Michael Tinker Pearce's Blog, page 9

Use them? What do you mean, ‘Use them?!’

HEMA pioneer John Clements once expressed the opinion that sword-makers could not learn to fight with swords because they needed to spend all of their time and energy on their craft. With all due respect to John I disagree; I feel that a sword-maker must be familiar with the use of swords in order to make them correctly.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think the sword-maker needs anywhere near the skill that a highly trained martial artist does. But they do need to be familiar with the basics, with cutting with swords and a host of use-related aspects of the sword.

On of the oldest and most respected modern sword companies makes some swords that work very well and others that don’t work at all. Why? Well, for one thing they concern themselves mainly with a sword’s appearance. More importantly they have no basis to determine if a sword ‘works’ because they don’t use them. Ever. So when they make a sword that does work it’s more-or-less a ‘happy accident.’

In a way this goes back to what I found when I first seriously tried to study swords; that you can’t just study swords, you need to study everything. The technology of a given period will influence what they can do to make a sword perform correctly; a sword made from poor materials needs to be made differently than one made from top-quality materials to minimize the chance of it failing in use. The social context of the sword may influence it’s design in that a sword meant to be worn with ‘civilian clothes’ may have different requirements than one meant for the field of battle. The cost of swords in a given place and time, trade, Guild Laws, laws concerning who may or may not own swords, the materials available to them… all of these things and more are involved in the design of a sword.

The thing is it’s easy to look at a book and say, “This sort of sword generally had a narrow handle.” If you know how the sword is meant to be used then you know why they tend to have narrow handles. You can know that a sword used for armored combat needs to be rigid, but experience with thrusting and the methods used to employ the sword you will know how rigid it has to be.

The typical reaction of a modern fencer handling a sword is that it’s too tip-heavy. But a person that knows the techniques for using the sword knows that it’s tip heavy for a reason, and it feels ‘right’ to them.

There’s no such thing as ‘too much knowledge’ when it comes to a craft. A knowledge of the way things are used will inform the way that you make those things and as a consequence you will make them better.

Sense and Sensibility on the ‘Assault Weapons’ Controversy

To start with let me say that wether or not I am a ‘gun-nut’ depends entirely on your point of view. I like guns. I find them to be esthetically pleasing examples of the melding of form and function. I like the cleverness of their engineering and design. I enjoy admiring their craftsmanship. I like to sense of connection to history that some of them impart. I enjoy taking them out and shooting holes in paper with them on a target-range. I hunt occasionally on a friend’s property with them, largely because the local deer want to eat her crops. I’m ex-military and ex-law enforcement, so I am comfortable with the idea that in the unlikely event I need to protect myself or my loved ones I will have an increased capability to do so. My wife and I own several firearms between us. So that’s me as far as guns are concerned.

Further disclosure- while I’m not a fan of President Obama I don’t hate him. I think that he’s a nice enough guy, a mediocre president and a fairly typical politician. I don’t think that he is evil, a ‘socialist,’ or the anti-christ. He’s just a professional politician, a profession that I neither care for nor approve of, but what the hell. He’s more ‘liberal’ than I am, but last time I checked this was America and he’s allowed to hold opinions contrary to mine.

Final disclosure- I fact-check. I don’t just brainlessly parrot any statistic or position that agrees with my prejudices. I try to find reliable sources and I verify facts to the best of my ability. My opinions are generally shaped by these facts, and when I am wrong I change my opinion. God knows if life has taught me nothing else it’s not to place faith in my own ‘rightness.’ As a consequence I don’t believe a lot of anti-gun propaganda, because I’ve checked the facts and they are wrong. Neither do I believe a lot of pro-gun propaganda because there is no credible evidence to support many of their bizarre conspiracy theories.

Currently there’s a lot of invective flying around over the issue of ‘gun control.’ Most of what I hear people from both sides saying, in the media and in social outlets like facebook, is ignorant, unthinking knee-jerk reactions. Uniformed, biased and worst of all unhelpful. Mostly it centers around ‘Assault Weapons,’ a fuzzy media-invented term that means, “Scary-looking guns that hold a lot of bullets.”

Let’s examine some facets of this multi-sided debate in the light of law and reason- concepts that seem all too foreign to participants in much of the ‘debate’ to this point. My personal perspective on this is generally pro-gun, but that bias is as much based in fact-checking as it is the fact that I like them. Much, much more importantly I’m anti-stupid. Please try to keep that in mind as this article progresses.

