Poll: Swords vs. Guns

[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!

 

[Bob the Average]

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.

thank you that is exactly my thoughts on the matter summed up nice and concisely.(as apposed to my rambling roundabout style.)

 

[Umwerfer]

why the bow choice in a poll putting swords against guns? Never really thought of it before that, but bows are awesome Since we're onto other weapons, why not go melee unarmed? unlimited ammo, no need to sharpen your fists and less messy xD

 

[AtticusSP]

Both are for pussies.
Men use fists only.

 

[ChosenLord]

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....

I'd love to come to the army base you served in and tell each and every soldier to put down there weapons!! I gather you mean Guns are used as a deterrent to violence? "were fighting for peace?"

And you're Grandaddy ( Mucho Respect ) Knew what would be instore for him if he was advancing on enemy lines with a gun, I think some one put it well saying that guns have brought distance and detachment to war/death whatever. All i'm saying is its not very chivalrous.

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?

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"

 

[Durahan2]

Both are for pussies.
Men use fists only.

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

 

[Syphonz]

what would Dante choose?

 

[Thatkidnooneknows]

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.[/quote]

I'm upholding the honor of the object, and what I believe it symbolizes, not the people who wielded it. People are just as capable of becoming psychos with swords, it's just not as easy to live with.

[

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.[/quote]

I don't believe I'm splitting hairs, with a crossbow, you crank it back, and fire it using your own force. I don't like the crossbow, but at least it doesn't use a chemical compound to fire the bolt.

 

[ChosenLord]

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.

With great power comes great responsibility - NO such person should bare that burden, or shall they ever. is it our sick need to dominate?

 

[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

*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.
In the end symbolism means nothing, it changes from culture to culture. Hell in some it might mean death, or war.

 

[Queen Michael]

Pirates use swords, ninjas use swords, I use swords. That's why I like Deadpool; he's a swordswinger and a gunslinger.