Poll: Swords vs. Guns

[Scizophrenic Llama]

Apparently I am the only person here currently that is badass enough to use fists. I'm glad I can deviate from the average.

 

[Thatkidnooneknows]

Ok guys I added Both, Fists, and Spatula as options, and I'm probably going to go to bed pretty soon and pick this up tomorrow, because over here its 5:00 in the morning

 

[ChosenLord]

Unfortunately popular novels and fiction is something I care little for (bar the obvious exceptions) But i understand you're view point, and you're justified in you're response, i think less people would die in a war situation if they were faced with having to get almost face to face with the "enemy"

Sad thing is people fight in wars for what they believe in, what weapons and how close really won't matter. Besides some old roman wars had more losses then some of our modern ones. Realitive to the population sizes of the forces and countries. Bigger forces mean bigger loses no matter what.

I know I'm saying a lot but you guys keep comeing up with new points that really don't make any sence XD

Thanks for that but i think morality has evolved to the point where modern day soldiers are excused from battle because they have seen "enough" action, there is no glory in death unlike ancient belief, and not all ppl go to war because of what they believe in, to most soldiers its a job, and you do what you're told by you superiors, do you think the majority of the ppl in Afghanistan and Iraq are there because they believe they are "doing the right thing?" its quite often the case of the lesser of 2 evils.

 

[Durahan2]

Unfortunately popular novels and fiction is something I care little for (bar the obvious exceptions) But i understand you're view point, and you're justified in you're response, i think less people would die in a war situation if they were faced with having to get almost face to face with the "enemy"

Sad thing is people fight in wars for what they believe in, what weapons and how close really won't matter. Besides some old roman wars had more losses then some of our modern ones. Realitive to the population sizes of the forces and countries. Bigger forces mean bigger loses no matter what.

I know I'm saying a lot but you guys keep comeing up with new points that really don't make any sence XD

Thanks for that but i think morality has evolved to the point where modern day soldiers are excused from battle because they have seen "enough" action, there is no glory in death unlike ancient belief, and not all ppl go to war because of what they believe in, to most soldiers its a job, and you do what you're told by you superiors, do you think the majority of the ppl in Afghanistan and Iraq are there because they believe they are "doing the right thing?" its quite often the case of the lesser of 2 evils.

In the end what do some of our soldiers believe in, the almighty dollar. And I didn't mean to insult anyone, I just can't make sence out of some of these points.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

Swords are too heavy and unwieldy, but a good combat knife can be a very efficient weapon under the right circumstances e.g. situations where stealth is required, areas with low visibility and confined, cluttered spaces.

The answer to anything else is a gun. And if that doesn't work, use more guns.

Oh, and whoever said that using a sword requires more skill: try hitting a moving object more than a couple meters away with a pistol. I assure you, in real life its HARD.

 

[Zacharine]

18th century pistol duels is the same thing, 10 paces a sundown, because of the mass production and distribution of pistols, and because of the state of the nation then, ppl found it necessary to carry guns, ( dont bring a paint ball gun to biological warfare )

Do you think (in ye old days) people practise shooting each other? NO, but people practised sword fights because it was a skill, an art of out smarting and manoeuvring your opponent so they accepted that they were defeated, not cold heartedly gunning them down from miles away,

Its like that icthy and scratchy sketch where they consecutively pull out bigger and bigger weapons. to what end?

Okay, my main point of contention with you on this issue:

War is not glorious or noble. Combat is not glorious or noble. Fighting is not glorious or noble. Never has been, never will be. A sword is just as reprehensible as a rifle.

People practised with their swords, because that was the main weapon of war for them. People practised with bows for the same reason. As well as riding. Later this turned into learning to shoot with pistols and rifles. The reason you don't see people doing that in their back yards these days is simple: Firearms are much easier to learn than acceptable proficiency with a melee weapon. Firearms did away with the need to practise movements, positions and strikes for 10 years before you had an acceptable chance to survive real combat.

