Guns vs. Swords

[draiff]

Yeah that was gonna be my response...lightsabers all the way!

One thing you all must remember is that the sole purpose both guns and swords were made for the purpose of killing and no matter which is used, someone won't be coming home. Sadly, there must be death in order for life to exist, it is one of the things that keeps the world in balance.

Also, since you all love swords so much allow me to introduce you to the SCA! (Society for Creative Anachronism) Simply put it is a world-wide society for medieval reenactment which means learning to use a sword. While we don't use real swords, we use Rattan (half wood, half bamboo) so that way we can go all out and NOTHING is rehearsed. That means the victor of the battle relies completely on skill.

Anywho go to www.scademo.com and www.sca.org if you want to learn more. The first site is the best to get a general idea of what the SCA is.

[psidan]

Swords do not have to be for only killing. They can be used in a way to defend, not kill. How is a lightsaber, built to protect and defend, but has the ability to kill, any different from a sword? It's just how you use them. As for guns, same thing goes. Even though they can kill they can also defend, which usually means disabling your enemy but it doesn't have to mean killing.

Guns ruined warfare. A) It took away what little honour there was involved, B) Swords look a lot cooler and C) Swordsmanship allows for no only a battle of strength any old brute can be taught to shoot people true swordsman ship involves acting improvisation and wits guns are a bit Ready, Aim, Fire and boring.

First of all, who says swords look a lot cooler? Sure guns have the potential to kill easier but it's pretty much the same. Two dopes with a sword each. One will eventually just slice some random place or the other one will mess up and they'll die. Same with guns. If you take two experienced gun users however. It's not just point and shoot. They need to use their surroundings to defend them. How is this not acting improvisational? The only thing that changes with bullets being hard to block is they need to avoid it better. And swordsmanship shouldn't be a battle of strength, and it isn't. If someone way stronger then you slices down a 5 foot long, by 1 foot wide broadsword, against another weaker opponents 5 foot, 1 inch long sword. The weaker opponent would need to slip their sword out of the way of the bigger one and dodge the sword quickly enough so it harmlessly hits the ground. With two evenly strengthened and witted swordsmen, they would have to use tactics. Same thing with guns except they would run behind a tree for a moment to make the bullet harmlessly hit the tree or use tactics to make their opponent have to slow down. Sure it's easier to get in the 'lucky shot' but overall it's the same. I don't think anyone should underrate guns or swords as they both take an experienced person to use them but just use slightly different skills. It's not just point and shoot. As for the person having to get all up and personal when killing someone with a sword, they can still make themselves feel no emotion when killing that way just as they can make themselves kill without emotion while using a gun. And any gunman who's shot someone they can see or know has just as hard a time as a swordsman doing the same thing.

Personally I'd like two guns, a sword, and a dagger. The guns are for long range, a faster equivalent of the bow and arrow or cross-bow. Swords are for short range skilled combat, and a dagger is when you have to act quickly and your opponents watching you. Also useful when running through groups. Just stop thinking guns are just point and shoot people. Light-sabers are also cool. And I'm wondering how they work anyway. Is it a sort of handle which when activated brings out a straight rod of a different level of energy depending on the setting? Do Jedi use the force while making light-sabers? (Sorry. Heh. Not much of a StarWars geek, and I haven't been in the Astral.)

[brandonslau]

timelord said:

Guns ruined warfare. A) It took away what little honour there was involved, B) Swords look a lot cooler and C) Swordsmanship allows for no only a battle of strength any old brute can be taught to shoot people true swordsman ship involves acting improvisation and wits guns are a bit Ready, Aim, Fire and boring.

Yeahh what are you talking about? War has no honor lol. Yeah killing people doesn't exactly have honor.Anyway either way sword or gun you still are killing. If you want to fight with a sword go ahead but while Im loading up my gun for our battle just think who's gonna get the job done faster.

[psidan]

Oh there is honour in some gun and sword battles. Honour as in not attacking your opponent while they are looking away, cheating, etc. Which rarely happens unless in a duel but...

[Mat Ethers]

psidan said:

Swords do not have to be for only killing. They can be used in a way to defend, not kill. How is a lightsaber, built to protect and defend, but has the ability to kill, any different from a sword? It's just how you use them. As for guns, same thing goes. Even though they can kill they can also defend, which usually means disabling your enemy but it doesn't have to mean killing.

Guns ruined warfare. A) It took away what little honour there was involved, B) Swords look a lot cooler and C) Swordsmanship allows for no only a battle of strength any old brute can be taught to shoot people true swordsman ship involves acting improvisation and wits guns are a bit Ready, Aim, Fire and boring.

First of all, who says swords look a lot cooler? Sure guns have the potential to kill easier but it's pretty much the same. Two dopes with a sword each. One will eventually just slice some random place or the other one will mess up and they'll die. Same with guns. If you take two experienced gun users however. It's not just point and shoot. They need to use their surroundings to defend them. How is this not acting improvisational? The only thing that changes with bullets being hard to block is they need to avoid it better. And swordsmanship shouldn't be a battle of strength, and it isn't. If someone way stronger then you slices down a 5 foot long, by 1 foot wide broadsword, against another weaker opponents 5 foot, 1 inch long sword. The weaker opponent would need to slip their sword out of the way of the bigger one and dodge the sword quickly enough so it harmlessly hits the ground. With two evenly strengthened and witted swordsmen, they would have to use tactics. Same thing with guns except they would run behind a tree for a moment to make the bullet harmlessly hit the tree or use tactics to make their opponent have to slow down. Sure it's easier to get in the 'lucky shot' but overall it's the same. I don't think anyone should underrate guns or swords as they both take an experienced person to use them but just use slightly different skills. It's not just point and shoot. As for the person having to get all up and personal when killing someone with a sword, they can still make themselves feel no emotion when killing that way just as they can make themselves kill without emotion while using a gun. And any gunman who's shot someone they can see or know has just as hard a time as a swordsman doing the same thing.

