Why are swords "better" than guns? [Archive]

SteyrAUG

09-13-2008, 06:58 PM

It seems like many people think that swords are superior to guns. It seems like these numbers are higher in anime fans. For those of you who believe that the sword is a better weapon please explain. I'll try to keep an open mind.

EDIT: If you do not take the time to read the entire first post then I will not take the time to repeat my counter arguments to the arguments discussed in the first post. If/when I come across a new argument then I will add it to the first post. I don't expect anybody to read every page of the thread. I expect you to read this post to reduce clutter and help avoid extra redundancy.

EDIT 2: What's "best" can be a matter of opinion. So for less confusion I am describing the "better" weapon as the weapon that is more effective on the modern battlefield.

NOTE: I do not mean to say that ALL anime fans are like this. I know they are not. If you are going to reply with an argument please read the whole first post.

1. Swords are more honorable than guns.
In a kill or be killed situation honor is one of the last things you need to worry about. Just shooting someone is just as honorable as sneeking up behind someone and slitting their throat.

2. Guns are inhumane.
This is a common misconception I have encountered. A bullet wound that rips the heart open is still more humane than slashing open your enemys abdomen and letting their entrails spill out.

3. Guns run out of ammo, but swords don't.
Only an idiot would run out of ammo with a rifle then let a swordsman chop their head off. It's just common sense that the rifle can be used as a club. While swords can in theory cut through bone it is hard if not impossible to cut through a wooden stock in one swing. Anyone who has chopped firewood can tell you that slicing with the grain of the wood is a damn site easier than chopping against the grain. Stocks and barrels are replaceable. A skull is not.

4. I can block bullets with my sword.
I'll throw you a bone here. This is theoretically possible. I have seen it done before. A sword is set up in a clamp, and a gun was set up in another clamp and carefully aimed at the sword. Upon discharge the bullet hit the blade and sliced in two. This is where theoretic ends and reality begins. The sword itself is capable of stopping the bullet, but the human element is where it fails. If someone 50 yards away has a beretta 92f and they shoot at you then in about the time it takes to blink the bullet will have made it from the gun to you. You will not have enough time to plan the trajectory let alone move the sword in place.

5. Guns are noisy, swords are silent.
When you try to chop off a head you will find quite a bit of noise generated. It can just about be comparable to a gun with a sound suppressor.

5b. I don't have to chop off the head. All I have to do is slash the throat.
Once again we go to the good soldier/dumb soldier. A smart soldier carries a knife just in case so they too can slit throats.

6. You don't need skill to use a gun.
With 10 km/h wind heading 162 degrees, you are facing heading 24 degrees, your elevation is 110 meters above the target and the target is 1.2 kilometers away do you think you could hit them in one shot? At that kind of distance every variable counts. It takes quite a bit of calculation where as with a sword you just swing away.

6b. Swords still take more skill to master than guns.
Granted that shooting someone from 10 meters is easy this argument is still invalid. If an "easy" weapon gets the job done better than the "difficult" weapon then the benefits are two fold. Go ahead and train for 15 years to be a master swordsman and let some 15 year old african kid shoot you down with an AK47.

7. lolololol gunblades!!!!!1111one
The concept of a gun and a blade combined is a good idea. We call those bayonets. The gunblade of final fantasy 8 was a horrible design. There is no barrel and therefore no path for the bullet to travel. When you pull the trigger it will explode. Also the handle of the blade is to terribly placed along with the blade being too heavy it would be difficult if not impossible to master.

8. Guns are horrible! They are responsible for <insert statistic here>
Swords have been around for thousands of years. Guns have only been around for a few hundred years so I'm sure they've been the weapon used for killing their fair share of people. Anyway a weapon shouldn't be blamed but rather the user since a weapon can't decide who lives and dies. Most importantly to the point this is NOT to be discussed here. The discussion is battlefield superiority. If you want to argue "good weapon bad weapon" then please post your own thread.

9. Swords have the element of surprise & other psychological factors
Soldiers and law enforcement officers are trained to deal with enemies armed with blades. That does not make the opponent any less dangerous, but that "psychological warfare" isn't as effective. I compare with professionals like cops and soldiers because many sword supporters compare to professional swordsmen. If a samurai were to charge a marine with a sword and said marine was armed with a rifle chances are that if said samurai is 50 feet away the marine won't freeze up and just stand there like a deer in the headlights while the samurai cuts him into pieces. Most chances are that the only target that would just freeze in that situation would be someone who is very sheltered and doesn't comprehend the danger. At least that's how I see it.

10. Ninja Skills
If this is one of your arguments please either click the red X in the upper right hand corner of your browser or the arrow pointing to the left in the upper left hand corner of your browser. Put your Naruto down and try to learn a bit more about swordsmen. The 'ninja' was little more than a thief/assassin. While they were smart and used all sorts of weapons as well as stealth they were not that big in Japan. The common soldier with a sword was the Samurai. They believed in all that "honor of combat" crap. They did not use "stealth". They charged head first into battle. There is no magic like shown in Naruto. Besides the modern combat isn't full of Ninjas or Samurai. If it was then I would bet the guys with swords would get their ass kicked.

11. Could a gunman take on X number of swordsmen?
Well most gunmen these days have weapons that have semi/full automatic features and magazine capacities of 30 rounds. If you have one person with an AK47 and 6 people charge him with swords he will have 5 rounds per swordsman. Let's flip this around and ask again. Could a person with a katana take on 6 people with AK47s? Chances are they will rip him apart.

12. Anything seen in an anime
That's the thing about anime. It's a cartoon. What a cartoon can do isn't always something a person can do.

My Conclusion: Swords as the only weapon are obsolete. Their days of glory are gone. I still think that the blade has it's place on the battlefield and always will, but not as the primary weapon.

Any other arguments I find might be added here later.

Mugen

09-13-2008, 07:00 PM

I'll make a comment after I see Russkies opinion, afterall, he loves gun. (Even in the illegal way!!).

But, seriously, you gotta be one badass with a sword to take on a gun...

La_Mort

09-13-2008, 07:03 PM

I like both...the end result blood and or death XD

shadowmaks

09-13-2008, 07:04 PM

It seems like many people think that swords are superior to guns. It seems like these numbers are higher in anime fans. For those of you who believe that the sword is a better weapon please explain.

NOTE: I do not mean to say that ALL anime fans are like this. I know they are not. If you are going to reply with an argument please read the whole first post.

1. Swords are more honorable than guns.
In a kill or be killed situation honor is one of the last things you need to worry about. Just shooting someone is just as honorable as sneeking up behind someone and slitting their throat.

2. Guns are inhumane.
This is a common misconception I have encountered. A bullet wound that rips the heart open is still more humane than slashing open your enemys abdomen and letting their entrails spill out.

3. Guns run out of ammo, but swords don't.
Only an idiot would run out of ammo with a rifle then let a swordsman chop their head off. It's just common sense that the rifle can be used as a club. While swords can in theory cut through bone it is hard if not impossible to cut through a wooden stock in one swing. Anyone who has chopped firewood can tell you that slicing with the grain of the wood is a damn site easier than chopping against the grain. Stocks and barrels are replaceable. A skull is not.

4. I can block bullets with my sword.
I'll throw you a bone here. This is theoretically possible. I have seen it done before. A sword is set up in a clamp, and a gun was set up in another clamp and carefully aimed at the sword. Upon discharge the bullet hit the blade and sliced in two. This is where theoretic ends and reality begins. The sword itself is capable of stopping the bullet, but the human element is where it fails. If someone 50 yards away has a beretta 92f and they shoot at you then in about the time it takes to blink the bullet will have made it from the gun to you. You will not have enough time to plan the trajectory let alone move the sword in place.

5. Guns are noisy, swords are silent.
When you try to chop off a head you will find quite a bit of noise generated. It can just about be comparable to a gun with a sound suppressor.

5b. I don't have to chop off the head. All I have to do is slash the throat.
Once again we go to the good soldier/dumb soldier. A smart soldier carries a knife just in case so they too can slit throats.

6. You don't need skill to use a gun.
With 10 km/h wind heading 162 degrees, you are facing heading 24 degrees, your elevation is 110 meters above the target and the target is 1.2 kilometers away do you think you could hit them in one shot? At that kind of distance every variable counts. It takes quite a bit of calculation where as with a sword you just swing away.

6b. Swords still take more skill to master than guns.
Granted that shooting someone from 10 meters is easy this argument is still invalid. If an "easy" weapon gets the job done better than the "difficult" weapon then the benefits are two fold. Go ahead and train for 15 years to be a master swordsman and let some 15 year old african kid shoot you down with an AK47.

7. lolololol gunblades!!!!!1111one
The concept of a gun and a blade combined is a good idea. We call those bayonets. The gunblade of final fantasy 8 was a horrible design. There is no barrel and therefore no path for the bullet to travel. When you pull the trigger it will explode. Also the handle of the blade is to terribly placed along with the blade being too heavy it would be difficult if not impossible to master.

Conclusion: Swords as the only weapon are obsolete. Their days of glory are gone. I still think that the blade has it's place on the battlefield and always will, but not as the primary weapon.

Any other arguments I find might be added here later.

Just to let you know, Gunblades are not ment to shoot. They create an semi-explosion on impact which does more damage. that is why in the game, Squill had a 260% chance to hit the enermy. He never misses.

SteyrAUG

09-13-2008, 07:06 PM

I'll make a comment after I see Russkies opinion, afterall, he loves gun. (Even in the illegal way!!).

But, seriously, you gotta be one badass with a sword to take on a gun...A badass and/or an idiot.

So this Russkie, does he have a fetish with guns or something? o.O

Mugen

09-13-2008, 07:07 PM

A badass and/or an idiot.

So this Russkie, does he have a fetish with guns or something? o.OYou could say that...

Yeah, but even and idiot wouldn't go against a gun....:dancing:

SteyrAUG

09-13-2008, 07:08 PM

Just to let you know, Gunblades are not ment to shoot. They create an semi-explosion on impact which does more damage. that is why in the game, Squill had a 260% chance to hit the enermy. He never misses.I've heard people argue with the gunblade saying that they can slice and shoot the target at the same time. That is why I mentioned that. Anyway the point still stands that there was nowhere to channel the energy so the weapon itself would explode unless it was loaded with blanks and there was a small barrel. XD

SteyrAUG

09-13-2008, 07:09 PM

You could say that...

Yeah, but even and idiot wouldn't go against a gun....:dancing:

unless you've seen too much samurai jack and are on cocaine or something :dancing:

actually samurai jack was a badass show

Mugen

09-13-2008, 07:11 PM

unless you've seen too much samurai jack and are on cocaine or something :dancing:

actually samurai jack was a badass show LOL. Where did that come from!? The American-produced anime wannabe. Hey, it's on this website, isn't it?

Proto

09-13-2008, 07:11 PM

I like both...the end result blood and or death XD

Mwhahahaha, yyyyeees! ::D: i like the way you think hehe!

:ramen:

SteyrAUG

09-13-2008, 07:13 PM

LOL. Where did that come from!? The American-produced anime wannabe. Hey, it's on this website, isn't it?American or not it was a good show in my opinion.

Mugen

09-13-2008, 07:14 PM

American or not it was a good show in my opinion.I guess you're right, it's the closest thing I get to anime on my t.v :oo:

SteyrAUG

09-13-2008, 07:15 PM

Mwhahahaha, yyyyeees! ::D: i like the way you think hehe!

:ramen:

I'm fairly confident that you don't want the blood spilled to be spilling from your bullet ridden torso. XD

SteyrAUG

09-13-2008, 07:16 PM

I guess you're right, it's the closest thing I get to anime on my t.v :oo:I don't watch much anime. I kinda stopped after Adult Swim stopped airing Cowboy Bebop and Lupin the 3rd.

Magicbird

09-13-2008, 07:31 PM

Umm this is getting off topic. To put it back::
Ive always thought that swords are better than guns because with swords, the story line gets longer and creates a sense of suspense.

Russkie

09-13-2008, 07:32 PM

I'll make a comment after I see Russkies opinion, afterall, he loves gun. (Even in the illegal way!!).

But, seriously, you gotta be one badass with a sword to take on a gun...

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Dont bring a knife to a gun fight.

If you think about it a little, it has some logic.

SteyrAUG

09-13-2008, 07:36 PM

Umm this is getting off topic. To put it back::
Ive always thought that swords are better than guns because with swords, the story line gets longer and creates a sense of suspense.I'm not talking about stories. I'm talking about reality.

Magicbird

09-13-2008, 07:49 PM

I'm not talking about stories. I'm talking about reality.

but you dont see people carrying swords in reality.....

Unknown

09-13-2008, 07:58 PM

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c37/Vampiric_Blood/GIF/LOL-3.gif

Mugen

09-13-2008, 10:21 PM

Jin beat an enemy with a sword who was carrying a gun, but it was fictional of course...

justblazze

09-13-2008, 10:23 PM

Because you dont make a any noise is u kill with a sword.

Russkie

09-13-2008, 11:42 PM

Because you dont make a any noise is u kill with a sword.

*face palm*

This is why it said the read the ENTIRE thing before posting.

LoKiWorlD

09-14-2008, 01:27 AM

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/169222/samurai_sword_vs_police/

Mugen

09-14-2008, 01:39 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMC8tVSJ4pw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DzcOCyHDqc

Dolly

09-14-2008, 03:56 AM

dAiCe

09-14-2008, 05:33 AM

Because you dont make a any noise is u kill with a sword.

hahaha..you're right!! no hussles at all::D:

analogZero

09-14-2008, 08:42 PM

"From inside fortifications, the gun has no equal among weapons. It is the supreme weapon on the field before the ranks clash, but once swords are crossed the gun becomes useless."

- Miyamoto Musashi - from 'the book of five rings'

SteyrAUG

09-15-2008, 12:10 AM

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/169222/samurai_sword_vs_police/
That was great. XD

I thought the gun's superiority was kinda established under a century ago.Well clip loading fixed magazine weapons have been around for at least 112 years and modern day machine guns followed shortly thereafter.

"From inside fortifications, the gun has no equal among weapons. It is the supreme weapon on the field before the ranks clash, but once swords are crossed the gun becomes useless."

- Miyamoto Musashi - from 'the book of five rings'Unless you're a quadriplegic a gun will never be completely useless. As I've mentioned before if your gun jams or you run out of ammo the gun can be used as a club to deflect blows from a sword and a bayonet can be added to give you a blade as well.

BlueSano

09-15-2008, 12:45 AM

SteyrAUG

09-15-2008, 12:49 AM

well i kinda like both ....each has it's own pros and cons and each is useful in one situation or another ....i mean come on who would pick up a sword against a gun >_> ...
the best part about a gun is that you can get your enemy from a long distance and the best part about the sword is that you can get your enemy from a short distance wiht out a sound

A sword is kind of bulky. A "silent" kill with a sword would be sneaking up on someone from behind and slitting their throat. This can be done with a combat knife.

SinXxX

09-15-2008, 01:34 AM

Swords got their hype because of the media. Swords are seen to most of the animes these days than guns. Well, one reason might be because producers are afraid the animes wont sell in international if there are Guns. Some people here in NA still look animes as "for kids" and they don't want guns being displayed on the TVs and stuff, for kids to see. Gun-violence. I know, pretty stupid. I saw some anime got edited because of this ("Hey, that's a gun? Not anymore. its a slinky now!" or "Hey its not a cannon, its a magical blow thingy!").

The only thing I find Swords amusing are the art surrounding it. You know, the moves (martial arts they say) and the designs of the swords. But heck, in killing each other, art is not important.

lemonek

09-15-2008, 01:58 AM

Swords represents passion, art, prestige and titles.

SteyrAUG

09-15-2008, 03:47 AM

Swords represents passion, art, prestige and titles.In a situation of kill or be killed those kinds of things tend to not matter as much.

SteyrAUG

09-15-2008, 03:49 AM

xURanu5x

09-15-2008, 03:49 AM

SteyrAUG

09-15-2008, 03:55 AM

Seriously....like Supper Serial... Guns are wat humans attempt to do to get close to God, because u Aim a gun at sumone, U have ther life on the line. Simple as that, a sword.. u have to get close, go the extra mile and put sum muscle into it for a kill. But Bare Hands :D thats a rightous kill right ther, not to mention the fact that its a even match.
guns are cheap, swords are better, bare hands n feet are the best

More work doesn't necessarily mean a better plan. Why spend a week harvesting a field of corn with a scythe when you can get the same work done in a day with a combine harvester?

