Poll: Swords vs. Guns
- Thread starter Thatkidnooneknows
- Start date
Swords and Guns are indeed quite different- guns are ranged weapons swords are not.
Swords posses a certain beauty about them, the craftsmanship that goers into some of them could be considerd an art form. Further more, it takes skill to use them, and years of training.
The reason why early firearms caught on in Europe was the fact that it took years to train a decent archer or swordsman, but only weeks to train a decent musketeer. However that is not to say that there is no skill element to guns- ever seen Enemy a the Gates?- sniping is a skill that requres more patience and training. Also, if we take the logic that it takes little skill to be good with a firearm, then in theory terriorists and western special forces should be round about equal- but there not- and the big advanatage that the SAS or Navy SEALS have over terrorists are that they are so much more better trained with guns, and know how to use them better than anyone else.
Guns also posses a feeling of "heavy metal-industrial power" to them, imagine being sat behind an MG42 machine gun and letting rip across a target range- you would get a tremoundous feeling of power while firing that thing- swords have an element of beauty, guns have the element of raw brutal power.
For me then, guns and swords are about the same- their both good for their own reasons.
Swords posses a certain beauty about them, the craftsmanship that goers into some of them could be considerd an art form. Further more, it takes skill to use them, and years of training.
The reason why early firearms caught on in Europe was the fact that it took years to train a decent archer or swordsman, but only weeks to train a decent musketeer. However that is not to say that there is no skill element to guns- ever seen Enemy a the Gates?- sniping is a skill that requres more patience and training. Also, if we take the logic that it takes little skill to be good with a firearm, then in theory terriorists and western special forces should be round about equal- but there not- and the big advanatage that the SAS or Navy SEALS have over terrorists are that they are so much more better trained with guns, and know how to use them better than anyone else.
Guns also posses a feeling of "heavy metal-industrial power" to them, imagine being sat behind an MG42 machine gun and letting rip across a target range- you would get a tremoundous feeling of power while firing that thing- swords have an element of beauty, guns have the element of raw brutal power.
For me then, guns and swords are about the same- their both good for their own reasons.
No...still quicker to pull a trigger than swing a heavy sword at someone. Sword is easier to dodge as well. Gun wins whether at long or close range.Kurokami said:
I don't really care about it. Most likely thing I'd go for is guns but I don't really care at all.
Yeah, the whole Swords V Guns is like saying Melee v Ranged, its gonna be ranged for the ppl who dont want to die and melee for the ppl who dont care if they die? simple really, it should be Swords v Maces and Guns v Other guns?
I never mentioned Spears or bows ect...SakSak said:
And your right there is no "fair" in "warfare" but I'd like to think we weren't all just out to obliterate each other!!
Unfortunately war has got to the point where the more/bigger guns you have the more likely you are to win but that's not always the case, Same is true with swords.
Not sure what the Topic poster wanted to get out of this, its turned into "IS or HAS WAR Ever been FAIR - Discuss"
I just think it strange to declare a weapon unfair based on the fact that it gives an advantage over another weapon.ChosenLord said:
Based on that thinking a spear is unfair in relation to swords (longer reach), body armour is unfair (You can actually take a hit with low to no damage), bows are unfair (that range) etc.
And we are not out to obliterate each other. Really, read the Art Of War. It is quite easily erguable that Sun Tzu was a pacisifist at heart. His idea was that war should always be the last option, that every other choice will get you what you want with less time, less manpower and less resources wasted. BUT, and this is a big 'but', if you do go to war it should be over swiftly, allocated appropriate amount of resources (but not too much), you should capture enemy infrasturcture/cities intact if at all possible and that war should be left to those who know how to wage it. Once war has been declared you should not think in terms of 'honor' or 'fair' but in terms of victory and defeat. Yet war is to be avoided.
It's also not the biggest army that wins or the biggest gun that wins. The nuclear bomb should be a good example of a weapon that is too big. Moderation in warfare is finally taking some foothold in western civilization (in opposition to the WWII German ideology of total, all ecompassing warfare' and the ideas that based on). Yet fairness is still out of the equation. And it will stay out of the equation.
If you wish to discuss this subject further, PM me and we can create a new thread for this topic. You are correct in that this is getting out of the scope of the OP.
Just woke up, and when I created this thread I was leaving it up to people's responses to clarify which aspect of the weapons we compared, but it's sort of become a comparison of everything, even beyond just swords and guns
Looking threw I saw some comments that the average citizen shouldn't own guns. I'm going to throw my two cents in on this matter and say criminals fear armed home owners more than police and that any one who is responsible enough to drive a car safely can handle a gun safely.
Wow, chosenlord... it is so hard to like you...
So you're pretty much saying it's not a real argument yet you still secretly slide your input in when you say this... "ranged for the ppl who dont want to die and melee for the ppl who dont care if they die" so anybody who picks up a gun is a is a little vagina, is that what you're saying? And anybody who runs out with a sword is so honorable and awesome because they're not afraid to die? What people cannot seem to realize is that you're no good in combat if you're dead. You're not a coward if you own a gun, you're a coward if you threaten an unarmed person with it. Same goes for swords.
So you're pretty much saying it's not a real argument yet you still secretly slide your input in when you say this... "ranged for the ppl who dont want to die and melee for the ppl who dont care if they die" so anybody who picks up a gun is a is a little vagina, is that what you're saying? And anybody who runs out with a sword is so honorable and awesome because they're not afraid to die? What people cannot seem to realize is that you're no good in combat if you're dead. You're not a coward if you own a gun, you're a coward if you threaten an unarmed person with it. Same goes for swords.
hmmm, you may well be right, i was basing my idea with the image that the guy with the gun doesn't have it aimed and ready, but if a guy had the time to come up to him with a sword thats pretty doubtful, plus a gun takes near to no skill to use. (/survive using)Sexual Harassment Panda said:
Meh, i still choose favourates, sword would do it for me, much more personal.
I couldn't help but point that out. Fists still win in my book, and apparently only one other badass person is here to back me up on that. I say the two of us could take all of you on!zauxz said:
Well, a crossbow is only a bow mounted onto a stock. So I would make the argument that it is considered a bow. Just my opinion though.zauxz said: