NationStates Jolt Archive

Which is better?

I say guns for the following reasons:
*Swords are more honorable than guns, therefore making the killing much more drawn out and overburdened by tradition.
*You cannot block bullets with your sword. If you are skilled enough to do so, go out and prove it.
*You must constantly wipe your sword clean of blood and sharpen it, otherwise it will chip and rust away, and then you will have to find your local smith to forge you a new one.
*Hacking and slicing away takes too much effort, when you can just sit back, relax and start the killing with a gun.
* Some say that you can run up to a guy with a gun real fast and slice him with your sword before he even gets his gun out.
You can try to run up to a guy with a gun real fast and slice him before he even gets his gun out, but unfortunately that broadsword you bought from eBay weighs fifty pounds and your effete wrists just aren't meant to handle such a burden.

It depends on the technology level; at present, guns win every time simply because they are capable of firing very quickly, at many different ranges, and fairly accurately even without training.

I mean, one person with an automatic weapon could cut down a platoon of elite swordsmen without much risk to themselves.

No functional sword has ever weighted over 50lbs, a heavy, ceremonial two-handed sword still typically comes in under 10lbs, rarely do two-handers weigh over 7lbs. Katanas and arming swords come in around 3. Rapiers around 4. Smallswords/epee are rarely over 1.5.

Inside 20' swords and other melee weapons. Beyond that you'd be a fool to challenge someone with a gun.

Seriously, before saying something painfully ignorant, think about how much steel you'd need for 50lbs. Think how big a 50lb steel barbell weight is, now compare with the size of a sword.

Swords are more elegant and intimidating. Guns are more effective and concealable.
Sharpening a sword's blade is easier than preparing the bullets and the explosives. But hey, if swords were better than guns at killing people, armies would still use them.

Swords are cooler, guns are better.

Done.

Since I have no intention of ever using either guns or swords to kill anyone, I really don't care about their relative efficacies. Swords are prettier; ergo, as far as I'm concerned, they win.

No functional sword has ever weighted over 50lbs, a heavy, ceremonial two-handed sword still typically comes in under 10lbs, rarely do two-handers weigh over 7lbs. Katanas and arming swords come in around 3. Rapiers around 4. Smallswords/epee are rarely over 1.5.

Inside 20' swords and other melee weapons. Beyond that you'd be a fool to challenge someone with a gun.

Seriously, before saying something painfully ignorant, think about how much steel you'd need for 50lbs. Think how big a 50lb steel barbell weight is, now compare with the size of a sword.

Aye listen to the guy, and check out this link which disproves that little myth...

http://www.truefork.org/DragonPreservationSociety/Swordheavy.php

I own a fair few swords by various makers and non of my hand and halfs, longswords nor arming swords come anywhere close to pushing 4lbs.

Go and have a look at myArmoury.com swordforum.com and have a look at a decent manufacturers website (like Albion, Armours and Armour etc).

Guns run out of ammo, swords don't.

Guns run out of ammo, swords don't.

But at least you can fit a bayonet onto a gun, if the worst happens.

Guns run out of ammo, swords don't.

The people using the swords run out of energy. Even a light sword requires a lot of dexterity to use and people can tire quite quickly in a strenuous and stressful fight.

Better things replace worse things, this is most obvious in weapons, where lives are on the line, and just as true in political systems, &c.

Remember that scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark? 'Nuff said.

Since I have no intention of ever using either guns or swords to kill anyone, I really don't care about their relative efficacies. Swords are prettier; ergo, as far as I'm concerned, they win.

And here we have a pretty sword...

Albion Svante Sword (http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/johnsson/sword-museum-svante.htm)

Remember that scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark? 'Nuff said.

Ironically, the reason for that scene was because Harrison Ford was too weak to wield the whip; he had contracted dysentery earlier in the shooting in Tunisia and was still recovering.

So they solved the problem by having Indy shoot the guy instead. IMO, that was actually cooler than what was originally planned.

Guns.

I'll take one of those recently-legalized fully-automatic shotguns, thanks! :D

Guns.

I'll take one of those recently-legalized fully-automatic shotguns, thanks! :D

There is no such thing as a recently legalized 'fully-automatic' anything, don't be an idiot.

Well there's a reason that no developed country fields divisions of swordsmen anymore...

As for guns being prettier, you've obviously never laid eyes on an F2000, or a P90, or a gold plated AK-47... mmm... gold...

There is no such thing as a recently legalized 'fully-automatic' anything, don't be an idiot.

Sure there is. Unless you're being really technical, or something. In which case, you win - I'm not an expert on firearms. :D

Edit: I can't find the exact model I was thinking of, but I easily found two automatic shotguns on wiki in about 4 seconds, so I know I'm not dreaming it. :)

Remember that scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark? 'Nuff said.

Curse you for making me think there was a nice link there!

Curse you for making me think there was a nice link there!

Sorry, I'm in the, apparently, bad habit of underlining titles. I blame my English teachers. I'll try to do better next time.

Guns.

I'll take one of those recently-legalized fully-automatic shotguns, thanks! :D
Eh? How many automatic shotguns are there, let alone for civilians? A quick search of wikipedia turns up only the Jackhammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancor_Jackhammer) and the USAS-12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAS-12)...

Guns, because guns are noisier and have electronic stuff in them.

Swords all the way, sword are far more classy than guns.
Where's the adrenaline in shooting someone, it takes no skill to be able to pull a trigger. Sword's, hand-to-hand combat - all looks so much better as well =D =D =D

Much as I enjoy blades, guns are a more efficient weapon.

There's much less chance of being showered with blood shooting someone at range as opposed to killing with a blade.

