Due to cultural expectations, some defensive arms have more credibility that others. For example, a young woman wearing chain mail and wielding a sword would not be taken all that seriously by many. The look is too quaint, and there no certainty that she’d be competent with her weapon. Never mind that a sword can be extremely effective at close range. This lack of credibility is aggravated if the defender is old or infirm, or if the sword is replaced with a knife or a baton. The probability of of the defender having to actually fight against an unconvinced attacker is higher than with a firearm.
The same person with a ranged weapon and multiple shots on tap would be taken rather more seriously. She may be clumsy or only slightly trained, but she would still have 31 tries at poking very deep holes through her attacker at standoff distances. So carrying a firearm would win more fights by default from the foe — and be easier both on the defender and the local ER staff.
Carrying a pistol concealed is also rather more socially acceptable than clanking along in armor, with a sword on your side.
Thanks a lot for your wonderfull pictures who helps the people to fight the anit-gunners worldwide. I just shared this article on facebook’s German Gunlobby.
If you want to be ready to defend yourself, I might suggest losing the high heels though.
I agree…but my point stands: even on high heels, she looks like a credible opponent to a potential mugger, while a person with a less modern or minimal range weapon might not not.
Some women wear high heels. My recommendation to my students who do is to practice in them.
Hey, lots of women wear heels; some it’s almost all they own. Which would make running difficult, but good chance she couldn’t outrun an attacker anyway.
And taking time to remove them might not be a good choice.
Another problem with the sword is that it requires upper body strength. Typically males have more of that, keeping most women at a disadvantage.
The same person with a ranged weapon and multiple shots on tap would be taken rather more seriously.
Hence my assertion that a firearm, which you most often don’t have to use, is the least violent self-defense weapon.
Common misconception. Yes, it absolutely helps, but a LOT of sword-work and power comes from the body and legs. A petite lady like her, with proper training and a sharp sword, could disassemble an unarmored man that didn’t take her seriously quite well. Spent a lot of years in SCA armor, and some of my deadliest opponents were not as strong as I was, but had much better understanding of how to generate speed and power.
It’s like throwing a base-ball – yeah, a strong arm helps, but it’s the legs and body twisting crazy-fast that REALLY generates the power and speed. Just using your arm will make less speed and power, and more arm stress-injuries. That said, because a lot of people don’t know that, they are more likely to NOT take her seriously, and would therefore be more likely to NEED dis-assembly rather than backing off. If she was going against a similarly armed and armored man, then yes, his upper body strength would make a huge difference, and allow him to win with much worse technique.
Agree completely; google “Boudica.”
I was thinking of times when chain mail, short swords, and targets were in common use. Men who survived long tended to be pretty good.
In my fantasy, Brides of Fairswale, women learn to use daggers, where speed and eyeball-to-eyeball technique are important. And being underestimated.
That\’s why In Japan of Edo period women\’s weapon of samurai class was Naginata – polearm weapon of considerable length.
Wowza, time trippin’! From the 7th Century to the 70’s, all in one post and two pics. Well played.
Yeah -my first thought was “Bell-bottoms!?” But they work for her pretty well, all things considered.
“Carrying a pistol concealed is also rather more socially acceptable than clanking along in armor, with a sword on your side.”
I don’t know about that – my niece just escaped from the People’s republic of San Francisco, where she couldn’t CC her pistol. I suggested while she was in SFO that she should carry her sword, and if the authorities objected, that she should claim she was merely expressing her Viking heritage, and how dare they try to oppress her cultural sensitivities!
” more socially acceptable than clanking along in armor, with a sword on your side.”
Then you’re hanging out with the wrong crowd. Medievalists like to party!
For example, a young woman wearing chain mail and wielding a sword would not be taken all that seriously by many.
Yeah, in this case because the lack of an under-layer/gambeson tells me she’s an amateur…
The core point of “people take a .22 aimed at their face more seriously than a knife”, though, is spot on.
(And she’d probably be better served with a spear, but I do take the “angry person with a sword” relatively seriously. You can hurt somebody with one of those!
Contra cargo, though, none of the medievalists I know party in armor. Stuff’s heavy and, even when properly fitted, relatively uncomfortable.)
That appears to be a PMR30 in her hands and as such, I claim shenanigans! This is a FAKE, a FORGERY, and a PHOTOSHOP since everybody knows that the PMR30 is only a FIGNATION of your IMAGINAMENT!
True for normal people.
But we all know that Oleg has the only PMR30 that ever actually left Kel-Tec’s top-secret moon base.
“I don’t know about that – my niece just escaped from the People’s republic of San Francisco, where she couldn’t CC her pistol. I suggested while she was in SFO that she should carry her sword, and if the authorities objected, that she should claim she was merely expressing her Viking heritage, and how dare they try to oppress her cultural sensitivities!”
Back a few years back, in the UK, there was a guy who claimed to be the reincarnation of King Arthur, and claimed it was his religious duty to carry “Excalibur” at all times. IIRC, he actually won in court and it was found that he held a “genuine religious belief” and was thus entitled to carry a large broadsword in public- and this in the UK!
However (sadly), that was 10 years ago or so. A couple years back the courts ruled the other way in regard to a Sikh schoolboy who wanted to carry a genuine kirpan to school (sword/dagger- one of the 5 marks of Sikhism that all Sikh males are supposed to bear, although these days many carry a symbolic, blunt badge shaped like a sword). And given the current US administrations unwillingness to grant that religious belief should be allowed to impede its policy objectives, I doubt that course will work here in the US right now – tho’ might be worth a try at State level…
“Contra cargo, though, none of the medievalists I know party in armor. Stuff’s heavy and, even when properly fitted, relatively uncomfortable.)”
Sigivald – I guess that depends on your definition of “party” 😉 Few things I know are more fun than running screaming at your friends when you’re all encased in mail and carrying blunted weapons…
That’s “fighting”.
The “party” is what happens afterwards, when they’re done bashing each-other.
(Most fun activities are not parties!)
I tend to take anybody with a knife seriously.
And the folks who want to ban knives even more seriously.