Why are swords "better" than guns?

[Lince]

All I'm saying is the tension would be the same. People would still hate each other just as much, and the only reason that there would be less death is because you simple can't kill or do as much with swords. The leaders would go to even more drastic measures to get what they want. The death toll would be significantly less, but so would the standard of living for most places. Look at civilizations like the Assyrians, they didn't have guns. They still managed to do terrible terrible things. :p

[fejknick]

Well yeah, people are jerks (and stupid). Even if the gun was not invented, there still would be killings. Whether it be because some likes what his neighbor has, or it be because that person thinks its the will of God.

Not only do I not need your pity, but I disagree with you. I have no faith in mankind what-so-ever. People are DICK HEADS. It does NOT take much at all to get a crowed of people angry enough to level a city. (I'm not sure if I made a good argument here, but then again I blame myself for not understand your point)

True, but name calling is so much more fun. Dont you think?

Eh?

It takes a tremendous amount of effort to make me angry. This has made me giggle at most.

Wow, there's a human being thats rational underneath all that internet shit. :) Good to see and know.

And yes, i'm with you almost a 100% that humans are some nasty sonsofbitches that acts like a virus upon earth, but.. there is _ALWAYS_ an exception to the rule. Just look at this forum, and your friends, and your family. I can only speak for myself on that ofc, but i know allot of people that don't act like assholes and don't say so stupid things that you lose all faith and hope in humanity.

And yes, name-calling can be fun when its done proper, like if you call me dick and we laugh. And the i call you dick and we laugh. Thats funny, what's not is when its meant to hurt.

What i meant was that if I'm 1000 meters from the target a sniper is the best weapon, if I'm 10 cm behind him in the closet, a sword would be preferred since a gun would blow my cover and stealth.

I have or had no intentions to make you angry, just to see if you really was such an ignorant prick that you came out as.
And just by answering like you did made me giggle to. :)

Ohh, i will quote hitler on this one. Im not a racist by any means, i just think that what he wrote on these lines is so true that every man should hear them: Why would a farmer want to go to war when all he can gain is to come back to his farm alive?

Worth a tough maybe?

EDIT: This post was meant to be funny and like forgiving and making up, but i failed so hard. It still sounds as I'm ironic and sarcastic. Its not meant to be.

[fejknick]

All I'm saying is the tension would be the same. People would still hate each other just as much, and the only reason that there would be less death is because you simple can't kill or do as much with swords. The leaders would go to even more drastic measures to get what they want. The death toll would be significantly less, but so would the standard of living for most places. Look at civilizations like the Assyrians, they didn't have guns. They still managed to do terrible terrible things. :p

Take away food and water and a man is capable of doing anything.

And as a physicist once said: If you can imagine it, it can be done. (Based on the human brain being incapable of imagining infinite. If there is something in this world that we cant imagine, the everything we can imagine already exists or can exist.)

[SteyrAUG]

Did i say the 1 000 000 vs 1 000 000 would start running at each outer? Then ofc the guns would win. Only gunmen are stupid enough to go head to head like they do. And don't come with that tactical bullshit, you know deep inside your soul that if weapon evolvement would have stopped at swords, then the world would look a hell of a lot different. And a hell of a lot better to.

The fact that both of you use the word: dumbass and dumbfuck is more then enough proof why swords are better then guns.

Ohh, and its spelled: Dumb-fuck and Dumb-ass. Just so you know until next time.So what? You think that sword fighters just sneak up on their targets from behind all the time? That explains why you would have armies running at each other with swords.

Of course swords would be superior if they had been the end of the chain of weapon evolution, but that's just the point. It didn't end there. As my history teacher always said <i>if ifs and buts were candies and nuts we'd all have a wonderful Christmas</i>. You can't prove for certain this world would be a better place with swords rather than guns. What is "better" is a matter of opinion and the fact you can't go back in time to change the future makes it impossible to prove your opinion to be correct.

Seriously though you're doing a poor job at supporting your point of weapon superiority when you state that someones spelling and vocabulary proves a weapons superiority. How exactly does that prove anything about the attributes of a weapon? It's a completely irrelevant factor.

Hell, swords aren't "better" then guns when it comes to actual fighting. They do make things more interesting though. Seriously, would you rather watch two people fight with guns or swords? Nobody wants to see a choreographed gun fight. Also there are more possibilities when it comes to making fictional stuff. But yea.. guns>swords in real situations.
Meh. <--coolest word everEven in fiction a gun fight can be interesting. It depends on the imagination of the writer and depending on how plausible the "effects" are then the ignorance of the audience or reader can also be important.

Yea, don't think of him as a stupid 16-year old. That's me. :p
And no, not having guns wouldn't have helped much. Sure there would be less casualties, but that's only because it would be physically impossible to match it. The hatred and lust for power would still be the same, maybe worse. All that happened with guns was sped up the process of war, and made all the world powers even more afraid to attack each other.
Meh. I'll stop there.. I hate ranting.You're not dreaming up insane scenarios, stating opinions as "hard facts", or using irrelevant elements as an argument one way or the other so to me what you say matters.

Try to do operation Market Garden without gunpowder. Wouldn't have happened.

I mean, wtf....I didn't come to this forum to have to stand up against the kind of bullies thats everywhere on the internet. I came here because i love manga, anime, asia and the whole community feeling i got from this place.

Its just to sad when the "bullies" cant continue and have to try to make the person feel less worth by name calling. (Im not saying i give a flying rats ass about it. But if i would have seen a mod argue with someone like he does, i guess i wouldn't have registered.) Now that i know that the majority of this place is kudospudos it makes it allot easier to just don't listen to them. :)Why you came here does not matter. How you act really determines how you are treated. If you really were apathetic about the name calling I don't think it would be worth bringing up. Anyway if you don't want to deal with us then dosvidanija.

[analogZero]

ahhhh, longwinded zombie posts! run away!

[fejknick]

Of course swords would be superior if they had been the end of the chain of weapon evolution, but that's just the point. It didn't end there. As my history teacher always said <i>if ifs and buts were candies and nuts we'd all have a wonderful Christmas</i>. You can't prove for certain this world would be a better place with swords rather than guns. What is "better" is a matter of opinion and the fact you can't go back in time to change the future makes it impossible to prove your opinion to be correct.


I just cut out the bla bla bla and got to what i was so shocked to hear that i had to answer.

Ill even say that you win, if you didn't read my posts then i just cant do anything else but to let you say that guns are superior than swords.

But what bothers me is that you're talking physics, and i know physics. And you're saying that its a fact that we cant go back in time, a.....
You wouldn't understand, but yes, you are right in one thing, we cant change the future were in right now, but we could alter the future in the timeline we would end up in. And the future we are going to have here is up to us to decide.

But back on topic.

Guns win in ranged and swords in close encounters as long as the one holding the gun don't see you. Did i get your point right?

[SteyrAUG]

I just cut out the bla bla bla and got to what i was so shocked to hear that i had to answer.

Ill even say that you win, if you didn't read my posts then i just cant do anything else but to let you say that guns are superior than swords.

But what bothers me is that you're talking physics, and i know physics. And you're saying that its a fact that we cant go back in time, a.....
You wouldn't understand, but yes, you are right in one thing, we cant change the future were in right now, but we could alter the future in the timeline we would end up in. And the future we are going to have here is up to us to decide.

But back on topic.

Guns win in ranged and swords in close encounters as long as the one holding the gun don't see you. Did i get your point right?

I figured I'd just leave the rest of your posts directed to Russkie for Russkie. Anyway you already know people can't go back in time, so keep that "swords only would have made the world better" crap to yourself. So how do you think we can alter our own future to remove guns? If NATO throws away all their guns I strongly doubt the rest of the world will follow.

Anyway as I've stated before swords have become obsolete on the modern battlefield. Combat blades will still have an important role, but not anywhere near as important as what swords used to be. A sword can still kill a man with a gun if the man with the gun is either really bad with a gun or if the man with the sword can sneak up on the man with the gun. In a case of 1000000 vs 1000000 it's safe to assume that stealth wouldn't be all that easy if possible at all since as mentioned before major battles with swords have had a history of always being 2 large armies running at each other.

[jyuukai]

Like i said before, guns oversimplyfy things. A sword would make a nice long fight while a gun would cut the time in half if so much. Swords all the way! Although I myself prefer scythes... so cool :kawaii:

[conigwolf]

@_@ swords look way "better"

[Vakarak]

Like i said before, guns oversimplyfy things. A sword would make a nice long fight while a gun would cut the time in half if so much. Swords all the way! Although I myself prefer scythes... so cool :kawaii:

A sword fight would take no more than a minute comon kids BACK TO ANIME and let this thread BURN

[analogZero]

A sword fight would take no more than a minute comon kids BACK TO ANIME and let this thread BURN

good call here. most sword fights never lasted much longer than a few moves. plus this thread needs a good dose of fire.

[puppetz]

the important thing here is the fact that a gun with a bayonet is the winner here. it has the blade so you can be sneaky but most likely in war you will just wanna blast away at anything that moves because your adrenaline will be pumping so much that you dont have time to think. and dont say that you can think because you don't have special powers you fool. now stop beating this ridiculous belief into your head and go shoot a pistol and tell me how you feel.