Which is better?

I say guns for the following reasons:
*Swords are more honorable than guns, therefore making the killing much more drawn out and overburdened by tradition.
*You cannot block bullets with your sword. If you are skilled enough to do so, go out and prove it.
*You must constantly wipe your sword clean of blood and sharpen it, otherwise it will chip and rust away, and then you will have to find your local smith to forge you a new one.
*Hacking and slicing away takes too much effort, when you can just sit back, relax and start the killing with a gun.
* Some say that you can run up to a guy with a gun real fast and slice him with your sword before he even gets his gun out.
You can try to run up to a guy with a gun real fast and slice him before he even gets his gun out, but unfortunately that broadsword you bought from eBay weighs fifty pounds and your effete wrists just aren't meant to handle such a burden.

So, essentially, your views amount to ; fuck tradition, honour and gentlemanship, I want the weapon that requires less skill.

Bravo.

Swords are better for slashing, stabbing and general swordplay. Guns are better for shooting things. Simple.
[/thread]

So, essentially, your views amount to ; fuck tradition, honour and gentlemanship, I want the weapon that requires less skill.

Bravo.

Welcome to the sensible world. Why train for years with a lump of metal when you can point your boomstick at the retard who's charging at you with his broadsword and drop him without breaking a sweat?

Which is better?

I say guns for the following reasons:
*Swords are more honorable than guns, therefore making the killing much more drawn out and overburdened by tradition.

That's just too plain simple, the nature of the sword doesn't imply honor at all. Your point is out of discussion. You can use a sword and forget tradition and honor. Sorry if this sounds funny, but Ask a Ninja.

*You cannot block bullets with your sword. If you are skilled enough to do so, go out and prove it.

No, noone can, and to say otherwise is plain silly, or outright insane.

*You must constantly wipe your sword clean of blood and sharpen it, otherwise it will chip and rust away, and then you will have to find your local smith to forge you a new one.

Each time you shot your gun, even if you miss you should clean it afterwards, and actually the maintenance of a gun is several times more bothersome and careful than the maintenance of a sword. I guess you don't own a gun, but my gun needs a lot more maintenance than my swords. Of course, I have never used any of my swords or my gun on someone.

Oh, and if your sword rusts and chips, it won't malfunction and doesn't have a chance to maim you. A poorly maintained gun, in the other hand, can always jam or explode

*Hacking and slicing away takes too much effort, when you can just sit back, relax and start the killing with a gun.

Yes, using swords are more tiresome. In exchange, swords doesn't run out of ammo. So we can guess that you don't get tired of using a gun, but the "gun" gets tired and runs out of energy (bullets)

* Some say that you can run up to a guy with a gun real fast and slice him with your sword before he even gets his gun out.
You can try to run up to a guy with a gun real fast and slice him before he even gets his gun out, but unfortunately that broadsword you bought from eBay weighs fifty pounds and your effete wrists just aren't meant to handle such a burden.

Pretty silly, almost as blocking bullets with a blade. To draw a sword takes more time than to draw a gun, just to begin with. You would try to run and slice someone drawing a gun only if you have some secret desire to find how a hole in your chest feels like.

And not in Ebay, but in Toledo, Valencia and Japan. And they are pretty light, actually, even my effete wrists, (those of a 1.50 meters and 48 kilos girl, I can't think of more effete wrists in human adults), can use them quite easily for a while.


Those points aside, yes. Guns are several thousand times more effective than swords, given their technology level, their damage dealing rate, and the advantage of range. I own both swords and a gun, and I don't take my swords with me when I go out at night. I do carry the gun in my car, although.

Even back in the medieval times, when swords were all the rage amongst violent guys, bows with pointed arrows able to punch through armor were already better than swords. Even with the slower rate of fire, stopping power and accuracy of bows compared to today's guns. The advantage of range and hitting the other guy before he gets next to you is absolute.

Unless you're some kind of 12 year old retard who watches Naruto, it's an obvious choice.

None of this "OMG SAMURAI ROCKED SO HARD" rubbish. Because whilst they might have been faaaaaantastic in their time, they got killed pretty sharpish by guns.

Hence guns are better than swords.

Which is better?

I say guns for the following reasons:
*Swords are more honorable than guns, therefore making the killing much more drawn out and overburdened by tradition.
*You cannot block bullets with your sword. If you are skilled enough to do so, go out and prove it.
*You must constantly wipe your sword clean of blood and sharpen it, otherwise it will chip and rust away, and then you will have to find your local smith to forge you a new one.
*Hacking and slicing away takes too much effort, when you can just sit back, relax and start the killing with a gun.
* Some say that you can run up to a guy with a gun real fast and slice him with your sword before he even gets his gun out.
You can try to run up to a guy with a gun real fast and slice him before he even gets his gun out, but unfortunately that broadsword you bought from eBay weighs fifty pounds and your effete wrists just aren't meant to handle such a burden.
Lazer Guided Cluster Munitions. Avoid al that face to face stuff:D My mate who was in the British Army
told me LAST WEEK that if you are less than 24 yards from someone with a buttoned down holstered pistol, you can get to him and knife him before he can draw!

From the perspective of someone who is only ever going to be on the observing end of the weilding of such a weapon, I know I'd hedge my bets with swords. Coming up against someone with a gun means that I'm as good as dead if I'm his target and at serious risk if I'm not; coming up against someone with a sword means I can run like hell if I'm his target and just step out of the way if I'm not.

Plus, swords are prettier. :D

So, essentially, your views amount to ; fuck tradition, honour and gentlemanship, I want the weapon that requires less skill.

