Swords are a weapon for cowards V2.0

[Dion Albert Necurat]

Fleet Admiral Bravo Zulu

Dion Albert Necurat

Legendary_Blade

tHe fAiRy aSsAsIN

i honestly think guns are for cowards. a samurai takes years and years to master the sword. it takes hard work and dedication, and discipline. they could cut a leaf in half in midair. now take guns for example. 18 year old boy joins the army practices for 6 months goes over and shoots hundreds of highly trained samurai because guns can kill at a distance. and these unskilled boys don't want to get too close to these highly skilled masters because they know they'll be slaughtered. now if that isn't cowardice i don't know what is.

You watch too much anime. Tell me, if I have a handgun, and the other guy has a handgun, how am I being a coward? Fact is, odds are very equal that he'll kill me, and if he's had, say, military or swat training, and I'm Sir Joe Random, I'm not going to make it. Not to mention that, as a sword collector, fencer, and someone who trains with broadswords, I think I have the authority to say that after six months you should have some idea of what you're doing. Swordsmanship is fast to learn but slow to master, same with guns.

Exactly. At six months, you probably have a handle on one style of fencing, or at least the basics of it. For guns, I'm not entirely sure, since I'm not a casual shooter.

I am, and I've got the track marks to prove it. biggrin

It took me about a day to learn what not to do when training to shoot. READ: I made some bad mistakes. neutral

So what kind of handle would you have with a gun after six months of training?

[Corporal Lima Charlie]

Dion Albert Necurat

Fleet Admiral Bravo Zulu

Dion Albert Necurat

Legendary_Blade

tHe fAiRy aSsAsIN

i honestly think guns are for cowards. a samurai takes years and years to master the sword. it takes hard work and dedication, and discipline. they could cut a leaf in half in midair. now take guns for example. 18 year old boy joins the army practices for 6 months goes over and shoots hundreds of highly trained samurai because guns can kill at a distance. and these unskilled boys don't want to get too close to these highly skilled masters because they know they'll be slaughtered. now if that isn't cowardice i don't know what is.

You watch too much anime. Tell me, if I have a handgun, and the other guy has a handgun, how am I being a coward? Fact is, odds are very equal that he'll kill me, and if he's had, say, military or swat training, and I'm Sir Joe Random, I'm not going to make it. Not to mention that, as a sword collector, fencer, and someone who trains with broadswords, I think I have the authority to say that after six months you should have some idea of what you're doing. Swordsmanship is fast to learn but slow to master, same with guns.

Exactly. At six months, you probably have a handle on one style of fencing, or at least the basics of it. For guns, I'm not entirely sure, since I'm not a casual shooter.

I am, and I've got the track marks to prove it. biggrin

It took me about a day to learn what not to do when training to shoot. READ: I made some bad mistakes. neutral

So what kind of handle would you have with a gun after six months of training?

I'd probably be pretty damn good, barring a combat situation. I haven't received any combat training, so I'd probably ******** up everything I'd learned.

[EsgarBlackpoxs]

Corporal Lima Charlie

Dion Albert Necurat

Fleet Admiral Bravo Zulu

Dion Albert Necurat

Legendary_Blade

tHe fAiRy aSsAsIN

i honestly think guns are for cowards. a samurai takes years and years to master the sword. it takes hard work and dedication, and discipline. they could cut a leaf in half in midair. now take guns for example. 18 year old boy joins the army practices for 6 months goes over and shoots hundreds of highly trained samurai because guns can kill at a distance. and these unskilled boys don't want to get too close to these highly skilled masters because they know they'll be slaughtered. now if that isn't cowardice i don't know what is.

You watch too much anime. Tell me, if I have a handgun, and the other guy has a handgun, how am I being a coward? Fact is, odds are very equal that he'll kill me, and if he's had, say, military or swat training, and I'm Sir Joe Random, I'm not going to make it. Not to mention that, as a sword collector, fencer, and someone who trains with broadswords, I think I have the authority to say that after six months you should have some idea of what you're doing. Swordsmanship is fast to learn but slow to master, same with guns.

