Swords are a weapon for cowards V2.0

[Desert_Fox_Rommel]

Ninth Pariah

Hoshioni

well how is everone and whod wanna live in a custom made trailer tank?????

Nobody builds a Killdozer to live in it. You build a Killdozer to die in it.


http://olilolo.com/images/killdozer2.jpg

Yes that s**t's real, and those are cops on the roof of it there.

He shouldn't have encased it in concrete though. All the extra weight is what ultimately destroyed the killdozer. Without it his rampage could have lasted longer.

[zair3]

black_wing_angel

Ninth Pariah

Hoshioni

well how is everone and whod wanna live in a custom made trailer tank?????

Nobody builds a Killdozer to live in it. You build a Killdozer to die in it.


http://olilolo.com/images/killdozer2.jpg

Yes that s**t's real, and those are cops on the roof of it there.

I remember that. Somewhere in Colorado. The armor was concrete and steel, and the military was within minutes of calling in an air strike, when he finally got stuck, and shot himself, to avoid being arrested.

All because he disagreed with City Councel, and felt ignored.

an airstrike? bulshit its just a ******** bulldozer, drive up behind it and slap some c4 on and your good to go, or you could even try to get him out alive if you hop on the back, drill a hole and put in some happy gass.

[M. Angel]

In response to OP, I found that there was a few arguments that was not listed in terms of swords.

-I'm not sure if this is a pro or a con, but if one is wielding a sword then it is easier to get away if you are defenseless. We've all seen examples of say school shootings or someone opening up in a crown of innocents. Had these people been using swords then fewer lives would be lost in my opinion.

-If you are in a one on one fight with someone and you're both using swords, then skill is needed for the battle. This isn't the same skill as mentioned in the OP. I say skill as being able to either be defensive or offensive in what you do. In a gunfight you can't block your opponents attacks and retaliate. You can only take cover and retaliate when the opportunity arrives.

The ability to block an opponents attack to me seems less cowardly.

And nobody should be saying that you can shoot the other persons bullet in mid air. xP

[M. Angel]

Oh, and you don't have to worry about running out of ammo with swords.

[Fresnel]

zair3

black_wing_angel

Ninth Pariah

Hoshioni

well how is everone and whod wanna live in a custom made trailer tank?????

Nobody builds a Killdozer to live in it. You build a Killdozer to die in it.


http://olilolo.com/images/killdozer2.jpg

Yes that s**t's real, and those are cops on the roof of it there.

I remember that. Somewhere in Colorado. The armor was concrete and steel, and the military was within minutes of calling in an air strike, when he finally got stuck, and shot himself, to avoid being arrested.

All because he disagreed with City Councel, and felt ignored.

an airstrike? bulshit its just a ******** bulldozer, drive up behind it and slap some c4 on and your good to go, or you could even try to get him out alive if you hop on the back, drill a hole and put in some happy gass.

It was a bulldozer with five rifles on it. They put a semitrailer in its way to stop it. It went THROUGH. And because of the way cement crumbles, the C4 would have done little.

[Half Wasian]

One of the big things that bothered me about your post OP was how you claimed guns takes skill to use, while swords do not. That is an extremely ignorant statement. It takes much less skill to kill someone with a gun, then it does with a sword. With a gun, you point and pull the trigger. Easy. Skill only becomes an issue when it's an extreme situation. I'm not saying using a gun effectively doesn't take skill, I'm saying killing someone with one is extremely simple in most cases.

Let me give an example. The guy you are trying to kill is standing at a moderate distance away from you. Without needing to get close to him, you can injure him and most likely kill him with a well placed shot or enough bullets.

With a sword, you need to get up close and personal, and then you have to worry about whether or not the enemy is armed, and what he may try to do to defend himself. Using a sword is not a sure kill, the enemy can dodge, parry, or even take a blow and still attack if the blow isn't fatal. When someone's shooting at you, however, there's really nothing you can do other than hope there's cover nearby for you to hide behind if he misses the first few shots. That's a big thing to hope for.