Bravo.
Yeah, see, the problem for you, Chris, is that the world moved on pretty much after the Napoleonic Wars, when it was realised that big lines of people being very organised and shooting and charging about the place and generally being mown down very easily was a crap idea.

Why don't you move on, too?

Also knives are silent and do not require ammo.

Yeah, see, the problem for you, Chris, is that the world moved on pretty much after the Napoleonic Wars, when it was realised that big lines of people being very organised and shooting and charging about the place and generally being mown down very easily was a crap idea.

Why don't you move on, too?

He's going to flip out when he finds out about the invention of the Maxim gun.

He's going to flip out when he finds out about the invention of the Maxim gun.
"Those bar-stewards! How, now, will my elite curraissers over-run the Prussian Empahr? I blame those new-fangled socialists!"

Yeah, see, the problem for you, Chris, is that the world moved on pretty much after the Napoleonic Wars, when it was realised that big lines of people being very organised and shooting and charging about the place and generally being mown down very easily was a crap idea.
Though WW1 was pretty much like that as well. As, arguably, was the Spanish Civil War, though the Germans and Italians did try out a few interesting bits and pieces when they got involved.

Though WW1 was pretty much like that as well.
More due to circumstance than any real doctrine in that case - not much you can do out of a trench to take land other than rush towards the other trench - or so it was until Spring 1918, when the Germans started to mix it up a bit with new technology and hence new possible tactics.
As, arguably, was the Spanish Civil War, though the Germans and Italians did try out a few interesting bits and pieces when they got involved.
Arguably indeed. The trench-y bits were a bit like most of World War one (unsurprising, seeing as the technology used was pretty limited up until the point where a lot of Russian and German kit got sent over) but most of it was more like the Boer war with armoured cars and tanks rather than cavalry running about the place - although cavalry was still used to quite a large degree.

Gun-Swords of course! why settle for having to touch the enemy with the weapon when you can slash the air and K.O them?

My mate who was in the British Army
told me LAST WEEK that if you are less than 24 yards from someone with a buttoned down holstered pistol, you can get to him and knife him before he can draw!

in the dictionary they call it gullible for some reason, I think its to do with where you stick the knife or something :p

Yeah, see, the problem for you, Chris, is that the world moved on pretty much after the Napoleonic Wars, when it was realised that big lines of people being very organised and shooting and charging about the place and generally being mown down very easily was a crap idea.

Why don't you move on, too?
Because Chris was in fact born to Viscount Cranbourne in 1822.

Gunblade (http://www.ffcompendium.com/misc/parasiteevegunblade.jpg)


Guns are vastly more practical weapons at any range.

I'd take a bolt action rifle over a sword any day.

Eh.


In terms of fun and ability to be used in practice a longass time without carrying around massive amounts of ammo, swords.

In terms of fun and effectiveness in doing damage while maintaining safety in distance, guns.


Though it depends. I'd rather have a sword duel than a shootout, simply because I kick ass with swords, and you kind of have to kick ass with swords to overtake anyone that kicks ass with swords. With guns, you just kind of point and shoot and hope for the best and you have a decent chance. At least with a duel I could hope the other guy doesn't have much sword experience.



Actually, if I really wanted effectiveness and versatility and overall badassness: gunblade. Not sure if they've actually been invented, but if they have, I'd take a 9mm Katana over anything else, anyday.

You are going to keep the fantasy "Gunblade" nonsense, right?

Those exist already, although not as fashionable. People nowadays call them "A rifle with a bayonet".

Such thing as a "Gunblade" based on the design of a handgun is not going to happen ever, just for the fact that a handgun is already a close quarters weapon, that doesn't need the improvement of a blade attached to it.

Gunblade (http://www.ffcompendium.com/misc/parasiteevegunblade.jpg)


Guns are vastly more practical weapons at any range.

The gunblade in FF8 and Parasite Eve is too short. Too much gun, not enough blade. Also, I think it shot magnum rounds or something - psh. The reverberation could possibly damage the hilt or blade itself, so 9mm is best.

So again: upgrade it to a 9mm Katana.

You are going to keep the fantasy "Gunblade" nonsense, right?

Those exist already, although not as fashionable. People nowadays call them "A rifle with a bayonet".

Such thing as a "Gunblade" based on the design of a handgun is not going to happen ever, just for the fact that a handgun is already a close quarters weapon, that doesn't need the improvement of a blade attached to it.

Define "close-quarters". I can hit a penny from twenty yards away with a 9mm pistol - I have trouble hitting anything farther than two or three yards away with a sword. It has advantages, combining the two.

Gunblades are for silly wapanese FF fanatics.

The gunblade in FF8 and Parasite Eve is too short. Too much gun, not enough blade. Also, I think it shot magnum rounds or something - psh. The reverberation could possibly damage the hilt or blade itself, so 9mm is best.

So again: upgrade it to a 9mm Katana.

Do what Naked Snake does in MGS3. But instead of a knife, have a katana.




Shut up, it could work.

get a gunsword

The assault rifle with a chainsaw bayonet beats silly gunblades any day.

You are going to keep the fantasy "Gunblade" nonsense, right?

Those exist already, although not as fashionable. People nowadays call them "A rifle with a bayonet".

Such thing as a "Gunblade" based on the design of a handgun is not going to happen ever, just for the fact that a handgun is already a close quarters weapon, that doesn't need the improvement of a blade attached to it.

Actually it's not a fantasy weapon see (http://www.ruble-enterprises.com/PFsword.htm)? Patented in 1866.

Define "close-quarters". I can hit a penny from twenty yards away with a 9mm pistol - I have trouble hitting anything farther than two or three yards away with a sword. It has advantages, combining the two.

