Why are swords "better" than guns?

[teddyx]

guns are so much better than swords

[SteyrAUG]

Sorry I was away for so long. I pretty well lost interest in this place.

Originally Posted by Russkie

I was hoping to see this thread revived... but by an opinion that came from someone who actually mattered.

What a shame.

agreed i call BS on him supposedly killing a deer with a sword

Originally Posted by zanjii

lol so you could stab them and if still alive you pull the trigger and *KA-SPLOOSH* thats pretty.. i dunno

pretty stupid idea cause it'd still kb' in your face

Originally Posted by Vakarak

I'm still pretty much a gun fan... guns are THE BEST even though short ranged weapons like knives, broken bottles, cutlasses and rocks are used on more occasions than BOTH the sword and the gun...
N.B> rocks double as ranged weapons...
broken bottles triple as ranged weapons AND important magical ingredients (think OBEAH) >.>

I think a throwing knife would probably be a better ranged weapon than a broken bottle. Actually a knife overall would probably be better. For slashing the broken bottle probably doesn't cut as deep, for thrusting the ribcage can be somewhat helpful in deflecting the attack. If you break off the point in a wound you have to rebreak the bottle which might destroy it.

Originally Posted by LilLocs

As hol horse would say the gun is mightier than the sword in knights chess.
unless your away from the sword its not as good
but gun is better in most things.
i prefer the sword though more original.

The sword has been around for thousands of years. More people have died from the sword than from the gun so I doubt that's more original. Now killing someone with a toilet like in the boondock saints THAT is pretty original.

Originally Posted by lee matsu

i like plain ol combat skill ..martial arts ..."pam!!!!" wat u say ... TKO.. death by mere hands ..now thats ...skill

Your hands better won't block a bullet.

Originally Posted by partyprobe

Swords are more romantic. Every one has a dream or the urge to learn or carry a sword. It is mostly because we all see those or hear stories of samurai fighting for morals and there masters. But then there was the brutal side of swords that most dont relate to when thinking of swords.

Guns are just more savage. They may be more modern but they just lack the skill, athletic need, and the need to dedicate your life. sure people have reasons to use guns but i would just find it less enjoyable killing with a gun.

Swords just kick ass

I don't dream of carrying a sword. To me it's too bulky for a combat blade. A combat knife or bayonet would fulfill my needs for a blade and the firearm being the weapon of choice for the world would be my weapon of choice. Carry your sword if you wish, but see how far your skill can get you.

Originally Posted by fejknick

Swords have a longer history.
If you're coming from behind with a katana and he has a 9 mm in his waist.....He's not gonna be a problem. But if he's laying 1000 meters away from you in a dessert with a sniper rifle. Then sword might not be the best. ^^

If you have your sword and someone sneaks up behind you with a gun you are equally as screwed.

Originally Posted by Russkie

I agreed with everything except this.

Can you run 50 miles through a desert/jungle/wooded terrain while keeping your gun clean and in working order? Can you get to the 30 mile mark, find a good spot, and wait patiently for days until your target is within visible range? Can you accurately take out your target, evade capture, and then trek the 50 miles back?

Like the many idiots I have attempted to explain this to in the past, guns take a phenomenal amount of skill to master. It really is not "point and shoot" (unless your goal is to be bad with guns).

Yes, swords are cool and shiny. And I agree that they take skill. But please, remove your head out from that warm, comfy, and "oh, so familiar" place called your ass.

With or without a gun running 50 miles through any terrain would be quite an accomplishment. It also depends on the gun. If you have an M249 then holy fuck that's gotta be superman. If it's a beretta 92f then not as amazing but still amazing. XD

Originally Posted by Guardgirl

i think swords are better cuz u can cut someones head off with them guns r just weird i would perfer a sword over a gun anyday

If you hit someone in the head with a 7.62mm round from an M40 sniper rifle do you know what would happen? The head would probably explode.

Originally Posted by tentairyu

I say swords are better because it becomes a battle of techinque & strength and will.and if you do win then it is more meaningful because you were strong enough or crafty enough to pull out the deciding technique.with a gun technique still applies but a person who is low skilled can still kill anyone when conditions are in their favor.but for the elite such as a sniper you have to adjust for atmospheric and meteorlogical conditions and always maintain your weapon in top shape.however,the same must be done with a sword after a kill (in japan anyway)they shake the sword then with the index finger and thumb they rub the blood of the blade before they put away so the sword doesn't rust. of course you have to polish it and constantly check for fractures and other stuff too.I hate to say it but this is a push button society now. we have to ask how what is the best way to kill a person or we have to ask how can we kill X amount of people in one swoop. I wish we had gundams or valkyries.....

If you have a samurai and a modern soldier fighting sword vs gun it would probably be a battle of skill, but if it were you and me fighting sword and gun neither of us would be as ready for combat. In both situations the two combatants are either both trained for combat or both not trained. In that case the weapon seriously changes the tide of the battle. If the samurai charges at the soldier from 20 yards the soldier can draw his gun and shoot. That gives him a big advantage.

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. How many people out there who own guns actually are trained how to use them. With the number of guns owned by people in America very few of them have the training in the effective use. Military and police officers have to go through training with their weapons that instills the discipline to use the weapon effectivly. I have been around guns since I was born I have spent many years learning how to use a gun safely. Now adays the world of violence is ruled by the gun but before the gun is invented the sword ruled the world of the kill.

The weapon does not decide who lives or dies. Someone with a sword could go around killing innocent people. That has no impact on which weapon is going to get the job done in the battlefield.

[Chiyah]

Umm cause guns run out of bullets but swords are faster depends on what kind of sword

[fejknick]

I just remembered that a katana can stop a bullet.
So nuff said.

[suune]

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...

Well... badass or a total dim-wit. But, yeah I also prefer blades before guns.

[Russkie]

Originally Posted by fejknick

I just remembered that a katana can stop a bullet.
So nuff said.

Can you move a sword at 600 - 1200 fps?

Meaning, from the time it takes for the bullet to travel from the gun, to you, will you be able react quick enough? Quick enough to move the blade to the correct spot/angle, allowing the bullet to simply ricochet in another direction?

Enough said. (dumbass)

[fejknick]

Originally Posted by Russkie

Can you move a sword at 600 - 1200 fps?

Enough said. (dumbass)

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. -_-

[Russkie]

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. -_-

Three words: Tactical Nuclear Warhead.

Sure, thats overkill, but it gets the job done.

[fejknick]

Originally Posted by Russkie

Three words: Tactical Nuclear Warhead.

Sure, thats overkill, but it gets the job done.

Thats not a gun. The debate is about if swords or guns are better. A nuke is not a gun.

If you really thought that a nuke is a gun, then ill let you win for the obvious reasons.

[Russkie]

Originally Posted by fejknick

Thats not a gun. The debate is about if swords or guns are better. A nuke is not a gun.

If you really thought that a nuke is a gun, then ill let you win for the obvious reasons.

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"?