[fejknick]

I figured I'd just leave the rest of your posts directed to Russkie for Russkie. Anyway you already know people can't go back in time, so keep that "swords only would have made the world better" crap to yourself. So how do you think we can alter our own future to remove guns? If NATO throws away all their guns I strongly doubt the rest of the world will follow.

Anyway as I've stated before swords have become obsolete on the modern battlefield. Combat blades will still have an important role, but not anywhere near as important as what swords used to be. A sword can still kill a man with a gun if the man with the gun is either really bad with a gun or if the man with the sword can sneak up on the man with the gun. In a case of 1000000 vs 1000000 it's safe to assume that stealth wouldn't be all that easy if possible at all since as mentioned before major battles with swords have had a history of always being 2 large armies running at each other.

Like i said in my last post, i'm leaving this alone since we think the same thing but are talking about 2 reflections of the same image.

But that post is well put. Not like the other thing you posted. And i didn't mean that i want to take the guns away, that will never work. And people would be more terrified then because of the lack of weapons, we have been taught that weapons is good. But you did put it well in that post. :)

[analogZero]

the important thing here is the fact that a gun with a bayonet is the winner here. it has the blade so you can be sneaky but most likely in war you will just wanna blast away at anything that moves because your adrenaline will be pumping so much that you dont have time to think. and dont say that you can think because you don't have special powers you fool. now stop beating this ridiculous belief into your head and go shoot a pistol and tell me how you feel.

what about a gun that shoots knives! solution? you're damn right it is.

[fejknick]

what about a gun that shoots knives! solution? you're damn right it is.


The chainsawgun from gears of war would win.

[SteyrAUG]

The chainsawgun from gears of war would win.

http://zombiehunters.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=36457&st=0&sk=t&sd=a
Did someone mention chainsaws and guns? ::D:

[fejknick]

http://zombiehunters.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=36457&st=0&sk=t&sd=a
Did someone mention chainsaws and guns? ::D:

WOW, they do exist. :O
Thats insane. I hope there not using that against humans.

[SteyrAUG]

For a realistic weapon I think it would be a bit heavy for my liking, but for a novelty items I'd love it. :D:D:D

[puppetz]

a gun that shoots knives is cool so is a gun that has a chainsaw. now what about a gun that shoots chainsaws?

[fejknick]

a gun that shoots knives is cool so is a gun that has a chainsaw. now what about a gun that shoots chainsaws?

That would be...nasty.

[Russkie]

http://zombiehunters.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=36457&st=0&sk=t&sd=a
Did someone mention chainsaws and guns? ::D:

A good idea, but I still follow the rule of "if you can see a zombie, then its far too close".

[fejknick]

A good idea, but I still follow the rule of "if you can see a zombie, then its far too close".

Imagine the irony if a zombie would wear a T-shirt that says: If you can read this you're to close..

Would you laugh or run?

[SteyrAUG]

a gun that shoots knives is cool so is a gun that has a chainsaw. now what about a gun that shoots chainsaws?A chainsaw is pretty heavy so it takes quite a bit of propellant. You could have a rocket propelled chainsaw, but if that shit doesn't hit the target it's useless. Rocket propelled explosives such as the RPG-7 and the AT-4 are much more effective rocket launchers. The other means of propulsion is conventional gunpowder. The heat and force of the blast can damage the chainsaw and there is virtually no stability. Come to think of it the rocket propelled chainsaw would be unstable too. Anyway you would need a large caliber barrel and lots of gunpowder to launch the chainsaw so a cannon would have to be used. Like with the rocket launcher if you miss the target it's a total loss. With explosive artillery you can miss within a reasonable distance and the blast can still damage or destroy the target. It's just not practical.

[fejknick]

A chainsaw is pretty heavy so it takes quite a bit of propellant. You could have a rocket propelled chainsaw, but if that shit doesn't hit the target it's useless. Rocket propelled explosives such as the RPG-7 and the AT-4 are much more effective rocket launchers. The other means of propulsion is conventional gunpowder. The heat and force of the blast can damage the chainsaw and there is virtually no stability. Come to think of it the rocket propelled chainsaw would be unstable too. Anyway you would need a large caliber barrel and lots of gunpowder to launch the chainsaw so a cannon would have to be used. Like with the rocket launcher if you miss the target it's a total loss. With explosive artillery you can miss within a reasonable distance and the blast can still damage or destroy the target. It's just not practical.

Since we can imagine weapons i just want to point my finger at the redeemer from Unreal Tournament. Will there ever be a weapon like that?

And a chainsaw launcher would, just a s you say be too hard to shoot. And it would be better with rockets. But it would be handy if it just shot the chainsaw blades. :D

[analogZero]

you mean like this?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v449/flclshirt/RapierMissileIsFiredInTheFalklands.jpg

[fejknick]

you mean like this?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v449/flclshirt/RapierMissileIsFiredInTheFalklands.jpg

HAHAHAHAHAH

I hate the internet, you can find anything on it.
And i hope that is a photoshopped pic, cuz if the army/military are trying those out, then....just wow.

[SteyrAUG]

you mean like this?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v449/flclshirt/RapierMissileIsFiredInTheFalklands.jpg
That's pretty much what I mean. An explosive payload would be more effective though.

[analogZero]

but doesn't it suck just a little bit more that you're being chainsawed before you blow up?

oh shi..!zzzzzzzzKABOOOOOOOOOM

[fejknick]

but doesn't it suck just a little bit more that you're being chainsawed before you blow up?

oh shi..!zzzzzzzzKABOOOOOOOOOM

Imagine sitting next to a bomb with a timer going down from 50 min. That would suck so much more.
Were currently raiding this thread to off-topic. ^^

So ill post an on-topic: If people were able to be as good with swords as in anime/mangas/rpgs, would guns still be better than swords?

[SteyrAUG]

Of course the chainsaw would suck, but from a practical point of view it doesn't matter much.

[Nightmare]

ahhh yes the old sword vs gun question. Me I go with swords. I've got reasons.
1. Swords are cool
2. Yes bullets travel very fast but it takes time to aim and by witch time a trained swords man albeit a very well trained one would have have time to put there sword into the bullets path.
3. The site of a sword has a profound psyological effect on people some on comes at you with a sword even if you have a gun it's doubtful that you'd get over the shock before you died.
4. A case point for swords the ninja. Ninja w/sword v solder w/gun Ninja wins. why you ask? because if you see a ninja you are already dead.
I got to get to bead now but there will be more

[Russkie]

ahhh yes the old sword vs gun question. Me I go with swords. I've got reasons.
1. Swords are cool

Uh huh.

2. Yes bullets travel very fast but it takes time to aim and by witch time a trained swords man albeit a very well trained one would have have time to put there sword into the bullets path.

No man can move 800+ fps.

3. The site of a sword has a profound psyological effect on people some on comes at you with a sword even if you have a gun it's doubtful that you'd get over the shock before you died.

Wrong. Bust one of these out, and not only will you get a "holy fuck" type of reaction, but you'll guarantee to make someone shit bricks:

http://www.imfdb.org/images/a/a9/Desert-Eagle.jpeg

Dont say I'm wrong either...

4. A case point for swords the ninja. Ninja w/sword v solder w/gun Ninja wins. why you ask? because if you see a ninja you are already dead.
I got to get to bead now but there will be more

Sniper/Navy Seal > Ninja.

EDIT: Oh, and I know not everyone packs a .50 DE in their panties... but you should get my point.

[fejknick]

Dont say I'm wrong either...


EDIT: Oh, and I know not everyone packs a .50 DE in their panties... but you should get my point.


So, you are obviously the big dick and the men on the side of ya are your balls. There are two types of balls: there are big brave balls, and there are little mincey faggot balls.

Now, dicks have drive, and clarity of vision, but they are not clever. They smell pussy and they want a piece of the action. And, you thought you smelled some good ol' pussy. And, have brought your two little mincey faggot balls along for a good ol' time. But, you've got your parties muddled up. There's no pussy here, just a dose that'll make you wish you were born a woman. Like a prick, you are having second thoughts. You're shrinking . . . and your two little balls are shrinking with ya. And, the fact that you've got "replica" written down the side of your guns. And, the fact that I've got "Desert Eagle point 5 0" written on the side of mine, should precipitate your balls into shrinking, along with your presence. Now . . . fuck off.

I get your point.

[SteyrAUG]

ahhh yes the old sword vs gun question. Me I go with swords. I've got reasons.
1. Swords are cool
2. Yes bullets travel very fast but it takes time to aim and by witch time a trained swords man albeit a very well trained one would have have time to put there sword into the bullets path.
3. The site of a sword has a profound psyological effect on people some on comes at you with a sword even if you have a gun it's doubtful that you'd get over the shock before you died.
4. A case point for swords the ninja. Ninja w/sword v solder w/gun Ninja wins. why you ask? because if you see a ninja you are already dead.
I got to get to bead now but there will be more

1. So are guns
2. Not a facepalm in the world could adequately describe how badly I want you to take a knife and remove your testicles to prevent you from reproducing. Read the first post.
3. Maybe if you're a little wimp that never thought he could ever need to use the gun. Do you honestly think you can run 100 meters at someone and think that they will not kill you? I swear if you ran at Ruskie from 100 meters you'd probably make it 20 meters and be on your ass bleeding through the chest.
4. Once again refer to my face palm. Ninjas aren't these godlike shadows. They are completely human and too many idiots think otherwise.

