My original analogy is breaking down pretty fast here. I was trying to make the point that a purely defensive stance has to work 100% of the time, while an offensive weapon can serve both purposes to an extent. If I had known it was going to go this direction, I would have used the example of a Kevlar vest.

To answer your question though, 100% maybe. If my option was a butter knife. No. If we’re talking about it decent 12 in knife or claymore or similar. Yes I would. If the flight is that dire, you can take a hard hit with a shield a couple of times, perhaps even a bone breaking one to an arm, and keep moving at a reduced capacity. As long as you can reach around one time and put the blade between their ribs while they’re swinging a heavy shield, the fight is over. The point I’m trying to make, is that defense has to work 100% of the time, while offense only has to work once to do their respective jobs.

That’s a spork…

Navy as well. Was an FC, but got sent to Sami school because our SecO didn’t trust any of the GMs to run his armory. lol. That was a fun cruise.

I’m going to press x on that one. What you say is true to an extent, but you would never grab a particularly pointy shield as your only weapon if you had to go on an offensive. Those things make it more effective from a defensive standpoint, but if I had to get into a fight I would choose a knife over any shield you could show me if I could only pick one, especially if I knew my opponent was going to also have an offensive weapon.

As a gun owner and former small arms instructor, like… I’m happy, but I also feel like I got isekai’ed when I see fellow left sided folks imply that privately owned guns aren’t basically the equivalent of the One Ring. They are simply a tool which bestows the ABILITY to use violence at a distance. What you choose to do with that ability is entirely up to the holder. A sword can be used as a shield as well, but a shield cannot be used as a sword if needed