Why are swords "better" than guns?

[analogZero]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPlCQBNSrIo

ultimate answer to this thread.

edit: click it to watch on youtube then, sorry folks!

[salmeria]

its not working..^^

[Axe Man]

cause swords look cooler.

[Rincewind]

No we all know that axe man doesnt love guns or swords, he loves AXES:P!

[a2ng0d]

AUG. i can't believe that for the past seven pages no one has told you that double posting is not allowed.

anyways; you make an excellent point, swords are obsolete. that quote by the Japanese guy where the gun is useless in close combat probably refers to the Springfield rifles of the 1860s that took 3 min (if you were pro) to load and fire. but with the invention of auto and semi auto weapons, i agree that a gun and combat/survival knife (just in case) is all you need on the battlefield. and as russkie says, never bring a knife to a gunfight, because it will be over before the ammo runs out.

[analogZero]

Originally Posted by a2ng0d

AUG. i can't believe that for the past seven pages no one has told you that double posting is not allowed.

anyways; you make an excellent point, swords are obsolete. that quote by the Japanese guy where the gun is useless in close combat probably refers to the Springfield rifles of the 1860s that took 3 min (if you were pro) to load and fire. but with the invention of auto and semi auto weapons, i agree that a gun and combat/survival knife (just in case) is all you need on the battlefield. and as russkie says, never bring a knife to a gunfight, because it will be over before the ammo runs out.

double posting was mentioned...as was editing...both were ignored for some reason...
and think back a little further, around early 1600's. Miyamoto Musashi lived from 1584-1645. think longer reload times. Book of five rings is an interesting read though.

[Tairash]

I would rather use a sword then a gun. i think guns are for weaklings
and sword for the true warriors

[SteyrAUG]

Originally Posted by analogZero

the internet is not to guns what words are to reality. that's backwards and confusing, and you'd lose marks on your SAT's for that. Take the analogy as it is. would saying something heavily opinionated to someone be easier to do if they were on the other end of the internet, or would it be easier to do it in person. people are going to fight back, be it an opinion or a bullet, and that other person is going to be fighting for their life as much as you are. The only means by which to succeed IS to outbalance them, to grant yourself advantage. Be it a gun or a blade or a battle axe or you knowledge of kung fu/MMA. Weapons are an easy means by which to gain the upper hand. true balance is in fact neutrality.
All I said, was that you're less of a poof if you want to actually get your hands dirty, rather than squeezing a little trigger to make something die.

In person or online I will say things to others that are offensive. I don't care either way. In an opinionated matter killing has more or less value to you depending on the means of killing. To me killing is killing plain and simple.

Originally Posted by a2ng0d

AUG. i can't believe that for the past seven pages no one has told you that double posting is not allowed.

anyways; you make an excellent point, swords are obsolete. that quote by the Japanese guy where the gun is useless in close combat probably refers to the Springfield rifles of the 1860s that took 3 min (if you were pro) to load and fire. but with the invention of auto and semi auto weapons, i agree that a gun and combat/survival knife (just in case) is all you need on the battlefield. and as russkie says, never bring a knife to a gunfight, because it will be over before the ammo runs out.

In most cases I don't double post but when I'm gone for extended periods of time I don't feel like copying and pasting all the stuff to respond to.

As for the 1860's black powder rifles I heard in my Civil War class that a seasoned soldier could get 2 maybe 3 shots off in a minute if he hauled ass. Even then when a ball and cap gun has neither the ball nor the cap the gun is still not completely useless. The firearm itself can be the instrument of destruction rather than the projectiles it propels.

Originally Posted by analogZero

double posting was mentioned...as was editing...both were ignored for some reason...
and think back a little further, around early 1600's. Miyamoto Musashi lived from 1584-1645. think longer reload times. Book of five rings is an interesting read though.

1. I said too late because the double posts were already done. I did not ignore them. I said I was too lazy to go back and edit the posts.
2. When I noticed that double posting was not allowed I stopped.

Originally Posted by Tairash

I would rather use a sword then a gun. i think guns are for weaklings
and sword for the true warriors

Perhaps one of the reasons the sword is such a popular weapon is the martial arts behind it. I recall one martial arts instructor saying to work smart not hard.

[a2ng0d]

Originally Posted by SteyrAUG

As for the 1860's black powder rifles I heard in my Civil War class that a seasoned soldier could get 2 maybe 3 shots off in a minute if he hauled ass. Even then when a ball and cap gun has neither the ball nor the cap the gun is still not completely useless. The firearm itself can be the instrument of destruction rather than the projectiles it propels.

however to use the gun as a blunt object, you'd have to put it into position (we're talking about back in the day rifles). the stock could be used to own someone, but only if you position it so that the gun is raised above your head and the stock smashes downward. you won't do much damage otherwise, as the barrel is weak. this is where the gun becomes a heavy, clumsy close combat weapon. and you cannot miss, because you only have one chance to swing at (and hit) your enemy. at close combat, the sword would over power the gun with its graceful movement that allows multiple swings and maneuvers. and, the sword can be used to parry, where the gun can only used defensively to block blows (in which you must use movement to get into the weapon into a defensive position thus wasting time). in this case, i would much rather use a sword in a close combat situation (on the battlefield of course).

and one more point: the bayonet. it turns the firearm into a spear basically. however, the sword > the spear, especially a hollow one, for the sword has more maneuverability than spears do.

a sword can chop, sweep, slash, and thrust.

a spear can thrust, and sweep.

a gun fixed with a bayonet has no reach, therefore it cannot sweep, and so it is limited only to thrust action.

despite this argument, i still think guns are the overall better weapons, as long as they are loaded.

[analogZero]

Originally Posted by a2ng0d

despite this argument, i still think guns are the overall better weapons, as long as they are loaded.

hahaha, yes.