Tokyo Revengers - Speed Cap

[Dalesean027]

for example in a hypothetical if someone were to shoot mikey while hes tied up and cant move its still dangerous and has nothing to do with how fast mikey is, proving that the original statement wouldnt necessarily need to entail a speed cap.

We're not here to entertain hypotheticals, provide actual proof that isn't just conjecture my guy

Its like astounding yall haven't sent any concrete proof yet

 

[Chariot190]

This question begs again, youre still just saying its the default assumption when thats what in question thats why its not getting anywhere.

You're skipping why the question is being "begged" to begin with. Why's it in question?
There isn't any reason to assume or humor otherwise.

You're acting like they have something absurd like Fox going "btw bullets will never hit me", and then he deflects a whole magazine from a inch away and does a cool flip, or even worse, acting like there's a ludicrous gap between mid and high tiers like this is LA Quicksilver punching Apocalypse as he's unable to move a inch or Plat humiliating Killer Queen by shattering all his bones with tens of dozens of punches before he can react once. There's a gap sure, but not the type of gap that'd excuse this type of argumentation. And if the argument is that top dogs can get around guns, they can do that even without being faster if they're even so much as a few meters away.

This whole "nuh uh" burden hot potato makes no sense. Like at that point why stop at gun speed?
Why not argue they can be faster than lightning, or even light?
Because that's no different from what's happening here, you'd have about as much evidence for all 3, and the same argument would work "burden is on you to prove they CAN'T be MHS".
It's your job to prove they are, not for anyone to prove they're not by default.

Only after you prove they're at a certain level can you start shifting the burden because you would have already proven yours, thus, it's on the other side now to prove otherwise if they still want to argue it and if they can't, then you'd be in the right.

The absence of evidence is not proof of anything, and a lot of people seem to think otherwise as of late.

 

[Avaritia_603]

We're not here to entertain hypotheticals, provide actual proof that isn't just conjecture my guy

This is actual proof that the statement isnt necessarily dependent on not being able to dodge, this isnt incomplete information, I can type out a valid syllogism if you would like

 

[Vzearr]

Approved by Reiner.

Anyways, I disagree, but if I really had to prove it:

The claim that guns act as a speed cap relies on an unstated presuppositional claim: that dangerous refers specifically to speed. However, this does not logically follow.

Dangerous only establishes that something can cause harm, not the mechanism by which that harm inherently occurs. In TR, harm from weapons is explained through lethality, piercing, range, and situational factors. Morris goes into depth about this: low-tier characters who get blitzed by characters above them, get beaten by knives. None of these inherently requires speed to be the determining factor.

Literally, on top of that, for guns to function as a speed cap, they would need to consistently be portrayed as unreactable due to their speed. This is not proven by you. Gun-related scenes vary in context, literally involving off-guard characters, injured characters, or sacrificing characters, or delusional characters, or suicidal characters, etc, which prevents them from being generalized into a universal limitation.

Avaritia will go more into depth about burdens and stuff.

Because Guns are commonly known for their lethality and speed, not just because they can kill, but because they are almost unblockable because of speed, and hard to dodge or avoid. You can't just ignore that and claim otherwise without reasonable assumption, when that is the general idea that makes guns dangerous

First of all, false equivalence. Guns are dangerous -> because they are fast -> therefore speed is the defining factor.

But what's devastating is that knives turn low tiers into high tiers. It proves the lethality ≠ speed. Syllogism:

Premise 1: If speed is what makes weapons dangerous, then slower weapons should not increase threat level.

Premise 2: In the verse, knives (which are slower than guns) make low tiers to high tiers.

Conclusion: Speed is not the defining factor of a weapon’s danger.

Morrises point dismantles this:

In Tokyo Revengers, weapons with instant lethality are portrayed to be disproportionately dominant, to the point where simply wielding one can overwhelm opponents, regardless of clear differences in speed or physical ability.
The series repeatedly shows that once a character gains access to a weapon capable of killing instantly, the fight shifts in their favor, even against opponents who are significantly faster. This suggests that the narrative prioritizes lethality over speed, rather than speed being the deciding factor in these encounters.

Angry vs Mucho:
Angry clearly outclasses Mucho in both speed and strength. The gap is obvious. Yet the moment Mucho grabs a knife, Angry becomes visibly overwhelmed and struggles to handle him, forcing Kakucho to intervene. This suggests that the knife alone flips the power dynamic so hard that Angry’s superior speed is rendered ineffective.