[Vakarak]

Let's see guns come with grenade launchers too did we forget about this?
btw in close combat you still have a pretty damned good chance to dodge a sword blow and attempt to run away btw ninjas weren't limited to swords, kunai and shuriken alone they used all manner of fabulous killing tools like chain-scythes or kamas, yo-yos, claws and gauntlets, BOWS AND ARROWS, hook swords, partisans, maces hell ninjas were pretty much trained to use ALL weapons available to them or what got the job done but
Anyway... the epic sound of a .44 ripping somebodys head off brings a small infectious smile on my lips that a sword can not bring... but let us go to the REAL mind boggler here folks... "what is better in a water fight?" i say guns
anybody who brings up ninjas or jesus will be shot >.>

[mikesword]

Definitely swords. Gun shells can easly be traced.

[SteyrAUG]

Definitely swords. Gun shells can easly be traced.They are capable of being recovered before you leave. If you're smart enough to worry about ballistics tracking you for spent casings you should be smart enough to keep track of your brass. This is especially easy for bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns.

[BuBBl3s]

hmm instead of which one is better
i say
COMBINE THEM TOGETHER!!!!
soo u can shoot at the same time slash =3

[SteyrAUG]

hmm instead of which one is better
i say
COMBINE THEM TOGETHER!!!!
soo u can shoot at the same time slash =3
They call those bayonets.



also:

http://i41.tinypic.com/i1y0w3.jpg

[Jikan]

It's funny I ran across this topic because about 3 days ago I had the same conversation with some friends. We all believed swords were a lot cooler then guns, but we didn't know why.

The final answer we came up with? Swords are just more brutal. Think about if you turned on the news and someone said a person shot someone in the head. That's horrible, you'd think, but yet if you turned on the news and someone said a murderer sliced someone open today and hacked away their body until it was little parts you'd think, "What....the..."

[Jason X]

Not only are they more brutal but I mean cmon its just m ore of a fair fight not just pop out a gun and shoot like a panzy it requires skill lol

[the murder]

hmmn....well its cool to blow a head to oblivion with a 50. caliber rifle...but its also cool to slice and dice someone into hell...since the world is real and anime isnt guns are the better choice if you need to fight for you life unless somewhere there is a super samurai...but i like swords better

[cutieB]

Now thats a good question yr they cuz id say a gun was much better. i mean yudont see people carrying swords around.:dancing:

[Vakarak]

http://i41.tinypic.com/i1y0w3.jpg

that was just fecking awesome. >gives positive rep<

hmmn....well its cool to blow a head to oblivion with a 50. caliber rifle...but its also cool to slice and dice someone into hell...since the world is real and anime isnt guns are the better choice if you need to fight for you life unless somewhere there is a super samurai...but i like swords better

Here here...

Swords are just more brutal. Think about if you turned on the news and someone said a person shot someone in the head. That's horrible, you'd think, but yet if you turned on the news and someone said a murderer sliced someone open today and hacked away their body until it was little parts you'd think, "What....the..."
Actually i live in a 3rd world country so I'm pretty used to "Man chopped to death with a cutlass and thrown into Caroni River. Lil girl finds body naked" not really much of a shocker for me :\

[Jikan]

that was just fecking awesome. >gives positive rep<



Here here...


Actually i live in a 3rd world country so I'm pretty used to "Man chopped to death with a cutlass and thrown into Caroni River. Lil girl finds body naked" not really much of a shocker for me :\

Well that sucks...either way it's much more horrible then if someone just got shot...

[Vakarak]

Well that sucks...either way it's much more horrible then if someone just got shot...

I saw the body of a guy who's face was blown off by a shotgun. It was nasty, horrible, stink that's why my cousin toke pictures with his digital phone of it and spread it around with bluetooth.

[Jikan]

I saw the body of a guy who's face was blown off by a shotgun. It was nasty, horrible, stink that's why my cousin toke pictures with his digital phone of it and spread it around with bluetooth.

Yeah, but imagine if the body was hacked to death instead? Like in the chainsaw massacre when he pretty much knifed off the guys skin on his arm and cut through his muscle and ligaments

[Neoliger]

It really depends on the case though I will vote for the sword. On account that our most powerful sniper rifle can be negated by simply diving under a foot of water on account of the power behind the bullet shattering the bullet on contact.

[Jason X]

Well see there we go it doesnt matter what it comes down to it would be way cooler to see someone carry a sword around than a gun....well like I mentioned way more skill and more equal but then again who plays fair these days ahaha.
Ill be a super samurai XD bring it

[SteyrAUG]

It's funny I ran across this topic because about 3 days ago I had the same conversation with some friends. We all believed swords were a lot cooler then guns, but we didn't know why.

The final answer we came up with? Swords are just more brutal. Think about if you turned on the news and someone said a person shot someone in the head. That's horrible, you'd think, but yet if you turned on the news and someone said a murderer sliced someone open today and hacked away their body until it was little parts you'd think, "What....the..."Well I guess to just randomly murder people a sword would give more of an impact in the media.

Not only are they more brutal but I mean cmon its just m ore of a fair fight not just pop out a gun and shoot like a panzy it requires skill lolThe battlefield has two people. There are those that are alive as well as those that are dead. With a large technological difference between the two difference (hundreds of years of technology) there isn't much that skill can do to counter the technological advantage of firearms. You may have more "skill" though I doubt you personally do, but take someone who is professionally trained with firearms and they have an advantage unless they are swarmed with like 10 times the enemies with swords. Even then those 10 might be at quite a disadvantage if the gunman has a SMG or assault rifle.

hmmn....well its cool to blow a head to oblivion with a 50. caliber rifle...but its also cool to slice and dice someone into hell...since the world is real and anime isnt guns are the better choice if you need to fight for you life unless somewhere there is a super samurai...but i like swords betterUnless you have a skeleton made out of metal like the terminator your super samurai won't stand much of a chance unless someone made the traditional style samurai armor from kevlar fabric and ceramic plating used in ballistic vests. Actually to be honest that might even be too heavy for practicality.

Now thats a good question yr they cuz id say a gun was much better. i mean yudont see people carrying swords around.:dancing:There is a reason that most nations of the world have moved on to using guns as a main weapon rather than a sword or spear. I say most because there might still be a couple 3rd world countries in Africa that use spears.

It really depends on the case though I will vote for the sword. On account that our most powerful sniper rifle can be negated by simply diving under a foot of water on account of the power behind the bullet shattering the bullet on contact.
I saw a .50 cal rifle do that on myth busters, but if I recall it made it 2 or 3 feet before completely disintegrating. Also something they neglected to mention is the concussive force. If you watch the "shooting fish in a barrel" episode they showed that the concussive force of the bullet being fired in the barrel of "fish" was enough to kill all the fish. You see energy (especially vibrations) carry through water quite well. Granted that fish are very sensitive to vibration this could still be problematic to people. If a .50 cal hits the water near your head then I wouldn't doubt if the concussion of it would be capable of rupturing your eardrums.

Besides snipers tend to be better trained than that. The .50 cal is usually used for stopping trucks and other vehicles. As for human targets they probably won't aim at a swimming target if they know they will have a stationary target to deal with in due time. Sniping isn't just about get the shot and GTFO, it's about patience It's about taking your time and taking the shot when the opportunity presents itself. Their motto is one shot one kill because they need to get them on the first shot so the target doesn't have a chance to run.

Well see there we go it doesnt matter what it comes down to it would be way cooler to see someone carry a sword around than a gun....well like I mentioned way more skill and more equal but then again who plays fair these days ahaha.
Ill be a super samurai XD bring itIt does matter in war though. What is "cool" does not matter. There is just what helps you survive best. Bullets travel too fast for any "super samurai" to dodge or deflect with their sword. If I had an MP5 and you had a katana I'm pretty sure that I would be able to kill you without any trouble.

[analogZero]

It's funny I ran across this topic because about 3 days ago I had the same conversation with some friends. We all believed swords were a lot cooler then guns, but we didn't know why.

The final answer we came up with? Swords are just more brutal. Think about if you turned on the news and someone said a person shot someone in the head. That's horrible, you'd think, but yet if you turned on the news and someone said a murderer sliced someone open today and hacked away their body until it was little parts you'd think, "What....the..."

There was an incident in the prairies of canada this year, which undoubtably became one of our most violent murders in the past years. Easily the most gruesome thing reported in the past decade or so. And it invovled a rather sick man who boarded a greyhound bus, and mid-travel pulled out a knife and started to stab a teenager in the seat ahead of him for no apparent reason. by the end of it, he'd cut the kid to pieces and was waving the head out the window to the passengers who'd escaped. Before that the most horrific story had been a man and his wife who abducted girls, had their way with them, then chopped them into pieces and sealed them in cement.
I think that while guns may be more readily used, they don't garner the type of fear or attention that comes from a knife wielding maniac. One person dying a horrible death by a blade tends to be equal to a massacre by gunfire.

