Poll: Swords vs. Guns

[Zacharine]

Quite simply, you didn't shove that bullet through that man's skull

An aside:

A sword is more honorable, because it doesn't kill people by shooting them? Riight. So guns are less honorable, because... well... you defined them to be less honorable. That's called circular reasoning. You define A (less honorable) equals B (kills with bullets). And your argument is "B, therefore A"....

 

[Durahan2]

Ok in the thing for guns vs. swords.

Guns
Shoot a piece of metal at the speed of sound.
Fire more then one bullet before haveing to reload.
Ranged.

Swords....
their uhhh sharp?

I think the saying is "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight."

Either way I'm a bard at heart, Guitar>everything. Better if a gun was built into the neck of the guitar... Arrow Vulcan or ka-bong anyone?

 

[ChosenLord]

But you cant smell, taste, feel the breath, blood, sweat and tears of you opponent from 100m away???

Where is the pride in knowing you faced a worthy opponent, "I moved my finger before his?"

 

[Thatkidnooneknows]

I think you got that gore-thing upside down. Ever seen a man shot through the guts with a rifle? I won't post graphic M-level images here, but that a look at this illustration. See the cavity formed by the bullet? All that stuff has to go somewhere, usually it's with the backpressure of the bullet, blowing out of the exit wound. And that stuff happens to be your bones, soft tissue, muscles, intestines...

makes for quite a nauseating sight, let me tell you that.

Spoiler: An illustration of a rifle wound

Sure, swords might be more 'up and personal' but nothing short of artillery and mines can create such a bloody and disgusting sight as rifle-shots. And after seeing the results of that shot, no human can pull the trigger without thinking 'That is what I'm about to cause'.

I appreciate your faith in humanity's integrity, but I believe that it is misplaced. By putting the power of that devastation behind a simple trigger, or a launch button makes the application of death all too easy and acceptable for the finger behind that trigger.

 

[Thatkidnooneknows]

An aside:

A sword is more honorable, because it doesn't kill people by shooting them? Riight. So guns are less honorable, because... well... you defined them to be less honorable. That's called circular reasoning. You define A (less honorable) equals B (kills with bullets). And your argument is "B, therefore A"....

I'm sorry, you and others may have misunderstood what I was saying. I consider guns to be less honorable because the force that drives the bullet does not come from the individual who fired it...do you see what my argument is now?

 

[Bob the Average]

Ok in the thing for guns vs. swords.

Guns
Shoot a piece of metal at the speed of sound.
Fire more then one bullet before haveing to reload.
Ranged.

Swords....
their uhhh sharp?

I think the saying is "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight."

Either way I'm a bard at heart, Guitar>everything. Better if a gun was built into the neck of the guitar... Arrow Vulcan or ka-bong anyone?

Or better yet conflict resolution threw musical verse AKA literally rocking some ones face off (sorry it's 4:30 in the morning and i haven't slept)

An aside:

A sword is more honorable, because it doesn't kill people by shooting them? Riight. So guns are less honorable, because... well... you defined them to be less honorable. That's called circular reasoning. You define A (less honorable) equals B (kills with bullets). And your argument is "B, therefore A"....

I'm sorry, you and others may have misunderstood what I was saying. I consider guns to be less honorable because the force that drives the bullet does not come from the individual who fired it...do you see what my argument is now?

I could argue that the killing force does come from me in a Rube Goldberg style way.

 

[Zacharine]

People who own guns are cowards who fear for there life because they know they're in the wrong,

I'd like to see you come visit the military base I served in and tell that to the assembled troops....

EDIT: after you come and tell that my grandfather (who lost his leg to a Russian mine during the Continuation war at '43).

no comment on civilians owning guns.

People who own swords are noble and are out for honour or revenge.

Oh, right, now I get it. You're joking. Because otherwise you wouldn't have written that. No-one lives with their head that much in the world of fiction.

There is something almost.... i cant describe it, when two men (sorry ladys) have a duel with swords, neither has a lack of respect and either is prepared to die,

And how does that not apply to duels with 18th century pistols?