The same pattern appears with Kakucho vs Sanzu:
Sanzu is a mid tier character and Kakucho is fast enough to blitz him. However, in the final arc when when Sanzu weilds Katana, a weapon that can kill instantly, Kakucho is suddenly forced into a defensive role, and the fight ends with Kakucho losing.
The narrative treats the katana’s lethality as the decisive factor.

When weapons like knives or katanas are treated as dangerous, the default reasons should be their lethality, range and the wielder’s skill. However, in situations where there’s a massive speed gap, range and skill become far less relevant because the faster character should be able to bypass those advantages.
This is reinforced by Ran Haitani. He consistently uses a baton, which gives him range, yet he remains mid-tier and doesn’t show any significant jump in effectiveness. He’s able to fight on par with Sanzu Haruchiyo when Sanzu is using a metal pipe, and even loses to Mitsuya Takashi despite having that weapon advantage.
So simply having a weapon or even having range isn’t enough to change the outcome. The only factor that consistently shifts these matchups is lethality, specifically when the weapon is capable of killing instantly.

Also.

Just because they do harm from their speed doesnt mean that they would cap from this, this can apply to any weapon, a low tier goon with a baseball bat doesnt have the speed to cause harm to or tag a high tier so it isnt a dangerous weapon. Something being dangerous doesnt necessarily mean it has to be capable of physically interacting in a set situation just that its able to do damage to something, for example in a hypothetical if someone were to shoot mikey while hes tied up and cant move its still dangerous and has nothing to do with how fast mikey is, proving that the original statement wouldnt necessarily need to entail a speed cap.

This explains it.

This is actual proof that the statement isnt necessarily dependent on not being able to dodge, this isnt incomplete information, I can type out a valid syllogism if you would like

And this.

 

[Dalesean027]

This is actual proof that the statement isnt necessarily dependent on not being able to dodge, this isnt incomplete information, I can type out a valid syllogism if you would like

Its not proof though, Mikey is never tied up and shot and no arguments made hinge on that scenario, you're literally just bs'ing right now and providing fake hypotehtical thats baseless and doesn't mean shit like actually straight conjecture

 

[Avaritia_603]

Its not proof though, Mikey is never tied up and shot and no arguments made hinge on that scenario, you're literally just bs'ing right now and providing fake hypotehtical thats baseless and doesn't mean shit like actually straight conjecture

Im not required to give purely inverse reasoning, im providing logical reason through normal means, if thats not how the website operates thats fine but just because you dont like hypotheticals or that you expect something else doesn't make what im saying wrong or "bs". Conjecture is coming to a conclusion based on incomplete information again my information is not incomplete logically, just not up to your standards.

 

[Chariot190]

This is actual proof that the statement isnt necessarily dependent on not being able to dodge, this isnt incomplete information, I can type out a valid syllogism if you would like

You don't need to be faster to dodge, at all. A FTE character can dodge a standard handgun like a M9 at just a few meters distance.
It's no different from how you can dodge a gun too if given enough space and time. Hell there's even a Myth Busters episode where they do that for an actual high cal let alone a puny handgun (Edit: I checked, they used a Desert Tactical Arms Stealth Recon Scout .338 Lapua Magnum, which is like ~770-790 m/s (the measured speed it was when they completed an actual dodge was 762). Additionally the largest problem they faced was the fact they couldn't actually see the gun fire given the distance so they had to set up a relay that signaled after the bullet was fired, which had delays obviously).

As long as you knew when it fired (I say this because even if you're fast enough, if it's to far you won't know regardless because you can't see that far), you could dodge a bullet from a pistol from say, idk 70m?
Now what about a character who's already like 50-100ms in reactions, close enough they can actually perceive when the bullet is fired?
They're still moving relative, in the time it takes the bullet to move say 3 meters, they'd have already moved 0.5 to 1 meters, well enough to move their body out of a bullet's path.

But none of that even matters if there's no real bullet feats to begin with, but even the whole "well they could in theory" argumentation falls flat when they could be even slower than they are atm and still do so within a few meters gap. Also if you need to preface all your points with "maybe", "could", and other such words, that should be a red flag as it is.

You don't want "could", you want "is". That's the burden you need to deliver.

