Guns vs Swords


PDA






CleverName
April 28, 2005, 09:49 PM
Recently I had a friend note that "guns are for killing" and he would like to have a return to swords.

Excuse me, but swords are for killing (fencing/kendo aside), guns have uses beyond that. A better analogy for the gun would be the sling or bow - you can hunt or just practice with it, and most of the time that's what you do but in a dire situation you could kill somebody if you really needed to.

Historically, swords have been status symbols or badges of (usually military) office in every society that has had them. Only the rich and powerful, or the dedicated servants of the state could spend the time practicing the sword and develop the raw strength to use them. Only they could spend so much of their income on a item with the express purpose of ending the life of other human beings. The sword does not have the range to take game as well as other cutting instruments. It is not large enough and shaped incorrectly to fall trees, yet it is too large for fine cutting. It cannot hammer. Its most effective purpose is killing, and it was good at that.

The gun, on the other hand, is egalitarian. The poor farmer can kill you just as dead as Lord Peddington III or Miyamoto Musashi. The poor farmer then can go back and take out that wolf harassing his sheep, or the gophers eating his crops. The rich and powerful fear this, and have sought to ban them since their conception. We should all remember this.

Edited for clarity of intent.

If you enjoyed reading about "Guns vs Swords" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Mulliga
April 28, 2005, 10:10 PM
Good points. I hope you set your friend straight.

Standing Wolf
April 28, 2005, 10:12 PM
The gun, on the other hand, is egalitarian. The poor farmer can kill you just as dead as Lord Peddington III or Miyamoto Musashi.

Yep. Well said.

Cosmoline
April 28, 2005, 10:15 PM
Part of comes from the Sillywood myths about how noble swords are and how elegant sword fights were. The antis don't know anything about firearms and they know less about swords. The sword, along with all medieval weapons, was a brutal instrument used to hack people apart.

The other aspect comes from the legend of feudal japan outlawing firearms. Some antis have turned this into a myth about how the "nobility" of katanas overcame the vile firearms. In reality it was a means of preventing the underclass from becoming anything more than living testing posts for sword sharpness. You see some of this in that absurd Tom Cruise movie where he takes half a dozen .45-70 slugs into his chest and lives.

psyopspec
April 28, 2005, 10:52 PM
The sword does not have the range to take game as well as other cutting instruments. It is not large enough to fall trees. It cannot hammer. It can only kill.

Can't say my guns do this either.

While I keep and bear arms for the purposes of defense of my home and recreation, I know sword owners who do the same; kendo is a recreational way for them to keep sharp with their instrument. Not something I condone, but if they think it's the cat's pajamas and they're not hurting anyone else, so be it.

Swords have been status symbols in every society that has had them. Only the rich and powerful could spend the time practicing the sword and have the raw strength to use them.

None of these friends are above the two lowest tax brackets, so they hardly qualify as rich or powerful (though being night manager at Taco Bell can gain you status in certain circles). In addition, swords are commonly used for decorative purposes, and again not exclusively by gentry members of society.

I speak in the defense of swords because they, like guns, are simply tools. It's quite the paradox that as a gun-owner you would attempt to demonize an object rather than the one who wields it.

CleverName
April 28, 2005, 10:56 PM
I'm not opposed to owning swords, and I know that a sword's not going to draw itself and cut anybody. I'm just saying that if somebody opposes guns and prefers swords over the killing arument, he's being especially naive and knows nothing of their history. If you like swords, even just as decoration, go ahead and own as many as you want. Own a couple more than that, even. I in no way mean to criticize the contemporary sword-owner.

I'm sorry if I didn't clarify that I meant that they were (functional) status symbols in a historical context - Medieval Europe and onwards, Feudal Japan, etc.

psyopspec
April 28, 2005, 11:04 PM
Ah, apologies CleverName, the argument makes more sense in the context of what your friend said. Still, tread carefully in your response. The last part of my post still holds true - both are just objects. If you're friend wants to argue against guns by saying swords are somehow more beneficial to society, reassure him that both can make a person equally dead depending upon the skill of the one who controls them. To argue back by putting down swords by their various owners and uses is as equally ludicris as his original argument. Condemn the owners and uses that are wrong, but not the inanimate object.