With Guns its the goal to kill kill kill,

How does that differ from what swords are used for? To learn swordmanship is learning to kill.

with no honour or respect, hide behind cover and take pot shots, lilly livered cowards, or even worse, hide behind another country and fire massive Rockets from miles away?? where is the sense of achievement?

Ah, so you are walking with your head in the cloud of fiction. What a romantized (and utterly BS) view on things. Unfortunately that's what popular novels and fiction is portraying. Sigh....

 

[Thatkidnooneknows]

Well where do we start....

People who own guns are cowards who fear for there life because they know they're in the wrong,

People who own swords are noble and are out for honour or revenge.

There is something almost.... i cant describe it, when two men (sorry ladys) have a duel with swords, neither has a lack of respect and either is prepared to die,

With Guns its the goal to kill kill kill, with no honour or respect, hide behind cover and take pot shots, lilly livered cowards, or even worse, hide behind another country and fire massive Rockets from miles away?? where is the sense of achievement?

the whole topic reminds me of something my mother repeated to me.....

"one fine day in the middle of the night, two dead men got up to fight, back to back they faced each other, drew their swords and shot one another."

Completely with you, and to everyone else, I realize I am bieng biased, but this is something I feel very strongly about. I started this thread to make some people think and to help solidify my own beliefs

 

[Zacharine]

I'm sorry, you and others may have misunderstood what I was saying. I consider guns to be less honorable because the force that drives the bullet does not come from the individual who fired it...do you see what my argument is now?

I see your argument.

And I see a problem with it.

You only account for the physical action. The will behind both the swing of the sword and pulling the trigger is the same: The will to harm, the will to kill.

Method matters not, intentional killing is intentional killing, wheather by sword, knife, mine, rifle or bare hands.

 

[Christemo]

swords are just cooler and more badass.

 

[Durahan2]

An aside:

A sword is more honorable, because it doesn't kill people by shooting them? Riight. So guns are less honorable, because... well... you defined them to be less honorable. That's called circular reasoning. You define A (less honorable) equals B (kills with bullets). And your argument is "B, therefore A"....

I'm sorry, you and others may have misunderstood what I was saying. I consider guns to be less honorable because the force that drives the bullet does not come from the individual who fired it...do you see what my argument is now?

What I gathered from this was a "You need strenght to be honorable." I find this bais against people who don't benchpress their bodywieght or higher. A gun and sword are both weapons, there is no honor in killing someone, with either.

Anime, videogames, and myth have heroic-fied? the sword. When in fact it's no better then the gun. As a matter of fact why are we even argueing this. Guns already exist, and hell it's not like getting rid of them will we get rid of the vices of the world.

*edit* also wouldn't the sword be less honorable, I mean you'd have to be pretty sick to go up to someone and butcher them...

 

[Thatkidnooneknows]

I could argue that the killing force does come from me in a Rube Goldberg style way.

That would be true with a crossbow, but not with a gun, the difference is when you add the force of the gunpowder to propel the bullet

 

[lee1287]

well if you're deadpool... gf gun users.

 

[Bob the Average]

Well where do we start....

People who own guns are cowards who fear for there life because they know they're in the wrong,

People who own swords are noble and are out for honour or revenge.

There is something almost.... i cant describe it, when two men (sorry ladys) have a duel with swords, neither has a lack of respect and either is prepared to die,

With Guns its the goal to kill kill kill, with no honour or respect, hide behind cover and take pot shots, lilly livered cowards, or even worse, hide behind another country and fire massive Rockets from miles away?? where is the sense of achievement?

the whole topic reminds me of something my mother repeated to me.....

"one fine day in the middle of the night, two dead men got up to fight, back to back they faced each other, drew their swords and shot one another."

Completely with you, and to everyone else, I realize I am bieng biased, but this is something I feel very strongly about. I started this thread to make some people think and to help solidify my own beliefs

I think i see the hart of the issue now your relating guns to modern crime correct? if this is the case your looking at this from the wrong angle the fact of the matter is that all you need to kill is the will the means will vary but it is still the will that root of the problem.

I could argue that the killing force does come from me in a Rube Goldberg style way.

