Why are swords "better" than guns?

[haran099]

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

[Vakarak]

Originally Posted by fireice

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]

Originally Posted by fejknick

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.

Originally Posted by Russkie

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]

Originally Posted by SteyrAUG

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]

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]

Originally Posted by fejknick

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]

Originally Posted by Russkie

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]

Yea, don't think of him as a stupid 16-year old. That's me. :p
And no, not having guns wouldn't have helped much. Sure there would be less casualties, but that's only because it would be physically impossible to match it. The hatred and lust for power would still be the same, maybe worse. All that happened with guns was sped up the process of war, and made all the world powers even more afraid to attack each other.
Meh. I'll stop there.. I hate ranting.

[fejknick]

Originally Posted by Lince

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]

Originally Posted by fejknick

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.

Originally Posted by fejknick

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)

Originally Posted by fejknick

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?

Originally Posted by fejknick

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?

Originally Posted by fejknick

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.