PMDW
April 28, 2005, 11:06 PM
I've noticed a large amout of anti-gun males that I know are sword freaks.

bad LT
April 28, 2005, 11:58 PM
Swords are for killing - learn something new everyday :neener:

Realistically, if someone broke into my home I would rather grab a sword than a baseball bat (but would rather grab a shotgun than the sword)

Double Naught Spy
April 29, 2005, 12:07 AM
Recently I had a friend note that "guns are for killing" and he would like to have a return to swords.

Excuse me, but swords are for killing (fencing/kendo aside), guns have uses beyond that. A better analogy for the gun would be the sling or bow - you can hunt or just practice with it, and most of the time that's what you do but in a dire situation you could kill somebody if you really needed to.

Neither guns or swords for killing per se. Guns are designed to launch a projectile down range in a controlled manner. Swords are cutting implements. Neither platform is inherently for killing. "Killing" is just an application aspect of either technology.

Cosmoline
April 29, 2005, 12:24 AM
Realistically, if someone broke into my home I would rather grab a sword than a baseball bat (but would rather grab a shotgun than the sword)

I'd rather have an axe.

bad LT
April 29, 2005, 12:25 AM
Cosmoline, you would rather have an axe than a shotgun? :neener:

Tharg
April 29, 2005, 12:44 AM
all i know i've been taught by my geek friends...

never bring a sword to a gunfight =)

heheh

I love swords...and the one i want costs well over five grand... which means i prolly won't own it...

the point to ME is that they say there on ... on average... over 300 weapons in the average living room...

thier effectiveness or "normal use" is not the issue... its the fact they could be used as a weapon....(vs. thier normal use depending on USER....heh there we go defining people and thier motives to the use of the tool at hand...)

be it bashing or cutting or projectile... and thier relative efficiencies ... ain't the point.... but explain that to an anti.... if you dare.

after all - those evil guns are just for killing... course that evil 15" TV could crush someone if launched from 10 feet away w/ the cat call of "CATCH!"

rofl

J/Tharg!

FRIENDLY
April 29, 2005, 01:10 AM
keep your swords just give me a good oldfashioned battle axe. after that is a good extended magazine 12 guage pump action shotgun for home defence

CleverName
April 29, 2005, 01:37 AM
OK maybe I should come back and examine this a little more... detachedly.

What I'm trying to say behind all the rhetoric, is that wanting to return to swords over guns because "guns are designed to kill" is ridiculous. The blade design on a non-ceromonial non-display traditional sword makes it better-suited (not saying it can't be used for other things, just they weren't in the sword blade's design parameters and so would not be as effective at "practical" uses) for war and hurting other human beings, whether through slicing or piercing (not that hurting other human beings is always wrong, either).

Because of the specialization of this tool, the historical use and ownership of the sword was limited to either the rich or the soldier/enforcer - those who had the time and energy to devote to learning its proper use. I've done a little fencing, and seen a little kendo. It's hard, and I could see how much time it takes to even approach competency. The average pesant could not spend so much time on a implement he might use once or twice in his lifetime. That is why so many of the armies of old times had weapons resembling farm implements and hunting weapons - it's easy to see how to use a axe or a spear or a pike or a bow if you've spent your entire life cutting down trees for firewood and to clear the farm, and hunting game and pests with a spear or a bow. Of course, these implements were effective in war for almost exactly the same reasons they were effective in peace. The firearm was like these latter implements in that while it was deadly effective in war, it has "practical" applications as well, and so many of the demonzied properties of firearms (or any of the above tools) are what makes them usefull tools as well.

Of course almost anything can be a weapon. A weapon is a function of its user's purpose and actions with a tool. Just to deny ownership of firearms based on the "killing" principle would be to deny many other tools, least of which is the sword.

thorn726
April 29, 2005, 04:31 AM
Only the rich and powerful, or the dedicated servants of the state could spend the time practicing the sword and develop the raw strength to use them.

yep.

i like the sword as a close quarter defense against an unarmed intruder, but
as an only defense?

when they come up with the fission blanket and gunpowder canceller field for the earth, and none of this stuff works at all, period, we can trust everyone not to use this stuff against us. until then.......

jobu07
April 29, 2005, 06:55 AM
The sword does not have the range to take game as well as other cutting instruments. It is not large enough to fall trees. It cannot hammer. It can only kill.



Can't say my guns do this either.