If you're going to kill or be killed it's a bad idea to put your emphasis on what's most difficult. Just do focus on getting the job done in the most effective manner.

BlueSano

09-15-2008, 06:10 AM

A sword is kind of bulky. A "silent" kill with a sword would be sneaking up on someone from behind and slitting their throat. This can be done with a combat knife.

actually a silent kill wiht a sword would be more effective than a combat knife due it's lenght and the combination of movements added to it...but a combat knife would be a nice sub ^^...but i would still prefer a sword or more like a saber::D:

analogZero

09-15-2008, 02:50 PM

light saber beats all.

Mugen

09-15-2008, 03:39 PM

Darth Vaders light saber pwns all. I love red.

Rincewind

09-15-2008, 08:03 PM

If you ask me , katana, dai katana, wakishaki , gladius and the bayonet is the most awesome "swords" made !!!! and they pwn guns if the weilder is immortal:P

Maydraie

09-15-2008, 09:19 PM

any one can shoot a gun but not everyone can completely gutt someone with a samurai sword.

Dolly

09-15-2008, 10:28 PM

any one can shoot a gun but not everyone can completely gutt someone with a samurai sword.

And not everyone can aim and let out a necessary rate of fire efficiently, either.

analogZero

09-15-2008, 10:42 PM

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

contrast

09-15-2008, 11:00 PM

SteyrAUG

09-15-2008, 11:43 PM

actually a silent kill wiht a sword would be more effective than a combat knife due it's lenght and the combination of movements added to it...but a combat knife would be a nice sub ^^...but i would still prefer a sword or more like a saber::D:

The next time you get a ham with the bone in it take it in your kitchen, put it on a cutting board, and try to chop through it as hard as you can and ask people in the next room if they heard it. Even if you did manage to sever the targets head you would have to be fast enough to catch the body and the removed head before either one hits the ground. The most effective "silent" blade kill is to sneak up behind someone and slit their throat and hold them as they bleed out.

SteyrAUG

09-15-2008, 11:44 PM

If you ask me , katana, dai katana, wakishaki , gladius and the bayonet is the most awesome "swords" made !!!! and they pwn guns if the weilder is immortal:P

I'd love to meet an "immortal" swordsman. On a side note if the attacker is immortal and you are mortal then you're pretty much screwed no matter what you have.

SteyrAUG

09-15-2008, 11:46 PM

any one can shoot a gun but not everyone can completely gutt someone with a samurai sword.And not everyone can aim and let out a necessary rate of fire efficiently, either.

Not to mention that a smart combatant cares about what weapon gets the job done better rather than which weapon takes more skill to master.

SteyrAUG

09-15-2008, 11:50 PM

Look I can tell you think swords are great but there heavy in most cases. also IT DOES TAKE SKILL TO USE A FIREARM, or you'd shoot yourself in the foot! LMAO! (think Mllie from Trigun but worse- much, much worse)

P.S. I"m against hurting innocent lives, Like Vash The Stampede. I know much more about our world and it's violent history, and maybe others are aware too about our history and their violence. So don't just go all half cocked. H. a N.D. (Have a Nice Day!) ^^:mad:
XD Maryl was crazy to stash all those derringers in her coat. She gets 1 shot then has to throw it down for another. Derringers are meant for close quarters like pretty much point blank.

Also are you addressing me with that "I can tell you think swords are great" line? If so then please read the first post as I requested.

Russkie

09-16-2008, 12:49 AM

SteyrAUG

09-16-2008, 12:51 AM

A little late for that Russkie. =\

analogZero

09-16-2008, 01:23 AM

quadruple actually....and it's never to late to correct your mistakes......edit button. plus maybe contrast was talking to me....I have no clue, he's gotta lock in some quotes there. guns have their place, but so does a blade. but in all honesty, guns are a cowardly weapon compared to a blade...just saying...

contrast

09-16-2008, 02:22 AM

XD Maryl was crazy to stash all those derringers in her coat. She gets 1 shot then has to throw it down for another. Derringers are meant for close quarters like pretty much point blank.

Also are you addressing me with that "I can tell you think swords are great" line? If so then please read the first post as I requested.

You should know that I don't post unless I read everything first, however I was simply stating a fact of your opinion that you like or really love swords or anything with an sharp edge like one, like knives. plus Its been forever since I watched Trigun, but I think I used the proper example. and you mostly make an agument for the sword rather than give two examples and then let everyone say whats their favorite or which is better- after all this thread is in the Debate Forum. lol, Also glad to make you laugh, but killing is unfogivable!
:mad:+:mad:=:dead:

plus? AnanlogZero you said; anyone with a gun is a coward. what the hell AnalogZero?! if that's true then anyone whom holds a wepon of any sort, kind or type is a coward?? I don't think so, but you tell me.

SteyrAUG

09-16-2008, 03:24 AM

You should know that I don't post unless I read everything first, however I was simply stating a fact of your opinion that you like or really love swords or anything with an sharp edge like one, like knives. plus Its been forever since I watched Trigun, but I think I used the proper example. and you mostly make an agument for the sword rather than give two examples and then let everyone say whats their favorite or which is better- after all this thread is in the Debate Forum. lol, Also glad to make you laugh, but killing is unfogivable!
:mad:+:mad:=:dead:

plus? AnanlogZero you said; anyone with a gun is a coward. what the hell AnalogZero?! if that's true then anyone whom holds a wepon of any sort, kind or type is a coward?? I don't think so, but you tell me.
It's funny how I should know something about someone I have barely even met. =\ Anyway I'm too lazy to use the edit button to mix shit and delete the extra points.

analogZero

09-16-2008, 04:45 AM

You should know that I don't post unless I read everything first, however I was simply stating a fact of your opinion that you like or really love swords or anything with an sharp edge like one, like knives. plus Its been forever since I watched Trigun, but I think I used the proper example. and you mostly make an agument for the sword rather than give two examples and then let everyone say whats their favorite or which is better- after all this thread is in the Debate Forum. lol, Also glad to make you laugh, but killing is unfogivable!
:mad:+:mad:=:dead:

plus? AnanlogZero you said; anyone with a gun is a coward. what the hell AnalogZero?! if that's true then anyone whom holds a wepon of any sort, kind or type is a coward?? I don't think so, but you tell me.

K this is what happens when you take somebody's words and twist them.

and I quote:
"guns are a cowardly weapon compared to a blade"

I didn't say you're a pussy if you have a gun, just that it's like slamming someone over the internet vs slamming someone to their face. it takes more balls to get up close and personal.

xURanu5x

09-16-2008, 07:31 AM

More work doesn't necessarily mean a better plan. Why spend a week harvesting a field of corn with a scythe when you can get the same work done in a day with a combine harvester?

If you're going to kill or be killed it's a bad idea to put your emphasis on what's most difficult. Just do focus on getting the job done in the most effective manner.

Yet isnt "effective" just another way of just getting a job done with out any subjective (opinionated) purpose?
People (the main population) think of killing as wrong unless certain rules are applyed; in which we can't even explain concretely what those rules are. Therefore killing is a subjective action and requires feelings and emotions while taking place. And the best way to demonstrate your emotions is not through a gun, but with ur own body.
So with this i say that swords are better than guns because while u can imagine a sword as an extention of ur arm, a gun is too powerful to be declared a part of a human body(unless u wanna say its a infinite lengthened arm with superpressured destructive properties :D)

xURanu5x

09-16-2008, 07:40 AM

You should know that I don't post unless I read everything first, however I was simply stating a fact of your opinion that you like or really love swords or anything with an sharp edge like one, like knives. plus Its been forever since I watched Trigun, but I think I used the proper example. and you mostly make an agument for the sword rather than give two examples and then let everyone say whats their favorite or which is better- after all this thread is in the Debate Forum. lol, Also glad to make you laugh, but killing is unfogivable!
:mad:+:mad:=:dead:

plus? AnanlogZero you said; anyone with a gun is a coward. what the hell AnalogZero?! if that's true then anyone whom holds a wepon of any sort, kind or type is a coward?? I don't think so, but you tell me.

Well I believe anyone holding a weapon is a coward!
tell me its not true when someone of lesser strength and cunning grabs a pipe from off the floor to attack u, knowing he cant beat you; not even attempting to try his best and perhaps get lucky and land better blows on u then u on him.
People made weapons for weaker opponents to fight stronger ones n replace ther fears of losing....simple fact... watch Ruroni Kinchion and how the japanese "needed" to gain arms or read about the creation of the H-bomb america made :D

listerlee

09-16-2008, 12:37 PM

i like sword because i don't really know but i just like to use a weapon that make me feel better..^^

SteyrAUG

09-16-2008, 02:27 PM

K this is what happens when you take somebody's words and twist them.

and I quote:
"guns are a cowardly weapon compared to a blade"

I didn't say you're a pussy if you have a gun, just that it's like slamming someone over the internet vs slamming someone to their face. it takes more balls to get up close and personal.
On the internet all you have to work with are words. When you're dealing with guns it's different. You are killing the people at range, and if they have guns they have a chance at killing you back. The weapons make things a bit better balanced.

Yet isnt "effective" just another way of just getting a job done with out any subjective (opinionated) purpose?
People (the main population) think of killing as wrong unless certain rules are applyed; in which we can't even explain concretely what those rules are. Therefore killing is a subjective action and requires feelings and emotions while taking place. And the best way to demonstrate your emotions is not through a gun, but with ur own body.
So with this i say that swords are better than guns because while u can imagine a sword as an extention of ur arm, a gun is too powerful to be declared a part of a human body(unless u wanna say its a infinite lengthened arm with superpressured destructive properties :D) It is rather stupid to speak on the behalf of the majority of the people when you don't know them. Killing someone isn't about expressing your emotions. Would you show your girl that you loved her by killing her?

Also I consider "effective" to be using tools best suited for the job so you can get through the job better and more efficiently. You shouldn't chop through heavy oak doors with a sword to break them down and you shouldn't try to cut down gunmen as if you were Sephiroth.

Well I believe anyone holding a weapon is a coward!
tell me its not true when someone of lesser strength and cunning grabs a pipe from off the floor to attack u, knowing he cant beat you; not even attempting to try his best and perhaps get lucky and land better blows on u then u on him.
People made weapons for weaker opponents to fight stronger ones n replace ther fears of losing....simple fact... watch Ruroni Kinchion and how the japanese "needed" to gain arms or read about the creation of the H-bomb america made :DLet's look at the inverse. What if someone is trying to kill you and you know you do not have the means to escape or to win with your bare hands. Is your stupid honor (which is really just pride in this situation) worth dying over? That was the reason so many Japanese died in WWII. They were so full of that bullshit pride that they would kill themselves if they lost in combat. The "honorable" soldier is the one whos judgment is clouded by those illusions of fixed ideas always working.

analogZero

09-16-2008, 04:30 PM

On the internet all you have to work with are words. When you're dealing with guns it's different. You are killing the people at range, and if they have guns they have a chance at killing you back. The weapons make things a bit better balanced.

the internet is not to guns what words are to reality. that's backwards and confusing, and you'd lose marks on your SAT's for that. Take the analogy as it is. would saying something heavily opinionated to someone be easier to do if they were on the other end of the internet, or would it be easier to do it in person. people are going to fight back, be it an opinion or a bullet, and that other person is going to be fighting for their life as much as you are. The only means by which to succeed IS to outbalance them, to grant yourself advantage. Be it a gun or a blade or a battle axe or you knowledge of kung fu/MMA. Weapons are an easy means by which to gain the upper hand. true balance is in fact neutrality.
All I said, was that you're less of a poof if you want to actually get your hands dirty, rather than squeezing a little trigger to make something die.

salmeria

09-16-2008, 04:41 PM

who said swords are better than guns is so clueless...guns is way better and cooler ^^

analogZero

09-16-2008, 04:58 PM

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

ultimate answer to this thread.

edit: click it to watch on youtube then, sorry folks!

salmeria

09-16-2008, 05:15 PM

its not working..^^

Axe Man

09-16-2008, 06:22 PM

cause swords look cooler.

Rincewind

09-16-2008, 06:54 PM

No we all know that axe man doesnt love guns or swords, he loves AXES:P!

a2ng0d

09-16-2008, 07:12 PM

AUG. i can't believe that for the past seven pages no one has told you that double posting is not allowed.

anyways; you make an excellent point, swords are obsolete. that quote by the Japanese guy where the gun is useless in close combat probably refers to the Springfield rifles of the 1860s that took 3 min (if you were pro) to load and fire. but with the invention of auto and semi auto weapons, i agree that a gun and combat/survival knife (just in case) is all you need on the battlefield. and as russkie says, never bring a knife to a gunfight, because it will be over before the ammo runs out.

analogZero

09-16-2008, 08:13 PM

Tairash

09-16-2008, 09:15 PM

I would rather use a sword then a gun. i think guns are for weaklings
and sword for the true warriors

SteyrAUG

09-16-2008, 10:42 PM

the internet is not to guns what words are to reality. that's backwards and confusing, and you'd lose marks on your SAT's for that. Take the analogy as it is. would saying something heavily opinionated to someone be easier to do if they were on the other end of the internet, or would it be easier to do it in person. people are going to fight back, be it an opinion or a bullet, and that other person is going to be fighting for their life as much as you are. The only means by which to succeed IS to outbalance them, to grant yourself advantage. Be it a gun or a blade or a battle axe or you knowledge of kung fu/MMA. Weapons are an easy means by which to gain the upper hand. true balance is in fact neutrality.
All I said, was that you're less of a poof if you want to actually get your hands dirty, rather than squeezing a little trigger to make something die.
In person or online I will say things to others that are offensive. I don't care either way. In an opinionated matter killing has more or less value to you depending on the means of killing. To me killing is killing plain and simple.

AUG. i can't believe that for the past seven pages no one has told you that double posting is not allowed.

anyways; you make an excellent point, swords are obsolete. that quote by the Japanese guy where the gun is useless in close combat probably refers to the Springfield rifles of the 1860s that took 3 min (if you were pro) to load and fire. but with the invention of auto and semi auto weapons, i agree that a gun and combat/survival knife (just in case) is all you need on the battlefield. and as russkie says, never bring a knife to a gunfight, because it will be over before the ammo runs out.In most cases I don't double post but when I'm gone for extended periods of time I don't feel like copying and pasting all the stuff to respond to.

As for the 1860's black powder rifles I heard in my Civil War class that a seasoned soldier could get 2 maybe 3 shots off in a minute if he hauled ass. Even then when a ball and cap gun has neither the ball nor the cap the gun is still not completely useless. The firearm itself can be the instrument of destruction rather than the projectiles it propels.

double posting was mentioned...as was editing...both were ignored for some reason...
and think back a little further, around early 1600's. Miyamoto Musashi lived from 1584-1645. think longer reload times. Book of five rings is an interesting read though.
1. I said too late because the double posts were already done. I did not ignore them. I said I was too lazy to go back and edit the posts.
2. When I noticed that double posting was not allowed I stopped.

I would rather use a sword then a gun. i think guns are for weaklings
and sword for the true warriorsPerhaps one of the reasons the sword is such a popular weapon is the martial arts behind it. I recall one martial arts instructor saying to work smart not hard.

a2ng0d

09-18-2008, 07:05 PM

As for the 1860's black powder rifles I heard in my Civil War class that a seasoned soldier could get 2 maybe 3 shots off in a minute if he hauled ass. Even then when a ball and cap gun has neither the ball nor the cap the gun is still not completely useless. The firearm itself can be the instrument of destruction rather than the projectiles it propels.

however to use the gun as a blunt object, you'd have to put it into position (we're talking about back in the day rifles). the stock could be used to own someone, but only if you position it so that the gun is raised above your head and the stock smashes downward. you won't do much damage otherwise, as the barrel is weak. this is where the gun becomes a heavy, clumsy close combat weapon. and you cannot miss, because you only have one chance to swing at (and hit) your enemy. at close combat, the sword would over power the gun with its graceful movement that allows multiple swings and maneuvers. and, the sword can be used to parry, where the gun can only used defensively to block blows (in which you must use movement to get into the weapon into a defensive position thus wasting time). in this case, i would much rather use a sword in a close combat situation (on the battlefield of course).

and one more point: the bayonet. it turns the firearm into a spear basically. however, the sword > the spear, especially a hollow one, for the sword has more maneuverability than spears do.

a sword can chop, sweep, slash, and thrust.

a spear can thrust, and sweep.

a gun fixed with a bayonet has no reach, therefore it cannot sweep, and so it is limited only to thrust action.

despite this argument, i still think guns are the overall better weapons, as long as they are loaded.

analogZero

09-18-2008, 07:45 PM

despite this argument, i still think guns are the overall better weapons, as long as they are loaded.

hahaha, yes.