[SteyrAUG]

There was an incident in the prairies of canada this year, which undoubtably became one of our most violent murders in the past years. Easily the most gruesome thing reported in the past decade or so. And it invovled a rather sick man who boarded a greyhound bus, and mid-travel pulled out a knife and started to stab a teenager in the seat ahead of him for no apparent reason. by the end of it, he'd cut the kid to pieces and was waving the head out the window to the passengers who'd escaped. Before that the most horrific story had been a man and his wife who abducted girls, had their way with them, then chopped them into pieces and sealed them in cement.
I think that while guns may be more readily used, they don't garner the type of fear or attention that comes from a knife wielding maniac. One person dying a horrible death by a blade tends to be equal to a massacre by gunfire.
A scary thought would be Thermite Napalm. For anyone not knowing I will explain (I mention this so that hopefully analog doesn't feel I am calling him stupid, but knows I am addressing anyone interested).

Now Napalm is a pretty well known flammable substance. It's kinda like a gel, it sticks to stuff quite well and burns for a good long time. Now what is Thermite? Well thermite is a mixture of metalic powders that when ignited burns at something like 4500 degrees. It can easily melt through solid steel.

Now imagine mixing the two. You now have something that sticks easily and can burn through solid steel. Add a small explosive charge and you have a fire bomb that will destroy everything it touches. The scary thing is that this is something someone could easily do in their own garage at home. :dizzy:

It kinda makes the knife wielding maniac look a little less threatening when you have someone with a bomb that could melt through a truck.

[leerock89]

This boring thread is still going on?? Why can't it just die...

[SteyrAUG]

There are too many weeaboos who resurrect it. Usually their arguments to the question are as discussed in the 1st post in which case I usually just ignore it. Other people who frequent the thread then tell them more or less what I said in the 1st post.

[analogZero]

This boring thread is still going on?? Why can't it just die...

stab it in the heart.

[Russkie]

This boring thread is still going on?? Why can't it just die...

stab it in the heart.

Dont forget to burn it, mix the ashes with salt, and seal it in a silver coffin. (And maybe even dump it in the ocean for additional drama)

[wi_sam]

stab it in the heart.

i would like to shoot it in the pus*y .

[Ykzier]

I'm sure SOMEONE has said this already, but you don't need to reload swords.

[acelomado]

With a sword you can feel the blade entering into the meat, and the blood flowing, and see the victim asking for mercy...
http://www.animefuel.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=1256&pictureid=14677

[SteyrAUG]

I'm sure SOMEONE has said this already, but you don't need to reload swords.You're right that has been said, it's a part of the original post before I added more arguments. But anyone who had read the first post would know that it was there now wouldn't they?


With a sword you can feel the blade entering into the meat, and the blood flowing, and see the victim asking for mercy...
http://www.animefuel.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=1256&pictureid=14677That is just the same with a bayonet. Besides I doubt most "swordsmen" that have been a part of this thread would actually have the balls to actually fight in such a manner that they could actually get enjoyment out of that. Maybe a few could pull it off, but more likely than not you would vomit at the sight and/or have those images haunt you.

[soulten]

Well I'll start out small and see your answers to continue my argument. :P

btw I just wanna debate. I personally think the gun is better and should be, considering it was made to replace the sword as a fighting utensil.

I'll start with the element or surprise/Close quarters fighting.

In small quarters a soldier with an assault rifle would be most likely be out matched by someone competent with a sword/s. From the lack of space and chances of friendly fire. Like a battalion of soldiers was ambushed in a small space like a building or from behind.

[analogZero]

Dont forget to burn it, mix the ashes with salt, and seal it in a silver coffin. (And maybe even dump it in the ocean for additional drama)

ahhhh! it's too late! the beast still lives. maybe somebody's gotta sever it's spinal column?

[SteyrAUG]

Well I'll start out small and see your answers to continue my argument. :P

btw I just wanna debate. I personally think the gun is better and should be, considering it was made to replace the sword as a fighting utensil.

I'll start with the element or surprise/Close quarters fighting.

In small quarters a soldier with an assault rifle would be most likely be out matched by someone competent with a sword/s. From the lack of space and chances of friendly fire. Like a battalion of soldiers was ambushed in a small space like a building or from behind.Well God invented bayonets for a reason. Anyway professional soldiers are trained in close quarters combat so a competent soldier should hopefully be able to remember their training and improvise to accommodate the conditions. Of course there is a chance the gunman could be fresh out of training never having any real combat experience which can be a problem, but I guess the same could be said for the swordsman.


ahhhh! it's too late! the beast still lives. maybe somebody's gotta sever it's spinal column?Please keep the off topic banter to a minimum here. If you dislike my thread so much please just leave it alone.

[yoh]

as an argument to point 4 ... its true that you may not have time to think about anything in that situation ... but ... there are also a few flaws in that 1. must people would not think in that situation but act as fast as possible instinctively and hope for the best 2. master swordsmen anylize things slightly faster than an average joe so they have a slightly better chance of stopping that bullet 3. if in the fight or flight mode the mind can slowdown your perspective of time(making you think time has slowed enough for you to think quicker than norm) meaning you can think about where the bullet may hit and again hope for the best

[puppetz]

people are still arguing over this? gun = superior. nuff said

[analogZero]

so sorry, but I'm not a fan of repetition, and that's all this thread's really resorted to. people who post thoughts that were said pages upon pages back, and then a lengthy repetitive retort essentially copied and pasted from the original response.

http://xirdal.lmu.de/xirdalium/xpix/T1000_06.png
Kaboom, guns beat swords. any new business?

[SteyrAUG]

as an argument to point 4 ... its true that you may not have time to think about anything in that situation ... but ... there are also a few flaws in that 1. must people would not think in that situation but act as fast as possible instinctively and hope for the best 2. master swordsmen anylize things slightly faster than an average joe so they have a slightly better chance of stopping that bullet 3. if in the fight or flight mode the mind can slowdown your perspective of time(making you think time has slowed enough for you to think quicker than norm) meaning you can think about where the bullet may hit and again hope for the best
1. True, but the average Joe will do that whether he has a gun or a sword. At least with a gun you have better range. Average Joe with a rifle stands a decent chance against someone of similar skill carrying a sword. An untrained swordsman is going to probably swing randomly rather than a precision attack that has been practised many times.

2. You're comparison is putting a trained professional up against someone inexperienced. Why not just have an 8th grader go up against Mike Tyson in a boxing match? A trained marine has a better chance of dodging a blade. Still the "faster perception" or whatever you want to call it is not fast enough. The blink of an eye is the time it takes a bullet to leave a gun, travel 50 yards, and hit the target. That's all, just the blink of an eye. Nobody has the ability to look at a gun, calculate the trajectory they bullet is going to go at, then move their sword into place all in the blink of an eye. It's just not humanly possible.

3. Ok let's examine the Nato 5.56mm bullet. This bullet is about 1/4 inch wide and like an inch or two long. In an M4 rifle the muzzle velocity is about 900 meters a second so really at 50 yards you probably have less than the blink of an eye to react. Still the adrenaline "slows time". The problem is it doesn't slow time enough. If time were slowed by like 10 times then maybe you would have a chance, even then I doubt it. Time perception is pretty hard to measure, but even if time slowed to 1/5 speed for you the perception of the speed of the bullet would be like the speed of a baseball in the major leagues with a target that is like 1/12 the diameter of a baseball and swinging something that is much much smaller than a baseball bat. The margin of error there would be pretty much 0. Even a master swordsman under the rush of adrenaline wouldn't have the ability to think and move in time.

[yoh]

i dont know if your gettin my second point or not but you see in a samuri duel between two sword masters the duel ends in mere seconds so if you replace 1 sword master with an avrage joe whom uses a sword like what he sees in anime or movies he doesnt stand a chance and wont even get through 1/4 of his swing before the sword master slices off his arm ... and some people would brobably not think about the trajectery of the bullet they would most likly just look and try to defend ... and ofcoars a trained marine has a better chance of dodging a blade but you also have to take into account that some people(including marines and swordsmen) forget some stuff(things that may seem insignificant and rarly something important) in the heat of battle so there is a possibility, though extremly slim, that the marine would forget something while under attack that may leave an opening for a swordsman to defeat the marine(remember the chance is extremly slim my estamit of the odds of that happening though would have to be about 10,000,000,000,000,000,000/1)

[Vakarak]

as an argument to point 4 ... its true that you may not have time to think about anything in that situation ... but ... there are also a few flaws in that 1. must people would not think in that situation but act as fast as possible instinctively and hope for the best 2. master swordsmen anylize things slightly faster than an average joe so they have a slightly better chance of stopping that bullet 3. if in the fight or flight mode the mind can slowdown your perspective of time(making you think time has slowed enough for you to think quicker than norm) meaning you can think about where the bullet may hit and again hope for the best

3. Ok let's examine the Nato 5.56mm bullet. This bullet is about 1/4 inch wide and like an inch or two long. In an M4 rifle the muzzle velocity is about 900 meters a second so really at 50 yards you probably have less than the blink of an eye to react. Still the adrenaline "slows time". The problem is it doesn't slow time enough. If time were slowed by like 10 times then maybe you would have a chance, even then I doubt it. Time perception is pretty hard to measure, but even if time slowed to 1/5 speed for you the perception of the speed of the bullet would be like the speed of a baseball in the major leagues with a target that is like 1/12 the diameter of a baseball and swinging something that is much much smaller than a baseball bat. The margin of error there would be pretty much 0. Even a master swordsman under the rush of adrenaline wouldn't have the ability to think and move in time.

okay let's put this "time change" to a rest. The human eye sees an average of 30 frames per second. That is: our eyes act as cameras and take pictures of the world and they take and process with the help of our brain 30 pictures in one second. When adrenaline kicks in we may see at about 40-60 frames (i'm not sure about these figures) per second which has the slowing down of time attributed to in news interviews with heroes and so on. Time is still moving at a normal pace it's just you're seeing faster than normal and i think most animals like eagles and so on see at those speeds and that helps to their insanely fast reaction speeds but unfortunately even seeing at those speeds these animals CAN NOT DODGE A BULLET.

