Why are swords "better" than guns?

[atomsk]

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

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

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

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

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

[SteyrAUG]

Originally Posted by atomsk

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

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

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

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

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

1. I'm fully aware that the perception of time is what slows since it is scientifically impossible to slow time itself.

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

[Anime_Dude]

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

YouTube - Bullet vs. Samurai Sword

Close

2You need to upgrade your Flash Player2

[SteyrAUG]

Yeah I've seen that before.

[mellowguy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Bayonets for teh win. lulz.

8. Makes sense to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dark_Angel]

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

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

[yoh]

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

[atomsk]

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

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

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

[SteyrAUG]

Originally Posted by mellowguy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Bayonets for teh win. lulz.

8. Makes sense to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. inorite?

8. nuff said

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

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

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

12. indeed

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

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

Originally Posted by yoh

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

1. As I've said before just ignore my thread if you don't like it. Complaining about it won't do any good. Just focus your attention elsewhere.

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

Originally Posted by atomsk

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



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

This is another great reason we kicked Japans ass in WWII. They were short handed on soldiers because their teachings were to commit suicide upon defeat.

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

[analogZero]

Originally Posted by SteyrAUG

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

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

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

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

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