 

[Vzearr]

Approved by Reiner

Knives in the hands of low-tier, slower characters can scare faster characters with knives alone. Speed is not a decisive factor in what constitutes lethality and danger in this verse, and it's proven by that.

Angry clearly outclasses Mucho in both speed and strength. The gap is obvious. Yet the moment Mucho grabs a knife, Angry becomes visibly overwhelmed and struggles to handle him, forcing Kakucho to intervene.

Sanzu is a mid-tier character, and Kakucho is fast enough to blitz him. However, in the final arc, when Sanzu weilds Katana, a weapon that can kill instantly, Kakucho is suddenly forced into a defensive role, and the fight ends with Kakucho losing.

This is inherent debunks that cannot be ignored.

@Dalesean027 @TheGreatJedi13

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

First of all, false equivalence. Guns are dangerous -> because they are fast -> therefore speed is the defining factor.

But what's devastating is that knives turn low tiers into high tiers. It proves the lethality ≠ speed. Syllogism:

Premise 1: If speed is what makes weapons dangerous, then slower weapons should not increase threat level.

Premise 2: In the verse, knives (which are slower than guns) make low tiers to high tiers.

Conclusion: Speed is not the defining factor of a weapon’s danger.

I'm not here to argue fancy sophistry that is irrelevant

And you argued a strawman, which clearly show you did not, nor want to understand where i'm going at.

To rebut you with the same nonsensical argument you just posited

The verse has cars. If cars do not move fast, they do not harm people and only bump them

Therefore, a car hitting you at 90mph shouldn't be dangerous.

utter nonsense

Try looking up Power on how it works

 

[Dalesean027]

Knives in the hands of low-tier, slower characters can scare faster characters with knives alone. Speed is not a decisive factor in what constitutes lethality and danger in this verse, and it's proven by that.

Angry clearly outclasses Mucho in both speed and strength. The gap is obvious. Yet the moment Mucho grabs a knife, Angry becomes visibly overwhelmed and struggles to handle him, forcing Kakucho to intervene.

Sanzu is a mid-tier character, and Kakucho is fast enough to blitz him. However, in the final arc, when Sanzu weilds Katana, a weapon that can kill instantly, Kakucho is suddenly forced into a defensive role, and the fight ends with Kakucho losing.

This is inherent debunks that cannot be ignored.

@Dalesean027 @TheGreatJedi13

Those aren't denunks you're just explaing how melee weapons work irl? Thats how levers work they are faster than the person using them by nature. The speed at the tip of the items on its arc is going to be faster than the movement they put in. This is legit not an argument and doesn't even matter to gunfire

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

Just because they do harm from their speed doesnt mean that they would cap from this, this can apply to any weapon, a low tier goon with a baseball bat doesnt have the speed to cause harm to or tag a high tier so it isnt a dangerous weapon. Something being dangerous doesnt necessarily mean it has to be capable of physically interacting in a set situation just that its able to do damage to something, for example in a hypothetical if someone were to shoot mikey while hes tied up and cant move its still dangerous and has nothing to do with how fast mikey is, proving that the original statement wouldnt necessarily need to entail a speed cap.

A baseball but needed force and action from the user

A gun just need to pull a trigger to unleash an enormous amount of power in a small area with a penetrating bullet moving at speed beyond human comprehension

these are 2 different things and you're arguing of sophistry rather than reasonability

 

[Reiner04]

Approved by Reiner

Make sure to always add who approved the post. I had to edit it in.

 

[Dalesean027]

Make sure to always add who approved the post. I had to edit it in.

Can you comment here at all? You're approving his comments but yourself haven't done so

 

[Avaritia_603]

You don't need to be faster to dodge, at all. A FTE character can dodge a standard handgun like a M9 at just a few meters distance.
It's no different from how you can dodge a gun too if given enough space and time. Hell there's even a Myth Busters episode where they do that for an actual high cal let alone a puny handgun.

As long as you knew when it fired (I say this because even if you're fast enough, if it's to far you won't know regardless because you can't see that far), you could dodge a bullet from a pistol from say, idk 70m?
Now what about a character who's already like 50-100ms in reactions, close enough they can actually perceive when the bullet is fired?
They're still moving relative, in the time it takes the bullet to move say 3 meters, they'd have already moved 0.5 to 1 meters, well enough to move their body out of a bullet's path.