Shigami

09-18-2008, 08:09 PM

It seems like many people think that swords are superior to guns. It seems like these numbers are higher in anime fans. For those of you who believe that the sword is a better weapon please explain.

NOTE: I do not mean to say that ALL anime fans are like this. I know they are not. If you are going to reply with an argument please read the whole first post.

1. Swords are more honorable than guns.
In a kill or be killed situation honor is one of the last things you need to worry about. Just shooting someone is just as honorable as sneeking up behind someone and slitting their throat.

2. Guns are inhumane.
This is a common misconception I have encountered. A bullet wound that rips the heart open is still more humane than slashing open your enemys abdomen and letting their entrails spill out.

3. Guns run out of ammo, but swords don't.
Only an idiot would run out of ammo with a rifle then let a swordsman chop their head off. It's just common sense that the rifle can be used as a club. While swords can in theory cut through bone it is hard if not impossible to cut through a wooden stock in one swing. Anyone who has chopped firewood can tell you that slicing with the grain of the wood is a damn site easier than chopping against the grain. Stocks and barrels are replaceable. A skull is not.

4. I can block bullets with my sword.
I'll throw you a bone here. This is theoretically possible. I have seen it done before. A sword is set up in a clamp, and a gun was set up in another clamp and carefully aimed at the sword. Upon discharge the bullet hit the blade and sliced in two. This is where theoretic ends and reality begins. The sword itself is capable of stopping the bullet, but the human element is where it fails. If someone 50 yards away has a beretta 92f and they shoot at you then in about the time it takes to blink the bullet will have made it from the gun to you. You will not have enough time to plan the trajectory let alone move the sword in place.

5. Guns are noisy, swords are silent.
When you try to chop off a head you will find quite a bit of noise generated. It can just about be comparable to a gun with a sound suppressor.

5b. I don't have to chop off the head. All I have to do is slash the throat.
Once again we go to the good soldier/dumb soldier. A smart soldier carries a knife just in case so they too can slit throats.

6. You don't need skill to use a gun.
With 10 km/h wind heading 162 degrees, you are facing heading 24 degrees, your elevation is 110 meters above the target and the target is 1.2 kilometers away do you think you could hit them in one shot? At that kind of distance every variable counts. It takes quite a bit of calculation where as with a sword you just swing away.

6b. Swords still take more skill to master than guns.
Granted that shooting someone from 10 meters is easy this argument is still invalid. If an "easy" weapon gets the job done better than the "difficult" weapon then the benefits are two fold. Go ahead and train for 15 years to be a master swordsman and let some 15 year old african kid shoot you down with an AK47.

7. lolololol gunblades!!!!!1111one
The concept of a gun and a blade combined is a good idea. We call those bayonets. The gunblade of final fantasy 8 was a horrible design. There is no barrel and therefore no path for the bullet to travel. When you pull the trigger it will explode. Also the handle of the blade is to terribly placed along with the blade being too heavy it would be difficult if not impossible to master.

Conclusion: Swords as the only weapon are obsolete. Their days of glory are gone. I still think that the blade has it's place on the battlefield and always will, but not as the primary weapon.

Any other arguments I find might be added here later.

So when you're in a fight you tell to your opponent to carefully aim at your sword's sharp edge?
And just for your information..' Guns ' can be any type firearm.YOU mean that a sword can cut through a pistol's bullet? Technically thats correct,IF they are placed in the right spot.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/80/214514563_f870cf865c.jpg?v=0
This type of bullet,cuts through your sword,kills you - your dog,and your whole freaking family.

Here's a gun vs sword duel.*Fake obviously *

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DzcOCyHDqc

Swords are nothing but show-off nowadays,guns have replaced them,and lazers will some day replace guns.That's technology for you.

Narutorox

09-18-2008, 08:16 PM

i think a gun is better then a sword because if u r in a fight with a bad guy if he had a sword and u had a gun then u probably wont get hart cause u have a chance of shooting before he stabs ya so thats my opinion

Holly-Sama

09-18-2008, 08:16 PM

Guns are definitely more appropriate for our time, but I have always been fascinated with sword fighting.

bluedragon

09-18-2008, 08:18 PM

contrast

09-18-2008, 08:19 PM

What I really mean and this is for the majority here. the fact remains world wide for every day guns have become an necessity, like food. people will continue their blood shed as long as guns or weapons exist. Check out the narrative film with Kevin Cosner called Lord of War. All the truth about guns and weapons are there. It states a lot of relevant truths about guns and our need for weapons. I said If that if anyone holds a weapon that they are are not a cowardly, otherwise if we were cowards for holding a weapon then every one on earth is a coward for having a weapon.

-"Братья в рукоятках" (Brothers in Arms) contrast

Holly-Sama

09-18-2008, 08:30 PM

contrast

09-18-2008, 08:53 PM

I hope you aren't saying that guns kill people. If weapons didn't exist, people would continue to kill regardless. I personally don't find any sort of weapon a necessity.

No people kill people. With guns and weapons. That is what I siad. and as long as It exists there will be people who will buy it. further, look at the Film Lord of War on DVD as I suggested regardless of your personal opinions, I stated the facts. :serious:

Holly-Sama

09-18-2008, 09:00 PM

No people kill people. With guns and weapons. That is what I siad. and as long as It exists there will be people who will buy it. further, look at the Film Lord of War on DVD as I suggested regardless of your personal opinions, I stated the facts. :serious:

Perhaps your facts are your own opinions, yes? And I find it difficult to understand anything that you are trying to say because of your grammar.

a2ng0d

09-18-2008, 10:34 PM

i guess because u definately have a sure kill if ur using a sword and definately more honorable and more face to face.
a gun if u shoot ur basically a coward because u could hide and shoot from a distance.

...........not every person that has a gun is a sniper, you know. have you knowledge of the messy, messy after effect of an up close and personal "stick it to ya dome and blast ur motherf*cking brains out" execution style shot? you know, the kind where the other hand has to be used to pull the poor bastard's collar in so that its like four inches away from your face? makes it so the b*tch can't run. it takes balls to bring a gun that close to your enemy. Balls, my friend, to bring him close enough to where guns and knives dont even matter, and you can smell the sweat running down his forehead. that's split second where he's like "oh shit" and then *POP*....and now you can taste the f*ckers head matter. now you tell me, is that cowardly?

analogZero

09-18-2008, 10:49 PM

I saw that movie, Lord of War, and it definitely carried well how people perceive that the person with the most guns wins. Kinda like the beginning of iron man, where they kidnap tony to build his super missile because the outcome of war is based on who has the most advanced weaponry. The amount spent on weapons production is ridiculous to say the least. retarded even. look into how much the US alone spends on weapons and you'll have a small slice of the cake that makes up how stupid people are to think weapons are the answer. Granted it's the reason we survived as a species, if our monkey forefathers hadn't picked up sticks to scare off predators, we'd be s.o.l. in the living department.
Anyway, swords also hold such appreciation for the artistic value they hold. craftsmanship and use are both held in high regard for this reason. guns, well they're made in a factory...

Silverleon

09-18-2008, 11:26 PM

Swords are better because of me

SteyrAUG

09-19-2008, 01:05 AM

however to use the gun as a blunt object, you'd have to put it into position (we're talking about back in the day rifles). the stock could be used to own someone, but only if you position it so that the gun is raised above your head and the stock smashes downward. you won't do much damage otherwise, as the barrel is weak. this is where the gun becomes a heavy, clumsy close combat weapon. and you cannot miss, because you only have one chance to swing at (and hit) your enemy. at close combat, the sword would over power the gun with its graceful movement that allows multiple swings and maneuvers. and, the sword can be used to parry, where the gun can only used defensively to block blows (in which you must use movement to get into the weapon into a defensive position thus wasting time). in this case, i would much rather use a sword in a close combat situation (on the battlefield of course).

and one more point: the bayonet. it turns the firearm into a spear basically. however, the sword > the spear, especially a hollow one, for the sword has more maneuverability than spears do.

a sword can chop, sweep, slash, and thrust.

a spear can thrust, and sweep.

a gun fixed with a bayonet has no reach, therefore it cannot sweep, and so it is limited only to thrust action.

despite this argument, i still think guns are the overall better weapons, as long as they are loaded.A gun with a bayonet has no reach? Please explain how there is no reach to a 3-4 foot rifle with a blade on the end? A combat knife in hand has no reach. As for swords > spears I call bs there too. As spearmen and swordsmen alike will know there is more to mele than just swinging a spear or sword. If you can successfully deflect the sword with a spear (or rifle) you can use the opponents motion against them to knock them off balance which can be advantageous. The spear isn't so helpless against swords. While the barrel can me ruined it can also be replaced.

So when you're in a fight you tell to your opponent to carefully aim at your sword's sharp edge?
And just for your information..' Guns ' can be any type firearm.YOU mean that a sword can cut through a pistol's bullet? Technically thats correct,IF they are placed in the right spot.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/80/214514563_f870cf865c.jpg?v=0
This type of bullet,cuts through your sword,kills you - your dog,and your whole freaking family.

Here's a gun vs sword duel.*Fake obviously *

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DzcOCyHDqc

Swords are nothing but show-off nowadays,guns have replaced them,and lazers will some day replace guns.That's technology for you.
That pretty much just supports my statement about cutting through bullets with a sword.

Guns are definitely more appropriate for our time, but I have always been fascinated with sword fighting.
By all means an outdated weapon can still be an interesting one. I don't know many people who would want to go into combat with a ball and cap gun, but they're still fun to use. A scimitar is a sword I like.

What I really mean and this is for the majority here. the fact remains world wide for every day guns have become an necessity, like food. people will continue their blood shed as long as guns or weapons exist. Check out the narrative film with Kevin Cosner called Lord of War. All the truth about guns and weapons are there. It states a lot of relevant truths about guns and our need for weapons. I said If that if anyone holds a weapon that they are are not a cowardly, otherwise if we were cowards for holding a weapon then every one on earth is a coward for having a weapon.

-"Братья в рукоятках" (Brothers in Arms) contrast
I didn't especially care for Lord of War. For a movie about an illegal arms dealer it was lacking action.

I saw that movie, Lord of War, and it definitely carried well how people perceive that the person with the most guns wins. Kinda like the beginning of iron man, where they kidnap tony to build his super missile because the outcome of war is based on who has the most advanced weaponry. The amount spent on weapons production is ridiculous to say the least. retarded even. look into how much the US alone spends on weapons and you'll have a small slice of the cake that makes up how stupid people are to think weapons are the answer. Granted it's the reason we survived as a species, if our monkey forefathers hadn't picked up sticks to scare off predators, we'd be s.o.l. in the living department.
Anyway, swords also hold such appreciation for the artistic value they hold. craftsmanship and use are both held in high regard for this reason. guns, well they're made in a factory...It's only guns today because guns are the weapon of choice. Back in the feudal age the strongest lord was the one with the most warriors and the strongest.

contrast

09-19-2008, 03:15 AM

Perhaps your facts are your own opinions, yes? And I find it difficult to understand anything that you are trying to say because of your grammar.

Quote of quote of quote and so on, seash- Give me a break here. I suck at typing not grammer or spelling. I only meant for you too see the valid point of the truth on weapons. And I used a Film that I knew of- It wasn't supposed to be a thrill ride action film like XXX or something. I learned a lot by re-watching the film. so it was a good example to use. Are you going to accuse me for just living? I think not. The Facts are Facts not someone's own opinion. there is no changing the facts here, you can't deny it. Swords are respected as an art from and doesn't necessarily make it better than anything. Guns are mass produced but some swords are now done the same way and the the AK Klosh-ni-kove was made by hand so not all weapons were machine made through mass production. As you see I tell it like it is, not how it isn't. I don't promote the use of violence and its my choice, you can say that is an opinion- violence only leads to violence and blood-shed. So say what you will, I just don't care anymore. Also the German Luger was and still is hand made, it is a custom made weapon. :P

SteyrAUG

09-19-2008, 03:49 AM

Also the German Luger was and still is hand made, it is a custom made weapon. :PThe luger is one of my favorite handguns. My grandpa has a .22 replica that he will give to me when I turn 21. I don't think I would want a regular luger as a sidearm though. 9mm parabellum ammunition doesn't hit as hard as I would like, and it had the nasty flaw of jamming when in the presence of dirt. It's still a nice weapon to have.

Silverleon

09-19-2008, 03:54 PM

a2ng0d

09-19-2008, 07:41 PM

@Steyr: 3-4 feet is not a lot compared to a sword/spear, and the spear is definitely a disadvantage against the sword (the sword was invented to defeat the spear). although yes, the bayonetted rifle still rapes the combat knife. but we are not comparing combat knives, we are comparing guns. and while barrels can be replaced, they cannot be replaced in the heat of battle.

Holly-Sama

09-19-2008, 07:48 PM

Quote of quote of quote and so on, seash- Give me a break here. I suck at typing not grammer or spelling. I only meant for you too see the valid point of the truth on weapons. And I used a Film that I knew of- It wasn't supposed to be a thrill ride action film like XXX or something. I learned a lot by re-watching the film. so it was a good example to use. Are you going to accuse me for just living? I think not. The Facts are Facts not someone's own opinion. there is no changing the facts here, you can't deny it. Swords are respected as an art from and doesn't necessarily make it better than anything. Guns are mass produced but some swords are now done the same way and the the AK Klosh-ni-kove was made by hand so not all weapons were machine made through mass production. As you see I tell it like it is, not how it isn't. I don't promote the use of violence and its my choice, you can say that is an opinion- violence only leads to violence and blood-shed. So say what you will, I just don't care anymore. Also the German Luger was and still is hand made, it is a custom made weapon. :P

I quote because I like to let whoever I am trying to talk to know that I am talking to them. And it is your opinion. You weren't stating facts, but your opinions based on this movie. I am glad you learned something from the film. That's wonderful, but I'm sure everyone has their own views on this matter. That's why this is in a debating forum. And no, I am not accusing you for just living. You sound like the whole world is out to get you just because someone may believe differently. And if you didn't care, this conversation would have never happened.

SteyrAUG

09-20-2008, 02:35 AM

Actually i know something that's better than both, BEHOLD!!
http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh221/Lance321/gunblade.jpghttp://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh221/Lance321/976516238-1.jpghttp://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh221/Lance321/gunblade9.jpghttp://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh221/Lance321/gunblade18.jpghttp://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh221/Lance321/gunblade2001a.jpg
A gunblade, the best weapon there is!

Please refer to my statement on bayonets and gunblades.

@Steyr: 3-4 feet is not a lot compared to a sword/spear, and the spear is definitely a disadvantage against the sword (the sword was invented to defeat the spear). although yes, the bayonetted rifle still rapes the combat knife. but we are not comparing combat knives, we are comparing guns. and while barrels can be replaced, they cannot be replaced in the heat of battle.Acknowledged, but my point is that while parts of a gun may be destroyed it's worth damaging/ruining the part if it wins the day since the parts are replaceable while your head is not. As for a rifle not being as long as a spear the point is that it has a better chance in mele combat than many people think.

analogZero

09-20-2008, 07:40 PM

Please refer to my statement on bayonets and gunblades.

Acknowledged, but my point is that while parts of a gun may be destroyed it's worth damaging/ruining the part if it wins the day since the parts are replaceable while your head is not. As for a rifle not being as long as a spear the point is that it has a better chance in mele combat than many people think.

some of those gunblades actually fire though. they're not a video game simulation. those things are a double whammy.