In conclusion: Swords take more skill to use effectively than guns.

[GunsmithKitten]

Quote:

-If you are in a one on one fight with someone and you're both using swords, then skill is needed for the battle. This isn't the same skill as mentioned in the OP. I say skill as being able to either be defensive or offensive in what you do. In a gunfight you can't block your opponents attacks and retaliate. You can only take cover and retaliate when the opportunity arrives.

But guess what? If your reflexes aren't as honed and you don't have that ability to reflexively put a shot into someone despite your body's panic reactions, you're just as dead.

And developing those reflexes TAKES SKILL.

[GunsmithKitten]

M. Angel

Oh, and you don't have to worry about running out of ammo with swords.

But you DO have to worry about them chipping, breaking, dulling, improper weight balance, coming loose from the grip...

[GunsmithKitten]

Quote:

One of the big things that bothered me about your post OP was how you claimed guns takes skill to use, while swords do not. That is an extremely ignorant statement

.

it was also SACARASTIC

Quote:

It takes much less skill to kill someone with a gun, then it does with a sword. With a gun, you point and pull the trigger. Easy.

If firearm combat was that easy, you'd be right.

Too bad there's a myriad of factors that make it chaotic, hell on the body, and causes things to happen that HINDER THE VERY BIOLOGICAL PROCESSES THAT MAKE ACCURATE SHOOTING.

Quote:

Skill only becomes an issue when it's an extreme situation. I'm not saying using a gun effectively doesn't take skill, I'm saying killing someone with one is extremely simple in most cases.

Is that why most shots fired in gun battles MISS?

Quote:

Let me give an example. The guy you are trying to kill is standing at a moderate distance away from you. Without needing to get close to him, you can injure him and most likely kill him with a well placed shot or enough bullets.

Assuming I've got the reflexes of course to be able to calmly draw my weapon, squeeze the trigger AND reflexively aim for center of mass before he closes on me.

Quote:

With a sword, you need to get up close and personal, and then you have to worry about whether or not the enemy is armed, and what he may try to do to defend himself.

Says who? Knights were more than willing to chop down peasants who looked like they weren't armed. The knights at Beziers and Languedoc literally waded into crowds swinging wildly and racking up quite a body count.

Quote:

Using a sword is not a sure kill, the enemy can dodge, parry, or even take a blow and still attack if the blow isn't fatal.

Same with firearms.

[Half Wasian]

GunsmithKitten

Quote:

-If you are in a one on one fight with someone and you're both using swords, then skill is needed for the battle. This isn't the same skill as mentioned in the OP. I say skill as being able to either be defensive or offensive in what you do. In a gunfight you can't block your opponents attacks and retaliate. You can only take cover and retaliate when the opportunity arrives.

But guess what? If your reflexes aren't as honed and you don't have that ability to reflexively put a shot into someone despite your body's panic reactions, you're just as dead.

And developing those reflexes TAKES SKILL.

In all honesty I think the reflexes need to parry consecutive attacks from an enemy wielding a sword are greater than those needed to point a gun at your target and fire quickly.

[GunsmithKitten]

Half Wasian

GunsmithKitten

Quote:

-If you are in a one on one fight with someone and you're both using swords, then skill is needed for the battle. This isn't the same skill as mentioned in the OP. I say skill as being able to either be defensive or offensive in what you do. In a gunfight you can't block your opponents attacks and retaliate. You can only take cover and retaliate when the opportunity arrives.

But guess what? If your reflexes aren't as honed and you don't have that ability to reflexively put a shot into someone despite your body's panic reactions, you're just as dead.

And developing those reflexes TAKES SKILL.

In all honesty I think the reflexes need to parry consecutive attacks from an enemy wielding a sword are greater than those needed to point a gun at your target and fire quickly.

Perhaps so, but that leads to my other point; why is this a bad thing?