Yes, I have done the unthinkable. I’ve done research and checked the facts independently of my admitted bias. Try not to faint.

Let’s start with what the Supreme Court says about guns, gun ownership and gun-control. Bear in mind that the Constitution designates these people as the supreme authority on the the law in the United States. As such they have the last word on these matters. This is determined by majority rule of the justices. It does not matter which proportion of them voted what way. The fact that a vote on an issue was ‘close’ matters not the tiniest bit. It’s the final verdict that matters and in this their word is literally law.

It does not matter if you disagree with them. The fact that you think that they are wrong is irrelevant. Their. Word. Is. Law. Period.

In Heller v. District of Columbia the supreme court established several things:

1) That the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights pertains to an individual’s right to own firearms for lawful purposes, which purposes include self-defense in the home.

2) That the 2nd Amendment does not convey this right in an unlimited fashion and that reasonable regulation of firearms does not necessarily constitute ‘infringement’ of that right.

3) That, there being no universal standard, wether or not a given regulation constitutes an ‘infringement’ of that right will need to be judged on a case-by-case basis.

4) Specifically that Handguns are a class of firearms eminently suited to such lawful uses as self defense in the home and therefore could not, as a class, be subjected to a blanket ban.

This decision does have it’s detractors, but I have reviewed the case at some length, as well as the writings of our Founding Fathers. I am quite confident that this decision is in accord with the founding father’s intent in writing the 2nd Amendment. Arguments against this interpretation that I have examined are universally unpersuasive and ignore the stated intent of the framers of the amendment. No, I am not a ‘constitutional scholar,’ but I read and speak the english language fluently. When someone explicitly states their opinion I understand what they mean. Look it up for yourself. For now the word of the Supreme Court is Law, so I’ll decline to waste time arguing the point.

Now let’s look at what this decision does NOT mean:

1) That anyone may own any type of firearm

2) That firearms ownership cannot be subjected to any form of control or regulation

3) That the state cannot impose reasonable regulation of this right

The Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on what is or is not ‘Constitutional.’ They are the final authority and again their word is literally law. Period. As a consequence I don’t care what your opinion is on the matter. It was settled by the body designated in the Constitution to settle such matters, and there’s an end to it.

In McDonald v. The City of Chicago city officials tried to argue that the 2nd Amendment was, among all of the Amendments to the bill of rights, unique in that it did not apply to individual states, who were free to do as they pleased with regard to banning individual possession of firearms for lawful purposes. The Supreme Court disagreed.

So- it is currently the Law of the Land, established by the designated Constitutionally appropriate authority, that individuals are allowed to possess arms for lawful purposes, including self defense in the home. Weapons eminently suited to such lawful purposes cannot be subjected to a blanket ban. Some regulation, if found to be ‘reasonable’ on a case-by-case basis, is allowable and does not necessarily constitute and infringement of 2nd Amendment rights.

Are we all clear on this much? If so we can proceed.

So- What has Obama proposed to place into effect, by Executive Order if necessary? According to his own official statement, not according to conspiracy theorists, racists or other brands of extreme Obama-haters?

Most of his proposals deal with helping to keep guns out of the hands of illegal users, studying the root-causes of violence, insuring the availability of mental health-care, promoting education in how to deal with mass-shootings in-progress, assisting law-enforcement in solving firearms-related crimes etc. The items listed below are the only measures that relate directly to firearms and are taken from the Presidents’s proposals as officially distributed by the White House in .pdf format:

• Reinstate and strengthen the ban on assault weapons: The shooters in Aurora and Newtown used the type of semiautomatic rifles that were the target of the assault weapons ban that was in place from 1994 to 2004. That ban was an important step, but manufacturers were able to circumvent the prohibition with cosmetic modifications to their weapons. Congress must reinstate and strengthen the prohibition on assault weapons.

• Limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds: The case for prohibiting high-capacity magazines has been proven over and over; the shooters at Virginia Tech, Tucson, Aurora, Oak Creek, and Newtown all used magazines holding more than 10 rounds, which would have been prohibited under the 1994 law. These magazines enable any semiautomatic weapon to be used as an instrument of mass violence, yet they are once again legal and now come standard with many handguns and rifles. Congress needs to reinstate the prohibition on magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

• Finish the job of getting armor-piercing bullets off the streets: It is already illegal to manufacture and import armor-piercing ammunition except for military or law enforcement use. But it is generally still not illegal to possess or transfer this dangerous ammunition. Congress should finish the job of protecting law enforcement and the public by banning the possession of armor- piercing ammunition by, and its transfer to, anyone other than the military and law enforcement.

