Half Wasian
black_wing_angel
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.
Correction, it was an extremely SARCASTIC statement.
Quote:
It takes much less skill to kill someone with a gun, then it does with a sword.
*deep breath*
WAAAAAAAAAAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Quote:
With a gun, you point and pull the trigger. Easy.
With a sword, you hold and swing. Easy.
Quote:
Skill only becomes an issue when it's an extreme situation.
If my life rests in the barrel of my gun, I think that's a pretty extreme situation. Don't you?
Quote:
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.
Swing and a miss, kiddo. It's not as easy as it looks. Especially if you happen to be someone who has difficulty with the thought of killing another human being.
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.
Keyword: Well placed!
That's the hard part. Getting that little chunk of lead to go to that "well placed" zone, is not an easy task.
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.
I fail to see how this is missing from a gunfight.
Oh, and just because guns can kill at a distance, doesn't mean they usually are used that way. Unless you're using a sniper rifle, which makes up a VAST MINIORITY of gun related activities, you are likely every bit as close to your enemy, as you are in a sword fight.
You know all those shootings being done between the bloods and cripps? usually less than 10 feet of distance between them. Often less than 5.
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. 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.
If he's sniping you. If he has a handgun, and you're more than a certain distance away (which depends on the skill of the shooter), you can greatly improve your odds. Very few people are capable of landing a shot, with a pistol, from more than probably 30 yards.
Quote:
In conclusion: Swords take more skill to use effectively than guns.
In conclusion: You have no idea what the ******** you're talking about.
*facepalm* God I hate replying to stuck up bastards who dissect posts and write a snide comment for every sentence. It's obnoxious. Oh well.
I do this, so I don't have to do a bullet list at the bottom, to address each of your points. Because I find it more annoying to have to constantly scroll up and down, to find out what you're replying to, and what your reply is. Like I'm having to do, right now.
stare
With the way I do it, you can literally just read top to bottom. It's neater.
Quote:
-Does it really make a difference?
Well, yeah. Kinda.
Let's try an example. If I said "Boy, I'm having the time of my ******** life!" Does it matter if I'm being sarcastic or not?
The answer is yes. Because the difference is whether I'm ACTUALLY saying that I'm having fun, or if I'm ACTUALLY saying that I'm bored out of my ******** skull.
That's a pretty big difference, isn't it?
Quote:
-Well thought out and educated response. It was thoroughly enlightening.
-Right, because the enemy is just going to stand there and take it. If you're shooting at someone who was just standing, you're probably going to hit him. He's very unlikely to get out of the way in time. If you want to kill someone with a sword, first you have to get close to him, then you have to swing and hope he doesn't try to counterattack.
How often do you hear of people killing someone with a sniper rifle? Most of the time, it involves reletively close quarters combat. And I don't know about you, but if I see someone running at me, reaching into his pocket, I'm getting the ******** out of there!
So, with the exeption of RARE snipings, chances are, they're not going to be "just standing there", any more often with a gun against them, than with a sword.
Quote:
-Ok, same with a sword. Except with a sword it's up close and personal and probably going to be much bloodier =/
Bloodier? Probably.
Closer? Doubt it. Most gunfights aren't 2 snipers trying to shoot each other from a mile away.
Quote:
-Funny, I can hit moving targets easy with a rifle and I have no training. Whatsoever.
Sure. A nice calm afternoon, putting bullets through pieces of paper which leave no threat of return fire, to you.
That's TOTALLY comparable to extremely tense battle, where your "target" is shooting back at you.
Not to mention human movements are absolutely unpredictable. They could stop suddenly, or change directions dramatically. That might make things a
WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE bit tougher, huh?
Humans generally don't move the way targets do. At least, smart ones don't.
Quote:
-Closer distance means higher chance of killing your target quickly. Doesn't mean you can't do it from farther away. You can't throw a sword from over 15 feet away and do s**t to an enemy. Your point? I'm not even going to go into how stupidly broad of a statement that was. You're just focusing on certain cases between some gangs. I was under the impression we were talking about any sort of firefight, not just gang related ones.
And I already pointed out that the long distance snipe out, that you seem fixated on, is actually a rare case. Most gunfights involve handguns, which can not be accurately fired from such a distance. Maybe 50 yards, if you're really good. Probably not more than 20, otherwise.
Are rarely used in gunfights, outside of military operations.
Quote:
-In conclusion, I could say the same to you.
And you'd be wrong.
