Why are swords "better" than guns?

[mmelisaa]

I think swords are just cooler. :D

[Holly-Sama]

Originally Posted by contrast

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]

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

[SteyrAUG]

Originally Posted by analogZero

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]

Originally Posted by Axe Man

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]

i dont know why

[analogZero]

Originally Posted by SteyrAUG

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]

Originally Posted by analogZero

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]

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]

Originally Posted by justblazze

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

One 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.