Poll: Swords vs. Guns

[Bob the Average]

The most effective weapon of war is the human mind.

With a proper mindset, anything and everything becomes a weapon. You could use bath towel to kill people! But you must have the will to do so. Without the will to harm and kill, a sword and a rifle are both equally useless as weapons.

A weapon is merely a tool. It is not the weapon that kills, it is the will and intent of the human behind it.

thank you that is exactly my thoughts on the matter summed up nice and concisely.(as apposed to my rambling roundabout style.)

 

[Umwerfer]

why the bow choice in a poll putting swords against guns? Never really thought of it before that, but bows are awesome Since we're onto other weapons, why not go melee unarmed? unlimited ammo, no need to sharpen your fists and less messy xD

 

[AtticusSP]

Both are for pussies.
Men use fists only.

 

[ChosenLord]

People who own guns are cowards who fear for there life because they know they're in the wrong,

I'd like to see you come visit the military base I served in and tell that to the assembled troops....

EDIT: after you come and tell that my grandfather (who lost his leg to a Russian mine during the Continuation war at '43).

no comment on civilians owning guns.

People who own swords are noble and are out for honour or revenge.

Oh, right, now I get it. You're joking. Because otherwise you wouldn't have written that. No-one lives with their head that much in the world of fiction.

There is something almost.... i cant describe it, when two men (sorry ladys) have a duel with swords, neither has a lack of respect and either is prepared to die,

And how does that not apply to duels with 18th century pistols?

With Guns its the goal to kill kill kill,

How does that differ from what swords are used for? To learn swordmanship is learning to kill.

with no honour or respect, hide behind cover and take pot shots, lilly livered cowards, or even worse, hide behind another country and fire massive Rockets from miles away?? where is the sense of achievement?

Ah, so you are walking with your head in the cloud of fiction. What a romantized (and utterly BS) view on things. Unfortunately that's what popular novels and fiction is portraying. Sigh....

I'd love to come to the army base you served in and tell each and every soldier to put down there weapons!! I gather you mean Guns are used as a deterrent to violence? "were fighting for peace?"

And you're Grandaddy ( Mucho Respect ) Knew what would be instore for him if he was advancing on enemy lines with a gun, I think some one put it well saying that guns have brought distance and detachment to war/death whatever. All i'm saying is its not very chivalrous.

18th century pistol duels is the same thing, 10 paces a sundown, because of the mass production and distribution of pistols, and because of the state of the nation then, ppl found it necessary to carry guns, ( dont bring a paint ball gun to biological warfare )

Do you think (in ye old days) people practise shooting each other? NO, but people practised sword fights because it was a skill, an art of out smarting and manoeuvring your opponent so they accepted that they were defeated, not cold heartedly gunning them down from miles away,

Its like that icthy and scratchy sketch where they consecutively pull out bigger and bigger weapons. to what end?

Unfortunately popular novels and fiction is something I care little for (bar the obvious exceptions) But i understand you're view point, and you're justified in you're response, i think less people would die in a war situation if they were faced with having to get almost face to face with the "enemy"

 

[Durahan2]

Both are for pussies.
Men use fists only.

I'd rather be called a pussy then a dead man lol

 

[Syphonz]

what would Dante choose?

 

[Thatkidnooneknows]

A weapon is merely a tool. It is not the weapon that kills, it is the will and intent of the human behind it.

This is what I was trying to get to. Weapons are inactimate objects, they have no honor attatched to them. It's the person holding that weapon. Before guns, horrible crimes were commited with swords. Anyone who thinks swords are more honorable are clearly under the influance that only heros use swords.

Well then what about the Crusades? Swords, maces, lances, pikes, etc. were used to kill innocent people. Hell some of the soldiers raped and even canniblized do to lack of supplies. Most used swords, oh real honorable.[/quote]

I'm upholding the honor of the object, and what I believe it symbolizes, not the people who wielded it. People are just as capable of becoming psychos with swords, it's just not as easy to live with.