But none of that even matters if there's no real bullet feats to begin with, but even the whole "well they could in theory" argumentation falls flat when they could be even slower than they are atm and still do so within a few meters gap. Also if you need to preface all your points with "maybe", "could", and other such words, that should be a red flag as it is.

You don't want "could", you want "is". That's the burden you need to deliver.

Yeah thats fine and I know how the speed equation works, its also ok if its possible the statement implies that they are slower it doesnt debunk what im saying.

 

[Reiner04]

Can you comment here at all? You're approving his comments but yourself haven't done so

I am just making sure that they do not contain anything rude, inappropriate, or anything like that. So I am only reading his posts and approving them as long as he genuinely believes in those arguments. I don’t know anything about the overall position of the thread. The canonicity issue just happened to catch my eye at the top of the thread, so I told him that adaptations need direct statements per the standards, logical deductions don’t work.

 

[Avaritia_603]

A baseball but needed force and action from the user

A gun just need to pull a trigger to unleash an enormous amount of power in a small area with a penetrating bullet moving at speed beyond human comprehension

these are 2 different things and you're arguing of sophistry rather than reasonability

I dont see how this is a logical consequence, how does those two things being different in that regard make my reasoning fallacious

 

[Vzearr]

Approved by reiner.

Those aren't denunks you're just explaing how melee weapons work irl? Thats how levers work they are faster than the person using them by nature. The speed at the tip of the items on its arc is going to be faster than the movement they put in. This is legit not an argument and doesn't even matter to gunfire

You're confusing a contributing factor with the primary cause. Weapons don't become dangerous because they increase speed; they become dangerous because they increase lethality. A knife doesn't need high speed to kill; that's literally the point. If speed were the defining factor, slower characters with weapons wouldn't threaten faster ones, which directly contradicts what we see.

I'm not here to argue fancy sophistry that is irrelevant

And you argued a strawman, which clearly show you did not, nor want to understand where i'm going at.

To rebut you with the same nonsensical argument you just posited

The verse has cars. If cars do not move fast, they do not harm people and only bump them

Therefore, a car hitting you at 90mph shouldn't be dangerous.

utter nonsense

Try looking up Power on how it works

A baseball but needed force and action from the user

A gun just need to pull a trigger to unleash an enormous amount of power in a small area with a penetrating bullet moving at speed beyond human comprehension

these are 2 different things and you're arguing of sophistry rather than reasonability

This doesn't respond to anything.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

I dont see how this is a logical consequence, how does those two things being different in that regard make my reasoning fallacious

It does because you are ignoring other aspects regarding this reasoning, such as
the requirement of speed
Can a baseball bat moving at 1cm/s delivery enough impact force to be harmful?

I'm not here to argue every single piece of inference, as we will never be done if we go inference by inference, logical parsing, sentence parsing, and all that nonsense that already goes with simple deductive reasoning

If you're going to continue in this path of argument then put me in disagree for the reason i argued

 

[Dalesean027]

You're confusing a contributing factor with the primary cause. Weapons don't become dangerous because they increase speed; they become dangerous because they increase lethality. A knife doesn't need high speed to kill; that's literally the point. If speed were the defining factor, slower characters with weapons wouldn't threaten faster ones, which directly contradicts what we see

Brother HOW DO YOU THINK WEAPONS INCREASE LETHALITY, you aren't gonna be slugging someone at 1 centimeter per second witha bat and think its going to do damage, they are force multipliers for a reason because of the speed they allow you attack at which is where their force and lethality comes from

 

[Armorchompy]

These arguments are absolutely mental. "A person with a knife is more dangerous than a person without a knife, ergo a Mach 1 gun can threaten people several times faster than it??" It's ludicrous. Genuinely so bad it's not even worth entertaining, obviously Dale is right here.

The whole idea hinges around the fact that characters slower by a blitz extent or more can somehow threaten faster characters... which shows me that the speed scaling isn't consistent, because if you can blitz someone you have no reason to worry about their weaponry, since it will never hit you. In all likelyhood this just shows that the "blitzes" are in reality just evident of superior but comparable speed (a common manga trope), even if it doesn't then it's PIS and doesn't serve to move the needle on this debate.

This is an asinine argument and I suggest just concluding the thread as soon as possible if the TR supporters don't want to present a real point.

 

[Avaritia_603]

It does because you are ignoring other aspects regarding this reasoning, such as
the requirement of speed
Can a baseball bat moving at 1cm/s delivery enough impact force to be harmful?