I can put the end of the barrel of my gun slightly touching your chest and squeeze the trigger. No need to have a blade to make a thrust there.

A normal gun is already effective at melee range. No need for a rather clumsy blade at the end of it. After all, a bullet will punch through your body with ease and will drop you effectively. With the blade, you can't be sure. And I won't add that the gun will be extremely unbalanced with so much weight at the end of it, totally messing any accuracy beyond point blank.

No need for a gunblade when a normal handgun already fits the role.

*You must constantly wipe your sword clean of blood and sharpen it, otherwise it will chip and rust away, and then you will have to find your local smith to forge you a new one.

You must constantly clean your gun, to ensure that it doesn't jam up.

Eventually, it will, like everything, become used up and then you will have to find your local gundealer to sell you a new one.

You can try to run up to a guy with a gun real fast and slice him before he even gets his gun out, but unfortunately that broadsword you bought from eBay weighs fifty pounds and your effete wrists just aren't meant to handle such a burden.

No sword has ever weighed 50lbs, in fact, most guns (see, rifles), weigh more, because the recoil would be too much of a burden otherwise.

So, most swords come in around the 5lbs.


But of course, you've already been debunked on these two points.

Actually it's not a fantasy weapon see (http://www.ruble-enterprises.com/PFsword.htm)? Patented in 1866.

And not used widely for the next 150 years more or less for a reason. With the exception of...Ahem...SEEDs?

And not used widely for the next 150 years more or less for a reason. With the exception of...Ahem...SEEDs?

Well, you did get rifles with bayonets. That covers it And is useful too.

And not used widely for the next 150 years more or less for a reason. With the exception of...Ahem...SEEDs?
Quite.

The actually 'used' modern equivalent are the special forces pistol-knives of the Chinese and Russian chappies.

Not only are they impractical because of the fact that you need to have the blade pointing towards the user, they're also terrifically inaccurate.

Isn't that OP completely copy+pasted from somewhere?

Because Chris was in fact born to Viscount Cranbourne in 1822.
He actually is Viscount Cranbourne, kept alive only by The Power Of Being A Gentleman.

The effectiveness of swords and guns are limited in the regard that one may be better in a different situation than others. For example, right now in modern times, guns are fairly superior due to the fact that ammunition and access to guns are readily available. However, if something were to happen and weapons had to be hand-crafted again, then swords would be fairly superior due to the fact that a simple blade is less complicated and therefore easier to cast/forge than gun components. In this regard, neither are superior.

In the fact that the world population consists of at least 75% idiots, guns are not superior since they allow more accidents to happen easier than swords would. While it is true that someone who takes stupid pills might cause some havoc with a sword, they would be far easier to restrain than if they had a gun. Guns are point and shoot, whereas swords take some skill to use effectively. Also, guns that are left loaded and out in the open are more likely to cause the death of children who find it and play with it than a sword would, just because children are less likely to lift and swing anything taller than they are.

In the aspect of physical fitness, guns may or may not be superior considering that even a bedridden person could fire a gun. However the argument could be made that swords encourage physical fitness which leads to longer lifespans.

However the question I have is: Why the hell are you pitting a melee weapon against a ranged weapon? Why not gun v bow and arrow?

However the question I have is: Why the hell are you pitting a melee weapon against a ranged weapon? Why not gun v bow and arrow?
Because almost all Japanese animé watched by 14 year olds around the world has guns, so people are going to create some kind of ludicrous reason as to why swords are so much better, because ninjas use them and the samauri did fine without guns, or some such rubbish.

Isn't that OP completely copy+pasted from somewhere?

It does seem somewhat familiar.

Depend who you are up against.

If the enemy is other people then a gun would be best.

If the enemy is zombies a sword would be better.

Swords are more elegant and intimidating. Guns are more effective and concealable.
Sharpening a sword's blade is easier than preparing the bullets and the explosives. But hey, if swords were better than guns at killing people, armies would still use them.

Could I point out the fact that some militaries still issue swords to soldiers, true they are mostly traditional but in close quarters fighting they still have a use.

But guns beet swords... it don't mean I wouldn't use a sword on someone if I thought I could get away with it.

Minuteman III ICBM's from halfway around the world would be my weapon of choice.

Depend who you are up against.

If the enemy is other people then a gun would be best.

If the enemy is zombies a sword would be better.
Err seeing as you're never going to fight a zombie, ever, that makes them crap, then, doesn't it?

Err seeing as you're never going to fight a zombie, ever, that makes them crap, then, doesn't it?

And why in the world would you want to get within arm's reach of a zombie?

Err seeing as you're never going to fight a zombie, ever, that makes them crap, then, doesn't it?

How do you know? King Phil and me are prepared for Z-Day, and when the zombies come you'll be grateful we were there to organize a cohesive resistance and take back the world for the living!

Yes you will!


Not like its going to happen

Err seeing as you're never going to fight a zombie, ever, that makes them crap, then, doesn't it?

In a random situation where you're being attacked by a guy with a gun? Yeah, sure.

In a set situation where you're sparring with someone else, be it in fencing or kendo? Not so much.


By your logic, all martial arts and forms of hand-to-hand combat are obsolete and "crap", simply because the gun has been invented.

He actually is Viscount Cranbourne, kept alive only by The Power Of Being A Gentleman.

And why in the world would you want to get within arm's reach of a zombie?

Because Chris IS a zombie!!!

And why in the world would you want to get within arm's reach of a zombie?

Because the only efficient way to deal with a ghoul is to destroy the frontal lobe, or remove the head from the body (watch out, a decapitated head can still bite!). While ideally it is best to engage the undead from afar it is not always the case, a good melee weapon such as a sword or a crowbar is a must.