What??? You've never used you rifles to trim trees?!? :neener:

Byron Quick
April 29, 2005, 09:43 AM
"guns are designed to kill"

You need to tell your friend to do some research. The swordsmiths of yore with the input of the users-worked very hard to design the sword to be very good for it purpose, Which was killing. You have different designs based on many factors: materials available, mission, and probable opponents.

I've owned three katanas. One had been in a house fire and was ruined as far as fittings, temper, and edge. You run your thumb solidly down the edge and it would not even nick you. However, if you took a sharp knife and just barely cut the edge of a piece of paper and then put the katana into that small cut (less than a quarter inch) it would then cut the entire sheet of paper in two. Friend of mine was slaughtering a hog one day. He wanted to see how my 400 year old katana would cut (This is not the one that been in a fire-it's in perfect shape). We decided that decapitating the hog was the way to go as it was at least as humane as cutting its throat which is what would happen otherwise. As I made the cut; the hog moved forward. Instead of hitting on his neck, the blade struck right above his shoulders just back from where the neck joins the body. The blade went through the hogs spine and its shoulder blades...longways. The blade was through before the hog slid apart. I had thought beforehand that I would feel a shock similar to cutting a sapling with a machete when the blade hit bone. I didn't.

That sword was designed for killing human beings and nothing else. It might have become a status symbol, or a ceremonial tool, or a repository for the samurai's soul...but it was designed to kill people.

Practice cutting with a katana is called tameshigiri. It's cutting a rolled up tatami mat that has been soaked in water for a day or so. You can do it today for the same reason that people shoot paper...for practice and enjoyment. That has nothing to do with the katana's purpose. It's purpose is to kill people. The original purpose of tameshigiri was to learn to cut properly with the katana so you could more efficiently kill people with it.

Trebor
April 29, 2005, 10:55 AM
Swords can be beautiful works of art. The results of using one are not. Nothing messier then a decapitation. They are designed to kill and a well made sword in a well trained hand is an extremely effective weapon.

woerm
April 29, 2005, 12:29 PM
Guns v swords:

I had a nasty shock one time when a fella swatted me with a bat.

I was condition white (walking into my dorm room)

I guess he thought the bat would knock me down, it didn't it just ticked me off. when I got the bat away from him there was a bit of a waltz and I wound up in the closet (I was 120lbs he topped 250) where my saber was hanging.

I tossed the bat and came out flatting him upside the head with the sword, thinking it would knock him down. it didn't it ticked him off.

he picked up the bat and we had a protracted "Error (no way related to Errol)Flynn" episode

after I flatted him up side the head a few more times he did quit. the hard part was avoiding chopping that bat into two pieces

note hitting rednecks upside the head doesn't really accomplish much but that option beat sticking him like the toad he was.

but for the fact that I couldn't have a gun in that stupid dorm he would have been dead of that drunken stupidity

note: I was a member of the SCA (the saber however was quite real kruppstahl, not rattan and ducttape) at the time and was and am an above average swordsman. the fact that I could use a non-lethal option made it an episode the now Good Reverend probably doesn't use in sermons.

still have the toadsticker and the bat

but I have more modern 'tools' available for my home defense now.

r

El Tejon
April 29, 2005, 12:32 PM
As a student of both swords and guns, I can firmly state that I stink with both. :D

Gordon Fink
April 29, 2005, 12:34 PM
Only the rich and powerful, or the dedicated servants of the state could spend the time practicing the sword and develop the raw strength to use them.…

Historically, swords weren’t really that heavy. A typical short sword weighed less than many full-size handguns. Long swords, though slightly heavier, still weighed much less than modern rifles. As with firearms, strength was much less important than skill.

~G. Fink

MechAg94
April 29, 2005, 01:13 PM
My response would be to think about gang violence in today's cities. If a 1000 gang members decided to start terrorizing an area, what would the police do with no guns? What would the citizens do? The need for an organized militia would increase quite a bit.

It would be much more difficult for the average citizen to defend himself without banding together with other citizens (at least against gangs). Guns allow an independence that is much more difficult otherwise.

I think there is a reason that feudalism began to end for the most part after the development of the gun.

bukijin
April 29, 2005, 01:29 PM
At the national war memorial here there is a katana on display that is relevant to this discussion. The story goes something along the lines of.. while patrolling in New Guinea in ww2, japanese soldiers burst from the jungle in an ambush and this Australian private was attacked by a japanese officer wielding this particular sword. The Aussie was cut from shoulder to hip later requiring something like 150 stitches. However, the japanese officer was killed by one round of the australian's lee enfield .303 at close range ! Later the australian took the sword as a souvenier and it was donated by his family after he passed on.
I think that the moral of this story was that even if you are cut - that is not neccessarily the end - and that swords ceased to become viable weapons a long time ago.