[SteyrAUG]

i dont know if your gettin my second point or not but you see in a samuri duel between two sword masters the duel ends in mere seconds so if you replace 1 sword master with an avrage joe whom uses a sword like what he sees in anime or movies he doesnt stand a chance and wont even get through 1/4 of his swing before the sword master slices off his arm ... and some people would brobably not think about the trajectery of the bullet they would most likly just look and try to defend ... and ofcoars a trained marine has a better chance of dodging a blade but you also have to take into account that some people(including marines and swordsmen) forget some stuff(things that may seem insignificant and rarly something important) in the heat of battle so there is a possibility, though extremly slim, that the marine would forget something while under attack that may leave an opening for a swordsman to defeat the marine(remember the chance is extremly slim my estamit of the odds of that happening though would have to be about 10,000,000,000,000,000,000/1)Marines are pretty well trained. Most chances are they would shoot the samurai down before he gets close enough to hit the marine with a sword.

okay let's put this "time change" to a rest. The human eye sees an average of 30 frames per second. That is: our eyes act as cameras and take pictures of the world and they take and process with the help of our brain 30 pictures in one second. When adrenaline kicks in we may see at about 40-60 frames (i'm not sure about these figures) per second which has the slowing down of time attributed to in news interviews with heroes and so on. Time is still moving at a normal pace it's just you're seeing faster than normal and i think most animals like eagles and so on see at those speeds and that helps to their insanely fast reaction speeds but unfortunately even seeing at those speeds these animals CAN NOT DODGE A BULLET.That's precisely what I mean. The slowing of time perception is not enough to make the needed difference.

[atomsk]

fight or flight adrenaline does not slow time it increases reaction time. and even if you could see a bullet coming your body would have to dodge it in real time and you cant move that fast
bullet time theory: closed

guns do require skill if you just point and shoot you will miss/ think about it like this. if you are off from the center of mass by 10 degrees the bullet wont turn it travels at a straight, downward and depending on wind sideways curve so at a hundred yards yer 20 degrees off or so <did not do any math on that> and alla you sword freaks go get a gun go to the range and "point and shoot" at the target. you will miss.
guns require no skill:closed

finally say two average joes with no training in either weapon meet face to face. one has a gun the other your standard katana. they face back to back take ten steps turn and kill. it is inarguable that a gun is more lethal. and if guns require no skill to shoot ten gunman wins by just pointing and shooting. if the sword requires so much skill "no one has denied that it does" swordman will die. because at twenty paces it is pretty much point and shoot.

if they are both skilled the swordman is too far out of his effective range <two arm lengths> whereas the gunmans range with a glock 19 is like what a couple hundred yards thus swordsman is dead

if they are both within swordsman range and the gunman has either cqb training or a close in weapon it is a draw otherwise the win goes to the swordsman.
guns 2\3
swords 1\3
guns>swords

[SteyrAUG]

1.fight or flight adrenaline does not slow time it increases reaction time. and even if you could see a bullet coming your body would have to dodge it in real time and you cant move that fast
bullet time theory: closed

guns do require skill if you just point and shoot you will miss/ think about it like this. if you are off from the center of mass by 10 degrees the bullet wont turn it travels at a straight, downward and depending on wind sideways curve so at a hundred yards yer 20 degrees off or so <did not do any math on that> and alla you sword freaks go get a gun go to the range and "point and shoot" at the target. you will miss.
guns require no skill:closed

finally say two average joes with no training in either weapon meet face to face. one has a gun the other your standard katana. they face back to back take ten steps turn and kill. it is inarguable that a gun is more lethal. and if guns require no skill to shoot ten gunman wins by just pointing and shooting. if the sword requires so much skill "no one has denied that it does" swordman will die. because at twenty paces it is pretty much point and shoot.

if they are both skilled the swordman is too far out of his effective range <two arm lengths> whereas the gunmans range with a glock 19 is like what a couple hundred yards thus swordsman is dead

if they are both within swordsman range and the gunman has either cqb training or a close in weapon it is a draw otherwise the win goes to the swordsman.
guns 2\3
swords 1\3
guns>swords1. I'm fully aware that the perception of time is what slows since it is scientifically impossible to slow time itself.

The rest of it I've pretty well mentioned already I think...

[Anime_Dude]

Im justing going to throw a little Video here, nothing to do with "which is better", enjoy ^^

http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=OBFlYwluqMk

[SteyrAUG]

Yeah I've seen that before.

[mellowguy]

Ok, having read the entire first post, I will now attempt to explain why swords are "better" than guns.
So, to start:

1. Honor. As you say, honor stays off the battlefield. Thus, if this is taking place on the modern battlefield, then honor is not a part of this competition. However, you in fact find a place for honor on the battlefield, it will not take place at a long range. You can't honor someone properly by taking good aim. Honor requires a kind of etiquette that guns simply do not have. While with guns it's whoever shoots first wins, with swords it's whoever has the most skill. To be killed by a blade is far more honorable than to be killed by a gun. In a purely practical sense, you could be killed by a gun from anywhere, by a sniper, just fall over dead. If you are killed by a sword, and I mean samurai not some stealthy ninja trick, then you were right up there, fighting the good fight when you died. Swords are more honorable.

2. Inhumanity. While technically, all human violence is inhumane, I would still go with swords as being more quick and painless. You see, you compare a shot to the heart with a slash to the stomach. What about a slash to the neck? You would have to admit a sword can cut through bone easily enough when battle-ready. Speaking of, when a sword takes off an arm, it's a clean affair. When you shoot an arm off, there's shrapnel and tears and more bullets- far more inhumane than a swift cut that cleaves clean.

3. Are you saying that once out of ammo, people would use their guns as clubs against swordsman? That's ludicrous. Even with basic training in club use, swordsmen have sharp sticks while gunmen have dull sticks. It's that simple. If you want to make it complicated, swordsmen have been honing techniques for thousands of years, while guns have had hundreds. The gunmen have not been training for years with a gun to use is as a club- the swordsman only needs to use his weapon one way. So back to the point- bullets run out. They do. A gun well cared for will be useful as long as there is ammo for it. A sword well cared for will be useful forever.

4. Blocking bullets? Why? Why not just wait till your out of bullets, then charge? Even if you didn't just waste your ammo, a swordsman is not going to stand out there going "hey I'm gonna block your shots" and try to cut them in half all matrix style. This is a war people. We use what we got how it's used best. If we have swords, I don't know what tactic we're gonna come up with but it will not include standing in front of a hailstorm of lead, waving a stick of metal around.

5. Guns can be silent, swords can be silent. It's a bloody tie game.

5b. Wait, what? A soldier armed with gun can have a knife? Ok, then a swordsman with a claymore can have a pistol. It's only fair. If you bring other types of weapons into it, you skew the data. Sword's can slit throats, guns can't. End of Story.

6. How come you think of swordsmen as just "swinging away"? It's as if you never actually understood that people work on getting through defenses for decades to become perfect with the blade. In a modern battlefield, there are a bunch of positions for guns. There's a sniper, like you mentioned, who has to have tremendous skill to aim correctly. Then there's a grunt in the trench who raises a pistol in the general direction of enemy, and pulls the trigger. Every swordsman prepped for war will use the same level of skill as your sniper.

6b. This seems to get to the crux of things. On a modern battlefield, gun kill more than sword. However, I can circle around this in multiple ways. First. No one uses sword anymore. How could we possibly know what would happen if a modern army trained a division of soldiers in swordfighting? And developed tactics for gunfights? I'm not a strategist, I couldn't tell you. I can tell you that if an arm goes through a doorway and a sword comes down on it, the sword is looking pretty good. Also, what do you mean by effective? In a modern battle field, guns do kill more people. But as I said, nearly no one uses swords. So to accurately compare them, we have to compare something they both have. How about hit damage? When a bullet hits a person, it could kill them, cripple them, or just wound them a bit. When a sword hits a person, that person's dead, soon to be dead, or is now left handed. bullet strike vs. sword strike means that the sword wins. Also, when a swordsmen makes an attack, that means, following a logical progression, that he is in a position to attack. When a gun man attacks, he too is in a position to attack. But bullets miss easily, swords don't. If a swordsman accidentally hits the gun being used as a shield, the gun is broke. You can't use a weapon as a shield from a bullet, so the weapon stays intact. So if you compare swords to guns at their base effectiveness, I would have to say swords.