That would be true with a crossbow, but not with a gun, the difference is when you add the force of the gunpowder to propel the bullet

ok now that is just splitting hairs.

 

[Kikosemmek]

I've owned and used knives, swords, axes and staves on various objects. I still didn't feel as powerful with those as when I got to fill a target full of lead with a 9mm. Say what you want about guns, but they changed everything about warfare and crime since their inception. There's a reason melee weapons are pretty much absent from modern combat (knives exist as last-ditch or specialty weapons, but let's get real, no one's winning a war by telling their soldiers to run and swing at the enemy). Guns are a safer, more convenient way of killing your fellow man than any sword will be.

Still, nothing gets it right like dynamite does

 

[untelligence]

With a sword you can cleave a load of people depending on the size
whereas with a gun you can only shoot 1 person unless it's a shotgun but the spray shot could hit friends/team mates/neutral by-standers so it could be more trouble than it's worth...
although thats just my opinion...

 

[Zacharine]

The most effective weapon of war is the human mind.

With a proper mindset, anything and everything becomes a weapon. You could use bath towel to kill people! But you must have the will to do so. Without the will to harm and kill, a sword and a rifle are both equally useless as weapons.

A weapon is merely a tool. It is not the weapon that kills, it is the will and intent of the human behind it.

EDIT: And Untelligence, about swords gleaving several people.... Not at once. You have to swing the sword again and again to wound multiple people, sometimes to even wound a single person. A single shot debilitates or kills. And aiming for another target is a lot faster than swinging a sword agains a new person, not to mention that you have to close to melee range before you can do even that.

No army today uses swords, because guns are so much more effective at killing.

 

[Thatkidnooneknows]

*edit* also wouldn't the sword be less honorable, I mean you'd have to be pretty sick to go up to someone and butcher them...

I see your argument.

And I see a problem with it.

You only account for the physical action. The will behind both the swing of the sword and pulling the trigger is the same: The will to harm, the will to kill.

Method matters not, intentional killing is intentional killing, wheather by sword, knife, mine, rifle or bare hands.

To both of you, I present the same point, the butchering is the necessary part, the part that firearms allow soldiers to become detatched from what they are killing. Not detatched from the battle, I add, but from the actual killing of that person, they don't feel the sickening impact when that bullet pierces the target's body, and they don't see the life fade from the eyes of their opponent, except in rare circumstances. I consider this close quarters butchery to be more honorable because it forces you to realize what you have just done, that it was either you or them. While this can also be the case when killing a man with a firearm, it is not always the case, and while not always the case, I am revolted that anyone should have killed his fellow man and not known exactly what his actions had caused. This is my argument, I'm sure you will debate it.

 

[Soxafloppin]

swords are cool. But be real!

 

[Durahan2]

With a sword you can cleave a load of people depending on the size
whereas with a gun you can only shoot 1 person unless it's a shotgun but the spray shot could hit friends/team mates/neutral by-standers so it could be more trouble than it's worth...
although thats just my opinion...

Thats why we have automatic weapons. Shoots plenty of bullets for enough people.

The most effective weapon of war is the human mind.

With a proper mindset, anything and everything becomes a weapon. You could use bath towel to kill people! But you must have the will to do so. Without the will to harm and kill, a sword and a rifle are both equally useless as weapons.

A weapon is merely a tool. It is not the weapon that kills, it is the will and intent of the human behind it.

This is what I was trying to get to. Weapons are inactimate objects, they have no honor attatched to them. It's the person holding that weapon. Before guns, horrible crimes were commited with swords. Anyone who thinks swords are more honorable are clearly under the influance that only heros use swords.

Well then what about the Crusades? Swords, maces, lances, pikes, etc. were used to kill innocent people. Hell some of the soldiers raped and even canniblized do to lack of supplies. Most used swords, oh real honorable.

*Edit* Kidwhoknows, you really don't have a point. People who use weapons to kill, KNOW WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO! It's not like someone picked up a gun and said "Hey I wonder what would happen if I shot someone." Same goes for the sword, or any weapon; unless that person is messed in the head. You really can't blame the weapon for crazy people!