Why are swords "better" than guns?

[Lince]

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

[fejknick]

Originally Posted by Russkie

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

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

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

Eh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Worth a tough maybe?

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

[fejknick]

Originally Posted by Lince

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

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

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

[SteyrAUG]

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.

So what? You think that sword fighters just sneak up on their targets from behind all the time? That explains why you would have armies running at each other with swords.

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

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

Originally Posted by 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

Even in fiction a gun fight can be interesting. It depends on the imagination of the writer and depending on how plausible the "effects" are then the ignorance of the audience or reader can also be important.

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. I'll stop there.. I hate ranting.

You're not dreaming up insane scenarios, stating opinions as "hard facts", or using irrelevant elements as an argument one way or the other so to me what you say matters.

Originally Posted by fejknick

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

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

Its just to sad when the "bullies" cant continue and have to try to make the person feel less worth by name calling. (Im not saying i give a flying rats ass about it. But if i would have seen a mod argue with someone like he does, i guess i wouldn't have registered.) Now that i know that the majority of this place is kudospudos it makes it allot easier to just don't listen to them. :)

Why you came here does not matter. How you act really determines how you are treated. If you really were apathetic about the name calling I don't think it would be worth bringing up. Anyway if you don't want to deal with us then dosvidanija.

[analogZero]

ahhhh, longwinded zombie posts! run away!

[fejknick]

Originally Posted by SteyrAUG

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

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

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

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

But back on topic.

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

[SteyrAUG]

Originally Posted by fejknick

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

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

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

But back on topic.

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

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

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

[jyuukai]

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

[conigwolf]

@_@ swords look way "better"

[Vakarak]

Originally Posted by jyuukai

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

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