I'm not here to argue every single piece of inference, as we will never be done if we go inference by inference, logical parsing, sentence parsing, and all that nonsense that already goes with simple deductive reasoning

If you're going to continue in this path of argument then put me in disagree for the reason i argued

Appealing to ignorance but thats fine I guess

 

[Vzearr]

These arguments are absolutely mental. "A person with a knife is more dangerous than a person without a knife, ergo a Mach 1 gun can threaten people several times faster than it??" It's ludicrous. Genuinely so bad it's not even worth entertaining, obviously Dale is right here.

The whole idea hinges around the fact that characters slower by a blitz extent or more can somehow threaten faster characters... which shows me that the speed scaling isn't consistent, because if you can blitz someone you have no reason to worry about their weaponry, since it will never hit you. In all likelyhood this just shows that the "blitzes" are in reality just evident of superior but comparable speed (a common manga trope), even if it doesn't then it's PIS and doesn't serve to move the needle on this debate.

This is an asinine argument and I suggest just concluding the thread as soon as possible if the TR supporters don't want to present a real point.

This doesn’t work because danger is not synonymous with speed; I already explained this. A weapon can increase lethality without making the person holding it as fast as the target. So the fact that a slower person can still threaten someone faster does not automatically create a contradiction as you're implying. Saying "if they were really that fast, they’d never worry" ignores that combat depends on more than raw speed alone.

I request you to address Avaritia's and other old arguments considering this.

Brother HOW DO YOU THINK WEAPONS INCREASE LETHALITY, you aren't gonna be slugging someone at 1 centimeter per second witha bat and think its going to do damage, they are force multipliers for a reason because of the speed they allow you attack at which is where their force and lethality comes from

Weapons increase lethality through multiple factors, not just speed...

 

[Avaritia_603]

These arguments are absolutely mental. "A person with a knife is more dangerous than a person without a knife, ergo a Mach 1 gun can threaten people several times faster than it??" It's ludicrous. Genuinely so bad it's not even worth entertaining, obviously Dale is right here.

The whole idea hinges around the fact that characters slower by a blitz extent or more can somehow threaten faster characters... which shows me that the speed scaling isn't consistent, because if you can blitz someone you have no reason to worry about their weaponry, since it will never hit you. In all likelyhood this just shows that the "blitzes" are in reality just evident of superior but comparable speed (a common manga trope), even if it doesn't then it's PIS and doesn't serve to move the needle on this debate.

This is an asinine argument and I suggest just concluding the thread as soon as possible if the TR supporters don't want to present a real point.

This is just you misunderstanding what it means for something to be dangerous, it doesnt have to do with worry just that theyre able to do damage if they do hit, not that they necessarily will interact physically or have to in order to fulfill the definition.

 

[Reiner04]

I updated the votes in the OP.

I was unsure of @Random-Helper323 and @KLOL506 vote so I'd appreciate if you two can clarify your stance on the thread.

 

[KLOL506]

RN I'm leaning heavily towards disagreement.

 

[Floxy178]

Taiju uses a Motorbike to directly attack Sanzu by ramming him with it and Sanzu isn't fast enough to dodge the "travel speed" of the motorcycle - Chapter 258 - Sanzu being a high tier able to tag Kakucho several times with his Katana with a Resolution Amped Takemichi needed to carefully avoid his blows with near misses

Was this ever answered?

 

[Dark_Soul20189]

I updated the votes in the OP.

I was unsure of @Random-Helper323 and @KLOL506 vote so I'd appreciate if you two can clarify your stance on the thread.

Got ninjad
Random however just has not taken a stance, so yeah, he just hasn't voted for anything yet.

 

[Vzearr]

Approved by @Reiner04

Okay, I guess we'll get into it more.

The issue with your guys’ position is that you’re misidentifying what guns actually represent in the context of the verse. You’re trying to treat guns as some universal speed limiter when in reality, in the context of the verse, they’re only shown as lethal tools in specific situations. For a sped cap to even be valid, you’d have to demonstrate that something is consistently unreactable purely because of its speed with actual comparable conditions instead of whatever you guys are using. Anyways, that just isn’t what’s happening here. Guns are not portrayed as irredeemably unreactable due to speed. So if a speed cap requires that level of consistency, which is how we go about this stuff, inverse, and guns don’t meet that requirement, then they simply cannot be used as a speed cap. The conclusion you’re reaching just doesn’t logically follow from the premises you’re enacting and using.

