Why are swords "better" than guns?

SteyrAUG · 09-13-2008

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

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

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

shadowmaks · 09-13-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteyrAUG

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mugen

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteyrAUG

A badass and/or an idiot.

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

You could say that...

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

SteyrAUG · 09-13-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadowmaks

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