Eliminate restrictions that force the ATF to authorize importation of dangerous weapons simply because of their age: ATF is required to authorize the importation of certain “curio or relic” firearms, and outdated regulations include all firearms manufactured more than 50 years ago in the definition of “curio or relic.” But today, firearms manufactured more than 50 years ago include large numbers of semiautomatic military-surplus rifles, some of which are easily convertible into machine guns or otherwise appealing for use in crime. Congress should get rid of restrictions that prevent ATF from changing this definition, enabling ATF to ensure that firearms imported as curios or relics are actually of interest as collectibles, rather than letting these rules be used as a way to acquire fully functional and powerful military weapons.

Let’s examine each of these in light of the Supreme Court rulings cited above:

The ‘Assault Weapon’ ban:

Sorry, can’t do it. It won’t pass constitutional muster under Heller v. DC. Why not? Because these weapons, as defined, constitute a class of weapons that is ‘eminently suitable’ for lawful purposes such as self-defense in the home. Therefore these weapons cannot, as a class, be subjected to a blanket ban.

Really?!

Yes. Let’s look at the qualities that make a weapon ‘suitable’ for self defense:

1) Ease of use. These weapons are easy to use- they are designed to be employed effectively by minimally trained personnel under stressful conditions.

2) Accuracy of fire. These weapons, properly employed, are very accurate at close range, even in the hands of minimally-trained personnel. Much more so than a handgun and at least as much so as a shotgun. Accurate fire is desirable because it increases the effectiveness of the weapon and reduces the potential for unintentional injury to bystanders. These weapons are also better suited to putting multiple rounds on target quickly, which is often necessary to stop an assailant quickly to prevent them from creating further harm.

3) The ability to engage multiple targets in rapid succession. It is possible under circumstances such as a home invasion or civil disorder that this may be necessary. Why else were repeating weapons invented in the first place?

Well and good, but doesn’t the mention of ‘public good’ and ‘reasonable regulation’ negate this? Well, since weapons of this type are used in less than 3% of violent crime in this country (according to the FBI and other government sources) it is very hard to make a case for the necessity of banning these weapons on that basis.

But surely people don’t NEED that kind of firepower for self defense? Arguable from either side, but ultimately irrelevant. Under Heller v. DC the standard established is of utility not need. From a constitutional perspective, established by the Supreme Court, you cannot ban weapons as a class if they meet the standard of utility.

Is it true that the same qualities that make these weapons ‘eminently suitable’ for self defense also make them ideal tools for mass-shooters? Yep. Does that suck? Yep. Won’t banning them prevent mass-murders? Nope. Timothy McVey is one of many examples of a mass-murderer that did not use a gun. He killed more people than any gun-spree killer in history and did it with materials much easier to obtain than guns. Plus if your only goal is to execute unarmed people you can do a pretty good job with other guns as well, as we’ll discuss in the next section, that being-

Banning magazines with a capacity of ten rounds or more:

Under Heller v. DC this is probably Constitutional. A useless and purely cosmetic measure, to be sure, but likely to be judged to fall into the category of ‘reasonable regulation.’ Why? Because the same factors that render this measure ridiculous argue against the need for high-capacity magazines.

Huh?

With minimal training and fore-thought an average person could easily perform a mass-shooting spree with low-capacity magazines, or even revolvers. Case in point- in the 1980′s I shot in IPSC competition (look it up- explaining it here wastes too much effort.) I was classified as a ‘D’ Class shooter- the lowest level of competition. For the most part I used a weapon that held eight rounds, but since I was able to train myself to reload efficiently the need to do so never slowed me down on a course of fire. I could reload in the time it took me to move three feet sideways as fast as I could- and I was ranked at the lowest level of proficiency in that form of competition. Other persons have demonstrated that the ten-round magazine ban will have no effect on mass shooters by showing how fast they can reload. I’m sure the videos are all over You-Tube.