And why in the world would you want to get within arm's reach of a zombie?

Because unless you've got a silenced pistol with infinite ammo, a sword is your best long-term defense while remaining hidden and not attracting too much attention from other zombies.

Actually the handbook recommends a spear or trident, for range, but I'm not proficient in their use at all.

And why in the world would you want to get within arm's reach of a zombie?

Because you can only kill a zombie by either:

1. Destroying the brain.

OR

2. Severing the brain from the rest of the body.

Riddling zombies with bullets will do nothing to them, they just keep shambling on. It is also remarkably difficult to fire headshots unless you are a professional gunmen, and even then it is a challenge.

So for the novice, if you ever are in a situation where you cannot evade the zombies, and must fight, it is best to have either a bludgeoning, slashing or to a lesser degree, piercing close combat weapon.

Crowbars are excellent Anti-zombie weapons as they not only serve the multiple purposes it was designed for, they are relatively easy to wield and either end can be used to pierce a zombie skull.

Because you can only kill a zombie by either:

1. Destroying the brain.

OR

2. Severing the brain from the rest of the body.

Riddling zombies with bullets will do nothing to them, they just keep shambling on. It is also remarkably difficult to fire headshots unless you are a professional gunmen, and even then it is a challenge.

So for the novice, if you ever are in a situation where you cannot evade the zombies, and must fight, it is best to have either a bludgeoning, slashing or to a lesser degree, piercing close combat weapon.

Crowbars are excellent Anti-zombie weapons as they not only serve the multiple purposes it was designed for, they are relatively easy to wield and either end can be used to pierce a zombie skull.

I have no problem getting off headshots, but I can see how others would prefer the up-close and personal accuracy of a melee weapon.

Though I can't entirely be sure what kind of zombies we're dealing with. If they're incredibly contagious, to the point where just being next to one will make you sick, and getting any part of it on you will infect and turn you, then melee weapons are better used as javelins.

On the other hand, if you're dealing with the radiation-activated or lich-controlled zombie that can either not infect you or can only do so with a bite, then melee weapons are an acceptable solution.

To avoid thread jacking (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=527860)

I know what your asking yourselves... did I spam 5 times, or did I spam 6 times? To tell the truth in all this forum confusion I'm not to sure myself. So now you've only got one question to ask yourself, do you feel lucky? Well go ahead, make my day!

Depend who you are up against.

If the enemy is other people then a gun would be best.

If the enemy is zombies a sword would be better.

Multiple zombies would simply "rush" you and eat your face. You'd stop a few, but the horde would still get you. The horde always gets you.

i say neither, both are to kill people; to take a life. We are talking about a human life. It is sick; inhumane to kill

Multiple zombies would simply "rush" you and eat your face. You'd stop a few, but the horde would still get you. The horde always gets you.

Nah. Whenever I imagine zombies, I imagine slow-like-a-crawl creatures with no intelligence and almost no strength to speak of (rotted tendons). A horde is just more work, not necessarily more risk, unless they got really close without you noticing somehow.

i say neither, both are to kill people; to take a life. We are talking about a human life. It is sick; inhumane to kill

I consider it more sick and inhumane to die. Therefore, I'd like not to. If, in preferring to stay alive, I must kill someone, so be it.

Unless you're some kind of 12 year old retard who watches Naruto, it's an obvious choice.

None of this "OMG SAMURAI ROCKED SO HARD" rubbish. Because whilst they might have been faaaaaantastic in their time, they got killed pretty sharpish by guns.

Hence guns are better than swords.

Quite. Apparently too many NSGers watch far too much television without being able to tell the difference between that and reality. There are only a handful of situations where a sword would be better than a gun. Sadly, that doesn't fit in with the bizarrely romanticized idea of combat people have, but it's the truth.

Quite. Apparently too many NSGers watch far too much television without being able to tell the difference between that and reality. There are only a handful of situations where a sword would be better than a gun. Sadly, that doesn't fit in with the bizarrely romanticized idea of combat people have, but it's the truth.

Or, and bare with me for a second here, you could get off your highass horse and actually look at the OP, seeing as how we're not judging based solely on combat purposes.

But maybe that's too much work for you.

Err seeing as you're never going to fight a zombie, ever, that makes them crap, then, doesn't it?
never say never.
And why in the world would you want to get within arm's reach of a zombie?
Swords are relatively silent, guns are not (and a silencer still wouldn’t be that great).
With a sword you take a little risk.
But you get the same risk with a gun. Once you’ve fired it, you’ll just attract a load more. If you’re good with a sword it’d be better.
How do you know? King Phil and me are prepared for Z-Day, and when the zombies come you'll be grateful we were there to organize a cohesive resistance and take back the world for the living! Yes you will!

Not like its going to happen
Exactly! (I’ll ignore the last little bit)

Because the only efficient way to deal with a ghoul is to destroy the frontal lobe, or remove the head from the body (watch out, a decapitated head can still bite!). While ideally it is best to engage the undead from afar it is not always the case, a good melee weapon such as a sword or a crowbar is a must.
You’re knowledgeable in the ways of Zombie killing. Also crowbars can be used as a handy tool, for opening doors and such.

Oh you made a new thread for Zombies? Oh alright then...
Linky McShinky (http://http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=527860)

I have only one thing to say on "Swords vs. Guns" :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkLXdLgOybE

Nah. Whenever I imagine zombies, I imagine slow-like-a-crawl creatures with no intelligence and almost no strength to speak of (rotted tendons). A horde is just more work, not necessarily more risk, unless they got really close without you noticing somehow.