Second note, you're not likely to win the day with damaged and malfunctioning weaponry. A jammed gun, or yes, quite worse, a destroyed barrel is going to leave you in an open position. there's no time outs and you risking your head for the hopes that your damaged gun might still fire an accurate shot is in bad practice.

SteyrAUG

09-21-2008, 04:36 AM

some of those gunblades actually fire though. they're not a video game simulation. those things are a double whammy.

Second note, you're not likely to win the day with damaged and malfunctioning weaponry. A jammed gun, or yes, quite worse, a destroyed barrel is going to leave you in an open position. there's no time outs and you risking your head for the hopes that your damaged gun might still fire an accurate shot is in bad practice.My response in the first post for gunblades that actually shoot was that we pretty much call them guns with bayonets.

A person who has a damaged/destroyed barrel still has a better chance at survival than the guy who gets attacked by a swordman during reload and simply lets the swordsman cut his head off. If the barrel is bent I won't trust the gun enough to fire it, but would continue to use it as a mele weapon until I either die or can get away and replace it. If I carry a rifle into combat you can be sure I also carry a sidearm just in case. Anyway with a malfunctioning firearm you're still only helpless if you let yourself be helpless. Think about it. The samurai had two swords. The katana and the smaller wakazashi. If the blade of the katana broke off at the handle would that swordsman just sit there and let another swordsman decapitate them or would they draw their wakazashi and keep fighting? The backup is used even today. As well as being issued a rifle many soldiers are issued with a handgun like a baretta 92f or a colt 1911. The rifle malfunctions then you have the sidearm to keep fighting.

listerlee

09-21-2008, 05:43 AM

blade is better because we don't have to reload it..

carolyn07

09-21-2008, 08:06 AM

...for me,.swords are really better than guns even though guns kill faster than swords,.

coz i feel that when you cut things with swords,.it has the feeling of uhmm....

completeness i guess?,.

hahahah!,.♥

carolyn07

09-21-2008, 08:14 AM

Dragon_Of_

09-21-2008, 10:01 AM

swords DO require more skill.. since when can you take someone out from miles away with a sword? yes it takes some skill to use a gun, but not much. with a sword you need to get up-close-and-personal, and hope the perosn doesn't notice what you're trying to do. lets see you actually kill someone and look into their eyes as you lay the final blow... i bet it'll change someone forever. guns make murder to simple and les personal that it should be. ut then again, someone can be killed quite easily with a piece of paper... so that just goes to show ya how weak the human body is.

i've got something that trumps them all, though:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsMlkZ3JJ3s

yes that's right, you've heard of the mother of all bombs, but this is THE FATHER OF ALL BOMBS... you've gotta take you're hat off to us pathetic humans; we seem determined to kill off our whole species as violently as possible. :scaried:

edit: however as honroabe as swords are; guns are just more efficent.. not as effecient as M.O.A.B. or F.O.A.B. but htere's over 11,000 deaths a year just in the US from guns.. how many with a sword these days?

so while swords are more honorable and cooler, a gun is just more efficent.

SteyrAUG

09-21-2008, 03:59 PM

blade is better because we don't have to reload it..How hard is it to read the 1st post?

...for me,.swords are really better than guns even though guns kill faster than swords,.

coz i feel that when you cut things with swords,.it has the feeling of uhmm....

completeness i guess?,.

hahahah!,.♥
Bayonets

swords DO require more skill.. since when can you take someone out from miles away with a sword? yes it takes some skill to use a gun, but not much. with a sword you need to get up-close-and-personal, and hope the perosn doesn't notice what you're trying to do. lets see you actually kill someone and look into their eyes as you lay the final blow... i bet it'll change someone forever. guns make murder to simple and les personal that it should be. ut then again, someone can be killed quite easily with a piece of paper... so that just goes to show ya how weak the human body is.

i've got something that trumps them all, though:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsMlkZ3JJ3s

yes that's right, you've heard of the mother of all bombs, but this is THE FATHER OF ALL BOMBS... you've gotta take you're hat off to us pathetic humans; we seem determined to kill off our whole species as violently as possible. :scaried:

edit: however as honroabe as swords are; guns are just more efficent.. not as effecient as M.O.A.B. or F.O.A.B. but htere's over 11,000 deaths a year just in the US from guns.. how many with a sword these days?

so while swords are more honorable and cooler, a gun is just more efficent.Miles away is still bullshit even for a gun. 1.5 miles is the longest confirmed kill with a rifle. Anyway even at that range even the smallest variable can make you miss.

A person can be killed with a piece of paper? Really? How so? Paper can't cut deep nor does it have much striking force. I did see the paper crossbow on myth busters, but there was a plastic arrowhead making the killing and that was made of more than 1 piece of paper.

As for the "silent kill" and "honor" bullshit arguments read the first post.

Over 11,000 deaths from guns in America annually? I'd like to see proof of that. I always hear this that and the other statistic for firearm related death.

genesis666

09-21-2008, 04:05 PM

It seems like many people think that swords are superior to guns. It seems like these numbers are higher in anime fans. For those of you who believe that the sword is a better weapon please explain.

NOTE: I do not mean to say that ALL anime fans are like this. I know they are not. If you are going to reply with an argument please read the whole first post.

1. Swords are more honorable than guns.
In a kill or be killed situation honor is one of the last things you need to worry about. Just shooting someone is just as honorable as sneeking up behind someone and slitting their throat.

2. Guns are inhumane.
This is a common misconception I have encountered. A bullet wound that rips the heart open is still more humane than slashing open your enemys abdomen and letting their entrails spill out.

3. Guns run out of ammo, but swords don't.
Only an idiot would run out of ammo with a rifle then let a swordsman chop their head off. It's just common sense that the rifle can be used as a club. While swords can in theory cut through bone it is hard if not impossible to cut through a wooden stock in one swing. Anyone who has chopped firewood can tell you that slicing with the grain of the wood is a damn site easier than chopping against the grain. Stocks and barrels are replaceable. A skull is not.

4. I can block bullets with my sword.
I'll throw you a bone here. This is theoretically possible. I have seen it done before. A sword is set up in a clamp, and a gun was set up in another clamp and carefully aimed at the sword. Upon discharge the bullet hit the blade and sliced in two. This is where theoretic ends and reality begins. The sword itself is capable of stopping the bullet, but the human element is where it fails. If someone 50 yards away has a beretta 92f and they shoot at you then in about the time it takes to blink the bullet will have made it from the gun to you. You will not have enough time to plan the trajectory let alone move the sword in place.

5. Guns are noisy, swords are silent.
When you try to chop off a head you will find quite a bit of noise generated. It can just about be comparable to a gun with a sound suppressor.

5b. I don't have to chop off the head. All I have to do is slash the throat.
Once again we go to the good soldier/dumb soldier. A smart soldier carries a knife just in case so they too can slit throats.

6. You don't need skill to use a gun.
With 10 km/h wind heading 162 degrees, you are facing heading 24 degrees, your elevation is 110 meters above the target and the target is 1.2 kilometers away do you think you could hit them in one shot? At that kind of distance every variable counts. It takes quite a bit of calculation where as with a sword you just swing away.

6b. Swords still take more skill to master than guns.
Granted that shooting someone from 10 meters is easy this argument is still invalid. If an "easy" weapon gets the job done better than the "difficult" weapon then the benefits are two fold. Go ahead and train for 15 years to be a master swordsman and let some 15 year old african kid shoot you down with an AK47.

7. lolololol gunblades!!!!!1111one
The concept of a gun and a blade combined is a good idea. We call those bayonets. The gunblade of final fantasy 8 was a horrible design. There is no barrel and therefore no path for the bullet to travel. When you pull the trigger it will explode. Also the handle of the blade is to terribly placed along with the blade being too heavy it would be difficult if not impossible to master.

Conclusion: Swords as the only weapon are obsolete. Their days of glory are gone. I still think that the blade has it's place on the battlefield and always will, but not as the primary weapon.

Any other arguments I find might be added here later.
i actually prefer guns to swords because with guns u can cause a whole lot more destruction, u can destroy buildings with a rocket launcher but suckwith a sword all thats left is a few scratches really, they suck

genesis666

09-21-2008, 04:08 PM

guns forever baby! guns are much easier to use than swords because theres no swingin it about and theres a good chance u wont take ur own arm off

Ryuuzaki

09-21-2008, 06:04 PM

theres a good chance u wont take ur own arm off

Yeah, but with guns you can end up shooting yourself. In fact, it's easier to kill yourself with a gun then it is with a sword. With a sword you need force to be able to chop through skin, muscle, and bone, but with a gun, all it needs is a little force on the trigger, and it can go through all of that.

For me it's guns. Guns have a lot more destruction then swords, are a lot simpler to use. With swords (as Genesis said) you need to swing and all, guns you just need to pull the trigger.

analogZero

09-21-2008, 10:49 PM

As for the "silent kill" and "honor" bullshit arguments read the first post.

Over 11,000 deaths from guns in America annually? I'd like to see proof of that. I always hear this that and the other statistic for firearm related death.

not a man of honor, huh?

anyhow, here's something I found on death rates. the top ranking is for suicides, proving yet again how much more efficient guns really are.

http://thegreenman.net.au/mt/gun_deaths_in_usa.htm

here's something a little more recent published by the new york times.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/04/21/weekinreview/20070422_MARSH_GRAPHIC.html

and here's the address mentioned in the article. you can go through and find death rates for all kinds of things too. 2 795 killed by blades in 2005 in the US. how about that.

http://cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/

Russkie

09-21-2008, 11:02 PM

blade is better because we don't have to reload it..

Can you kill your target 2 miles away with a "blade"?

No... but a gun can (i.e. .50 Caliber riffle).

SteyrAUG

09-21-2008, 11:50 PM

not a man of honor, huh?

anyhow, here's something I found on death rates. the top ranking is for suicides, proving yet again how much more efficient guns really are.

http://thegreenman.net.au/mt/gun_deaths_in_usa.htm

here's something a little more recent published by the new york times.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/04/21/weekinreview/20070422_MARSH_GRAPHIC.html

and here's the address mentioned in the article. you can go through and find death rates for all kinds of things too. 2 795 killed by blades in 2005 in the US. how about that.

http://cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/You're the first to even post sources. Anyway it's not the guns fault. If guns did not exist the criminals would kill people with something else so the people are to blame. Guns as with any other weapon have no say who lives or dies. If you ban guns that will only make law abiding citizens more vulnerable. Think about it. If you were going to commit a crime with a gun would you want to acquire it the legal way or the quick and easy illegal way?

I am somewhat of a man of honor, but just in a different way. I don't see honor in killing. Many aspects of life can be honorable, but not ending someone elses.

Can you kill your target 2 miles away with a "blade"?

No... but a gun can (i.e. .50 Caliber riffle).
I must call bullshit on this. First off it is a very common misconception that the .50 caliber rifle is anti personal, but in reality it is used as anti matter. It's meant to do stuff like penetrating a trucks engine block stopping it rather than killing a general a mile away. For a .50 rifle much further than 1 1/2 miles accuracy is random at best. There is a rifle though that has a range of close to 3 miles. It fires the same 20mm bullets used in an airplanes nose gattling gun. It's not used by the military though since it is way too big and not practical.

http://www.anzioironworks.com/MAG-FED-20MM-RIFLE.htm

http://www.anzioironworks.com/images/bulletsizes.jpg
The blue bullet is a 20mm and the one right next to it is a .50 cal.

http://www.anzioironworks.com/images/20mmwith50a-1.jpg
The small rifle is the .50 cal and the big one is the 20mm.

Russkie

09-21-2008, 11:55 PM

I must call bullshit on this. First off it is a very common misconception that the .50 caliber rifle is anti personal, but in reality it is used as anti matter. It's meant to do stuff like penetrating a trucks engine block stopping it rather than killing a general a mile away. For a .50 rifle much further than 1 1/2 miles accuracy is random at best. There is a rifle though that has a range of close to 3 miles. It fires the same 20mm bullets used in an airplanes nose gattling gun. It's not used by the military though since it is way too big and not practical.

http://www.anzioironworks.com/MAG-FED-20MM-RIFLE.htm

http://www.anzioironworks.com/images/bulletsizes.jpg
The blue bullet is a 20mm and the one right next to it is a .50 cal.

http://www.anzioironworks.com/images/20mmwith50a-1.jpg
The small rifle is the .50 cal and the big one is the 20mm.

Oooh! Shiny! I like it...

My apologies, I was missinformed.

SteyrAUG

09-22-2008, 01:27 AM

If I came across as rude I apologize. Anyway the Barret .50 cal rifle is quite commonly misunderstood. I only found out about this stuff a few weeks ago when I was watching a sniper competition on the military channel. The 20mm rifle is pretty badass. I think it costs up to $11,000 for it.

a2ng0d

09-22-2008, 03:11 AM

for the guy that said "you can't kill up close and personal with a gun"; did you read my post on the pistol execution? read before you post.

analogZero

09-22-2008, 04:08 AM

You're the first to even post sources. Anyway it's not the guns fault. If guns did not exist the criminals would kill people with something else so the people are to blame. Guns as with any other weapon have no say who lives or dies. If you ban guns that will only make law abiding citizens more vulnerable. Think about it. If you were going to commit a crime with a gun would you want to acquire it the legal way or the quick and easy illegal way?

I am somewhat of a man of honor, but just in a different way. I don't see honor in killing. Many aspects of life can be honorable, but not ending someone elses.

I must call bullshit on this. First off it is a very common misconception that the .50 caliber rifle is anti personal, but in reality it is used as anti matter. It's meant to do stuff like penetrating a trucks engine block stopping it rather than killing a general a mile away. For a .50 rifle much further than 1 1/2 miles accuracy is random at best. There is a rifle though that has a range of close to 3 miles. It fires the same 20mm bullets used in an airplanes nose gattling gun. It's not used by the military though since it is way too big and not practical.

http://www.anzioironworks.com/MAG-FED-20MM-RIFLE.htm

http://www.anzioironworks.com/images/bulletsizes.jpg
The blue bullet is a 20mm and the one right next to it is a .50 cal.

http://www.anzioironworks.com/images/20mmwith50a-1.jpg
The small rifle is the .50 cal and the big one is the 20mm.

well in a way, yes it is partly the gun's fault. The statistics are there and gun's are the death tool of choice. They're top ranked. Just because people have the urge to kill doesn't necessarily mean they can achieve it. In Law, you can't be convicted without motive and means. motivation is what drives people to kill in 90 some percent of all cases (the other slight percentage is doled out to crazy's and the like who kill randomly, and there's not too many of them), but they need a means by which to do so. Making your kill easier means there's a greater likelihood that they'll die. That's simple. People know to play the percentages, and when it's clear that it's easier and more efficient to use a gun they're going to do it. But yes, I believe statistics are in ill favour when it comes to legal vs illegal weapons. why wait and pay more when you can get your gun now for a low price.