7. Bayonets for teh win. lulz.

8. Makes sense to me.

9. You have a point, but a modern swordsmen would know that charging in the open towards a marine with a gun will not end with good times for his team.

10. This is one of your most outraging arguments. First: the actual ninja, a master of stealth, could get up behind a man and stab him. By definition, he is a assassin, a master of stealth. Of course it's not like in the movies, but to eliminate stealth from the battlefield is foolish and will get you killed.
Second: Samurai did not use stealth? What movies have you been watching? Samurai believe in bushido yes, but they fight wars, not glory competitions. Plus, you believe that samurai nowadays would do that, even if they used to. Samurai train for years to win. Charging face first into a bullet does not allow for win. This is not a sound tactic for you: "If it was then I would bet the guys with swords would get their ass kicked."
What the hell? That's like saying that musketeers would get their asses handed to them by modern day sword masters. LETS GET THIS STRAIGHT

Do you mean modern day combat with modern people on both sides? Or do you just want the guns to be modern and the swords to be ancient? If you do, stop reading. If you believe in a fair and honest evaluation of the dilemma, you have to understand that swordsmen will train for use against guns too, not just other swords.

11. This is a gun's "sword cut bullet" scenario. Of course he could technically shoot them all. Would he be able too? With 6 swordsmen with fighting distance and attacking? Not a chance. In fact, at that range, a man with a katana could get at least one or two, equal to the gunman, before he died.

12. I don't need to debate this point.

My conclusion: The sword cannot be the only weapon on the field, but it's usefulness will never truly come to an end. As a close range weapon, I still believe it is unparalleled in the hands of a trained professional. As I have tried to show, swords are a little more effective than guns. Guns however are easier for the layman to use and are able to kill at a distance. Guns and swords have to coexist, it's the only way.

If you've read this far, you win. Sorry for the wall of text.

[Dark_Angel]

I honestly think swords are better than guns.
One one hand, when you run out of ammunition, you have to reload the gun, giving the guy with the sword the upper hand. Plus he can pull mind-boggling moves to repel you rbullets or something like that.

On the other hand, the guy with the gun can pull the trigger and BAM! the guy with the sword is dead.
Swords are more honorable while the guns are nothing but killing machines. Swords are definatly better than guns.

[yoh]

ok to help close this every student must make a pool in their school(excluding themselves) and we will tally it up guz this is 1)getting truly repeditively boring and dull and 2)more annoying then my brother on a "good" day so far at my school
swords) 2
guns)0
(will update when i get more opinions)

[atomsk]

honor in battle. battle has never had honor. whats honorable about killing each other. its always been about defence of ones belief.

Samurai believe in bushido yes, but they fight wars, not glory competitions.

indeed bushido is loyalty to your master. it was unhonorable to fail or run away had nothing to do with combat. im pretty shure anyway.
but in bushido its win win win by any means necesary dont take shit from noone if they dont pay you and no honor = no reason to live

[SteyrAUG]

Ok, having read the entire first post, I will now attempt to explain why swords are "better" than guns.
So, to start:

1. Honor. As you say, honor stays off the battlefield. Thus, if this is taking place on the modern battlefield, then honor is not a part of this competition. However, you in fact find a place for honor on the battlefield, it will not take place at a long range. You can't honor someone properly by taking good aim. Honor requires a kind of etiquette that guns simply do not have. While with guns it's whoever shoots first wins, with swords it's whoever has the most skill. To be killed by a blade is far more honorable than to be killed by a gun. In a purely practical sense, you could be killed by a gun from anywhere, by a sniper, just fall over dead. If you are killed by a sword, and I mean samurai not some stealthy ninja trick, then you were right up there, fighting the good fight when you died. Swords are more honorable.

2. Inhumanity. While technically, all human violence is inhumane, I would still go with swords as being more quick and painless. You see, you compare a shot to the heart with a slash to the stomach. What about a slash to the neck? You would have to admit a sword can cut through bone easily enough when battle-ready. Speaking of, when a sword takes off an arm, it's a clean affair. When you shoot an arm off, there's shrapnel and tears and more bullets- far more inhumane than a swift cut that cleaves clean.

3. Are you saying that once out of ammo, people would use their guns as clubs against swordsman? That's ludicrous. Even with basic training in club use, swordsmen have sharp sticks while gunmen have dull sticks. It's that simple. If you want to make it complicated, swordsmen have been honing techniques for thousands of years, while guns have had hundreds. The gunmen have not been training for years with a gun to use is as a club- the swordsman only needs to use his weapon one way. So back to the point- bullets run out. They do. A gun well cared for will be useful as long as there is ammo for it. A sword well cared for will be useful forever.

4. Blocking bullets? Why? Why not just wait till your out of bullets, then charge? Even if you didn't just waste your ammo, a swordsman is not going to stand out there going "hey I'm gonna block your shots" and try to cut them in half all matrix style. This is a war people. We use what we got how it's used best. If we have swords, I don't know what tactic we're gonna come up with but it will not include standing in front of a hailstorm of lead, waving a stick of metal around.

5. Guns can be silent, swords can be silent. It's a bloody tie game.

5b. Wait, what? A soldier armed with gun can have a knife? Ok, then a swordsman with a claymore can have a pistol. It's only fair. If you bring other types of weapons into it, you skew the data. Sword's can slit throats, guns can't. End of Story.

6. How come you think of swordsmen as just "swinging away"? It's as if you never actually understood that people work on getting through defenses for decades to become perfect with the blade. In a modern battlefield, there are a bunch of positions for guns. There's a sniper, like you mentioned, who has to have tremendous skill to aim correctly. Then there's a grunt in the trench who raises a pistol in the general direction of enemy, and pulls the trigger. Every swordsman prepped for war will use the same level of skill as your sniper.

6b. This seems to get to the crux of things. On a modern battlefield, gun kill more than sword. However, I can circle around this in multiple ways. First. No one uses sword anymore. How could we possibly know what would happen if a modern army trained a division of soldiers in swordfighting? And developed tactics for gunfights? I'm not a strategist, I couldn't tell you. I can tell you that if an arm goes through a doorway and a sword comes down on it, the sword is looking pretty good. Also, what do you mean by effective? In a modern battle field, guns do kill more people. But as I said, nearly no one uses swords. So to accurately compare them, we have to compare something they both have. How about hit damage? When a bullet hits a person, it could kill them, cripple them, or just wound them a bit. When a sword hits a person, that person's dead, soon to be dead, or is now left handed. bullet strike vs. sword strike means that the sword wins. Also, when a swordsmen makes an attack, that means, following a logical progression, that he is in a position to attack. When a gun man attacks, he too is in a position to attack. But bullets miss easily, swords don't. If a swordsman accidentally hits the gun being used as a shield, the gun is broke. You can't use a weapon as a shield from a bullet, so the weapon stays intact. So if you compare swords to guns at their base effectiveness, I would have to say swords.

7. Bayonets for teh win. lulz.

8. Makes sense to me.

9. You have a point, but a modern swordsmen would know that charging in the open towards a marine with a gun will not end with good times for his team.

10. This is one of your most outraging arguments. First: the actual ninja, a master of stealth, could get up behind a man and stab him. By definition, he is a assassin, a master of stealth. Of course it's not like in the movies, but to eliminate stealth from the battlefield is foolish and will get you killed.
Second: Samurai did not use stealth? What movies have you been watching? Samurai believe in bushido yes, but they fight wars, not glory competitions. Plus, you believe that samurai nowadays would do that, even if they used to. Samurai train for years to win. Charging face first into a bullet does not allow for win. This is not a sound tactic for you: "If it was then I would bet the guys with swords would get their ass kicked."
What the hell? That's like saying that musketeers would get their asses handed to them by modern day sword masters. LETS GET THIS STRAIGHT

Do you mean modern day combat with modern people on both sides? Or do you just want the guns to be modern and the swords to be ancient? If you do, stop reading. If you believe in a fair and honest evaluation of the dilemma, you have to understand that swordsmen will train for use against guns too, not just other swords.

11. This is a gun's "sword cut bullet" scenario. Of course he could technically shoot them all. Would he be able too? With 6 swordsmen with fighting distance and attacking? Not a chance. In fact, at that range, a man with a katana could get at least one or two, equal to the gunman, before he died.

12. I don't need to debate this point.

My conclusion: The sword cannot be the only weapon on the field, but it's usefulness will never truly come to an end. As a close range weapon, I still believe it is unparalleled in the hands of a trained professional. As I have tried to show, swords are a little more effective than guns. Guns however are easier for the layman to use and are able to kill at a distance. Guns and swords have to coexist, it's the only way.

If you've read this far, you win. Sorry for the wall of text.

1. You see my point of "honor" not being part of modern warfare, and I acknowledge your point of the honor fighting so there really isn't anything worth honoring there.