You'll get exhausted before you kill them all. And if they're the 28 days later flavour of "zombies", you're pretty much fucked if you actually encounter a horde.

Or, and bare with me for a second here, you could get off your highass horse and actually look at the OP, seeing as how we're not judging based solely on combat purposes.

But maybe that's too much work for you.

Well, let's go over the OP, shall we?

Which is better?

I say guns for the following reasons:
*Swords are more honorable than guns, therefore making the killing much more drawn out and overburdened by tradition.
*You cannot block bullets with your sword. If you are skilled enough to do so, go out and prove it.
*You must constantly wipe your sword clean of blood and sharpen it, otherwise it will chip and rust away, and then you will have to find your local smith to forge you a new one.
*Hacking and slicing away takes too much effort, when you can just sit back, relax and start the killing with a gun.
* Some say that you can run up to a guy with a gun real fast and slice him with your sword before he even gets his gun out.
You can try to run up to a guy with a gun real fast and slice him before he even gets his gun out, but unfortunately that broadsword you bought from eBay weighs fifty pounds and your effete wrists just aren't meant to handle such a burden.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but only the point about cleaning has nothing to do with combat.

For aesthetic purposes or just having fun, it all depends on your taste. For combat swords are useless 99.999% of the time.

Although I suppose perhaps I did word it a bit harshly. I just had a two hour long English-French translation exam so I'm tired and pissy.

You'll get exhausted before you kill them all. And if they're the 28 days later flavour of "zombies", you're pretty much fucked if you actually encounter a horde.

I've got insane stamina with a melee weapon. For hours on end, I chop at branches, small trees, bushes, and basically anything else that'll cut apart when sliced with either a stick or anything else swordlike that I pick up.

And I also don't consider the 28 Days Later zombies to be actual zombies. I go along the lines of Night of the Living Dead.

Well, let's go over the OP, shall we?



Correct me if I'm wrong, but only the point about cleaning has nothing to do with combat.

For aesthetic purposes or just having fun, it all depends on your taste. For combat swords are useless 99.999% of the time.

Although I suppose perhaps I did word it a bit harshly. I just had a two hour long English-French translation exam so I'm tired and pissy.

Well looking at the first sentence in the OP, "Which is better?" we can conclude he's simply going on an overall general kind of thing, rather than "Which is better for combat?" or "Which would win in a fight?" or anything specific like that.

Well looking at the first sentence in the OP, "Which is better?" we can conclude he's simply going on an overall general kind of thing, rather than "Which is better for combat?" or "Which would win in a fight?" or anything specific like that.

Fair enough, although enough of the thread was about sword v. guns in combat to annoy the hell out of my poor French addled brain. I suppose that's what I get for going on the Internets without being sufficiently caffeinated.

Fair enough, although enough of the thread was about sword v. guns in combat to annoy the hell out of my poor French addled brain. I suppose that's what I get for going on the Internets without being sufficiently caffeinated.

I know, right? What the hell's wrong with you. We're over here talkin about zombies, you come outta nowhere with a caffiene deficiency. Get a jolt or vault in you, man.

I've got insane stamina with a melee weapon. For hours on end, I chop at branches, small trees, bushes, and basically anything else that'll cut apart when sliced with either a stick or anything else swordlike that I pick up.

And I also don't consider the 28 Days Later zombies to be actual zombies. I go along the lines of Night of the Living Dead.


I have a rather large strip of land full of vegetation that my father actually needs to clear up. We have lots of Machetes, Care to come here and serve as our beast of burden, or rather, our beast of chopping? Then we will see if you truly have "amazing stamina"

I have a rather large strip of land full of vegetation that my father actually needs to clear up. We have lots of Machetes, Care to come here and serve as our beast of burden, or rather, our beast of chopping? Then we will see if you truly have "amazing stamina"

I would have a fucking field day, pun intended, in your field.

The shrubs would be chopped all to hell and back.


And I'd probably go through two or three machetes before the day was through.

Seriously.

Depends whos using them.

Depends whos using them.

Your mom. =3

Sword-guns!

Gunblades are for silly wapanese FF fanatics.

Not entirely true. (http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_spot_combo.html) Hunting blades with firearms attachments have been around for years and were wide spread in their use.

Swords all the way, the question was which is better, not more effective.
Swords allow your enemy to fight back, more honourable.
An idiot can't pick up a sword and know how to use it - better.
Swords are older therefore not the better killing weapon for obvious reasons. But they are better to look at, more honourable and more unlickely to be used to kill you. erm.. rawr:headbang:

I say that H-bombs win every time. It takes alot longer to use, but it is very hard to miss.

Guns will always win in terms of just straight killing.
Take any martial artist in the world, stick him with whatever bladed instrument you want.
Now, make him stand fifteen feet away in an alley, faced by the average man, with a benilli tactical twelve-gauge. :p

Swords will have the benefit of making darwin happy, but you can't(on average) beat instant kenitic energy without much training with a knife.

And I think it was fifteen feet was the range where you've got a 50% chance of winning with a knife.
The knife's blade is a constant threat, while a handgun bullet is only threatening for a millisecond.

All-in-all, I voted swords, they're massively cool and you need some amount of training to be any good with them at all. :P

Which is better?
Better at what?

Vagueness for the lose.

Better at what?

Vagueness for the lose.

We seem to have narrowed it done to:

1. Aesthetic appeal.

2. Proficiency in killing.

3. Gunman vs. Swordman. Who wins?

Swords, assuming lightsabres count.

Swords... guns... puh!

Airstrikes! That's the way to go!