R+V Freak

09-22-2008, 07:28 AM

why you dont just play devil may cry theres boths swords and guns
and bloodly hells YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!XD

SteyrAUG

09-23-2008, 04:02 AM

well in a way, yes it is partly the gun's fault. The statistics are there and gun's are the death tool of choice. They're top ranked. Just because people have the urge to kill doesn't necessarily mean they can achieve it. In Law, you can't be convicted without motive and means. motivation is what drives people to kill in 90 some percent of all cases (the other slight percentage is doled out to crazy's and the like who kill randomly, and there's not too many of them), but they need a means by which to do so. Making your kill easier means there's a greater likelihood that they'll die. That's simple. People know to play the percentages, and when it's clear that it's easier and more efficient to use a gun they're going to do it. But yes, I believe statistics are in ill favour when it comes to legal vs illegal weapons. why wait and pay more when you can get your gun now for a low price.The gun should not be blamed since it can not choose who lives or dies. If guns did not exist people would simply choose the easiest weapon they could find.

a gun is not alwase the best in all instensis a good yes they are good for killing u shot dead right but they are loud and even with supreser they still make to much nouse so thats y u might need a sword or knif or dagger or something like that so u can slit peoples throuts see ther are time when u need one more then the otherDespite the terrible grammar I agree with you. I believe I made this statement in the 1st post which you should read before posting. ;-)

why you dont just play devil may cry theres boths swords and guns
and bloodly hells YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!XDI prefer not to use video games to illustrate a point in how real life combat works.

analogZero

09-23-2008, 05:28 AM

The gun should not be blamed since it can not choose who lives or dies. If guns did not exist people would simply choose the easiest weapon they could find.

but the easiest weapon is guns. you can't lump blame and responsibility into one big pile, it's distributed amongst all things involved. That's why there's statistics for how many people are killed by guns, how many are killed by knives, how many are killed by cars, how many are killed by explosives, etc. Taking guns out of the equation of 'somebody used a gun to kill someone' is quite ignorant. Death rates are not equivalent to people's desire to kill. That's why suicide bombers use bombs, to maximize damage. you can't say that the same results would come if they'd used a knife. Effective killing power is what piles on the numbers, not people's decision to kill. If it were the case you described, you could go into battle unarmed and achieve the same result as being fully equipped.

contrast

09-23-2008, 07:49 AM

atomsk

09-23-2008, 01:21 PM

i am the god of all bullets
1.no it is not easy to shoot long didtance and takes some skill short distance.
2. i bet my .44 magnum will beat your sword
3. guns are just better

mmelisaa

09-23-2008, 01:24 PM

I think swords are just cooler. :D

Holly-Sama

09-23-2008, 02:16 PM

I told you I don't care, this may be a Debate Forum but what I said is Fact. The only actual option was that "I don't support the use violence". Regardless of what you did or will you state on me Holly-Sama, mostly everything you've said about the Facts I have clearly stated- are Opinions to you and not Facts. Your gonna confuse someone because realized or not I think you may confused on the fine line of Fact and Opinion. My advice (which yes is an opinion this time around) get Wikipedia.org and a Webster's Dictionary. Then check your facts- weigh on weather you want opionated statements or the Cold Stone Hard Facts. Go ahead and feel free to agree to disagree with me. Like I said I just don't care anymore, thats the end of my post here, unless you have something else that's stupid or pointless to me. Heck I'll even make a thread for you on anything I see fit, which you can argue pointlessly all you want against me in.

It's amusing that you are insulting me this very moment. Yes, it is pointless, but I'm not going to stand by and let someone insult me without saying anything about it. Perhaps you should take your own advice and try it out? It's obvious that you are the one in need of a good dictionary. Also, I suggest a spell checker. I know Firefox has one.

God forbid anyone disagree with you. Grow up.

I'm done with this nonsense.

Axe Man

09-23-2008, 04:43 PM

becasue a sword takes skill to master any weakling can pull a trigger.

SteyrAUG

09-23-2008, 11:49 PM

but the easiest weapon is guns. you can't lump blame and responsibility into one big pile, it's distributed amongst all things involved. That's why there's statistics for how many people are killed by guns, how many are killed by knives, how many are killed by cars, how many are killed by explosives, etc. Taking guns out of the equation of 'somebody used a gun to kill someone' is quite ignorant. Death rates are not equivalent to people's desire to kill. That's why suicide bombers use bombs, to maximize damage. you can't say that the same results would come if they'd used a knife. Effective killing power is what piles on the numbers, not people's decision to kill. If it were the case you described, you could go into battle unarmed and achieve the same result as being fully equipped.I know why different causes of death are kept separated, but just because a gun was used to kill someone doesn't mean it's the guns fault. If someone does not desire to use the bomb or the gun to end peoples lives then they are not killing people adding to the statistic. Actually to be honest this is so far the only worth while argument I have seen in this thread.

Russkie

09-23-2008, 11:56 PM

becasue a sword takes skill to master any weakling can pull a trigger.

There is more skill to shooting a gun correctly than you know. Not to mention the fact that you need to know how to take it appart, clean it, and put all the little pieces back.

fullmetal

09-23-2008, 11:57 PM

i dont know why

analogZero

09-24-2008, 12:01 AM

I know why different causes of death are kept separated, but just because a gun was used to kill someone doesn't mean it's the guns fault. If someone does not desire to use the bomb or the gun to end peoples lives then they are not killing people adding to the statistic. Actually to be honest this is so far the only worth while argument I have seen in this thread.

well it is a bit of a deviation, but regardless we'll press on.
The math is there. you just said it, take the gun away and the deaths go down. They're not going to disappear just because we get rid of the gun and only the gun, because yes, people need to get their kill on. However if they're limited then odds are favourable for fewer casualties as a result of somebody's childish bloodlust. Guns accumulate responsibility when the user isn't responsible enough to know when not to use it.

SteyrAUG

09-24-2008, 01:32 AM

well it is a bit of a deviation, but regardless we'll press on.
The math is there. you just said it, take the gun away and the deaths go down. They're not going to disappear just because we get rid of the gun and only the gun, because yes, people need to get their kill on. However if they're limited then odds are favourable for fewer casualties as a result of somebody's childish bloodlust. Guns accumulate responsibility when the user isn't responsible enough to know when not to use it.That's like saying the car is to blame for people killed due to driving drunk.

justblazze

09-24-2008, 01:38 AM

swords are better because when you kill with a sword you cam see it you really killed them and a gun your going to have to shoot like 3 times to kill people

SteyrAUG

09-25-2008, 02:03 AM

swords are better because when you kill with a sword you cam see it you really killed them and a gun your going to have to shoot like 3 times to kill peopleOne cut with a sword isn't a guaranteed kill unless you place it right and place it deep enough just like one hit with a bullet isn't lethal unless properly placed.

analogZero

09-25-2008, 02:20 AM

That's like saying the car is to blame for people killed due to driving drunk.

if the drunk driver intends to kill then yes. A car can be a very destructive weapon, but fatalities as a result of motor vehicles are rarely a case of murder in comparison to good ol' fashioned bad driving.

SteyrAUG

09-25-2008, 02:36 AM

if the drunk driver intends to kill then yes. A car can be a very destructive weapon, but fatalities as a result of motor vehicles are rarely a case of murder in comparison to good ol' fashioned bad driving.It all boils down to proper and improper use. Gun deaths aren't just murders. It's also suicides and accidental shots just like purposely running over people, drunk driving, and flat out bad driving all contribute to car related fatalities.

http://www.every15minutes.com/ According to this site a person dies every 15 minutes from an alcohol related collision. That is 4 an hour, 96 a day, or 35,040 a year. That's like 3 times your gun statistic. That's just alcohol and nothing else. If this information is accurate then why are so many people bitching about guns and demanding bans on guns?

atomsk

09-25-2008, 03:33 AM

There is more skill to shooting a gun correctly than you know. Not to mention the fact that you need to know how to take it appart, clean it, and put all the little pieces back.

I CANNOT BELIEVE IM AGREEING WITH RUSS.

abcman

09-25-2008, 05:10 AM

zato

09-25-2008, 01:37 PM

Look a gun is much better by far ok ... but the sword is just bad ass and cool looking

SteyrAUG

09-26-2008, 12:14 AM

a sword is just as effect as a gun. To prove my point I'll use a few scenarios...now like many things in like place and timing is a must if you want your desired outcome to happen. A gun in close quarters with the SAFETY is just a metal rod when the sword will simply slash you before you can take the saftety off (true the first slaash may not kill you but lets be honest if someone is trying to kill you and your already cut your trying to get away not worry about the gun. Natrual fears will take over and thats that)

next one

Meeting the enemy in a dark area and you must draw i'll assume that if your target is close enough you should be able to wound them >_> if not...(slash) One can only assume that the draw time on the gun must me faster than the sword but a weapon in ahands of a master is well deadly

so for t'he whole thing...noth can killl you so, so what :PAlthough urban combat has increased since the age of Napoleonic Warfare combat is still normally conducted with targets more than 20 feet away (well past the reach of a sword). Swords generally aren't designed to be thrown. Usually when the target is withing sword strike range is during a raid of a building. In that instance the safeties are usually off and the guns are ready to go. As for the safety taking a long time to take off that is not quite true. Most safeties are located in a location for simple engagement and disengagement. While the gun is being drawn from the holster you can take the safety off usually. Upholstering a gun is similar to taking a sword from its sheath. Swords are not just as effective as guns. If 5 swordsmen were to charge me from 50 feet and I had an M249 then more likely than not the swordsmen won't have a snowballs chance in hell.

I know that a sword in the hand of a master is deadly, but no matter how much skill you have you will never have the skill to deflect bullets like samurai jack.

analogZero

09-26-2008, 02:43 AM

It all boils down to proper and improper use. Gun deaths aren't just murders. It's also suicides and accidental shots just like purposely running over people, drunk driving, and flat out bad driving all contribute to car related fatalities.

http://www.every15minutes.com/ According to this site a person dies every 15 minutes from an alcohol related collision. That is 4 an hour, 96 a day, or 35,040 a year. That's like 3 times your gun statistic. That's just alcohol and nothing else. If this information is accurate then why are so many people bitching about guns and demanding bans on guns?

the statistic earlier did corroborate the 11 000 some deaths by homicide as previously stated. now, sweep away everything accidental and unintentional from both scenarios. Meaning get rid of the alcoholics that drive home because they've "got it under control". Think those who want to use their vehicle as a means of doing damage. I'm sure that 35 040 would dwindle down considerably. That number would then have to par up to the 11 000 total as opposed to the 20 000+ that would make up the total with other gun related deaths.
Plus the fact that one 'evil' (I put quotes to avoid further debate over firearm evilness, so just put it out of your mind) outweighs another doesn't make the first good by comparison. Drunk driving is taken very seriously, as is motor vehicle safety, and a lot of money is spent on making it stop.

contrast

09-26-2008, 03:03 AM

It's amusing that you are insulting me this very moment. Yes, it is pointless, but I'm not going to stand by and let someone insult me without saying anything about it. Perhaps you should take your own advice and try it out? It's obvious that you are the one in need of a good dictionary. Also, I suggest a spell checker. I know Firefox has one.

God forbid anyone disagree with you. Grow up.

I'm done with this nonsense.

Are you so childish as to try and use my points against me and no original idea? apparently so. second; I often suck at typing and not spelling and spell check devices aren't 100% perfect so I use my dictionary not some machine. third: I already employ my advice as it is my knowledge, or I would have said something else. and out of anything can you handle a constructive point of view? maybe, maybe not. the only insult was me being offended by your remark continually insisting on the idea I don't state the facts here then having the tanitansy to tell me to grow up, and so I may certifiably have been a tad harsh- but I only get that way when someone doesn't get it and continues to insist that I am a lair, I hate to lie and you said that I lie using your opinionative statements. Since your willing to drop it, I will not say anything further. I apologize if you feel offended.

Does anyone know what was the weapon of choice in the civil war? I got a thesis to finish.

-Domo

atomsk

09-26-2008, 03:41 AM

. A gun in close quarters with the SAFETY is just a metal rod when the sword will simply slash you before you can take the saftety off

safety catch is 4 loosers

analogZero

09-26-2008, 05:41 AM

Are you so childish as to try and use my points against me and no original idea? apparently so. second; I often suck at typing and not spelling and spell check devices aren't 100% perfect so I use my dictionary not some machine. third: I already employ my advice as it is my knowledge, or I would have said something else. and out of anything can you handle a constructive point of view? maybe, maybe not. the only insult was me being offended by your remark continually insisting on the idea I don't state the facts here then having the tanitansy to tell me to grow up, and so I may certifiably have been a tad harsh- but I only get that way when someone doesn't get it and continues to insist that I am a lair, I hate to lie and you said that I lie using your opinionative statements. Since your willing to drop it, I will not say anything further. I apologize if you feel offended.

Does anyone know what was the weapon of choice in the civil war? I got a thesis to finish.

-Domo

here's these'll both help you out.

http://www.teacheroz.com/Civil_War_Weapons.htm#weapons

Spelling Poem

Eye halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.

Eye strike a key and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write
It shows me strait a weigh.

As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite
Its rare lea ever wrong.

Eye have run this poem threw it
I am shore your pleased two no
Its letter perfect awl the weigh
My chequer tolled me sew.

SteyrAUG

09-26-2008, 03:40 PM

the statistic earlier did corroborate the 11 000 some deaths by homicide as previously stated. now, sweep away everything accidental and unintentional from both scenarios. Meaning get rid of the alcoholics that drive home because they've "got it under control". Think those who want to use their vehicle as a means of doing damage. I'm sure that 35 040 would dwindle down considerably. That number would then have to par up to the 11 000 total as opposed to the 20 000+ that would make up the total with other gun related deaths.
Plus the fact that one 'evil' (I put quotes to avoid further debate over firearm evilness, so just put it out of your mind) outweighs another doesn't make the first good by comparison. Drunk driving is taken very seriously, as is motor vehicle safety, and a lot of money is spent on making it stop.What are they doing to stop it? Are they making cars or alcohol more difficult to acquire? Are they banning more and more types of cars and alcohol? Considering that drunk driving still kills more people than guns it's not as big a "hot button" as firearms nor is the problem being dealt with as harshly. Anyway that's all I have to say on the topic of evils.

conigwolf

09-26-2008, 07:57 PM

you don't have to reload

amerikajin

09-26-2008, 09:58 PM

What are they doing to stop it? Are they making cars or alcohol more difficult to acquire? Are they banning more and more types of cars and alcohol? Considering that drunk driving still kills more people than guns it's not as big a "hot button" as firearms nor is the problem being dealt with as harshly. Anyway that's all I have to say on the topic of evils.

To drink alcohol is a choice. There's nothing wrong with alcohol (in moderation). The problem is that everyone cannot be controlled. They do what they can to keep minors from getting ahold of alcohol and people with too many DUIs can have the keycodes placed on their doors or breathalyzers attached to the engine so they can't drive while drunk. The problem is that people are stupid and when you mix stupid people with alcohol, they become even more stupid. Alcohol alters brain chemistry, impairing the thinking process, so people are mor elikely to make stupid decisions like drunk driving. Cops can't be everywhere (there's not enough of them to be) so they can't monitor everything. As far as drunk driving, a police car has to have a reason to pull over a vehicle, they can't just pull everyone over and test them (unless it's near a place where there tend to be lots of problems, then they do sometimes set up checkpoints). Lots of people might be able to drive well enough for police to not catch on (my dad's told me about following the taillights in front of you - you don't swerve or speed/slow too much). The system is doing what it can to stop the problem (things I stated above and education in schools starting at an early age - DARE program anyone? and there are plenty of other programs, too - MADD, SADD, Designated Driver Program) but so long as people are stupid and self-centered they're going to try to find loopholes or ways around having to follow the law, which cause problems for everyone else.

>:)

09-26-2008, 11:26 PM

i like the feal of a sword cutting threw people its so evil fealing

SteyrAUG

09-28-2008, 09:58 PM

To drink alcohol is a choice. There's nothing wrong with alcohol (in moderation). The problem is that everyone cannot be controlled. They do what they can to keep minors from getting ahold of alcohol and people with too many DUIs can have the keycodes placed on their doors or breathalyzers attached to the engine so they can't drive while drunk. The problem is that people are stupid and when you mix stupid people with alcohol, they become even more stupid. Alcohol alters brain chemistry, impairing the thinking process, so people are mor elikely to make stupid decisions like drunk driving. Cops can't be everywhere (there's not enough of them to be) so they can't monitor everything. As far as drunk driving, a police car has to have a reason to pull over a vehicle, they can't just pull everyone over and test them (unless it's near a place where there tend to be lots of problems, then they do sometimes set up checkpoints). Lots of people might be able to drive well enough for police to not catch on (my dad's told me about following the taillights in front of you - you don't swerve or speed/slow too much). The system is doing what it can to stop the problem (things I stated above and education in schools starting at an early age - DARE program anyone? and there are plenty of other programs, too - MADD, SADD, Designated Driver Program) but so long as people are stupid and self-centered they're going to try to find loopholes or ways around having to follow the law, which cause problems for everyone else.The use and abuse of guns is just as much of a choice as the use and abuse of alcohol. Prohibition failed because even if you ban alcohol you need only a basic understanding of chemistry and biology to make some of your own. Mixing the wrong people with guns is pretty much like mixing the wrong people with alcohol. In theory if you wrongly kill someone with a gun you become a felon and never get to have a gun ever again. With alcohol if you have that in your system and you kill someone with a car then after you get out of prison you still get to have a car and/or alcohol.