The whole reliance on a "default assumption" is also flawed. You’re basically arguing: guns are dangerous in real life because of speed and piercing, guns are called dangerous in the story, therefore, the statement must refer to speed. That blatantly just doesn't work. That’s a straight-up false equivalence. Dangerous is a qualitative descriptor; it just tells you something can cause harm, not how it does it. It doesn’t specify speed, it doesn’t specify piercing, it doesn’t specify anything beyond lethality. If you want to turn that into a speed argument, you need an extra premise that explicitly links "danger" to something unreactable, and that premise has not been proven anywhere. You can’t jump from a vague descriptor to a precise speed hierarchy without just inserting your own assumption.

Now to prove my interpretation is better at an equal interpretation.

What the narrative actually shows, and this is consistent btw, is that lethality is the dominant factor, not speed. Slower characters are repeatedly able to threaten faster ones the moment they get access to lethal weapons like knives or katanas. If speed were truly the deciding factor, the way you’re implying, that wouldn’t happen. A slower character like Mucho could never be able to pressure a faster one like Angry. But the verse shows the opposite: the moment a knife thats "dangerous" is introduced, the entire dynamic of the fight shifts. So if speed were the determining factor, slower characters couldn’t threaten faster ones, but they do. Therefore, speed is not the determining factor behind why weapons are dangerous in this verse. It’s lethality. That doesn’t mean speed is irrelevant, obviously, but it does mean you can’t just assume speed is the reason guns are dangerous, especially when the narrative doesn’t treat it that way, Dale, Armor.

Using gun deaths as evidence for a speed cap is also just flawed reasoning in my opinion. A character dying to a bullet proves the bullet is lethal. That’s it. It does not prove the bullet was unreactable due to speed. For that conclusion to work, you’d have to show that the death was specifically because of the bullet’s speed, not because the character was off-guard, injured, mentally delusional, or literally sacrificing themselves. And in every example being used, those factors are present. You can’t take scenes and generalize them into a universal limit. That’s not how inference works.

Oh, and the way you’re treating reaction feats is just inconsistent. You dismiss them as "just moving relative" instead of outspeeding, but that distinction actually helps my argument, not yours. Because if a character can perceive the shot, start moving after the gun is fired, and complete an action before the bullet reaches its target, then their reactions are operating within the same timeframe as the bullet. That’s just basic logic. If reacting after the shot and moving within the bullet’s travel time places their actions in that same timeframe, and we see characters do exactly that, then they have bullet-relative reactions/combat speed at a minimum. You don’t need them to outrun the bullet, even though they do.

Was this ever answered?

Sanzu was beaten in the head, and was bleeding from it, all his fights were with severely injured characters or him slashing people from behind.

He was also... Caught off.. Guard...

 

[MorrisHatesYou]

I think we should stop getting back and forth and discuss who should scale below and who shouldn't.

Was this ever answered?

Sanzu is not remotely high tier. He's a mid tier, lower end of it.
Kakucho defeated Angry with significant speed difference, Angry blitzed Rindou and Ran.
Ran and Sanzu are comparable.
The reason why it looks like they're comparable is because the narrative prioritizes lethality as determining factor of fight outcomes over pretty much anything else.

Edit: Even then I think it's pis, but that's for another discussion.

 

[Agnaa]

The whole reliance on a "default assumption" is also flawed. You’re basically arguing: guns are dangerous in real life because of speed and piercing, guns are called dangerous in the story, therefore, the statement must refer to speed. That blatantly just doesn't work. That’s a straight-up false equivalence. Dangerous is a qualitative descriptor; it just tells you something can cause harm, not how it does it. It doesn’t specify speed, it doesn’t specify piercing, it doesn’t specify anything beyond lethality. If you want to turn that into a speed argument, you need an extra premise that explicitly links "danger" to something unreactable, and that premise has not been proven anywhere. You can’t jump from a vague descriptor to a precise speed hierarchy without just inserting your own assumption.

Now to prove my interpretation is better at an equal interpretation.