Personally I'd like two guns, a sword, and a dagger. The guns are for long range, a faster equivalent of the bow and arrow or cross-bow. Swords are for short range skilled combat, and a dagger is when you have to act quickly and your opponents watching you. Also useful when running through groups. Just stop thinking guns are just point and shoot people. Light-sabers are also cool. And I'm wondering how they work anyway. Is it a sort of handle which when activated brings out a straight rod of a different level of energy depending on the setting? Do Jedi use the force while making light-sabers? (Sorry. Heh. Not much of a StarWars geek, and I haven't been in the Astral.)

Touche (wow second time I've used that word today).

I must admit that I didn't present that argument very well, I should know better I was almost on the state debating team.

Anyway I do see your point that guns can be used with just as much finesse as swords. That comment about swords looking cooler probably didn't contribute much to the debate as it was my own personal opinion.

And it could just be my own bias but I see a lot more skill involved in fighting with a sword than hiding behind random objects firing at people.

This however does not mean that I see a skilled swordsman and less talented than someone who can shoot a small coin from a mile away in heavy wind. But yes it's true give any two untrained men (or women) a sword and it is no different than two brutes with a gun.

However on a more professional level you have with guns: snipers, who have great skill but I see little honour in shooting a person who has practically no chance at survival from a mile or more away, and then you have those trained in handgun and hostage situations, etc. these men who can get that far into the personality of their enemies that they can walk into a room know where they're enemy be standing if they're holding a hostage how they'll be holding them and go into the room bang and take out all threats, these men/women I hold in high regards if you can know your enemies that well and have the skill to pull of something like that I hold you in high respects.

There is also another situation where there are the skilled guys on one side and a bunch of brutes with machine guns on the other when really the skilled guys don't have much of a chance. I think this is what really puts me off guns I think the fact that with the same amount of men and a heck of a lot more fire power you can win your battles with very little skill, whereas if you have the same amount of men with bigger swords, lets say for example a two handed sword against a much more talented swordsman with something the size of a scimitar that the more talented swordsman still has a pretty good chance.

And then on the sword side you don't really have that many variations there is at it's core the close combat swordsman who at the professional level are capable of predicting their enemies blows and defending against them while at the same time placing their own blows as compared to a sniper with a gun sitting a mile and a half away.


So I am by no means saying that there is less skill involved in professional shooting or swordsman ship. Rather that I see a higher potential for unfairness to the side which isn't skilled with bigger guns than with 2 opposing sides and one with bigger swords. And that guns don't take away the skill rather that bigger rapid fire guns take away the need for it, and that snipers take away the fairness because the other guy never had a chance.


There we go I think that post is much more intelligible than my last one.

[red29216]

However on a more professional level you have with guns: snipers, who have great skill but I see little honour in shooting a person who has practically no chance at survival from a mile or more away.

*Note, my argument is just apart that part of your quote".

Maybe there is no honor for a sniper, but I would sooner burn any honor I had than risk my life for something that I could accomplish just as easily from a mile away. You find that selfish? Consider this. If I had a wife and children, which would they care about? My honor or survival?

[Mat Ethers]

*Note, my argument is just apart that part of your quote".

Maybe there is no honor for a sniper, but I would sooner burn any honor I had than risk my life for something that I could accomplish just as easily from a mile away. You find that selfish? Consider this. If I had a wife and children, which would they care about? My honor or survival?

Very true. But who's to say that whoever you are sniping doesn't have his or her own family. What is it that makes your life more valuable than his?

[red29216]

It all depends on who your killing, as any intentional death does.

[Mat Ethers]

That is true although from there you start a whole new debate about why it is you are morally superior over that other person and personal biases, taking the law into your own hands, etc., but I do agree with you some people just need to be shot.

[brandonslau]

psidan said:

Oh there is honour in some gun and sword battles. Honour as in not attacking your opponent while they are looking away, cheating, etc. Which rarely happens unless in a duel but...

what is the honor of competeing to see which guy's team people dies the most.

[Mat Ethers]

The honour is not war, but rather what happens in war and the individuals. One man may kill another while he is not looking, another may leave a man be until he is fully capable of defending himself. The honour isn't in the killing, it is in how you kill and retain your humanity while killing. When men are forced to kill they do not have to do it inhumanely.

[onine]

I never even held a gun but I have 2 swords... one is a decorative ritual sword and the other is a claymore. this guy I know has a red and black katana.

[shaamansu]

A smart warrior goes to battle with more than one kind of weapon, one in particular is the ability think ahead.

[onine]

and a smart general wins the war before he goes to battle. ;D

[red29216]

psidan said:

Honour as in not attacking your opponent while they are looking away, cheating, etc. Which rarely happens unless in a duel but...

I completely disagree. If I had a chance to pull out a cheap shot in a fight, I would defiantly take advantage of the situation. I'm not going to warn someone before I strike them, they will have a better chance of winning if I do.

Many of you seem to have a false sense of honor. Children ardent for some desperate glory.