2. A shot to the heart can cause unconsciousness. Even with a kevlar vest the impact of the bullet right on the heart can stop it when the bullet does not penetrate. Compare that to watching your intestine spilling out all over the floor. As for a swordsman cutting an arm off cleanly that's not such a guarantee. If you hit the wrong part of the arm you hit muscle tissue which you will be cutting against the grain. This can be pretty difficult to cut through. Even if you somehow made it through the bicep I'm not so certain you could then cut through the bone and the tricep.

3. It's not exactly high tech, but it can get the job done. There is less of a technology gap between a club and a sword than say a sword and an assault rifle. While in mele combat a sword would fare better than a club the club still has a chance.

4. The only reason I even bring up the blocking of bullets is because I've heard so many sword loving idiots use that argument as if they were samurai jack. While a true swordsman would probably know better I still put the argument there because it's so common. You're right that it would be smarter to attack on the reload, but even that can be doubtful. On the reload it will take a few seconds depending on how calm you are. If the swordsman is too far out he will be halfway to the gunman when he is done reloading. Another factor to take into account is if the gunman leaves a round in the chamber so he doesn't have to chamber the first round after the reload then reload time just cuts down all that much more and/or he's got one bullet to rely on just in case he is rushed before he can reload.

5. To be fair the "silence" is in the swords favor since sound suppressors for guns don't cut off all the sound. It's pretty much like a car muffler. It cuts off alot of the noise, but not all. Still what is cut off can still help.

5b. Fair enough a swordsman can carry a gun. How many of them actually do though?

6. I don't recall ever saying that you just "swing away" with a sword. In essence though that's pretty common with many different European swords (obviously not all). Even without a sniper rifle it takes more skill to use a gun than what people think. Do you think you could shoot a target at 100 meters with an assault rifle? Bullets go mostly straight, but curve downward slightly due to gravity and can curve to the side due to wind. At 5 meters that's no big deal, but try at 100. It's not so easy.

6b. I like how you bring up how bullets have the potential for little damage, then act like swords will cause massive damage every time. Anyway right now if an army of swords took on an army of guns I would think the army with the swords would be at a disadvantage due to range. As for the "ready to attack" modes the gunman has an advantage if he misses. If you happen to dodge a sword the swordsman has to move their body to recover from the miss and follow through with another attack. If someone with a semi automatic rifle misses they only need to move the weapon an inch or two to get on target. While a part of a gun would be damaged by a sword strike I doubt it would be completely destroyed. In a kill or be killed situation a damaged/destroyed rifle stock would still be a preferable loss over a lost arm or life.

7. inorite?

8. nuff said

9. I mostly put this argument up because I've heard it so many times before.

10. Well lots of people say "ninja this and ninja that" as if the stealth of the warrior is what makes the weapon superior. Anyway what the modern samurai is trained is hard to determine since the samurai have been pretty well outdated for so long. I work with what I have. So what exactly is the "modern" swordsman trained in that is so modern? What has really evolved in sword technology to make them "modern" aside from mass production being more plausible that is.

11. If you are armed with a bolt action rifle yeah you are probably not going to fare so well, but automatic weapons have been the norm since Korea. I guess the starting point would determine what would happen, but let's say 30 yards. From 30 yards that is 90 feet to get from where they start to where you are. That is plenty of time to take on all 6 targets. If wounded especially if wounded in the legs they are slowed down considerably if not stopped. a 7.62mm bullet in the knee will insure you aren't going to run any time soon.

12. indeed

Conclusion: As I said in my original conclusion the sword would never truly die out. I agree that the blade will continue to be important for generations to come, but I don't necessarily think it will be the sword.

Anyway no prob on the wall of test. :-)

ok to help close this every student must make a pool in their school(excluding themselves) and we will tally it up guz this is 1)getting truly repeditively boring and dull and 2)more annoying then my brother on a "good" day so far at my school
swords) 2
guns)0
(will update when i get more opinions)
1. As I've said before just ignore my thread if you don't like it. Complaining about it won't do any good. Just focus your attention elsewhere.

2. You're better off polling people with combat experience. Most students don't have any combat experience or weapons knowledge for that matter. While I do lack experience I mostly made this thread off of weapons knowledge.

honor in battle. battle has never had honor. whats honorable about killing each other. its always been about defence of ones belief.



indeed bushido is loyalty to your master. it was unhonorable to fail or run away had nothing to do with combat. im pretty shure anyway.
but in bushido its win win win by any means necesary dont take shit from noone if they dont pay you and no honor = no reason to liveThis is another great reason we kicked Japans ass in WWII. They were short handed on soldiers because their teachings were to commit suicide upon defeat.

inb4 atomic bombs: Even after the dropping of the bombs Japan was extremely reluctant to give up. A good portion of the people wanted to rebel and continue fighting.

[analogZero]

2. A shot to the heart can cause unconsciousness. Even with a kevlar vest the impact of the bullet right on the heart can stop it when the bullet does not penetrate. Compare that to watching your intestine spilling out all over the floor. As for a swordsman cutting an arm off cleanly that's not such a guarantee. If you hit the wrong part of the arm you hit muscle tissue which you will be cutting against the grain. This can be pretty difficult to cut through. Even if you somehow made it through the bicep I'm not so certain you could then cut through the bone and the tricep.



sorry, had to step in here.
I'd like to refer you to something:

"Testing of swords, called tameshigiri, was practiced on a variety of materials to test the sword's sharpness and practice cutting technique. This included prisoners. Kenjutsu is the use of the Japanese sword in combat. The katana was primarily a cutting weapon, or more specifically, a slicing one.

For cutting, there was a specific technique called 'ten uchi.' Ten uchi refers to an organized motion made by arms and wrist, during a descending strike. As the sword is swung downwards, the elbow joint drastically extends at the last instant, popping the sword into place. This motion causes the swordsman's grip to twist slightly and if done correctly, is said to feel like wringing a towel. This motion itself caused the katana's blade to impact its target with sharp force, and is used to break initial resistance. From there, fluidly continuing along the motion wrought by 'ten uchi,' the arms would follow through with the stroke, dragging the sword through its target. Because the katana slices rather than chops, it is this 'dragging' which allows it to do maximum damage, and is thusly incorporated into the cutting technique. At full speed, the swing will appear to be full stroke, the katana passing through the targeted object. The segments of the swing are hardly visible, if at all. Assuming that the target is, for example, a human torso -- ten uchi will break the initial resistance supplied by shoulder muscles and the clavical. The follow through would continue the slicing motion, through whatever else it would encounter, until the blade inherently exited the body, due a combination of the motion and its curved shape."

the objective of attack with a katana was to cut down from the inside of the shoulder down to the hip on the opposite side. In the very least it would sever major arteries though the objective is to cut your enemy completely in half. Katanas were tested (amongst other means) on prisoners to see how far they would cut a human being in half, and often physically marked in accordance with their performance. a rapier, I'm sure isn't going to cut an arm off, but a katana will go through your arm like it was warm butter, I'm afraid.

[Russkie]

Im justing going to throw a little Video here, nothing to do with "which is better", enjoy ^^

http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=OBFlYwluqMk

I'll go ahead and do the same:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LodXqmQ4wYw

Lets see your knife cut that?

P.S. I'm not quoting, nor spend 3 hours ripping melloguy's argument to shreds... but you're a wanker.

[atomsk]

Inhumanity. While technically, all human violence is inhumane, I would still go with swords as being more quick and painless.


First. No one uses sword anymore. How could we possibly know what would happen if a modern army trained a division of soldiers in swordfighting? And developed tactics for gunfights?


firstly a sword is a cutting weapon. the cutting weapon has two points. to kill in several seconds by making vital organs bleed to death. most of the time a sword causes the body to shut down making it imobile where it then bleeds to death. secondly in the case that you miss slightly or are killed before the finishing blow or the recipient of a sword wound escapes he should bleed to death. and ive seen bleeding to death. it is not pretty. and yes both the first and second types

secondly they did do that. the result: hundreds shoganate samurai slaughtered with minimal casualties on the other side. and that was with single shot 18th century weapons. thats why they dont use the sword anymore.

[mellowguy]

I suppose the biggest point that I need to insist on is: we do not know what a modern swordsman would do. We have all sorts of data on modern warriors, but one who trains especially with swords? we do not know.

Before I get to imagining one, I want to address atomsk's comment that they did that in the 18th century. I do not believe that the japanese samurai were very familiar with the gatling gun, which was just getting it's start at the time. And although guns had been known of in Japan for quite some time, they weren't used while Japan was in isolation. This seems to me like quite the jump. Before the isolation (before the 1600's) firearms were flashy but not really tactically that powerful. (with a notable exception) The samurai's techniques were not quite ready for the tactics and techniques of the 1850s, when the isolation ended.

Looking back on your original conclusion, I have to stop now. I could go on and on about how swords are not obsolete, but I can't say that someone could be the best warrior he can be with only a sword. When it comes down to it, a man with a gun and a sword in reserve is more effective in a modern battlefield than a man with a sword with a gun in reserve. In your definition of better, the gun is better than the sword.

I feel bad about it, because I feel that swords are still more epic.

Oh well, I guess we still have bayonets and hidden blades!