But… by doing so they have also shown that they don’t need high capacity magazines for ‘lawful use such as self-defense in the home.’ They have, if you’ll pardon the expression, ‘shot themselves in the foot.’

So- banning such magazines is a zero-sum gain. It won’t significantly interfere with either mass-shooters or legitimate users. It’s not unconstitutional, but it’s useless. Does anyone out there have a proposal for enforcement? With perhaps as many as 100 million such magazines in circulation, unregistered? Also even if you do manage to come up with a confiscation scheme that has a snowball’s chance in hell of working, how will you fund it?

Ultimately such a ban is pointless and will be ineffective for its intended purpose. The only reason to bother is so that politicians can point to the law and say, “See? I tried!” But it probably will pass constitutional muster.

• Finish the job of getting armor-piercing bullets off the streets:

As long as the law isn’t bone-stupid I don’t see a problem with this… or any purpose in it. Criminals aren’t using these bullets in large numbers, so who cares? Another zero-sum gain measure, and until specific legislation is proposed there is little point in wasting time arguing about it one way or the other.

Eliminate restrictions that force the ATF to authorize importation of dangerous weapons simply because of their age:

Another pointless idea. Criminals generally aren’t using these weapons to commit crimes, nor are they likely to. Why bother? From the other perspective there are already so many of these weapons in the US that there isn’t a lot of point in fighting for or against this one. Except that such weapons are usually less expensive than their modern equivalents so the poor are more likely to be able to avail themselves of the same rights as their wealthier counterparts. This one faces the same problem as the ‘Assault Weapon’ ban. If such weapons have a demonstrated utility for ‘lawful uses’ then you probably can’t get away with banning their importation.

Draw your own conclusions.

So there you have it. Before you flame me from either the pro or anti gun stance check your FACTS. Read the proposals. Read the Supreme Court decision. Read actual crime statistics, not opinions or ‘survey results.’ Most of all THINK, and if you must respond to this do so from a position of intelligence, open-mindedness, reason and research based in reality. Not prejudice or ‘surveys’ from either side of the debate that are almost always severely biased.

2012

Our 2012 could have been directed by Sergio Leone. Thankfully without the gunfights.

Linda started the year with a job ‘in the bag,’ but the company reorganized and the position evaporated. She was unable to find work for the remainder of the year. I’ve been getting migraines three times a week fairly consistently, and two different prophylactic medications failed to change this.PTSD had reared it’s ugly head as well and the combination kept me out of the workshop more often than not. Linda convinced me that applying for VA disability was not ‘looking for a hand-out’ and we applied for that in March. We’re still waiting to hear back on that.

We’ve barely managed to keep the lights on and a roof over our heads, and that only because of the generous assistance of friends and family.

The thing is, we HAVE been able to keep the lights on and a roof over our heads with the generous assistance of friends and family. I now have health-care through the VA, PTSD is under control and therapy has been very helpful. We started a new diet and a food blog and I lost thirty pounds. We’ve reconnected with old friends and found many new ones. Neither we nor our dogs and cats have gone hungry, sometimes due to the generosity of friends and even strangers. We were able to trade our Pontiac in on favorable terms for a new Fiat 500, which we adore. Payments are lower, insurance costs less and milage is twice as good. Sure, we’ve barely been able to hang onto it, but we have been able to.

Even though my shop-time has been severely curtailed I have reconnected with some of the love of my work. I’ve really gotten into exploring the variety of styles of seax’s and their scabbards. I’ve also helped train some fighters that do Viking-era demos and was able to participate in a demo at the Norse Heritage Museum.

This year one of the finest people that I know and a man that I consider a brother was severely injured while his special operations unit was deployed in Africa. Against all odds and expectations he made a literally miraculous and complete recovery and has returned to duty. Someone up there definitely had his back!

My work with Subutai Corp on The Mongoliad led to Linda and I writing a novella in the Foreworld series, which was published in November. It’s selling well and has received very good reviews. As a consequence I’ve discovered a love for writing fiction and we are nearing completion on our first novel, a heroic fantasy titled, ‘Diaries of a Dwarven Rifleman.’ With a little luck this will be coming out next month. Writing also provides a good distraction from the migraines, so I can remain at least somewhat productive on the days those crop up. Best of all Linda and I have found ways to work together as co-authors, and that we enjoy doing so.