Exactly. At six months, you probably have a handle on one style of fencing, or at least the basics of it. For guns, I'm not entirely sure, since I'm not a casual shooter.

I am, and I've got the track marks to prove it. biggrin

It took me about a day to learn what not to do when training to shoot. READ: I made some bad mistakes. neutral

So what kind of handle would you have with a gun after six months of training?

I'd probably be pretty damn good, barring a combat situation. I haven't received any combat training, so I'd probably ******** up everything I'd learned.

Yea, I have a feeling that your accuracy will suffer a bit if you don't know how to handle that rush af adrenaline and your body screaming "FIGHT OR FLIGHT STUPID!".

[Tuah]

Legendary_Blade

Tuah

On one note, I actually did cut a leaf in mid-air once. It was a total fluke, but still cool. xd

A good historical fencer would be able to do it with enough effort. The problem is that leaves don't always cut right, something they pretty much roll off or around the blade. Doing it with a katana is absurd, but something smaller and quick could do it.

I'm gonna try to do it more with a katana. It'd be the equivalent of Droopy Dog throwing a nickel into the air, shooting it, and catching five pennies with holes in them. xd

[GunsmithKitten]

Quote:

Guns let uneducated people and young children hurt each other.

Example:

Because before firearms, it was only educated and rational people that killed each other....

Like that nice Attila the Hun or Vlad the Impaler.....

[GunsmithKitten]

Quote:

i honestly think guns are for cowards. a samurai takes years and years to master the sword.

Except that not all samurai DID master the sword...oops.

Quote:

now take guns for example. 18 year old boy joins the army practices for 6 months goes over and shoots hundreds of highly trained samurai because guns can kill at a distance.

I didn't know we still shot at samurai, but...hey, that's war for you. Don't bring a blade to a gunfight.

Quote:

and these unskilled boys don't want to get too close to these highly skilled masters

UNSKILLED? They hit that many targets in the heat of battle and they're unskilled?

Quote:

because they know they'll be slaughtered now if that isn't cowardice i don't know what is.

I can tell you what it is. BEING SMART.

And hey, Ellen Ripley. What a coward, taking on unarmed aliens with not just one but TWO guns...what a chickenshit that character was, eh?

[Tuah]

Cowardice is elimination of competition when the competition is between sides that could both be considered honorable.

Example: Somebody murdering a presidential candidate because they disagree with them, and take action to restrict anybody from agreeing.

[GunsmithKitten]

Quote:

Cowardice is elimination of competition when the competition is between sides that could both be considered honorable.

And in actual combat, there is no rules at all, therefore no competetion except who lives and who dies.

[Tuah]

GunsmithKitten

Quote:

Cowardice is elimination of competition when the competition is between sides that could both be considered honorable.

And in actual combat, there is no rules at all, therefore no competetion except who lives and who dies.

Perhaps war could be considered as one act of cowardice by a leader and one act of retaliation or defense by a leader. Instead of attempting to discuss the problem and come up with a solution, one side forces themselves upon the enemy.

[Archangelus_Arkadius]

Wait a minute. Look at it this way: both can be used incorrectly. If I give a machine gun to a 7 year old and tell him to pull the trigger while holding up at people I guarantee you he will hit someone while not taking in account the weight and velocity and whatnot of anything that comes out of the gun. If you throw a sword depending on how far you are it is much easier to dodge. A sword will always have one certain size and length and depending on how it is used the quickness of death. You can have any gun from a hand-gun to an semi-automatic shotgun and if you get shot in the wrong place you can do one of two things:
1. live without the use of a limb or with limited use with the possibility of paralysis
2. die a slow painful death due to infection

If I remember correctly a certain football player for the Denver Broncos was shot in a robbery in his own house (honorable use of weapon?) and died a few days later of loss of blood. Yes a sword can be used very grossly but not everyone uses a just a simple six-gun. You can use grenades (explosives) shot out of a projectile weapon, machine guns, sniper rifles, rpg's.

