If your sharpen the blunt end of the corn knife, you can inflict damage on the return stroke.
This looks like a good utility/defense sword for cheep.
Worst Vulcan hand signal ever. 
That is hilarious
Live long and derp.
MP5. Every time.
My 16" carbine with a full mag in ready position. Do I get a prize? :jester:
I would think that effective use of a sword requires a very different skill set than shooting- I doubt I could be of much use with one, especially against multiple armed bad guys. That guy is clearly a badass and should be given a wide berth (or be a good neighbor). He used a sword for lack of better options, but I’m amazed he wasn’t shot while slashing away- maybe the bad guys didn’t have guns?
Heck yeah!
Now I’m curious.
Stabby swords are OK. But in close quarters, you’d probably want something with more of an edge. Not saying that the gladius wouldn’t work. But I would want something I could mortschlag with.
I would probably prefer the Albion Vassal Falchion, the Albion Kern, or the Albion Doge.
The falchion doesn’t really allow you to stab, but it is very instinctive in use and, as a single-edged sword, more readily lends itself to half-swording techniques with an unprotected hand. It was a common sword, particularly among the commons, for much of European history and with good reason. The other two are Type XIX swords - basically the height of European general purpose (military and civil) swords, more or less a European katana.
Less expensive options: A&A Irish Sword, A&A Iberian Mace, A&A Grunwald, Albion Squire-line Viking sword. If you like the mace but want something more display-worthy, there’s the A&A High Gothic Mace.
However, I think you’d probably be just as well off with either the afore mentioned machete or a tomahawk (a fighting tomahawk, not a modern ‘tactical’ tomahawk, which is more breaching tool than weapon).
Well, from the historical record, it generally takes fewer cuts to stop someone and they’re more likely to survive if they take enough cuts to neutralize them. In duels with cutting swords, one or both participants usually survived. In duels with stabbing swords, it was not uncommon for both participants to die, either in the immediate aftermath or the duel or due to infection later on (topical infections created by cuts are easier to treat than those deeper inside the body) - and this was one of the earlier “humanitarian” arguments for arms control: Young men in gangs walking around town, brandishing weapons, getting in fights, and dying. There are other reasons too: Cutting veins and arteries on the surface allows faster incapacitation through exsanguination whereas stabbing is more reliant on hitting something vital… and just as with the modern day, neither one is a guaranteed fight-stopped unless you go for the CNS. I think that more people are prepared to deal with getting shot than with getting stabbed or sliced with a sword, though.