Zieghart

09-29-2008, 01:33 AM

:dizzy: What's the topic again?:dizzy:

Anyway, I think swords are better than guns since you need to have skill in order to wield a sword. Unlike Guns wherein you just point and shoot and re load. Wielding a sword gives some what an artistic feeling of superiority since there are many styles to choose from. Unlike guns where in you don't need anything but a good aim...

:o.o: Well at least that's my opinion... :oo:

negima fan

09-29-2008, 01:42 AM

this is wat i think swords are for honor and if you're gonna get ur a$$ blown up you can do it with honor and kick some bad guy but u know raise some heck slice a couple enemys in half

SteyrAUG

09-29-2008, 02:38 AM

Zieghart

09-29-2008, 02:53 AM

Please refer to the first post to my counter argument to this argument.

Point taken... But then again, I also said that it was my own opinion... ^.^

Anyway, a weapon is only as good as it's wielder.... So basically there is no argument here... But when it comes to movies or a play, sword fights are still a lot more fun to watch... specially if there are no CG effects in it... ^.^

Dragon_Of_

09-29-2008, 05:57 AM

Miles away is still bullshit even for a gun. 1.5 miles is the longest confirmed kill with a rifle. Anyway even at that range even the smallest variable can make you miss.
.

it may ahve been an exaggeration on miles, but still there is no honor or dignity in shooting someone when you're not even in the same area as said person

and with the new tech they're working on for the navy (a rail gun that shoots nearly mach 8) it's little-to-no challlenge anymore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OqlTXwLG40

and with the aa-12 it's not even fair, either:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ebtj1jR7c&NR=1

A person can be killed with a piece of paper? Really? How so? Paper can't cut deep nor does it have much striking force. I did see the paper crossbow on myth busters, but there was a plastic arrowhead making the killing and that was made of more than 1 piece of paper..

you're thinking of killed in a conventional way; i'm thinking unfair and unconventional: if you can render your opponent incompassiated (such as a kick in the crumple zone [aka: below the belt] you can crumble up the piece of paper and force it down the throat, thus choaking them to death. good luck getting that out when there's no one there to help. not even sure if the heimlick (sp?) would work to get it out, it's still hasn't been field tested:o.o:

Over 11,000 deaths from guns in America annually? I'd like to see proof of that. I always hear this that and the other statistic for firearm related death.

watch the documentary bowling for columbine by micheal moore.. he gives the stats for all (or at least most of) the major cuntries at some point in the documentary. it's actually a good documentary (about gun violence in the us) and IMO why we should have more gun control.... you see with swords it takes either no honor (sneaking up from behind) or skill to kill someone.... and if it (guns) was soooooo difficult to do then gangbangers wouldn't be doing it every day and the middle east wouldn't be able to use children to do it. compared to a sword it's not just point and squeeze.

SteyrAUG

09-29-2008, 06:51 AM

it may ahve been an exaggeration on miles, but still there is no honor or dignity in shooting someone when you're not even in the same area as said person

and with the new tech they're working on for the navy (a rail gun that shoots nearly mach 8) it's little-to-no challlenge anymore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OqlTXwLG40

and with the aa-12 it's not even fair, either:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ebtj1jR7c&NR=1

you're thinking of killed in a conventional way; i'm thinking unfair and unconventional: if you can render your opponent incompassiated (such as a kick in the crumple zone [aka: below the belt] you can crumble up the piece of paper and force it down the throat, thus choaking them to death. good luck getting that out when there's no one there to help. not even sure if the heimlick (sp?) would work to get it out, it's still hasn't been field tested:o.o:

watch the documentary bowling for columbine by micheal moore.. he gives the stats for all (or at least most of) the major cuntries at some point in the documentary. it's actually a good documentary (about gun violence in the us) and IMO why we should have more gun control.... you see with swords it takes either no honor (sneaking up from behind) or skill to kill someone.... and if it (guns) was soooooo difficult to do then gangbangers wouldn't be doing it every day and the middle east wouldn't be able to use children to do it. compared to a sword it's not just point and squeeze.

1. Please refer to the first post on my views on "honor" in combat as well as the "no skill" arguments. These rail guns are far from being fielded by the military let alone being available to civilians..

2. I guess that makes sense, but too much effort for my liking. I'd rather stomp their neck fucking up the spinal cord. Even if they survive they will not be a threat anymore.

3. I got sources already. We're past that. As for gun control and the "evil" guns killing people that has been covered. Please read the posts regarding drunk driving for more of my views. If you wish to debate gun control please make a separate thread.

Dragon_Of_

09-29-2008, 04:34 PM

1. Please refer to the first post on my views on "honor" in combat as well as the "no skill" arguments. These rail guns are far from being fielded by the military let alone being available to civilians..

2. I guess that makes sense, but too much effort for my liking. I'd rather stomp their neck fucking up the spinal cord. Even if they survive they will not be a threat anymore.

3. I got sources already. We're past that. As for gun control and the "evil" guns killing people that has been covered. Please read the posts regarding drunk driving for more of my views. If you wish to debate gun control please make a separate thread.

i actually think they should ban alcohol before we get gun control, alcohol is responcible for too many deaths, imo.. if you wana have a couple beers that's fine (if you're 21 or over) but to get to the point of being drunk is stupid, imo. i fear for people's lives if i lose all self control like most drunks do.

ANYWAY;

a gun is one of the most useless pieces of tech. to me, only because it's ONLY purpis is to kill and injure life, it's just sooooo primitive, imo. it's not like bullet proof vests/dragon skin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS0pSwdQfbY

that is what we need to concentrate on: keeping our people alive, not killing the enemy, we're already pretty effecient at that.

Russkie

09-29-2008, 11:37 PM

i actually think they should ban alcohol before we get gun control, alcohol is responcible for too many deaths, imo.. if you wana have a couple beers that's fine (if you're 21 or over) but to get to the point of being drunk is stupid, imo. i fear for people's lives if i lose all self control like most drunks do.

ANYWAY;

a gun is one of the most useless pieces of tech. to me, only because it's ONLY purpis is to kill and injure life, it's just sooooo primitive, imo. it's not like bullet proof vests/dragon skin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS0pSwdQfbY

that is what we need to concentrate on: keeping our people alive, not killing the enemy, we're already pretty effecient at that.

And what if the only way to protect "our people" can only be achieved by killing the "enemy"? There are entire countries who think the exact opposite of what you're saying, and will stop at nothing to get their hands on some really devastating toys.

The fact that not everyone thinks the way you do, is what makes having weapons so important. If we lay down our arms today, whats to stop another country placing their flag on our soil? Are you going to ask them to go away nicely?

SteyrAUG

09-30-2008, 12:13 AM

i actually think they should ban alcohol before we get gun control, alcohol is responcible for too many deaths, imo.. if you wana have a couple beers that's fine (if you're 21 or over) but to get to the point of being drunk is stupid, imo. i fear for people's lives if i lose all self control like most drunks do.

ANYWAY;

a gun is one of the most useless pieces of tech. to me, only because it's ONLY purpis is to kill and injure life, it's just sooooo primitive, imo. it's not like bullet proof vests/dragon skin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS0pSwdQfbY

that is what we need to concentrate on: keeping our people alive, not killing the enemy, we're already pretty effecient at that.1. America tried banning alcohol. It was called prohibition. It failed because the ban created a bigger demand so those who could make the stuff themselves could make a profit off of it.

The purpose a gun serves today is the same purpose swords served back in the day.

Neoliger

10-01-2008, 12:15 AM

I agree with the first post. But get rid of guns, swords show real skill, right know we just kill. Plus swords can be more unique.

SteyrAUG

10-01-2008, 12:34 AM

I agree with the first post. But get rid of guns, swords show real skill, right know we just kill. Plus swords can be more unique.
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't. Warfare in general is about defeating the enemy rather than how skilled your soldiers are trained in mele combat. The only reason we still use combat knives, sidearms, and hand to hand combat is just in case of Murphy's law and the gun fails us. The superior soldier is desirable only as a means of being more likely to defeat the enemy. Victory is always the overall objective.

Besides, if America threw away all the guns do you really think that China let alone the rest of the world would do the same? There is a reason we stopped using the trebuchet and starter using howitzers. :P

Dragon_Of_

10-01-2008, 04:41 AM

And what if the only way to protect "our people" can only be achieved by killing the "enemy"? There are entire countries who think the exact opposite of what you're saying, and will stop at nothing to get their hands on some really devastating toys.

The fact that not everyone thinks the way you do, is what makes having weapons so important. If we lay down our arms today, whats to stop another country placing their flag on our soil? Are you going to ask them to go away nicely?

who says laying down all weapons is what i'm saying? i'm saying we should be more careful about who gets said weapons..... and there should deffinitly be more gun control, and a total ban on asslaut weapons for average joe.

1. America tried banning alcohol. It was called prohibition. It failed because the ban created a bigger demand so those who could make the stuff themselves could make a profit off of it.

that is why you mak it a trip to a place like guantanamo (sp?) for some good old fashioned torture. and then let 'em go after like a month (gotta have people to spread how bad the place is after all)

i'm just soooo sick of irresproncible people and the way MOST people act when drinking that i don't believe they should be allowed to have it.

i mean, my hobby is somewhat-illegal because it kills an average of 7 people a year, and causesover 11,000 fires a year (mostly human error, too) yet deep friers aren't ilegal (they cause over 11 thousand fire around thanksgiving alone according to a stat i saw on a news program) those stupid things weren't meant to deep fry TURKIES, morons... yet if we can ban fireworks for people's mistakes, i think we shoul ban the other dangerous things that aren't really a necessity to life (alcohol being one of them, ciggerettes being another)if suicide is a crime, and kavorkian (sp?) went on trial for helping people die, then so should the tabacco companies, imo) as alls they're doing is CHARGING you a crap load of money to get sick and die. hell, i can kill myself a lot quicker and for FREE. why should i (or anyone else)pay them?

moffetto

10-01-2008, 04:49 AM

well in real life i would say a gun is way better, but in the world of anime the sword is the obvious favorite, Ex: Kenshin beats gatling gun, Vash deflects bullets by tossing rocks, in many anime the bullet is simply cut in two

terminator

10-01-2008, 05:02 AM

personally i believe that guns are better than swords and my favourite one of them all is the shotgun one out of it and your done for

SteyrAUG

10-01-2008, 06:15 AM

personally i believe that guns are better than swords and my favourite one of them all is the shotgun one out of it and your done forVice president Dick Cheny shot his friend in the face with a shotgun. The thing with shotguns is that the distance and type of projectile have a big impact on the damage inflicted.

libitina

10-01-2008, 08:52 AM

i think it depends on what ur trying to kill
swords are better to fight up close and guns are better if ur fighting far away

Dragon_Of_

10-01-2008, 10:08 AM

Vice president Dick Cheny shot his friend in the face with a shotgun. The thing with shotguns is that the distance and type of projectile have a big impact on the damage inflicted.

thanks for making me laugh man... it's also good to make fun of cheney :)

Mugen

10-01-2008, 07:51 PM

Vice president Dick Cheny shot his friend in the face with a shotgun. The thing with shotguns is that the distance and type of projectile have a big impact on the damage inflicted.LMFAO. You make sound as if you've shot someone with a shotty.

Flow9

10-01-2008, 10:27 PM

swords are better...u could stop yourself from killing a person...
but if u hve a gun then u r done 4 once u pull the trigger maybe even on accident
the person is a gonna

Sadrith

10-01-2008, 11:00 PM

swords are better...u could stop yourself from killing a person...
but if u hve a gun then u r done 4 once u pull the trigger maybe even on accident
the person is a gonna

Not necessarly it depends on how much moment you have going into the swing depends on if you could stop yourself

analogZero

10-02-2008, 02:49 AM

Vice president Dick Cheny shot his friend in the face with a shotgun. The thing with shotguns is that the distance and type of projectile have a big impact on the damage inflicted.

actually it was a peenass shotty, used for shooting small game birds. the equivalent of shooting 20 BB's at once. still hurts, and you're still pissed that cheney shot you in the face, but not life threatening.

SteyrAUG

10-02-2008, 03:17 AM

LMFAO. You make sound as if you've shot someone with a shotty.Well if the ATF is listening in then I haven't. :dancing:

swords are better...u could stop yourself from killing a person...
but if u hve a gun then u r done 4 once u pull the trigger maybe even on accident
the person is a gonnaIf you're shot with a 40mm grenade then you're done for, but with regular bullets that is not necessarily true. A bullet wound is less lethal in some places than others just like with a sword. If the wound just skims the shoulder it will hurt, but won't be lethal unless it gets infected and isn't treated. In the heart you might as well make your peace with God. Also if you swing too hard then you might not be able to stop yourself, especially with heavier swords.

actually it was a peenass shotty, used for shooting small game birds. the equivalent of shooting 20 BB's at once. still hurts, and you're still pissed that cheney shot you in the face, but not life threatening.At point blank it could have been lethal. That's what I mean when I say that the type of projectiles and the distance determine lethality.

strike7785

10-02-2008, 02:54 PM

Because they are nicer to look at

analogZero

10-02-2008, 10:56 PM

At point blank it could have been lethal. That's what I mean when I say that the type of projectiles and the distance determine lethality.

but if you're that close you might as well just use a sword or something.

....sorry, had to fan the flames.

kokoro-ran

10-02-2008, 11:35 PM

i like sword more then guns they make your victim bleed more and you can even cut the head off whit it isnt it nice (^_^)

tennis

10-02-2008, 11:38 PM

Russkie

10-02-2008, 11:47 PM

Swords are better, because they take percision AND strength to use. If you ask me, guns are for wimpy people. They have no muscle and feel that the only way they can fight is by being cheap and shooting a person. :/ Guns are retarted imo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWJp14tkBlU

Watch that, and tell me it doesnt take any strength to fire a gun.

Tovarishch

10-03-2008, 12:06 AM

I'd have to say that both swords and guns have their positives and negatives. Almost all of you have valid points... (I say 'almost' because there are certain posts that are full of ignorance and opinionated bias; a lact of fact makes these useless and, if put to my decision, would be deleted. It's a good thing that our wonderful country allows for a "Freedom of Speech." In other words, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD THINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK. Also, DO NOT SAY THAT GUNS OR SWORDS ARE FOR PANSYS UNTIL YOU HAVE ACTUALLY WIELDED ONE.)
Anyway, I'm not entirely sure if one can "win" this argument. Therefore, I will offer my opinion, and am willing to debate it with anyone. I just ask that you put my ideas to mind.

-I, for one, prefer guns, but that is merely because I am more skilled with one. I enjoy swords immensely, and wish that I was competent with one, but I am not.

-In today's world, swords have been all but ousted of their time-honored position as the "main" weapon. That position has been handed over to the gun.

-Both can be incredibly lethal, depending on the circumstances, including:
=Who is using it?
=Who are they using it against?
=Why are they using it?
=Where are they using it?
=When are they using it? (Year, not time of day)

-To me, swords have become a symbol of honor and chivalry. They are not, nor will they ever be, outdated, at least to me. However, the gun represents in my mind the current and future ages. If one should bring a sword to the average battlefield of today's world, they would be dead quickly, no matter their skill level. However, this, too, can be debated, which is why I included the above criteria for determining effectiveness.

-Setting aside skill level, I think that there is one main problem with each: a sword's range, and a limited number of bullets.

I could continue, but I'm tired, and am more interested in seeing what responses I might receive. If you wish to debate with me personally on a specific issue or whatever, just PM me- more that likely, if you post here, I won't see it.

-Tovarishch

Gstar16

10-03-2008, 12:14 AM

Well i think swords are better because the whole factor of skill required and anticipation of your opponents skill plus how epic sword battles get...like when two respectable swordsman battle they dont slaughter their enemy when its over they give them a honerable death...but then the hack n slash get your blood going the heat of the battle instincts going and blood flowing...no mercy or remorse for you enemy fire in your eyes

but then again Gun fights are fricken sweet too...

Gun fights can range any where from a old western showdown to a gunslinging dive n shoot take cover gun fight the fear of getting hit but the confidence of hitting your opponent accepting the fact that only one of you are coming out alive...

you can dual wield both and have diverse kinds of each as well...but i think im gonna have to go with Swords...