Cosmoline
April 29, 2005, 02:20 PM
Cosmoline, you would rather have an axe than a shotgun?

Well, I was limiting myself to non-firearm weapons. The sword is impractical and requires considerable skill to use effectively. I've never used one to cut anything. OTOH I've cut down many a tree and sliced up a lot of meat with my axes. Also, when it comes down to it peasant weapons from axes to polearms outfought and outperformed the most expensive swords in the field. They could penetrate armor and hook knights right off their mounts. Once it has lost its edge (which will happen very quickly), even the best katana isn't much of a weapon. It's very light weight and will bruise at best. The axe, OTOH, continues to be lethal even when the edge fades.

akviper
April 29, 2005, 02:28 PM
I recall news within the last few years regarding countries moving to ban swords for the same reasons as firearms using the they are only meant for killing arguement. I don't remember the countries involved but Australia might have been one. I wonder where the anti's plan to stop. Will we all end up eating with nerf forks if they get their way.

MechAg94
April 29, 2005, 02:41 PM
We'll all have to start using Sporks.

boofus
April 29, 2005, 02:44 PM
The authentic katanas crafted by Japanese master artisans go for several thousand dollars. Great for collection pieces, but combat?

Give me a full auto registered Uzi SMG for the same price any day. Or if you're lucky enough to have the right tax status, 8-10 post sample machineguns.

Kaylee
April 29, 2005, 03:47 PM
Oh, entirely servicable swords can be had for a price comparable to that of a decent out-of-the-box handgun. As with custom guns, the price of custom swords can go up to, well.... whatever you can afford.

And of course (many) guns are for killing. As are (real) swords, albeit from a different technological level. But that's not a bad thing. Some people (i.e. violent criminals in the process of committing a violent crime) need killing. After that, it's just a matter of how efficiently do you wish to accomplish an unpleasant task, and at what risk to yourself?

Byron Quick
April 29, 2005, 07:06 PM
Historically, swords weren’t really that heavy. A typical short sword weighed less than many full-size handguns. Long swords, though slightly heavier, still weighed much less than modern rifles. As with firearms, strength was much less important than skill.

Tell you what: Swing the sword vigorously for three minute, then rest for a minute and repeat. Sometimes swing it for thirty seconds and rest for three minutes. Do that for a few hours:D And yes, some historically documented battles employing the sword lasted for several days. Strength per se was not that important-granted. Stamina or endurance sure was. Side note: the Japanese are pretty fanatical record keepers. The last battle using swords during the Satsumi Rebellion had records made of the wounds received by the dead and injured. Professor Karl Friday, professor of Japanese history at UGA, has studied these records. More people were killed and injured with arrows than swords. More people were killed and injured with rocks.

think there is a reason that feudalism began to end for the most part after the development of the gun.



Sure was. You can train a serf to use a firearm effectively in a matter of weeks. It takes years to learn how to use edged weapons or archery effectively. Suddenly the serfs had a weapon which could resist their overlords...so they started killing them:D

Give me a full auto registered Uzi SMG for the same price any day. Or if you're lucky enough to have the right tax status, 8-10 post sample machineguns.

I'm fortunate enough to have both but it was pure luck not gobs of money.
My Uzi is pre-1986. I've a total of $975 invested in it including cost of firearm, cost of conversion, and cost of tax stamp. I bought my katana from a WWII veteran who didn't realize what he had. Bought it around 1988 or so for $200.
WWII army mountings but I was pretty sure it was an old blade. After research I figured the blade was made around 1600. Several years ago, I had Fred Lohman fit it with reproduction traditional furniture. Fred had it appraised for me: Manufactured about 1590 according to the appraiser. Worth $4000 give or take 1K. The reproduction restoration work cost about $1500...I don't even want to think about how much genuine fittings would cost.

benEzra
April 29, 2005, 07:58 PM
I think that the moral of this story was that even if you are cut - that is not neccessarily the end - and that swords ceased to become viable weapons a long time ago.
The fact that the person in question survived the sword strike--that he was merely cut instead of being severed in two pieces--wasn't because the sword can't be an effective close-quarters weapon, but because the intended victim was just slightly out of range, hence he got a relatively shallow tip cut instead of being cut in half.

