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.
Poll: Swords vs. Guns
- Thread starter Thatkidnooneknows
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
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.
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.SakSak said:
So it isn't a matter of honor or courage but a matter of skill?ChosenLord said:
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.
I'm not ignoring the skill, patience, accuracy and BALLS it takes to be "effective" with a gun.SakSak said:
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.
Sorry, but that's yet another useless notion when it comes to fighting:ChosenLord said:
There is no 'fair'. In combat or in a fight in genereal there is only victory and defeat. fairness has nothing to do with it.
Or would you say traps are unfair? Bows? Crossbows? Spears? Hidden knives? Body armour?
If so, what would be fair?
Most of the time, when I go to my martial arts training or hear people talking about fighting, fairness is simply another word for stupidity.
I reiterate: Fighting, combat and war are not glorious nor are they noble.
They are also most definately not fair.
Read the Art of War for some real ideas of strategy. My favourite quote is "All warfare is based on deception". Deception.
Perhaps you should watch the Braveheart to see how there was no friendly fire from arrows...
King looking down at a firce melee :"Fire a volley."
Advisor: "But Sir, our men..."
King: "We have reserves, they do not. Now fire a volley."
while swords are cool guns have totally replaced them as battlefield weapons and as a method of civilain defence.
Swords take tremedous skill and to be honest finding a well made sword is extremly hard, same reason why gunpowder replaced archery even when the bow could fire faster however it lacked the noise (phsycological warfare) and the ability to make a mockery of platemail
Swords take tremedous skill and to be honest finding a well made sword is extremly hard, same reason why gunpowder replaced archery even when the bow could fire faster however it lacked the noise (phsycological warfare) and the ability to make a mockery of platemail
I voted for guns, obviously.
I theorize that swords are popular partly because people don't actually use them to kill people anymore, therefore not making them represent crime in the same way that guns do and partly because so many works of fiction contain swords. I myself prefer swords in books and games because the fights are more dramatic.
While I agree that guns also require skill, the difference isn't as noteworthy as it is with guns, which leads me to my next point: Today anyone can stand a chance while in the past the average citizen was defenseless if a trained swordsman wanted him dead.
In conclusion, though; I agree with the opinion that people shouldn't have to use weapons to settle their differences which makes this thread pointless (no offense).
I theorize that swords are popular partly because people don't actually use them to kill people anymore, therefore not making them represent crime in the same way that guns do and partly because so many works of fiction contain swords. I myself prefer swords in books and games because the fights are more dramatic.
While I agree that guns also require skill, the difference isn't as noteworthy as it is with guns, which leads me to my next point: Today anyone can stand a chance while in the past the average citizen was defenseless if a trained swordsman wanted him dead.
In conclusion, though; I agree with the opinion that people shouldn't have to use weapons to settle their differences which makes this thread pointless (no offense).
a Gun. tagging a guy from 400 meters out with a 7.62mm(NATO) shot from a semi automatic M-14 out trumps something that has a 5 foot reach any day.
i don't care if it isn't a fair fight... if you're fighting a fair fight, you've already failed. all tactical combat training teaches you this.
i don't care if it isn't a fair fight... if you're fighting a fair fight, you've already failed. all tactical combat training teaches you this.