Fam1st

10-03-2008, 12:58 AM

swords on my part more action with swords guns r 2 quick

SteyrAUG

10-03-2008, 02:33 AM

but if you're that close you might as well just use a sword or something.

....sorry, had to fan the flames.I see what you did there. *eyesquint*

Anyway I don't plan to shoot that close.

i like sword more then guns they make your victim bleed more and you can even cut the head off whit it isnt it nice (^_^)A .50 round will take your head off too. ;)

All other new posts between the previous post and this will be ignored since most of the posts have been discussing 1st post crap. As for the communist I will not reply because I have no arguments and nothing to add.

kokoro-ran

10-03-2008, 02:13 PM

you are so mean hope to take your head off with my katana *glare*

Tovarishch

10-03-2008, 03:07 PM

As for the communist I will not reply because I have no arguments and nothing to add.

Excellent. I will take that as a sign that I covered all of my bases properly.
-Tovarishch

negima fan

10-03-2008, 03:26 PM

swords will always be cooler than guns, but guns r just better and more efficent

Russkie

10-03-2008, 04:54 PM

Excellent. I will take that as a sign that I covered all of my bases properly.
-Tovarishch

For a second there, I thought he was talking about me.

SteyrAUG

10-03-2008, 06:29 PM

you are so mean hope to take your head off with my katana *glare*And I will plant a .38 bullet in your solar plexus. :dead:

Excellent. I will take that as a sign that I covered all of my bases properly.
-TovarishchYeah I pretty well agree with what you said.

libitina

10-03-2008, 06:38 PM

:eyes:u guys are violent
I LOVE IT!!!:happy:

analogZero

10-04-2008, 12:41 AM

:eyes:u guys are violent
I LOVE IT!!!:happy:

don't worry, they only use guns. grab a sword and you'll be fine.

SteyrAUG

10-04-2008, 04:48 AM

don't worry, they only use guns. grab a sword and you'll be fine.

or an easy target :dancing:

mszjay14

10-05-2008, 05:08 AM

:eyes:u guys are violent
I LOVE IT!!!:happy:

yea i love it 2!! glad 2 see sum1 lookin my way>_> guys r always saying that i'm 2 voilent..but i jus love it!!

atomsk

10-05-2008, 07:03 AM

yea i love it 2!! glad 2 see sum1 lookin my way>_> guys r always saying that i'm 2 voilent..but i jus love it!!

me likeseys aggressive girls

my .44magnum still pwnz swords

SteyrAUG

10-05-2008, 05:39 PM

me likeseys aggressive girls

my .44magnum still pwnz swords

1. It says you are 14. If that is true you can't legally own a firearm.
2. If you're only 14 then chances are that a .44 magnum would be too much gun for you to handle.
3. You probably just said you have one because Dirty Harry had one, but who gives a damn it was a good movie.
::D:

Mugen

10-05-2008, 05:41 PM

me likeseys aggressive girls

my .44magnum still pwnz swords

You couldn't handle the recoil on a 44. Unless you're 41 and not 14.

atomsk

10-06-2008, 02:03 AM

heh i can handle a fifty. im not a wimp. and its a desert eagle .44 magnum. not mine but my dads. but i have fired it. and i think youve heard my age before. and if not the .44 then the ar-15. or the 22. or the 30-06. we have many guns.

SteyrAUG

10-06-2008, 04:34 AM

cappedkey

10-06-2008, 03:48 PM

Well if everyone had swords then you could have a good chance of running away, with not getting shoot down. In my opinion. =P.

spike81x

10-06-2008, 05:54 PM

all good debates but ppl will always have their likes and dislikes!

Axe Man

10-06-2008, 06:13 PM

plus wielding around a sword looks a lot better thena gun.

AIDA

10-06-2008, 06:46 PM

as long as it gets the job done. wat is the difference?

analogZero

10-06-2008, 06:58 PM

Well if everyone had swords then you could have a good chance of running away, with not getting shoot down. In my opinion. =P.

who would shoot someone in the back as they run away?! that would be down right cowardly and dishonourable! you throw your knife at their thigh, saves on bullets.

SteyrAUG

10-06-2008, 11:34 PM

Well if everyone had swords then you could have a good chance of running away, with not getting shoot down. In my opinion. =P.The problem is getting everyone to get rid of their guns.

all good debates but ppl will always have their likes and dislikes!I can understand preferences, but this is directed to those who watch too much samurai jack and think that swords are going to beat guns.

as long as it gets the job done. wat is the difference?How likely you are to get the job done is a big difference.

who would shoot someone in the back as they run away?! that would be down right cowardly and dishonourable! you throw your knife at their thigh, saves on bullets.Someone who has no concern for honor or courage in a combat situation would. Besides most knives aren't designed for throwing.

analogZero

10-07-2008, 06:16 AM

Someone who has no concern for honor or courage in a combat situation would. Besides most knives aren't designed for throwing.

throwing knives comes to mind...

SteyrAUG

10-07-2008, 11:39 PM

throwing knives comes to mind...

Precisely why I said most knives aren't designed for throwing. :dancing:

Most combat knives really aren't designed for that. Usually the handle is too heavy compared to the weight of the blade.

Russkie

10-08-2008, 01:31 AM

pix or it never happened

To be honest, some video would be nice.

am0184

10-08-2008, 01:56 AM

Brilliant, but i'd still keep a lightsaber cause its cool :lightsaber:

Sadrith

10-08-2008, 02:00 AM

first off what does that have to do with the thread and second heres a video that i think it might be like russkie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMnVeY7dHfQ

SteyrAUG

10-08-2008, 04:55 AM

To be honest, some video would be nice.Seconded

Brilliant, but i'd still keep a lightsaber cause its cool :lightsaber:We're talking real weapons here.

xXWENWENXx

10-10-2008, 05:18 AM

i prefer swords
thy r kool and come in kool designs

analogZero

10-10-2008, 06:23 AM

Brilliant, but i'd still keep a lightsaber cause its cool :lightsaber:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjnD6NdC3e4&feature=related

SteyrAUG

10-11-2008, 04:40 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjnD6NdC3e4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgLlBwdcaPE
It works for the Spartans.

aezgaga

10-12-2008, 12:30 AM

SteyrAUG

10-12-2008, 05:22 AM

It will be totally stupid to say that a sword a better than a gun.... I just prefer the sword because they really depend on close combat skill. I don't compare to gun ! gun can't be compare to sword in this case we should compare gun to archer ! Because it like to compare an archer against a swordman The archer will kill him if he don't let the time to the swordman to reach him. Sword are better but like he say they are obsolete.But war with sword it's more interesting than a war with gun who each team stay on their side and shoot.... well that's my opinion ^^ Gun is good but.... we don't pu that much honor on a gun that on a sword ^^'Archery was nothing compared to a gun. The arrow would usually have more punch than most anti personnel bullets, but range and accuracy are it's shortcoming. When an arrow flies it has more surface area, slower velocity, and it flexes and bends in flight. This makes it especially susceptible to wind. A bullet is smaller so there is less wind resistance. The higher velocity combined with the rifling of the barrel gives it gyroscopic stability in flight. Rate of fire and adjust for error are also in the guns favor. Semi automatic weapons let you fire, observe where the bullet goes, and adjust your aim from the previous shot to be more likely to hit the target. With archery you don't normally get that. Still I would like a crossbow and a replica of the ancient British longbow made of yew wood. A 6 foot bow with 3 foot arrows can be pretty badass.

aezgaga

10-14-2008, 07:48 PM

Yes! I know I don't say that a gun can be match with a gun I talk in close or range weapon that we should keep close combat weapon and range weapon in the same group.... so to compare modern weapon and ancien weapon we should take two of the same group... because now we compare a ancien close combat weapon against a modern range weapon ...... understand what I meant ?

SteyrAUG

10-14-2008, 11:25 PM

Snoopy

10-15-2008, 12:16 PM

swords are so much coo0ler they're slower and you can have more special effects than with guns

aezgaga

10-16-2008, 12:17 AM

swords are so much coo0ler they're slower and you can have more special effects than with guns

special effect ????? like what ? :P

Vakarak

10-16-2008, 02:37 AM

swords are so much coo0ler they're slower and you can have more special effects than with guns

"yay im so much cooler than you, look how slow i can move!!!" ass -__-

Im entirely devoted to the ranged arts and wtf is a 'special effect' we will have to sit down so you can explain that to me in detail one day.

analogZero

10-16-2008, 03:12 AM

"yay im so much cooler than you, look how slow i can move!!!" ass -__-

Im entirely devoted to the ranged arts and wtf is a 'special effect' we will have to sit down so you can explain that to me in detail one day.

dude, you don't know?

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

SteyrAUG

10-16-2008, 03:58 AM

swords are so much coo0ler they're slower and you can have more special effects than with gunsSlow swords aren't superior to fast bullets. That's just stupid to say.

How do special effects determine combat effectiveness?

aezgaga

10-16-2008, 04:55 PM

loool But .... what is modern close combat weapon ???

analogZero

10-16-2008, 08:14 PM

loool But .... what is modern close combat weapon ???

combat knife, or knives in general, and according to some here who can't seem to put down guns, guns are close combat...awkward close combat...save pistol whipping, cuz you're just getting served if somebody's pistol whipping your ass.
a baton or tazer if you're a cop. pepper spray too. though that's in backwards order of use.

Vakarak

10-16-2008, 08:30 PM

loool But .... what is modern close combat weapon ???

nunchuks http://www.kapesni-noze.cz/inshop/pictures/store/CO133C.jpg
knives
believe it or not some people still use swords. like every 100,000 people that use guns 1 person uses a sword and evry 190,000 people that uses guns 1 person uses a bow and arrow.

conigwolf

10-16-2008, 08:57 PM

Swords are the best

SteyrAUG

10-20-2008, 02:17 AM

loool But .... what is modern close combat weapon ???Combat knives and/or bayonets, but these weapons only supplement firearms. If some fool with a sword comes running at you and they are 10 yards away then most chances are a smart combatant won't holster their firearm and draw their combat knife to kill them.

combat knife, or knives in general, and according to some here who can't seem to put down guns, guns are close combat...awkward close combat...save pistol whipping, cuz you're just getting served if somebody's pistol whipping your ass.
a baton or tazer if you're a cop. pepper spray too. though that's in backwards order of use.The reason that law enforcement and military still teach hand to hand combat is because there may and probably will be a time somewhere along the line where that kind of skill will be needed, but that is taught as a supplementary skill since most combat these days are done against targets more than 5 feet away from you.

As for guns being an awkward close quarters weapon that depends on just how close you're talking about. In firearm combat 10 yards is pretty close quarters, but these close quarters positions are what submachine guns like the MP5 were designed for. Actually it's usually much easier to hit a target in closer quarters.

nunchuks http://www.kapesni-noze.cz/inshop/pictures/store/CO133C.jpg
knives
believe it or not some people still use swords. like every 100,000 people that use guns 1 person uses a sword and evry 190,000 people that uses guns 1 person uses a bow and arrow.

I call bull shit on that. Archery is not that dead of an art. It's still quite popular for hunting. I've even seen it used for fishing. Anyway I know archery and swords are not completely dead, but still if those statistics were accurate then do you really think the guy with a sword would stand a chance against the 190k guys with guns?

analogZero

10-21-2008, 02:12 AM

The reason that law enforcement and military still teach hand to hand combat is because there may and probably will be a time somewhere along the line where that kind of skill will be needed, but that is taught as a supplementary skill since most combat these days are done against targets more than 5 feet away from you.

As for guns being an awkward close quarters weapon that depends on just how close you're talking about. In firearm combat 10 yards is pretty close quarters, but these close quarters positions are what submachine guns like the MP5 were designed for. Actually it's usually much easier to hit a target in closer quarters.

I would've said law enforcement is more so trained in martial arts due to their requirement to restrain and subdue wrong doers. They get in trouble when applying "excessive force" as they call it. shooting aggressive, doped up junkies with colourful language often doesn't roll over too well.
And I see close quarters combat as being within foot to sternum range. I don't much know what specific radii distance from you to your target qualifies as close quarters so I'll just leave that topic right there...

SteyrAUG

10-21-2008, 11:24 PM

I would've said law enforcement is more so trained in martial arts due to their requirement to restrain and subdue wrong doers. They get in trouble when applying "excessive force" as they call it. shooting aggressive, doped up junkies with colourful language often doesn't roll over too well.
And I see close quarters combat as being within foot to sternum range. I don't much know what specific radii distance from you to your target qualifies as close quarters so I'll just leave that topic right there...I guess the cop part makes sense as for close quarters being that close then a gun probably wouldn't be as effective, especially a long gun like a rifle or shotgun. Most militant combat isn't like that these days though.

Mugen

10-21-2008, 11:42 PM

Neoliger

11-17-2008, 05:02 PM

Swords are the coolest and take the most skill to use. I tested this and it was true. I went hunting for the first time, without any training and killed a 4 point with one shot.

Russkie

11-17-2008, 06:12 PM

Swords are the coolest and take the most skill to use. I tested this and it was true. I went hunting for the first time, without any training and killed a 4 point with one shot.

I was hoping to see this thread revived... but by an opinion that came from someone who actually mattered.

What a shame.

conigwolf

11-21-2008, 04:41 PM

Swords look better than guns, also you don't need to reload

zanjii

11-29-2008, 02:33 PM

Vakarak

11-29-2008, 07:40 PM

I'm still pretty much a gun fan... guns are THE BEST even though short ranged weapons like knives, broken bottles, cutlasses and rocks are used on more occasions than BOTH the sword and the gun...
N.B> rocks double as ranged weapons...
broken bottles triple as ranged weapons AND important magical ingredients (think OBEAH) >.>

Tythus

11-29-2008, 09:18 PM

Takes a look at Indiana Jones and lols BTW swords just happen to look cool that is why they are on anime still as if somone was to spend as much time as a swordsman spends learning hi craft then gunman = win
Swords look better than guns, also you don't need to reload
if you need to reload something has gone horribly wrong

LilLocs

11-29-2008, 09:25 PM

As hol horse would say the gun is mightier than the sword in knights chess.
unless your away from the sword its not as good
but gun is better in most things.
i prefer the sword though more original.::D:

lee matsu

11-29-2008, 09:29 PM

i like plain ol combat skill ..martial arts ..."pam!!!!" wat u say ... TKO.. death by mere hands ..now thats ...skill

partyprobe

11-30-2008, 12:07 AM

fejknick

11-30-2008, 12:10 AM

Swords have a longer history.
If you're coming from behind with a katana and he has a 9 mm in his waist.....He's not gonna be a problem. But if he's laying 1000 meters away from you in a dessert with a sniper rifle. Then sword might not be the best. ^^

Russkie

11-30-2008, 12:30 AM

Swords are more romantic. Every one has a dream or the urge to learn or carry a sword. It is mostly because we all see those or hear stories of samurai fighting for morals and there masters. But then there was the brutal side of swords that most dont relate to when thinking of swords.

Guns are just more savage. They may be more modern but they just lack the skill, athletic need, and the need to dedicate your life. sure people have reasons to use guns but i would just find it less enjoyable killing with a gun.

Swords just kick ass

I agreed with everything except this.

Can you run 50 miles through a desert/jungle/wooded terrain while keeping your gun clean and in working order? Can you get to the 30 mile mark, find a good spot, and wait patiently for days until your target is within visible range? Can you accurately take out your target, evade capture, and then trek the 50 miles back?

Like the many idiots I have attempted to explain this to in the past, guns take a phenomenal amount of skill to master. It really is not "point and shoot" (unless your goal is to be bad with guns).

Yes, swords are cool and shiny. And I agree that they take skill. But please, remove your head out from that warm, comfy, and "oh, so familiar" place called your ass.

Guardgirl

11-30-2008, 12:39 AM

i think swords are better cuz u can cut someones head off with them guns r just weird i would perfer a sword over a gun anyday

analogZero

11-30-2008, 06:38 AM

I agreed with everything except this.

Can you run 50 miles through a desert/jungle/wooded terrain while keeping your gun clean and in working order? Can you get to the 30 mile mark, find a good spot, and wait patiently for days until your target is within visible range? Can you accurately take out your target, evade capture, and then trek the 50 miles back?