Airstrikes or orbital laser satellites and bombardment platforms... gotta have orbital bombardment platforms... :cool: :D







.
..
...

on a more serious note... I personally love swords far more then guns, but I'm afraid I have to admit the gun has far superior combat abilities in current day warfare... *sigh*...

Yeah, see, the problem for you, Chris, is that the world moved on pretty much after the Napoleonic Wars, when it was realised that big lines of people being very organised and shooting and charging about the place and generally being mown down very easily was a crap idea.

Why don't you move on, too?

I thought we were discussing personal weapons, in my defence.

Swords... guns... puh!

Airstrikes! That's the way to go!

Airstrikes or orbital laser satellites and bombardment platforms... gotta have orbital bombardment platforms... :cool:

If you widen the choices a bit, I guess I'd take a nuclear submarine. :)

Let use UN Protectorates' categories here.

1. Aesthetic appeal.

This is definately a toss up. I don't go much for the beauty of the weapon, I'm too much the utilitarian. The Kalashnikov's, though not necessarily pretty, is beautiful in design and functionality. The Japanese katana or the Roman Spatha display their own elegance in design.

2. Proficiency in killing.

The gun, most definitely. At the range the gun loses its effectiveness as a projectile weapon, you might as well be using knives or your bare hands instead of a full fledged sword. This, however, does not absolutely preclude bladed weapons from being used with firearms. The bayonet is still a deadly effective weapon at close quarters.

3. Gunman vs. Swordman. Who wins?

The gunman, most of the time. Though there are many situations where the swordsman could conceivably be the victor, just not very many. There are reason why the gun is the current weapon of choice.


With a choice of any weapon humans have ever created, I'll take the biologicals. I'm cruel that way.

Swords, assuming lightsabres count.
Lightsabers do not count.

I would always carry a sword but use a gun.

Which is better?

I say guns for the following reasons:
*Swords are more honorable than guns, therefore making the killing much more drawn out and overburdened by tradition.
*You must constantly wipe your sword clean of blood and sharpen it, otherwise it will chip and rust away, and then you will have to find your local smith to forge you a new one.
*Hacking and slicing away takes too much effort, when you can just sit back, relax and start the killing with a gun.
* Some say that you can run up to a guy with a gun real fast and slice him with your sword before he even gets his gun out.
You can try to run up to a guy with a gun real fast and slice him before he even gets his gun out, but unfortunately that broadsword you bought from eBay weighs fifty pounds and your effete wrists just aren't meant to handle such a burden.

well there is the exception.

with your first point, you must count the Samuri, a typical match between Samuri could last between 1 to 5 moves, so not very drawn out in that case.

Guns also must be cleaned, fixed and in some cases barrels swapped, so sword masters/owner in both firearmes and bladed weapons could prob fix it on their own.

well...yes, it depends on your gun, some might be easy to handle, others might be a different story.

that why swords that weight that much were thorwn into the garbage.

Swords.

Guns are for geebos hwo don't want to learn a real martial skill. Guns are the idiot's magic finger. You don't even need to know how to spell, add, or even talk properly to use a gun. Proving once again that americans can't even have paitience in learning to kill. ::sigh::

Swords.
Look cool but suck.

Guns are for geebos hwo don't want to learn a real martial skill.
Shooting accurately is a real skill and is used in combat.

Guns are the idiot's magic finger.
A man who brings a knife to a gun fight is an idiot. A man who brings a gun to a knife fight is a genius and a survivor.

You don't even need to know how to spell, add, or even talk properly to use a gun.
Same for a sword. It's a weapon, not a textbook.

Proving once again that americans can't even have paitience in learning to kill. ::sigh::
Why just Americans? Is there an army in the world that still arms its troops with swords but not guns? The US Army is one of the best trained in the world but even they use guns more than knives.

Since so many have brought up proper gun care and how I neglected it in the OP: yes, you have to clean and maintain a gun for proper function. But that doesn't change the fact that while swords are cooler, guns are better.

Look cool but suck.

Don't let Hiro hear you say that ;)


Shooting accurately is a real skill and is used in combat.

And how many years does one have to spend cultivating that skill? Less than one? Less than half of one, actually


A man who brings a knife to a gun fight is an idiot. A man who brings a gun to a knife fight is a genius and a survivor.

Not even worth it, get some new material and stop stealing from Connery


Same for a sword. It's a weapon, not a textbook.

See above

Overall, guns are still the "easy out". Why learn balance, discipline, focus, poise, body conditioning, hand-eye coordination, athleticism, elegance, etc. when a simpleton's twitch of the forefinger will kill as easily? And all you really have to learn is which way to point it without hurting yourself.

Which is better?

I say guns for the following reasons:
*Swords are more honorable than guns, therefore making the killing much more drawn out and overburdened by tradition.
*You cannot block bullets with your sword. If you are skilled enough to do so, go out and prove it.
*You must constantly wipe your sword clean of blood and sharpen it, otherwise it will chip and rust away, and then you will have to find your local smith to forge you a new one.
*Hacking and slicing away takes too much effort, when you can just sit back, relax and start the killing with a gun.
* Some say that you can run up to a guy with a gun real fast and slice him with your sword before he even gets his gun out.
You can try to run up to a guy with a gun real fast and slice him before he even gets his gun out, but unfortunately that broadsword you bought from eBay weighs fifty pounds and your effete wrists just aren't meant to handle such a burden.

Well, obviously a modern gun a is a far superior weapon, damage-wise then a sword. Most of these arguments talk about how "cool" one is.
I do both fencing and kendo. I have also done paintball, and play lots of video games. So I'll say both weapons are fun to use.

That guns are more effective militarily should be obvious. If you honestly think that most fans of swords and other medieval weapons really think that swords are a more effective weapon on the battlefield, you're a complete and utter moron devoid of the barest scrap of intelligence.