Inside 21 feet, person A with a holstered gun and person B with a sword in his hand, the swordsman will most likely win. Inside 15 feet, gun in hand probably wouldn't beat a sword if the swordsman was allowed to make the first move. Think Tueller drill with an extra 3 feet of reach... :what:

Back to the original post--the sword is to the knife as the rifle is to the handgun--a much more effective and useful weapon, but not nearly as portable, hence most edged-weapon crimes are committed with concealable knives. (Not that that would stop the Australian .gov from banning swords, though.)

BTW, I have a good friend who is currently active-duty Army, holds a black belt in Isshinryu, and has studied the Japanese sword arts a bit. Once while stateside, he and his wife were awakened by a noise in the living room of their mobile home. He grabbed his katana and went to investigate, barefoot and in his underwear. The sight of a musclebound, underwear-clad martial artist swinging a katana must have put quite a fright into the burglar, because he broke the door on his way out of the trailer. My friend chased the crook quite a ways down the gravel road (still barefoot and in his underwear) before the running-for-his-life crook finally got away...wish I could have been there for that... :D

entropy
April 29, 2005, 09:13 PM
Hmmm...sword, shotgun, or axe? I own several of each, and have practiced with them, ( Former Renaissance festie) as well as a longbow. Guess which I keep ready to defend my humble hovel?

That would be the 870, thank you very much! :evil:

BTW, the best answer to this debate was in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Also in the sequel, a good lesson. Be sure you're topped off. ;)
The Aussie officer who survived the Samurai attack is a good reminder, also.

My Great Uncle took a samurai sword off a dead Japanese NCO after he shot him. (Not sure what with. M1? 1903A3? .45?) The NCO didn't seem to need it anymore. :evil:

BTW, I noticed that among RenFesters, that same wish to 'go back to the time of sword' was prevalent. Much as I like my swords, I'll stick to my guns. (There were a few matchlock demonstrations, and of course, what Ren Fest is complete without a cannon? :D )

Flying V
April 29, 2005, 09:19 PM
I've seen a video of someone using a reproduction European longsword to bisect a deer carcass through the ribcage with a single blow.

Kamicosmos
April 29, 2005, 09:49 PM
You guys obviously haven't played Unreal Championship 2 on the XBox yet!

They have swords, axes, staves and hammers to use in addition to rocket launchers, flak cannons, bio-rifles, and rivet guns.


(To keep on the topic, when I studied Medival History, I learned that most combatants in sword fights died of concussions, brusies, broken bones, etc. Not from being 'run through'. A sword was basically used as a very expensive club. Much like an unloaded musket a few decades later).

woerm
April 29, 2005, 10:05 PM
Byron,

amen to the endurance part,

at an SCA battle one time the folks laid on for most of the day (or so it seemed to me) my left arm felt like I had been doing onehanded marine pushups. and I was only 'alive' for the first half of the carnage (I wound up crowd marshalling the rest of the day). I made the mistake of draggin a big shield along but couldn't get a proper shield wall organized. I fight south paw to get a better angle on most of my opposition. I thought sitting at the left of a shield wall would be a juicy tatical spot. bzzzt another southpaw waltzed up and 'carved' me off of the line

I did the IFGS stuff for a while in the late 80's the swords were lighter but the game system seriously underplayed the effect of massed archery.

in either event just carrying a 2 or 3 pound 2 to 3 ft long stick and your water/rations etc is a workout all by itself. there is a reason the knights had squires etc.

the fencing/IFGS ect is fun but it takes alot of practice to get good.

r

(r looking at High fantasy info on another gaming system)

Byron Quick
April 30, 2005, 01:16 AM
nside 21 feet, person A with a holstered gun and person B with a sword in his hand, the swordsman will most likely win. Inside 15 feet, gun in hand probably wouldn't beat a sword if the swordsman was allowed to make the first move. Think Tueller drill with an extra 3 feet of reach...

I've got extreme reservations about the Tueller drill. I'm not that fast. And I have no formal training with a handgun at all. At the time the following occurred'; I did have several years of training in several martial arts.