[

I could argue that the killing force does come from me in a Rube Goldberg style way.

That would be true with a crossbow, but not with a gun, the difference is when you add the force of the gunpowder to propel the bullet

ok now that is just splitting hairs.[/quote]

I don't believe I'm splitting hairs, with a crossbow, you crank it back, and fire it using your own force. I don't like the crossbow, but at least it doesn't use a chemical compound to fire the bolt.

 

[ChosenLord]

I've owned and used knives, swords, axes and staves on various objects. I still didn't feel as powerful with those as when I got to fill a target full of lead with a 9mm.

With great power comes great responsibility - NO such person should bare that burden, or shall they ever. is it our sick need to dominate?

 

[Durahan2]

Unfortunately popular novels and fiction is something I care little for (bar the obvious exceptions) But i understand you're view point, and you're justified in you're response, i think less people would die in a war situation if they were faced with having to get almost face to face with the "enemy"

Sad thing is people fight in wars for what they believe in, what weapons and how close really won't matter. Besides some old roman wars had more losses then some of our modern ones. Realitive to the population sizes of the forces and countries. Bigger forces mean bigger loses no matter what.

I know I'm saying a lot but you guys keep comeing up with new points that really don't make any sence XD

*edit* kid are you not listening to me? I'm going to say it one last time really slowly.. Swords don't have any honor. There is no honor to uphold because the object has no honor. The honor comes from the person holding the weapon. So when you say the honor of the object, you're talking about the honor of the person holding that object. Because it's all realitive.
In the end symbolism means nothing, it changes from culture to culture. Hell in some it might mean death, or war.

 

[Queen Michael]

Pirates use swords, ninjas use swords, I use swords. That's why I like Deadpool; he's a swordswinger and a gunslinger.

 

[Scizophrenic Llama]

Apparently I am the only person here currently that is badass enough to use fists. I'm glad I can deviate from the average.

 

[Thatkidnooneknows]

Ok guys I added Both, Fists, and Spatula as options, and I'm probably going to go to bed pretty soon and pick this up tomorrow, because over here its 5:00 in the morning

 

[ChosenLord]

Unfortunately popular novels and fiction is something I care little for (bar the obvious exceptions) But i understand you're view point, and you're justified in you're response, i think less people would die in a war situation if they were faced with having to get almost face to face with the "enemy"

Sad thing is people fight in wars for what they believe in, what weapons and how close really won't matter. Besides some old roman wars had more losses then some of our modern ones. Realitive to the population sizes of the forces and countries. Bigger forces mean bigger loses no matter what.

I know I'm saying a lot but you guys keep comeing up with new points that really don't make any sence XD

Thanks for that but i think morality has evolved to the point where modern day soldiers are excused from battle because they have seen "enough" action, there is no glory in death unlike ancient belief, and not all ppl go to war because of what they believe in, to most soldiers its a job, and you do what you're told by you superiors, do you think the majority of the ppl in Afghanistan and Iraq are there because they believe they are "doing the right thing?" its quite often the case of the lesser of 2 evils.

 

[Durahan2]

Unfortunately popular novels and fiction is something I care little for (bar the obvious exceptions) But i understand you're view point, and you're justified in you're response, i think less people would die in a war situation if they were faced with having to get almost face to face with the "enemy"

Sad thing is people fight in wars for what they believe in, what weapons and how close really won't matter. Besides some old roman wars had more losses then some of our modern ones. Realitive to the population sizes of the forces and countries. Bigger forces mean bigger loses no matter what.

I know I'm saying a lot but you guys keep comeing up with new points that really don't make any sence XD

Thanks for that but i think morality has evolved to the point where modern day soldiers are excused from battle because they have seen "enough" action, there is no glory in death unlike ancient belief, and not all ppl go to war because of what they believe in, to most soldiers its a job, and you do what you're told by you superiors, do you think the majority of the ppl in Afghanistan and Iraq are there because they believe they are "doing the right thing?" its quite often the case of the lesser of 2 evils.