However, swords are cooler. It's like asking which is better between a 1968 Pontiac GTO or a 2005 one. Obviously the new one is the more effective car in terms of performance. However, it's not nearly as cool.

No, I don't think a sword would beat a gun (unless the latter has no ammunition). I do like swords way better. They're just more elegant and classy. Guns just don't have that side to them. They're just a cold machine and never really seem to have attributes associated with them except their physical properties. Swords, on the other hand, just have that awesome factor.

That guns are more effective militarily should be obvious. If you honestly think that most fans of swords and other medieval weapons really think that swords are a more effective weapon on the battlefield, you're a complete and utter moron devoid of the barest scrap of intelligence.

However, swords are cooler. It's like asking which is better between a 1968 Pontiac GTO or a 2005 one. Obviously the new one is the more effective car in terms of performance. However, it's not nearly as cool.

No, I don't think a sword would beat a gun (unless the latter has no ammunition). I do like swords way better. They're just more elegant and classy. Guns just don't have that side to them. They're just a cold machine and never really seem to have attributes associated with them except their physical properties. Swords, on the other hand, just have that awesome factor.

I like your analogy, but with the classiness... you're so horribly wrong. (http://www.g6csy.net/c96/serial-416868.jpg)

Oh come on, the answer is so obviously swords. Guns are a fantastic killing tool, but swords are infinitely cooler. Duels with guns simply don't have the same elegance as duels with swords. Can you picture how boring the final scene in Rob Roy would be if they dueled with guns? Pah!

Swords don't run out of ammo, and occasionally are magic and can talk to you and such. A talking gun would just piss me off, because it would probably have an immense ego, what with it being all techy. Ever hear of a lady in the lake handing a gun to the hero? I think not.

Swords are where it's at folks.

I like your analogy, but with the classiness... you're so horribly wrong. (http://www.g6csy.net/c96/serial-416868.jpg)

I'm afraid not. I don't get how that is any more or less classy than an AK-47.

And how many years does one have to spend cultivating that skill? Less than one? Less than half of one, actually

Not exactly. You would learn basic weapons discipline in that time but become a master marksman, definatly not. Using a firearm intelligently and effectively is martial art requiring the same skill and dedication as that of a sword. Same goes for the use of a knife and unarmed combat.

A smart man actually brings a knife to a gun fight, and keeps it concealed, just in case.

Balance, discipline, focus, poise, body conditioning, hand-eye coordination, athleticism, elegance are all required to use the firearm effectively. There a little more to it than just twitching your finger. That is if you want to do more than just make loud noises and look mean. Just like swinging a sword around doesn't make you a bad-ass samuri.

A smart man actually brings a knife to a gun fight, and keeps it concealed, just in case.


Quite right. Because he's the one who is still armed when he runs out of ammo.

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/4058/malpistol1mj3.jpg
Don't tell me guns ain't cool or classy.

Big 403 Error on that link.

I'm afraid not. I don't get how that is any more or less classy than an AK-47.

Jesus, are you fucking joking? For the love of God, tell me you're joking.

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/malPistol1.jpg
Don't tell me guns ain't cool or classy.

Looks like I just did. Oh snap.

The point is, for us sword (and other medieval weapon) lovers, guns might be like a brand new 2007 corvette. Cool, fast, yeah. But, though it is slower, we think the 1957 one is way more cool.

Jesus, are you fucking joking? For the love of God, tell me you're joking.

I'm not. In fact, I'd prefer an AK over whatever that is.

Edit: Oh, and I'm not Jesus, sorry.

Fixed the hotlink. Now it burns.

Fixed the hotlink. Now it burns.

Nah, it's still kinda tepid. I'd much rather have a nice Scottish claymore.

Not exactly. You would learn basic weapons discipline in that time but become a master marksman, definatly not. Using a firearm intelligently and effectively is martial art requiring the same skill and dedication as that of a sword. Same goes for the use of a knife and unarmed combat.

I'm sorry to crash your post, but I simply don't believe you. My family if literally filled with gun enthusiasts. My father actually won markmanship medals in competitions. I learned how to shoot, and I've learned how to use swords, in multiple styles. I can speak from experience, guns are easier.

I'm sorry to crash your post, but I simply don't believe you. My family if literally filled with gun enthusiasts. My father actually won markmanship medals in competitions. I learned how to shoot, and I've learned how to use swords, in multiple styles. I can speak from experience, guns are easier.
And I'm betting he hasn't done much gun fighting. Shooting from the hip? Shooting behind him? Shooting coins from the air? That's true mastership of guns. Just like true mastership of swords is more than flailing the damn thing around like Spong Bob on crack.

I too have been trained in the operation of a firearm but I would not consider myself good enough to pick a quarter out of the air shooting from my hip.

*You cannot block bullets with your sword. If you are skilled enough to do so, go out and prove it.
someone already has:
sword vs bullet (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-256616821057955081)

Lazer Guided Cluster Munitions. Avoid al that face to face stuff:D My mate who was in the British Army
told me LAST WEEK that if you are less than 24 yards from someone with a buttoned down holstered pistol, you can get to him and knife him before he can draw!

Considering that top speed for most people is 3 yards per second, give or take, it would take about 8 seconds to get to you. Plenty of time for anyone to unholster a gun and get a shot off. Even if buttoned down, I can do it easily in that time frame.

someone already has:
sword vs bullet (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-256616821057955081)

Uh... I think he meant blocking it while holding the sword yourself. You know, someone shoots at you and you block the bullet type of thing. People's reaction just aren't fast enough for that, really.