared to the knife. I can shoot all day fill hundreds of targets full of lead and do it again with little physical strain, then do it again in a few hours, very little physical strian is put on me by that action yet the amount of force I can impart is phenominal.

What we get is Efficency plus Effectiveness plus Range at the sake of adapatability. even mroe so Range plus efficency means we have more options in a tight situation which at the very least cancels out its lack of adaptability if used properly.

Conclusion: When I need something cut, the logical choice is the Blade, but when I need to fight... I will choose the gun.