This is not an argument about the difference of weapons anymore than this is an argument over morality.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

I think the whole idea of an honorable killing is oxymoronic; all killing between humans is a nasty and brutish affair we all do better not to engage in if at all possible. When killing is performed, its only rightful mode is that which is in response to some unreasonable adversary. In such cases, no reason can take place and thus, it is an unreasonable situation, wherein one is the belligerent and the other is forced to drop reason for lack of potency. With this being the state of affairs surrounding death, then it is foolish to argue there is an 'honorable' form to it, for all death brings dishonor both to the slain and to the slayer, for reason failed to prevail. There are merciful ways to kill someone to be sure, but there is no honor to be had in the act.

[Archangelus_Arkadius]

Riviera de la Mancha

I think the whole idea of an honorable killing is oxymoronic; all killing between humans is a nasty and brutish affair we all do better not to engage in if at all possible. When killing is performed, its only rightful mode is that which is in response to some unreasonable adversary. In such cases, no reason can take place and thus, it is an unreasonable situation, wherein one is the belligerent and the other is forced to drop reason for lack of potency. With this being the state of affairs surrounding death, then it is foolish to argue there is an 'honorable' form to it, for all death brings dishonor both to the slain and to the slayer, for reason failed to prevail. There are merciful ways to kill someone to be sure, but there is no honor to be had in the act.

Like I said, this is not an argument about the difference of weapons anymore than this is an argument over morality.

[Fresnel]

Rebeldoomer

-You say swords kill people silently, guns can kill you silently as well by attaching a silencer.

Did I, like, take that out of the OP or something?

Quote:

-You say swords will give you a painful death, I say guns can do the same, unless you shoot someone in the brain which is a painless death.

I say swords are incapable of giving a painless death. Both are able to make death extremely painful, but a sword can't kill you instantly like a gun can.

[Archangelus_Arkadius]

Fresnel

Rebeldoomer

-You say swords kill people silently, guns can kill you silently as well by attaching a silencer.

Did I, like, take that out of the OP or something?

Quote:

-You say swords will give you a painful death, I say guns can do the same, unless you shoot someone in the brain which is a painless death.

I say swords are incapable of giving a painless death. Both are able to make death extremely painful, but a sword can't kill you instantly like a gun can.

What?! Ok if you stab someone in the head yes they will die. If you cut someone's spine close to their neck more than likely it's an instant death. If you stab someone in the heart they will not live long enough to feel pain. No matter where you cut someone if it is a clean cut I tell you, it will not hurt as much as a serrated cut. You can shoot someone in the leg or the stomach or where ever would not kill you right away and it will hurt like a b***h....ALWAYS.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Seven_String_Samurai

Riviera de la Mancha

I think the whole idea of an honorable killing is oxymoronic; all killing between humans is a nasty and brutish affair we all do better not to engage in if at all possible. When killing is performed, its only rightful mode is that which is in response to some unreasonable adversary. In such cases, no reason can take place and thus, it is an unreasonable situation, wherein one is the belligerent and the other is forced to drop reason for lack of potency. With this being the state of affairs surrounding death, then it is foolish to argue there is an 'honorable' form to it, for all death brings dishonor both to the slain and to the slayer, for reason failed to prevail. There are merciful ways to kill someone to be sure, but there is no honor to be had in the act.

Like I said, this is not an argument about the difference of weapons anymore than this is an argument over morality.

What do you mean? Do you mean to say there is no moral aspect to killing or no moral aspect to his case? If so, I find that hard to believe, given that this whole thread centers on the idea of honor, which is a moral construct and includes a morally contentious act, that of murder.