What is more likely to kill? Blunt force or sharp force?

Question

My friends and I got into a debate about swords vs maces.

I said swords are worse because they can cut organs and cause the victim to bleed out especially if a limb was cut off..

They countered by saying maces are worse because they can break bones, cause someone to go into shock and easily cause internal bleeding leading to death especially if hit on the head.

Essentially we were arguing which one is less likely to kill.

? · Accepted Answer

That question is highly dependent on two major factors: what kind of person is welding the mace/sword (someone who's trained or can't even pick one up) and what gets hit.  You can be the most adept swordsman on the planet but if an idiot gets one good shot (nick the jugular-carotid is deeper and harder to cut without cutting the jugular), he/she wins the fight.  It's the same thing with a mace.

Now if you're talking what gets hit, it's the same thing.  If the mace crushes someone's head, it's instant incapacitation.  If you decapitate someone (sword), it's instant incapacitation. However, if a mace crushes a limb/chest or a sword runs through an organ or cuts off a limb, you'll likely die but you won't die faster one way or the other.

These are equally lethal weapons in the right circumstances.  There are too many variables to ever settle that debate through hypotheticals....not that I'm advocating settling it with real weapons.

Trending News

What is more likely to kill? Blunt force or sharp force?

1 Answer