These days swordmanship might be seen as a novelty, as well as with competetive martial arts, but the roots stay the same: A directed, thought out and tried method of wounding and killing the enemy. Swordmanship is seen as noble because mostly only the rich people, the nobles, had enough money to buy a horse, to buy decent armor and a good sword and had enough free time to become proficient with it. A peasant was simply given a spear and a week (with luck) of training as a unit (because a spear is a horrendous weapon when in 1-on-1 combat) before being sent to battle. A peasant rarely practised at his own, because he didn't have the money for the quipment, no time and no energy after trying to scrape enough for survival.

But I'm with you on the big guns issue and I'm against civilians owning firearms for just 'protection'. As the destructive capability of weapons grow, humanity has less and less of a possibility to recover from the use of such weapons. We can only hope we mature as a society to learn to handle such power responsibly.

 

[Thatkidnooneknows]

*edit* kid are you not listening to me? I'm going to say it one last time really slowly.. Swords don't have any honor. There is no honor to uphold because the object has no honor. The honor comes from the person holding the weapon. So when you say the honor of the object, you're talking about the honor of the person holding that object. Because it's all realitive.

The above didn't seem to be adressed to me, but I'm going to respond anyway. I don't see actual honor in a sword when I see one, I simply see a tool that I train with. But when I look at the sword as a symbol, representative of what it is, was, and stands for, I believe that it invokes a sense of honor.

 

[Durahan2]

But I'm with you on the big guns issue and I'm against civilians owning firearms for just 'protection'. As the destructive capability of weapons grow, humanity has less and less of a possibility to recover from the use of such weapons. We can only hope we mature as a society to learn to handle such power responsibly.

Theres a quote for this "Can't stop crazy people, from doing crazy things, with crazy laws."
In the end all restrictions of weapons mean less in the hands of good mature people. Laws don't stop crazy people from destroying things(lives included).

*edit* kid, I do this because I don't want to double post. I'm not just calling you out.
Thats your honor then, not the swords. You can feel the same way with guns, or any other weapon.

 

[Thatkidnooneknows]

Well, this seems as good a time as any to get off for the night. I'll return to debate later, when i'm not about to pass out.

 

[Zacharine]

But I'm with you on the big guns issue and I'm against civilians owning firearms for just 'protection'. As the destructive capability of weapons grow, humanity has less and less of a possibility to recover from the use of such weapons. We can only hope we mature as a society to learn to handle such power responsibly.

Theres a quote for this "Can't stop crazy people, from doing crazy things, with crazy laws."
In the end all restrictions of weapons mean less in the hands of good mature people. Laws don't stop crazy people from destroying things(lives included).

True. However, it does mean the crazy people have to do more work to ruin others lives.

 

[Durahan2]

But I'm with you on the big guns issue and I'm against civilians owning firearms for just 'protection'. As the destructive capability of weapons grow, humanity has less and less of a possibility to recover from the use of such weapons. We can only hope we mature as a society to learn to handle such power responsibly.

Theres a quote for this "Can't stop crazy people, from doing crazy things, with crazy laws."
In the end all restrictions of weapons mean less in the hands of good mature people. Laws don't stop crazy people from destroying things(lives included).

True. However, it does mean the crazy people have to do more work to ruin others lives.

They'll get they want from the black market or where-ever. Restrictions won't stop that sadly.
More restrictions make it's easier for them.

 

[bigolbear]

my unusual perspectave on this subject:

ive been both shot with a gun and slashed with a sword.

The gun shot was from a young lad (16 ish) and the gun was low calibre i think. it prety much missed only glancing the side of my gut because he shot me at point blank range and i had the oportunity to move and knock the weapon down.

The sword slash was an accident during live weapons training in the dojo. i failed to dodge sufficiently and got cut accross my stomach. (again a minor injury)

Both have left permanent scars but the gunshot has also left a permanent psycological scar. For me the significant difference between a gun and a sword is in the fact that to kill easily with a sword it takes skill, years of training. To kill easily with a gun.. it take some ammo.