Also, have you taken a formal handgun or any other firearms training course? Not for hunting, but for personal defense?

[Half Wasian]

GunsmithKitten

Half Wasian

GunsmithKitten

Quote:

-If you are in a one on one fight with someone and you're both using swords, then skill is needed for the battle. This isn't the same skill as mentioned in the OP. I say skill as being able to either be defensive or offensive in what you do. In a gunfight you can't block your opponents attacks and retaliate. You can only take cover and retaliate when the opportunity arrives.

But guess what? If your reflexes aren't as honed and you don't have that ability to reflexively put a shot into someone despite your body's panic reactions, you're just as dead.

And developing those reflexes TAKES SKILL.

In all honesty I think the reflexes need to parry consecutive attacks from an enemy wielding a sword are greater than those needed to point a gun at your target and fire quickly.

Perhaps so, but that leads to my other point; why is this a bad thing?

Also, have you taken a formal handgun or any other firearms training course? Not for hunting, but for personal defense?

I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Gun's are obviously more effective killing tools than swords. They're more lethal, they're lethal from extreme ranges, and they take little skill to use. However, using them effectively in extreme situation of course does take skill.

No I have not, why do you ask? My experience with guns is a recreational one. I've fired anything from pistols to sniper rifles several times. And without any training, I'm very accurate.

[GunsmithKitten]

Quote:

'm not saying it's a bad thing. Gun's are obviously more effective killing tools than swords. They're more lethal, they're lethal from extreme ranges, and they take little skill to use. However, using them effectively in extreme situation of course does take skill.

Target shooting is easy. Combat shooting, that's a MUCH different beast.

Quote:

No I have not, why do you ask? My experience with guns is a recreational one. I've fired anything from pistols to sniper rifles several times. And without any training, I'm very accurate.

You think you'll be as accurate when your adrenaline has kicked in, your blood sugar is skyrocketing, your vision narrows to the focused threat, your respiration increases, your blood vessels dilate, and almost every biological skill including judgement, depth perception and situational awareness that affects successful aim is affected?

[Half Wasian]

GunsmithKitten

Quote:

'm not saying it's a bad thing. Gun's are obviously more effective killing tools than swords. They're more lethal, they're lethal from extreme ranges, and they take little skill to use. However, using them effectively in extreme situation of course does take skill.

Target shooting is easy. Combat shooting, that's a MUCH different beast.

Quote:

No I have not, why do you ask? My experience with guns is a recreational one. I've fired anything from pistols to sniper rifles several times. And without any training, I'm very accurate.

You think you'll be as accurate when your adrenaline has kicked in, your blood sugar is skyrocketing, your vision narrows to the focused threat, your respiration increases, your blood vessels dilate, and almost every biological skill including judgement, depth perception and situational awareness that affects successful aim is affected?

Yes, that would be considered an 'extreme' situation.

Most likely not. But don't you think those same physical conditions would apply when in an intense sword fight? I know my adrenaline would be pumping just as much if I was getting shot at, than if someone was charging at me with a sword.

Now the closest thing to a combat situation that I've been in is playing paintball. And my aim actually increases while I'm in a 'firefight'. If you get similar adrenaline in a firefight with live ammunition, I can only imagine it would heighten your senses and reflexes if you took advantage of said adrenaline.

[darkbite10]

i feel that both guns and blades have their merits and cons. for example if a swat team or team of marines needed to take down some one, or a group of people silently you cant use a gun for that, and it is not dishonorable because they are doing their jobs in the most efficient way. The cons of the sword is that it is hard to hide and that without training you could hurt yourself just as much as the person that you are trying to hurt. With a gun, yes you need training, and yes it can be difficult, but the only reason that you would train that much is to be prepared for a competition, or if your in the military. saying this the gun is virtually easy to use, almost anyone can pick up a gun and kill someone; all they need to do is point, shoot, reload, repeat. But it is their simplicity, efficiency, and deadliness that make them the better weapon, in certain situations.