Like the many idiots I have attempted to explain this to in the past, guns take a phenomenal amount of skill to master. It really is not "point and shoot" (unless your goal is to be bad with guns).

Yes, swords are cool and shiny. And I agree that they take skill. But please, remove your head out from that warm, comfy, and "oh, so familiar" place called your ass.

I'd agree up to the patience and hiking bits. that's just patience and hiking, unless your killing time by shooting at stuff and using the gun as a walking stick. guns do require skill folks, they're just easier to fit into your purse than a nodachi. The difference between an exemplary marksman and a novice is that the marksman's already shot you in the eye before the novice's realized he left the safety on.
still pro blade though, that sh*t's solid.

Vakarak

12-01-2008, 01:04 AM

Russkie

12-01-2008, 01:27 AM

I'd agree up to the patience and hiking bits. that's just patience and hiking, unless your killing time by shooting at stuff and using the gun as a walking stick. guns do require skill folks, they're just easier to fit into your purse than a nodachi. The difference between an exemplary marksman and a novice is that the marksman's already shot you in the eye before the novice's realized he left the safety on.
still pro blade though, that sh*t's solid.

That was just put in for effect, really. But I do know someone who was a sniper in the Marines (or at least I did). Stuff like that has happened, just not in the books. Oh, and the part where I said "30 miles" was a typo.

tentairyu

12-01-2008, 02:09 AM

I say swords are better because it becomes a battle of techinque & strength and will.and if you do win then it is more meaningful because you were strong enough or crafty enough to pull out the deciding technique.with a gun technique still applies but a person who is low skilled can still kill anyone when conditions are in their favor.but for the elite such as a sniper you have to adjust for atmospheric and meteorlogical conditions and always maintain your weapon in top shape.however,the same must be done with a sword after a kill (in japan anyway::D:)they shake the sword then with the index finger and thumb they rub the blood of the blade before they put away so the sword doesn't rust. of course you have to polish it and constantly check for fractures and other stuff too.I hate to say it but this is a push button society now. we have to ask how what is the best way to kill a person or we have to ask how can we kill X amount of people in one swoop. I wish we had gundams or valkyries.....

fireice

12-01-2008, 02:37 AM

I am a fan of all weapons. I believe both guns and swords have there place in the world of killing. If you measure what is better just by just by effectiveness the gun wins. But there is a large downside to using guns. Guns have a large casualty rate among innocent people. There are to many stupid people out there with guns causing problems. The sword has one up side the discipline it takes to become a master of killing with it. The men who become masters with their weapon have the discipline it takes to use the weapon in the responsible way. How many people out there who own guns actually are trained how to use them. With the number of guns owned by people in America very few of them have the training in the effective use. Military and police officers have to go through training with their weapons that instills the discipline to use the weapon effectivly. I have been around guns since I was born I have spent many years learning how to use a gun safely. Now adays the world of violence is ruled by the gun but before the gun is invented the sword ruled the world of the kill.

fejknick

12-01-2008, 02:46 AM

^
If you're gonna think like that then sticks and rocks was first. :D

teddyx

12-01-2008, 03:45 AM

guns are so much better than swords

SteyrAUG

12-01-2008, 01:53 PM

Sorry I was away for so long. I pretty well lost interest in this place.

I was hoping to see this thread revived... but by an opinion that came from someone who actually mattered.

What a shame.
agreed i call BS on him supposedly killing a deer with a sword

lol so you could stab them and if still alive you pull the trigger and *KA-SPLOOSH* thats pretty.. i dunno
pretty stupid idea cause it'd still kb' in your face

I'm still pretty much a gun fan... guns are THE BEST even though short ranged weapons like knives, broken bottles, cutlasses and rocks are used on more occasions than BOTH the sword and the gun...
N.B> rocks double as ranged weapons...
broken bottles triple as ranged weapons AND important magical ingredients (think OBEAH) >.>
I think a throwing knife would probably be a better ranged weapon than a broken bottle. Actually a knife overall would probably be better. For slashing the broken bottle probably doesn't cut as deep, for thrusting the ribcage can be somewhat helpful in deflecting the attack. If you break off the point in a wound you have to rebreak the bottle which might destroy it.

As hol horse would say the gun is mightier than the sword in knights chess.
unless your away from the sword its not as good
but gun is better in most things.
i prefer the sword though more original.::D:
The sword has been around for thousands of years. More people have died from the sword than from the gun so I doubt that's more original. Now killing someone with a toilet like in the boondock saints THAT is pretty original. :dancing:

i like plain ol combat skill ..martial arts ..."pam!!!!" wat u say ... TKO.. death by mere hands ..now thats ...skillYour hands better won't block a bullet.

Swords are more romantic. Every one has a dream or the urge to learn or carry a sword. It is mostly because we all see those or hear stories of samurai fighting for morals and there masters. But then there was the brutal side of swords that most dont relate to when thinking of swords.

Guns are just more savage. They may be more modern but they just lack the skill, athletic need, and the need to dedicate your life. sure people have reasons to use guns but i would just find it less enjoyable killing with a gun.

Swords just kick assI don't dream of carrying a sword. To me it's too bulky for a combat blade. A combat knife or bayonet would fulfill my needs for a blade and the firearm being the weapon of choice for the world would be my weapon of choice. Carry your sword if you wish, but see how far your skill can get you.

Swords have a longer history.
If you're coming from behind with a katana and he has a 9 mm in his waist.....He's not gonna be a problem. But if he's laying 1000 meters away from you in a dessert with a sniper rifle. Then sword might not be the best. ^^If you have your sword and someone sneaks up behind you with a gun you are equally as screwed.

I agreed with everything except this.

Can you run 50 miles through a desert/jungle/wooded terrain while keeping your gun clean and in working order? Can you get to the 30 mile mark, find a good spot, and wait patiently for days until your target is within visible range? Can you accurately take out your target, evade capture, and then trek the 50 miles back?

Like the many idiots I have attempted to explain this to in the past, guns take a phenomenal amount of skill to master. It really is not "point and shoot" (unless your goal is to be bad with guns).

Yes, swords are cool and shiny. And I agree that they take skill. But please, remove your head out from that warm, comfy, and "oh, so familiar" place called your ass.With or without a gun running 50 miles through any terrain would be quite an accomplishment. It also depends on the gun. If you have an M249 then holy fuck that's gotta be superman. If it's a beretta 92f then not as amazing but still amazing. XD

i think swords are better cuz u can cut someones head off with them guns r just weird i would perfer a sword over a gun anydayIf you hit someone in the head with a 7.62mm round from an M40 sniper rifle do you know what would happen? The head would probably explode.

I say swords are better because it becomes a battle of techinque & strength and will.and if you do win then it is more meaningful because you were strong enough or crafty enough to pull out the deciding technique.with a gun technique still applies but a person who is low skilled can still kill anyone when conditions are in their favor.but for the elite such as a sniper you have to adjust for atmospheric and meteorlogical conditions and always maintain your weapon in top shape.however,the same must be done with a sword after a kill (in japan anyway::D:)they shake the sword then with the index finger and thumb they rub the blood of the blade before they put away so the sword doesn't rust. of course you have to polish it and constantly check for fractures and other stuff too.I hate to say it but this is a push button society now. we have to ask how what is the best way to kill a person or we have to ask how can we kill X amount of people in one swoop. I wish we had gundams or valkyries.....If you have a samurai and a modern soldier fighting sword vs gun it would probably be a battle of skill, but if it were you and me fighting sword and gun neither of us would be as ready for combat. In both situations the two combatants are either both trained for combat or both not trained. In that case the weapon seriously changes the tide of the battle. If the samurai charges at the soldier from 20 yards the soldier can draw his gun and shoot. That gives him a big advantage.

I am a fan of all weapons. I believe both guns and swords have there place in the world of killing. If you measure what is better just by just by effectiveness the gun wins. But there is a large downside to using guns. Guns have a large casualty rate among innocent people. There are to many stupid people out there with guns causing problems. The sword has one up side the discipline it takes to become a master of killing with it. The men who become masters with their weapon have the discipline it takes to use the weapon in the responsible way. How many people out there who own guns actually are trained how to use them. With the number of guns owned by people in America very few of them have the training in the effective use. Military and police officers have to go through training with their weapons that instills the discipline to use the weapon effectivly. I have been around guns since I was born I have spent many years learning how to use a gun safely. Now adays the world of violence is ruled by the gun but before the gun is invented the sword ruled the world of the kill.
The weapon does not decide who lives or dies. Someone with a sword could go around killing innocent people. That has no impact on which weapon is going to get the job done in the battlefield.

Chiyah

12-01-2008, 01:55 PM

Umm cause guns run out of bullets but swords are faster depends on what kind of sword

fejknick

12-01-2008, 05:13 PM

I just remembered that a katana can stop a bullet.
So nuff said.

suune

12-01-2008, 05:45 PM

I'll make a comment after I see Russkies opinion, afterall, he loves gun. (Even in the illegal way!!).

But, seriously, you gotta be one badass with a sword to take on a gun...

Well... badass or a total dim-wit. But, yeah I also prefer blades before guns.

Russkie

12-01-2008, 06:28 PM

I just remembered that a katana can stop a bullet.
So nuff said.

Can you move a sword at 600 - 1200 fps?

Meaning, from the time it takes for the bullet to travel from the gun, to you, will you be able react quick enough? Quick enough to move the blade to the correct spot/angle, allowing the bullet to simply ricochet in another direction?

Enough said. (dumbass)

fejknick

12-01-2008, 06:31 PM

Can you move a sword at 600 - 1200 fps?

Enough said. (dumbass)

Lets put it this way, 1 000 000 guys with a 9 mm. (Since its gun and not machinegun) vs 1 000 000 samurais.

Now you chose side.

NUFF SAID.

...

EDIT: I took out the bad words. -_-

Russkie

12-01-2008, 06:37 PM

Lets put it this way, 1 000 000 guys with a 9 mm. (Since its gun and not machinegun) vs 1 000 000 samurais.

Now you chose side.

NUFF SAID.

...

EDIT: I took out the bad words. -_-

Three words: Tactical Nuclear Warhead.

Sure, thats overkill, but it gets the job done.

fejknick

12-01-2008, 06:41 PM

Three words: Tactical Nuclear Warhead.

Sure, thats overkill, but it gets the job done.

Thats not a gun. The debate is about if swords or guns are better. A nuke is not a gun.

If you really thought that a nuke is a gun, then ill let you win for the obvious reasons.

Russkie

12-01-2008, 06:48 PM

Thats not a gun. The debate is about if swords or guns are better. A nuke is not a gun.

If you really thought that a nuke is a gun, then ill let you win for the obvious reasons.

Aww, did you think I didnt know that? How cute.

Okay look, I'll play along and pretend there are 1m people with 9mms, and 1m people with swords. I forget how many bullets the beretta holds, but I'm going to guess and say for the sake of example that it holds a max of 8 (9 if one was already in the chamber).

Whats 1,000,000 x 8? If you payed attention in second grade, the answer is 8,000,000. Tell me, what do you think has the greater value? 8m bullets, or 1m swords?

Edit: On a side not, I find it interested that you're using "guys vs. Samurai". Seeing as a Samurai would clearly have more skill in warfare than just a regular Joe-bag-of-donuts. Why not make it even and say "Marines vs. Samurai"?

haran099

12-01-2008, 06:51 PM

if its a sword or a gun you still get the same result a load of dead bodys :)

Vakarak

12-01-2008, 07:44 PM

I am a fan of all weapons. I believe both guns and swords have there place in the world of killing. If you measure what is better just by just by effectiveness the gun wins. But there is a large downside to using guns. Guns have a large casualty rate among innocent people. There are to many stupid people out there with guns causing problems. The sword has one up side the discipline it takes to become a master of killing with it. The men who become masters with their weapon have the discipline it takes to use the weapon in the responsible way. and blah blah blah blah blah

Do you have any idea of the bullsh^t you just said? First of... i need absolutly no damn training in killing with a sword all i have to do is swing, slash or thrust and anyway you take it you're dead and of course guns have a large casulty rate among innocents swords did too. You obviously are a smart individual but maybe you would want to revisit the history books.

SteyrAUG

12-02-2008, 01:41 AM

Lets put it this way, 1 000 000 guys with a 9 mm. (Since its gun and not machinegun) vs 1 000 000 samurais.

Now you chose side.

NUFF SAID.

...

EDIT: I took out the bad words. -_-The samurai would get raped by the bullets dumbfuck.

Aww, did you think I didnt know that? How cute.

Okay look, I'll play along and pretend there are 1m people with 9mms, and 1m people with swords. I forget how many bullets the beretta holds, but I'm going to guess and say for the sake of example that it holds a max of 8 (9 if one was already in the chamber).

Whats 1,000,000 x 8? If you payed attention in second grade, the answer is 8,000,000. Tell me, what do you think has the greater value? 8m bullets, or 1m swords?

Edit: On a side not, I find it interested that you're using "guys vs. Samurai". Seeing as a Samurai would clearly have more skill in warfare than just a regular Joe-bag-of-donuts. Why not make it even and say "Marines vs. Samurai"?

http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg00-e.htm
This is a great site for gun information. According to them the handguns produced by Beretta range in capacity from 7 rounds (model 87) to 20 rounds with the 93r and up to 15 round capacity in the beretta92 which if I recall is the standard issue sidearm for the army though I'm probably wrong.

Yeah 1 million marines with 93Rs will completely slaughter the samurai.

fejknick

12-02-2008, 02:06 AM

The samurai would get raped by the bullets dumbfuck.
http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg00-e.htm
This is a great site for gun information. According to them the handguns produced by Beretta range in capacity from 7 rounds (model 87) to 20 rounds with the 93r and up to 15 round capacity in the beretta92 which if I recall is the standard issue sidearm for the army though I'm probably wrong.

Yeah 1 million marines with 93Rs will completely slaughter the samurai.

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.

Lince

12-02-2008, 02:13 AM

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 ever

Russkie

12-02-2008, 02:18 AM

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.

Oh give me a break, dumbass. Killing would not have stopped even if the advancements of weapons were still at sharp sticks and blunt rocks. As long as two people are going to be on this earth, there will always be the chance of someone offing the other.

Oh, and I'll spell your name however I want to, furfag.

fejknick

12-02-2008, 02:28 AM

Oh give me a break, dumbass. Killing would not have stopped even if the advancements of weapons were still at sharp sticks and blunt rocks. As long as two people are going to be on this earth, there will always be the chance of someone offing the other.

Oh, and I'll spell your name however I want to, furfag.

So i said that people would not kill each-other? So you truly think that the same amount of people would have died by war and such if gunpowder would never have seen the face of the earth?

If you do think that. Then i am truly sorry for who ever have made you think that humans are such a nasty animal (I know we are nasty, but it takes a hell of a lot more for someone to be face to face and kill 200,000 people then to just press a button. Im talking about hiroshima since you brought atomic bombs up.).

Im just displaying my point of view as you should in a debate. No need for name calling. And don't think i'm just a stupid 16 year old kid who likes to make people angry on forums, because then i would have responded to the name calling instead of telling you to let it go and display your point of view.

In this one its all about when, were and why. A sword is good there and then, but a gun would be better there and then.

I do hope that you're just mad at me and that you really don't think that we would have the same amount of casualties if guns never would be here, i really do.

Lince

12-02-2008, 02:39 AM

fejknick

12-02-2008, 02:45 AM

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.

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. :)

Russkie

12-02-2008, 02:51 AM

So i said that people would not kill each-other? So you truly think that the same amount of people would have died by war and such if gunpowder would never have seen the face of the earth?

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.

If you do think that. Then i am truly sorry for who ever have made you think that humans are such a nasty animal (I know we are nasty, but it takes a hell of a lot more for someone to be face to face and kill 200,000 people then to just press a button. Im talking about hiroshima since you brought atomic bombs up.).

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)

Im just displaying my point of view as you should in a debate. No need for name calling. And don't think i'm just a stupid 16 year old kid who likes to make people angry on forums, because then i would have responded to the name calling instead of telling you to let it go and display your point of view.

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

In this one its all about when, were and why. A sword is good there and then, but a gun would be better there and then.

Eh?

I do hope that you're just mad at me and that you really don't think that we would have the same amount of casualties if guns never would be here, i really do.

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