We’ve had to sell some things, including the seax that I had made for myself. This led to a stunning act of generosity that totally made my Christmas. It turns out it was bought by a group of the participants at Sword Buyer’s Guide Forums who returned it to me as a Christmas present. I was speechless, if you can imagine such a thing.

We weren’t always sure that we were going to make it. But through it all we’ve always had the things that we’ve really needed. At least enough to keep going, which is a miracle. Friends, family and the universe have ‘had our back’ throughout. We feel humbled and grateful for the blessings that we have received.

2012 was a rough, stressful, screaming bitch of a year. It was also a wonderful, joyous, incredibly blessed year. Life’s like that. I’m looking forward to 2013.

A Novel Fantasy

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Diaries-of-a-Dwarven-Rifleman/121606158004927

This is a link to the Facebook page for our upcoming novel ‘Diaries of a Dwarven Rifleman,’ the story of Engvyr Gunnarson. Son of a miner, veteran of the elite 3rd Rifles regiment and Ranger of the Mountain Guard. Magic, mystery, adventure, romance- and Dwarves with guns! Have a look. We’re looking at publication this February.

‘The Shield Maiden’ released today!

Just a quick note-

Our novella ‘The Shield Maiden’ published today for Kindle! Written by my wife and I, this is an historic fantasy set in Göttland in the Viking Era as part of the Foreworld shared universe. Also please join me in congratulating my wife Linda on the publication of her first work of fiction!

Oh, and of course buy it, lol

Sorry for the recent lack of posts- we have been immersed in this and other projects including our upcoming first novel “Diaries of a Dwarven Rifleman.”

10x the Speed of Light- Warp Speed Ahead!

OK, this is pure Geek rather than sword- but it is maybe the coolest thing ever. This post is going to be long on ‘bottom-line’ and short on detail but it’s easy enough to find this information online- the internet is abuzz with it. Last month NASA said a warp drive that could travel at speeds of up to 10x the speed of light was potentially realistic and that the road to the stars might open within our lifetimes.

Wow.

This all stems from the work of a Mexican theoretical physicist named Alcubierre who described a warp drive in mathematical terms in a paper in 1996. The problems with his warp-drive were two-fold. First off it relied on something called ‘Imaginary Negative Energy’ which many scientist don’t believe really exists. Second of all it would require a ridiculous amount of energy. How ridiculous? Well, if one could instantly convert the entire mass of Jupiter to energy that ought to just about do it. Not very practical.

But people just can’t seem to leave well enough alone so another theoretical physicist has ‘tweaked’ the original design. It turn out it doesn’t need so much energy after all. In fact NASA called the current estimates of the energy requirements ‘Doable.’ No one is saying what that means except that we can possibly do it. One hurdle is perhaps down…

The Imaginary Negative Energy one is still a problem but it may not be for much longer. There is already a theoretical physicist who claims that Negative Energy may not be quite so imaginary… and he may have demonstrated it in his lab. His work is under peer-review at the moment but it sure sounds like he is onto something. As we speak there is another physicist that has a prototype on his bench that he hopes will produce measurable distortions in space-time- a key technology for our Warp drive. It turns out that all of these breakthroughs relate to the fundamentally electromagnetic nature of space-time. Don’t ask me how- the math loses me immediately.

So how does it work? In a nutshell you compress space-time in front of the vehicle and expand it behind the vehicle. the vehicle itself sits in a ‘warp-bubble’ of flat-space (flattish actually) between these distortions and is effectively not moving from it’s own perspective. Since the vehicle is ‘not moving’ there is no inertial mass buildup from velocity; you become exempt from Dr.Einstein’s relativity effects and this allows you to appear to break the speed-limit of the universe. You don’t of course as the ship is technically not moving- space-time is moving around it.

‘Doable.’ NASA says FTL travel to the stars in our lifetimes is ‘Doable.’ Pause a moment and let that sink in.

This year DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) has also funded the ’100 Year Starship’ initiative (100yss.com,) a group that will examine the logistics, financing and technical hurdles of using emerging and existing technologies to launch an interstellar mission within the next century. These hurdles are not insignificant; even at 10X the speed of light (which is only one of the scenarios that they are working with) it would take several months each way to travel to the nearest star system, Alpha Centauri- which coincidentally astronomers have just announced has at least one planet. Anyway a trip to this star system is probably looking at a minimum of a one-year mission-time to do a thorough job of looking around. Long-duration missions of this type are quite complicated and technically difficult but those are probably things that we can overcome. We’re pretty clever when you get right down to it.