[analogZero]

I suppose the biggest point that I need to insist on is: we do not know what a modern swordsman would do. We have all sorts of data on modern warriors, but one who trains especially with swords? we do not know.

Before I get to imagining one, I want to address atomsk's comment that they did that in the 18th century. I do not believe that the japanese samurai were very familiar with the gatling gun, which was just getting it's start at the time. And although guns had been known of in Japan for quite some time, they weren't used while Japan was in isolation. This seems to me like quite the jump. Before the isolation (before the 1600's) firearms were flashy but not really tactically that powerful. (with a notable exception) The samurai's techniques were not quite ready for the tactics and techniques of the 1850s, when the isolation ended.

Looking back on your original conclusion, I have to stop now. I could go on and on about how swords are not obsolete, but I can't say that someone could be the best warrior he can be with only a sword. When it comes down to it, a man with a gun and a sword in reserve is more effective in a modern battlefield than a man with a sword with a gun in reserve. In your definition of better, the gun is better than the sword.

I feel bad about it, because I feel that swords are still more epic.

Oh well, I guess we still have bayonets and hidden blades!

you should add that not only did gatling guns catch sword wielders off guard, they also caught gunwielders off guard in wars from the 1860's onward. many of which were predominantly gun fought battles with high casualties on the side opposing the gatling gun. the same thing happened with chemical warfare, innovation in war is the best means of victory, until the enemy adapts to it.

[Vakarak]

you should add that not only did gatling guns catch sword wielders off guard, they also caught gunwielders off guard in wars from the 1860's onward. many of which were predominantly gun fought battles with high casualties on the side opposing the gatling gun. the same thing happened with chemical warfare, innovation in war is the best means of victory, until the enemy adapts to it.

Good I thought I was the only one who saw this movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F_1wgjBUvY

EDIT:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY11v5w6DdQ cause youtube sucks a bit >.>

[jyuukai]

You know what?! Swords are better because I say so!

[Blooddrunk]

Gunblades are better, period.

[Silverleon]

Either one can be better, just depends on the situation.

[SteyrAUG]

sorry, had to step in here.
I'd like to refer you to something:

"Testing of swords, called tameshigiri, was practiced on a variety of materials to test the sword's sharpness and practice cutting technique. This included prisoners. Kenjutsu is the use of the Japanese sword in combat. The katana was primarily a cutting weapon, or more specifically, a slicing one.

For cutting, there was a specific technique called 'ten uchi.' Ten uchi refers to an organized motion made by arms and wrist, during a descending strike. As the sword is swung downwards, the elbow joint drastically extends at the last instant, popping the sword into place. This motion causes the swordsman's grip to twist slightly and if done correctly, is said to feel like wringing a towel. This motion itself caused the katana's blade to impact its target with sharp force, and is used to break initial resistance. From there, fluidly continuing along the motion wrought by 'ten uchi,' the arms would follow through with the stroke, dragging the sword through its target. Because the katana slices rather than chops, it is this 'dragging' which allows it to do maximum damage, and is thusly incorporated into the cutting technique. At full speed, the swing will appear to be full stroke, the katana passing through the targeted object. The segments of the swing are hardly visible, if at all. Assuming that the target is, for example, a human torso -- ten uchi will break the initial resistance supplied by shoulder muscles and the clavical. The follow through would continue the slicing motion, through whatever else it would encounter, until the blade inherently exited the body, due a combination of the motion and its curved shape."

the objective of attack with a katana was to cut down from the inside of the shoulder down to the hip on the opposite side. In the very least it would sever major arteries though the objective is to cut your enemy completely in half. Katanas were tested (amongst other means) on prisoners to see how far they would cut a human being in half, and often physically marked in accordance with their performance. a rapier, I'm sure isn't going to cut an arm off, but a katana will go through your arm like it was warm butter, I'm afraid.

I've seen a katana cut through bamboo, but nothing thicker. If I could see something about the same consistency then I would be convinced otherwise. That's quite a bit of bone to cut through considering each rib you have to cut through. Considering the need for the "ten uchi" so many you would lose momentum so I doubt it would seriously cut a human in half unless wielded by some insanely over powered son of a bitch.

Who knows it might really work. If it does I stand corrected.


I suppose the biggest point that I need to insist on is: we do not know what a modern swordsman would do. We have all sorts of data on modern warriors, but one who trains especially with swords? we do not know.

Before I get to imagining one, I want to address atomsk's comment that they did that in the 18th century. I do not believe that the japanese samurai were very familiar with the gatling gun, which was just getting it's start at the time. And although guns had been known of in Japan for quite some time, they weren't used while Japan was in isolation. This seems to me like quite the jump. Before the isolation (before the 1600's) firearms were flashy but not really tactically that powerful. (with a notable exception) The samurai's techniques were not quite ready for the tactics and techniques of the 1850s, when the isolation ended.

Looking back on your original conclusion, I have to stop now. I could go on and on about how swords are not obsolete, but I can't say that someone could be the best warrior he can be with only a sword. When it comes down to it, a man with a gun and a sword in reserve is more effective in a modern battlefield than a man with a sword with a gun in reserve. In your definition of better, the gun is better than the sword.

I feel bad about it, because I feel that swords are still more epic.

Oh well, I guess we still have bayonets and hidden blades!

If the gun had never been invented the debate wouldn't be here. Now let's say for some reason Japan had been isolated from the rest of the world for the last 500 years and never knew what a gun was. We could then get a "modern" swordsman army assembled and see how the two do. Unfortunately I don't think they would do too well. Sword technology and human conditioning can only go so far. They wouldn't be able to go far enough to be able to solve the problem of fast moving small projectiles. One can dream though right?
http://content.ytmnd.com/content/6/6/a/66ad2704144f92301dbf19867a7dc490.jpg


Good I thought I was the only one who saw this movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F_1wgjBUvY

EDIT:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY11v5w6DdQ cause youtube sucks a bit >.>I thought it was a pretty good movie. I tried to avoid referring to it since it is fiction, but all in all still a good movie.

Also: In the American Civil War the gattling gun was actually classified as artillery rather than as a "machine gun". This is obviously for it's size.

Also 2: The early gattling guns actually used "self contained cartridges" made with paper casings rather than metal. Consequently this made for unreliability as the rounds didn't always go off and the casings sometimes jammed.

[i,g]http://mfrost.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/29/the_more_you_know2.jpg[/img]

[Kirsa]

okay personally I prefer sword, face it to hack your enemy to pieces with your own two hands would be alot more fun then to point a gun ad pull a trigger.
But to face simple facts if you come at me with a sword and I have a 9mm in my hand I'll just shoot you in your legs, and arms, take your sword and cut your throat^^ So in the long run Guns are better then Swords but Swords are way more fun to kill with XD Guns make it to quick, and easy. Q.Q

[Sanehouse]

okay personally I prefer sword, face it to hack your enemy to pieces with your own two hands would be alot more fun then to point a gun ad pull a trigger.
But to face simple facts if you come at me with a sword and I have a 9mm in my hand I'll just shoot you in your legs, and arms, take your sword and cut your throat^^ So in the long run Guns are better then Swords but Swords are way more fun to kill with XD Guns make it to quick, and easy. Q.Q

And you're speaking from experience there, right?

[diablo6211]

there should be not argument over this, guns are better hands down

[mikesword]

You don"t have to worry about the sword running out of shells.

[aezgaga]

You don"t have to worry about the sword running out of shells.

... indeed you wont worry about running out of shell with a bullet in your head......



DON'T COMPARED A MELEE WEAPON WITH A CLOSE RANGE WEAPON !!! THIS IS JUST NON-SENSE DAMNIT !!!!


If you want to compared something that match you could say bow vs gun....but gun vs sword is not ... anyway that should stop there ....

[Memorix]

Swords will always be better than guns...

[Sadrith]

Swords will always be better than guns...

despite the fact that this thread needs to die what logic is there in that statement if you can show an instance in real life where an army of people wielding swords beat and army of people with guns then I may admit to that.

[analogZero]

DON'T COMPARED A MELEE WEAPON WITH A CLOSE RANGE WEAPON !!! THIS IS JUST NON-SENSE DAMNIT !!!!


this is worthwhile to say, but this thread is spread out like a knife full of butter over a whole loaf of bread.

[zelkovasan]

define modern battlefield. if its out in the open, then sure, guns are superior, however in close quarters the odds are just about even. both types of weapons would be hindered inside a building, or in a tunnel. Also is your arument assuming katanas and assult rifles or everything else as well ? If,for example I have a Wakizashi or a good old bowie, and you are stuck with a long barreled rifle inside a builing i would have the upper hand due to my blade's compact size.

[Yakumo]

Because they're pointy and sharp. People love sharp and pointy stuff. They're also fun to swing around. I mean, you can't slice stuff with a gun, now can you? Now those guns that British soldiers used in wars with little swords on the ends were just amazing. Not only could you slice stuff, you could shoot people too. -my next life goal- GET ONE OF THOSE GUN/SWORDS!!! 8D

[mikesword]

swords don't jam

[Starfire]

It takes skill to handle and wield a sword. Anyone can shoot a gun.

[DjKuato]

its simple they are not better

[toya]

both are good just as long as i get to kill!!.......