To people who say that small calible guns kill slowly so the sword is more effective - what you are failing to take into consideration is the pain caused by a gunshot wound. bullets are HOT.. they burn you, they tear your flesh ripping a hole through your body. A sword or knife will usualy cause a clean cut which although it causes bleeding it will be surprisingly painless in comparison, further more unless a sword or knife cuts tendons or certain muscles you will maintain the use of that limb.

In conclusion - guns scare me.

 

[AtticusSP]

Both are for pussies.
Men use fists only.

I'd rather be called a pussy then a dead man lol

So, you're a pussy and a wimp?
Men just punch that bullet out of midair and punch the sword in half.
That's the way its done, son.

 

[Davey Woo]

There is so much more honour in a sword fight. But in this day and age, take a sword to a battlefield and you're asking for trouble.

 

[ChosenLord]

War is not glorious or noble. Combat is not glorious or noble. Fighting is not glorious or noble. Never has been, never will be. A sword is just as reprehensible as a rifle.

Firearms are much easier to learn than acceptable proficiency with a melee weapon. Firearms did away with the need to practise movements, positions and strikes for 10 years before you had an acceptable chance to survive real combat.

But I'm with you on the big guns issue and I'm against civilians owning firearms for just 'protection'. As the destructive capability of weapons grow, humanity has less and less of a possibility to recover from the use of such weapons. We can only hope we mature as a society to learn to handle such power responsibly.

Hey man I agree with you, WAR is not noble, glorious or whatever, and you said it your self, firearms are easier to learn, so they can be handed out like lolly's to children if it comes to it, my point was, a sword fight (not to death) involves skill, and a gunfight will only ever result in death and involves little knowledge of the weapon and its capabilities, POINT AND SHOOT.. I'm done with this issue, i still stand by my sword.

 

[ChosenLord]

For me the significant difference between a gun and a sword is in the fact that to kill easily with a sword it takes skill, years of training. To kill easily with a gun.. it take some ammo.

In conclusion - guns scare me.

Fully With you on this, couldn't have put it better myself

 

[Zacharine]

my point was, a sword fight (not to death) involves skill, and a gunfight will only ever result in death and involves little knowledge of the weapon and its capabilities, POINT AND SHOOT

So it isn't a matter of honor or courage but a matter of skill?

That I can somewhat understand. It takes some skill to be good with a gun, just like it takes time to be good with a sword. Sword simply requires more time and sword v sword is a constest of skill and power. But don't completely ignore the skill required to shoot accurately to 300m with iron sight only, or the skill it takes to move and position yourself in modern combat while staying safe. The required set of skills is different and used in a different manner. Not only a skill with firearm is needed to be a good soldier or even a good fighter with firearms.

One could say that modern fighting requires a more varied set of skills, while the pre-gunpowder methods required more specialized skills.

 

[ChosenLord]

But don't completely ignore the skill required to shoot accurately to 300m with iron sight only, or the skill it takes to move and position yourself in modern combat while staying safe.

One could say that modern fighting requires a more varied set of skills, while the pre-gunpowder methods required more specialized skills.

I'm not ignoring the skill, patience, accuracy and BALLS it takes to be "effective" with a gun.
Holding and firing an actual gun is one of the most exhilarating experiences i've been through. BUT.... You said it yourself.... FROM 300M away, 300m away, 300!! the guy didn't nor ever would have stood a chance? Therefore not fair!

And yes its more of a specialised skill, And no matter what you think a soldier should or can do during battle to keep them "safe", one (on target / stray ) bullet / missile, will end it. With a sword there's little chance of friendly fire.

 

[bad rider]

Sword if zombie invivasion (as long as they r the slow kind)
Gun, any other situation.

 

[zauxz]

Fuck guns. Fuck swords. Fuck bows. Fuck fists.

A crossbow.