|
|
Post by pyronewbie on Oct 28, 2007 15:03:20 GMT -5
i prefer swords zangetsu is right any one can use again,also with a sword you need to take chance,of getting hurt,it seems more cowardly to use a gun
|
|
|
|
Post by red29216 on Oct 28, 2007 17:07:48 GMT -5
if the person has a poor stance with a sword, you would knock them down easy, while stance makes absolutly no difference in gun fights. Someone can still come up behind you and kill you with a sword if your not expecting it, no matter how skilled you may be with a sword. True, it requires more skill to kill someone with a sword than with a gun, but if the person using either weapon is unskilled, chances are you can disarm them. (That is, if you have some skill) |
|
eldurner
Psion Explorer
I always wanted super powers...
Posts: 112
|
Post by eldurner on Nov 4, 2007 22:12:19 GMT -5
depends on the situation/distance/skill of the wielder...
either way, both are murder if used to kill.
|
|
verdin
Psion
This is my art. Distortion.
Posts: 39
|
Post by verdin on Nov 4, 2007 22:56:32 GMT -5
I would choose swords mainly for the fact that a death by one can be made artistic. Where a gun just puts holes in the body, a sword can carve designs of wonder. Also a sword can be used to see behind you.
|
|
Zangetsu
Psion Explorer
Don't mess with him.
Posts: 199
|
Post by Zangetsu on Nov 11, 2007 21:54:02 GMT -5
i prefer swords zangetsu is right any one can use again,also with a sword you need to take chance,of getting hurt,it seems more cowardly to use a gun Exactly. I would choose swords mainly for the fact that a death by one can be made artistic. Where a gun just puts holes in the body, a sword can carve designs of wonder. Also a sword can be used to see behind you. Creepy and only a brand spankin' new sword in bright light, with a large blade can be used like that. Or if the sword was just recently cleaned, if not use a mirror. |
|
|
|
Post by Barriss Offee on Dec 19, 2007 18:42:09 GMT -5
Not that I condone this sort of thing, but I much prefer swords and that sort of weapon over guns. I mean, if you had to kill someone, a gun seems so ... impersonal. They wouldn't stand a chance. If you used a sword, you would have to come up, look them in the eye, and they would have a chance to fight back. (Although this wouldn't make much difference if you were a master of the blade, but still, it seems like a much nobler way to, er, commit murder. Of course, that's like an oxymoron right there ...  ) |
|
Kreigh
Psion
Im on at night usually, don't be mad if theres no reply
Posts: 35
|
Post by Kreigh on Dec 20, 2007 1:35:20 GMT -5
I prefer swords, it requires actuall skill, quick thinking, plus it's a good way to train the body.
While guns, the only skill you need is point acount for wind and distance. Then pull the trigger.
|
|
|
|
Post by red29216 on Jan 2, 2008 21:56:41 GMT -5
I think many of you are underestimating the skill required to use a gun. It is true, a skilled swordsmen trying to kill another skilled swordsmen is very difficult. But two guys with a gun fighting also requires skill.
Today guns are a reality. They are the new weapon. Guns are much more effective than swords. Yes, anyone can kill a man with a gun, but again, anyone can come up and kill a man with a sword too, if he's not expecting it.
|
|
|
|
Post by dash on Jan 2, 2008 22:41:11 GMT -5
out of those.. i say gun, because nobody uses swords anymore, anyone can just shoot someone though.. so if i had a real choice, i would fight hand to hand, no blades, no bullets, just a classic butt whooping (yeah im a redneck sometimes)
|
|
|
|
Post by psidan on Jan 2, 2008 23:49:50 GMT -5
To put it bluntly. Anyone who can just be 'shot in the chest and they're dead' would have eventually died even if someone used a sword. I say both are equal. Guns can be beautiful too. It is not a 'good kill' to put 20 bullets into someones chest to make them eventually die. It is however more skilled to either perfectly kill them with as little mess as possible or to shoot them exactly where needed to disable them, while the other person is doing all they can to stop them. If they die then they probably would have been killed that way with a sword except with more pain. Same thing with swords. You can get a beautiful cut that does what you intend it to do. Skilled sword and gun fights are both the same skill when dealing with professionals.
|
|
Ness
Amateur Psion
Posts: 55
|
Post by Ness on Jan 7, 2008 5:59:27 GMT -5
Guns are better in my opinion, but I would prefer a sword any day. I'm "hands on", if you will. |
|
Mat Ethers
Chat Mods
Chat Mod
Formerly Timelord
Posts: 140
|
Post by Mat Ethers on Jan 7, 2008 6:33:41 GMT -5
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.
I also believe swords although you have a much more personal "relationship" for lack of a better word, with the man you are fighting, it has less psychological impact as you know that the other guy had a chance. Going out into a field guns blazing no-one has a chance. Also it's much easier to non-fatally wound and disarm with swords which always leaves a bigger "let them live" option.
|
|
|
|
Post by Intrigue on Jan 7, 2008 19:18:19 GMT -5
I prefer a blade to a firearm any day-- partially because I do know swordplay. However, in either case, I hardly condone any form of murder, maiming, or general destruction. Generally, if you can get close to someone with a firearm (provided you're armed with a blade) it's somewhat more efficient at melee range than a weapon designed to kill from several hundred feet away.
On the same note, you can certainly shoot someone from five feet as easily as five hundred. It would revolve around the distances and events involved. But if you try to go melee with a firearm, it isn't going to work so well, especially if the swordsman has the advantage of surprise.
I think its something like 15-20 feet where a swordsman armed with a decent length blade can reach and hit a gunman before the weapon can be drawn or fired... Provided that the gun is holstered first, and you're unusually agile.
Furthermore, the idea that most swords are large and unwieldy is a myth. I fence, and I also know some German longsword (two handed blade). My rapier blade is some 4ish feet long, and since I'm nearly 6 foot, my arms certainly aren't short. Standing alone gives me a really nice reach, and a lunge can easily extend THAT by another few feet.
German longsword is a far cry from heavy. Those things can go fast. Scottish claymore....... Maybe. Even so, two handed weapons are designed so for ease of movement. Blades do NOT cut through metal plating, also known as ARMOR. It doesn't work. They're both made of STEEL. Steel does not routinely cut through steel. Unless one is made of significantly higher grade metal, it won't pierce it. Because of this, two handed weapons were designed with both hands in mind-- concussion damage. You can also place your hand on the blade (albeit carefully) and move extremely fast with very nasty aim to pierce those vulnerable bits in the joints.
You only need to pierce the skin by a finger's breadth to do start doing severe internal damage.
|
|
|
|
Post by red29216 on Jan 7, 2008 22:11:12 GMT -5
Perhaps you guys will not agree with me, but I believe the only honor that exists in fighting is fighting for something you strongly believe in. It doesn't matter what weapons you use. But fighting just for the glory or war? There is no honor in that. www.english.emory.edu/LostPoets/Dulce.htmlOne of my favorite poems, it is about WWI. |
|
|
|
Post by neopsychic on Jan 8, 2008 1:31:35 GMT -5
Guns < JediKaren with LightSaber > Swords
That's right, JK pwns everyone ^__^
|
|
)