In the end what do some of our soldiers believe in, the almighty dollar. And I didn't mean to insult anyone, I just can't make sence out of some of these points.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

Swords are too heavy and unwieldy, but a good combat knife can be a very efficient weapon under the right circumstances e.g. situations where stealth is required, areas with low visibility and confined, cluttered spaces.

The answer to anything else is a gun. And if that doesn't work, use more guns.

Oh, and whoever said that using a sword requires more skill: try hitting a moving object more than a couple meters away with a pistol. I assure you, in real life its HARD.

 

[Zacharine]

18th century pistol duels is the same thing, 10 paces a sundown, because of the mass production and distribution of pistols, and because of the state of the nation then, ppl found it necessary to carry guns, ( dont bring a paint ball gun to biological warfare )

Do you think (in ye old days) people practise shooting each other? NO, but people practised sword fights because it was a skill, an art of out smarting and manoeuvring your opponent so they accepted that they were defeated, not cold heartedly gunning them down from miles away,

Its like that icthy and scratchy sketch where they consecutively pull out bigger and bigger weapons. to what end?

Okay, my main point of contention with you on this issue:

War is not glorious or noble. Combat is not glorious or noble. Fighting is not glorious or noble. Never has been, never will be. A sword is just as reprehensible as a rifle.

People practised with their swords, because that was the main weapon of war for them. People practised with bows for the same reason. As well as riding. Later this turned into learning to shoot with pistols and rifles. The reason you don't see people doing that in their back yards these days is simple: Firearms are much easier to learn than acceptable proficiency with a melee weapon. Firearms did away with the need to practise movements, positions and strikes for 10 years before you had an acceptable chance to survive real combat.

These days swordmanship might be seen as a novelty, as well as with competetive martial arts, but the roots stay the same: A directed, thought out and tried method of wounding and killing the enemy. Swordmanship is seen as noble because mostly only the rich people, the nobles, had enough money to buy a horse, to buy decent armor and a good sword and had enough free time to become proficient with it. A peasant was simply given a spear and a week (with luck) of training as a unit (because a spear is a horrendous weapon when in 1-on-1 combat) before being sent to battle. A peasant rarely practised at his own, because he didn't have the money for the quipment, no time and no energy after trying to scrape enough for survival.

But I'm with you on the big guns issue and I'm against civilians owning firearms for just 'protection'. As the destructive capability of weapons grow, humanity has less and less of a possibility to recover from the use of such weapons. We can only hope we mature as a society to learn to handle such power responsibly.

 

[Thatkidnooneknows]

*edit* kid are you not listening to me? I'm going to say it one last time really slowly.. Swords don't have any honor. There is no honor to uphold because the object has no honor. The honor comes from the person holding the weapon. So when you say the honor of the object, you're talking about the honor of the person holding that object. Because it's all realitive.

The above didn't seem to be adressed to me, but I'm going to respond anyway. I don't see actual honor in a sword when I see one, I simply see a tool that I train with. But when I look at the sword as a symbol, representative of what it is, was, and stands for, I believe that it invokes a sense of honor.

 

[Durahan2]

But I'm with you on the big guns issue and I'm against civilians owning firearms for just 'protection'. As the destructive capability of weapons grow, humanity has less and less of a possibility to recover from the use of such weapons. We can only hope we mature as a society to learn to handle such power responsibly.

Theres a quote for this "Can't stop crazy people, from doing crazy things, with crazy laws."
In the end all restrictions of weapons mean less in the hands of good mature people. Laws don't stop crazy people from destroying things(lives included).

*edit* kid, I do this because I don't want to double post. I'm not just calling you out.
Thats your honor then, not the swords. You can feel the same way with guns, or any other weapon.