At very least such a drive opens the solar system- Mars would be minutes away at these velocities. The asteroids and the moons of Jupiter and Saturn would be practically in our backyard. The solar system will become our playground. The long-lost Sci-Fi future of my childhood may be coming at last.

this is a very exciting time to be a Geek!

The zombies are coming! Walk away! WALK AWAY!

There’s no doubt Zombies are cool. Room temperature in fact… but you know what I mean. Not traditional voodoo zombies of course. The traditional zombie is a person that was poisoned with a paralytic so that they were conscious but thought that they were dead and then was buried alive, excavated after enough time passed to drive them nuts and ‘resurrected’ by a Voodoo practitioner. The person would be brain-damaged from lack of oxygen and hopefully would believe that their soul was now bound to the reanimated corpse and the must serve the person ‘or else.’ The oxygen deprivation and the poison combined to leave the person with some motor damage (thus the shambling) and a corpse-like appearance. Pretty scary stuff, actually.

Then in the late 1960s George Romero’s movies, starting with ‘Night of the Living Dead’ introduced us to a new kind of zombie- mindless shambling corpses of the recently dead, reanimated en masse by an unknown means, that hunger for human flesh. Sometimes they want brains, sometimes any bit of ‘long-pork’ they can get their teeth into will do. If they bite you you will get sick, die and become one of them. This also introduced the idea of the ‘Zombie Apocalypse’ when civilization collapses as the zombies take over. In the last decade or so Zombie-mania has become pervasive; dozens of films, TV series… the Centers for Disease Control even issued a ‘Zombie Apocalypse Survival Guide.’ Seriously, but they did this under the theory that such preparations would equip Joe Citizen for more likely disaster scenarios as well.

One has to wonder; what is it that makes zombies so scary-and so popular? Pundits say that these modern zombies symbolized formless Cold War fears of atomic war. They are also in many ways a ‘good’ monster. They are ubiquitous and their origins are mysterious. They can turn you into one of them… a pretty horrific idea! They have a serious nightmare quality about them because they are dead. And they are moving. ‘That’s a lot of WTF man?’ already but they also want to eat you! Eeeewwww… And, of course they are icky because they are rotting. They are also good in that you can kill them without angst; they are already dead. You are doing them a favor, really. All the slaughter without the guilt.. unless you encounter a former loved-one. But even then there is potential satisfaction if they were hateful… They are also good because the audience feels that they could themselves believably survive the events of the movie. After all, zombies are slow and stupid; anyone that arms them self ought to be able to defeat them. In the 1991 remake of NotLD the heroine escapes the farmhouse by walking away, occasionally breaking into a trot when a zombie gets too near her. It’s not rocket science.

So… not much real danger from a Zombie invasion. But in the best Darwinian fashion today’s movie zombies are evolving. They are getting faster. meaner and stronger; a more credible threat. The very adaptations that make these zombies ‘better’ might remove that plausible survivability factor. Is Zombie evolution going to result in their extinction as they become too scary? Not likely. The films keep rolling out and we keep flocking to see them to the extent that Zombie-Apocalypse related products are being introduced every day.

What has this got to do with Swords? Simple; the way you kill these zombies is to destroy the brain… or cut their head off. Ergo swords. So what are the qualities of a good ‘Zombie-Slayer’ sword? They seem to fall into two categories and the well-prepared ZAS (Zombie Apocalypse Survivor) ought to have both. The most popular AZSs (Anti-zombie swords) are either long, relatively light double edged swords that can be used either single-hand or two-handed and light-weight single-edged short-swords. The first because obviously you don’t want to get any closer to your aromatic attackers than you can avoid; the second type because it’s highly portable, light-weight and well suited to close quarters. These swords do not strictly speaking need a cross-guard; after all zombies do not wield swords. Also notably neither type runs out of bullets… a frequently cited advantage of swords.

I have had a number of people order swords that were specifically designed as ‘zombie slayers.’ Did these people actually believe that they needed them in case of a Zombie Apocalypse? I don’t believe so; hell I HOPE not. But it’s all part of the ‘fun’ and whatever else we can say about Zombies they are probably the most ‘fun’ way to kill off billions of people and End Civilization As We Know It.