What the narrative actually shows, and this is consistent btw, is that lethality is the dominant factor, not speed. Slower characters are repeatedly able to threaten faster ones the moment they get access to lethal weapons like knives or katanas. If speed were truly the deciding factor, the way you’re implying, that wouldn’t happen. A slower character like Mucho could never be able to pressure a faster one like Angry. But the verse shows the opposite: the moment a knife thats "dangerous" is introduced, the entire dynamic of the fight shifts. So if speed were the determining factor, slower characters couldn’t threaten faster ones, but they do. Therefore, speed is not the determining factor behind why weapons are dangerous in this verse. It’s lethality. That doesn’t mean speed is irrelevant, obviously, but it does mean you can’t just assume speed is the reason guns are dangerous, especially when the narrative doesn’t treat it that way, Dale, Armor.

Haven't looked at most of the thread, but this argument in particular is bad.

Guns are dangerous because of speed and piercing. But guns have a fixed speed, that does not meaningfully rely on the speed of the wielder. For them to be dangerous, they have to be sufficiently faster than the person being attacked (and overpower that person's durability). This is why they can act as a cap on speed (and durability).

Knives and katanas do not have a fixed speed. In some situations you can attack faster with them than one could unarmed.

Everything else is a pointless smokescreen.

If this is actually what the thread hinges on - the idea that guns being dangerous isn't a speed anti-feat because knives/katanas make characters more dangerous - then I suppose I disagree.

 

[Vzearr]

Approved by @Reiner04

Haven't looked at most of the thread, but this argument in particular is bad.

Guns are dangerous because of speed and piercing. But guns have a fixed speed, that does not meaningfully rely on the speed of the wielder. For them to be dangerous, they have to be sufficiently faster than the person being attacked. This is why they can act as a cap on speed.

Knives and katanas do not have a fixed speed. In some situations you can attack faster with them than one could unarmed.

Everything else is a pointless smokescreen.

If this is actually what the thread hinges on - the idea that guns being dangerous isn't a speed anti-feat because knives/katanas make characters more dangerous - then I suppose I disagree.

That is 1 heavily debated part of the thread, yeah, but not the whole thread. Also:

Guns are dangerous because of speed and piercing. But guns have a fixed speed, that does not meaningfully rely on the speed of the wielder. For them to be dangerous, they have to be sufficiently faster than the person being attacked. This is why they can act as a cap on speed.

A gun is dangerous because it can cause lethal damage upon contact, not because it is inherently unreactable (I'll get into this later). People can be shot due to a lack of awareness, positioning, or timing, none of which require the projectile to exceed their reaction speed, which is my main point; all of the feats include that. The only thing is the statement of "guns are dangerous weapons," but calling guns “dangerous” is not a quantitative statement. You are treating a qualitative descriptor as if it were a measurable scaling metric.

Dangerous means it can harm you if it hits, not that you’re incapable of avoiding it.

 

[Reiner04]

Just a friendly reminder that if a discussion starts going in circles and the fundamental differences in interpretation and arguments are already clear, then agreeing to disagree and proceeding with a vote might be a better option for either side (or anyone) that doesn’t wish to continue further, especially if the discussion isn’t leading anywhere.

 

[Dark_Soul20189]

Just a friendly reminder that if a discussion starts going in circles and the fundamental differences in interpretation and arguments are already clear, then agreeing to disagree and proceeding with a vote might be a better option for either side (or anyone) that doesn’t wish to continue further, especially if the discussion isn’t leading anywhere.

That is pretty much what has been happening the entire thread with the gun speed arguments....

Either way, current votes (staff only)
Agree:
Disagree: @Dalesean027, @Armorchompy, @KLOL506, @Agnaa, @Chariot190 (past calc memeber), @Maverick_Zero_X,
Neutral:
has not voted: @Reiner04, @Random-Helper323,
So yeah... I think this is a pretty clear case of the staff and calc members disagreeing with the CRT, and this seems to be the majority for normal users as well, if we look at the likes....

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

I agree with Dale's points here. These arguments ain't it

 

[Reiner04]

I suppose thread has been rejected then, i will let it stay open for 12 hours more just to give OP fair chance at convincing other staffs.

 

[Viott]

The characters could never dodge the bullets. They were constantly shot and killed with a pistol.

It’s really ridiculous for you to argue that the characters are faster than a bullet. The characters can’t even reach transonic speeds.

Forget about transonic speeds. It’s madness for you to argue that the characters are moving at MHS speeds.

 

[XxZetsuxX]

I don't think its worth commenting anymore

It's already concluded and vzear got banned (for 1 day atleast) because of his messages

 

[Robo432343]

this thread should just be closed
vzearr might be getting perma banned