A1 said:As I already said, the amount of damage a gun can do varies depending on the kind of foe it's used against.

Armor you say? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armor-piercing_shot_and_shell]A1 said:But this advantage can be nullified easily enough through the use of strong enough armor or clothing
Armor slows you down, by the way.
This does not nullify the inherent advantage of using a gun. If one guy can run fast enough to dodge bullets, there will be another guy who knows how to lead a moving target.A1 said:or if the sword wielder is fast and agile enough to avoid being hit.
And this is of course assuming that the one using the gun is even a decent shot.
Effective range of 50 yards versus effective range of 1 or 2 yards.A1 said:This would be an especially significant issue in the case of handguns.
If one guy is competent at using a sword, there will be another guy who understands basic marksmanship.A1 said:Contrary to what you may have seen in movies, on television, in books, or in video games, hitting a target with a handgun is nowhere near as easy as it looks. Among the factors to consider are the the way you hold the gun, the way you grip the gun, the way you pull the trigger, and your stance.
Legendary reliability [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47]A1 said:Many guns also have to deal with the issue of jamming. On top of that, guns are often rendered useless if they get wet, which is yet another issue that sword wielders don't have to worry about.
"A particular requirement of the competition was the reliability of the firearm in the muddy, wet, and frozen conditions of the Soviet frontline."
Mo' dakka? [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmB-ME8i2bA&feature=related#t=49s]A1 said:Guns have the advantage of range. But one could plausibly argue that that is a gun's only advantage, and one which there are numerous ways to counteract.
Big swords do look pretty cool, though, sometimes.