I was in a man's workshop discussing with him the imminent repossession of his washing machine due to non-payment. Everything about the discussion had been amiable up to the point that he grabbed a concealed sledge hammer handle. It was laying on the top of a wheeled tool cabinet at about wasit height and was laying behind a row of sacks of nails. We were four feet apart. He grabbed the hammer handle and stepped towards me to descend upon the top of my head. But then he had two problems: the first was that I was no longer there as I had slid my right leg to my right oblique and followed the slide with my entire body...so I was far enough out of reach that he was going to have to take another pretty big step to get in range. The second problem was that as I was sliding back about three feet; I was also clearing my sports coats in what was obviously the draw of a handgun. I had unsnapped the thumb latch when he realized what was happening. He ran the steps through his head and realized that about half way through his next step...I was going to begin shooting him. He dropped his weapon. When he stopped his attack; I stopped my defense. We continued our amiable discussion, I got my washing machine, and went home.

This was an attack with no warning from four feet. And I beat it handily. And I'm not above average in speed. I think the Tueller drill assumes that you are just going to stand there and try to draw. I'm not. I'm going to get off the line of attack while I'm drawing. And if you think you're going to reach me in time...you'd best be in above 99 percentile in the speed department. You don't have to draw faster...you just have to get out of the way of the attack.

Gordon Fink
April 30, 2005, 01:57 AM
Good points on endurance, but they’re overplayed. Historically, the sword was most often a sidearm and rarely used as a primary weapon in pitched battle. If you run around waving a two-pound handgun all day, I predict you will be just as tired as if you had done the same with a two-pound sword. (I’m sure lugging around an eight-pound rifle or pike is even more tiring, either way.) In reality most combat with sidearms is over in a matter of minutes, if not seconds.

~G. Fink

MilsurpShooter
April 30, 2005, 10:18 AM
I'd just have to buy this one

http://www.ruble-enterprises.com/PFsword.htm

Glocker
April 30, 2005, 04:01 PM
guns can also be a work of art ( in my book ) as for me i'll take the gun over a sword any day. if i can't have the gun them i'll take a cold steel knife.

Cosmoline
April 30, 2005, 05:13 PM
Inside 21 feet, person A with a holstered gun and person B with a sword in his hand, the swordsman will most likely win. Inside 15 feet, gun in hand probably wouldn't beat a sword if the swordsman was allowed to make the first move. Think Tueller drill with an extra 3 feet of reach...

If there's some loon running around with a drawn SWORD in his hand, I will have my handgun out long before 21 feet. Even in Spenard that's not something you see everyday. Running around with a drawn sword is nature's way of saying "I'm a loon!"

redd7
April 30, 2005, 08:36 PM
tracing history from rock to stick to sword to firearms to artilary to aircraft to atomic bombs is to trace the history of the tools of warfare. All these tools and technology are not exlusive to warfare. but when man or a country gets it in his mind to attack his enemy he would be foolish to not take the best available tool. shaolin warriors didn't use swords and sticks to be traditional or stylish. They used them because rifles and pistols where not available. :banghead:

DavidK76
May 10, 2005, 04:51 PM
Let me guess.... your friend probaly thinks:

Anti-Freeze, Fire Poker, Matches are killing tools as well? Or only when intended to be?

Guns are not made for killing. They CAN kill but it's the person who pulls the trigger that really kills that person.

If someone gets stabbed with a butter knife.. should we say butter knives are killing weapons? Of course not.

Whoever think that are utterly ****** in the head.

People kill People, not guns.

El Tejon
May 10, 2005, 05:03 PM
Bryon, I'm with you on being gassed after sword practice. Monday we did line drills and reviewed 2 sword forms at medium speed. I was panting, and we use weenie training swords. :D

I remember reading "People" right before Troy was released and Brad Pitt said that if you really wanted to get buff just swing a sword around all day! :uhoh:

Dave R
May 10, 2005, 05:31 PM
Recently I had a friend note that "guns are for killing"

I get that occasionally, too. My reply goes along this line.

Its not true. Only a small fraction of 1% of all guns in the USA are ever used in a crime. Only a small fraction of those wind up killing someone. Guns are for:

-Skeet
-Trap
-Sporting Clays
-Upland game
-Waterfowling
(and that's just shotguns)
-Cowboy Action Shooting
-IDPA
-IPSC
-CCW (which is defensive and in 90% of cases, a deterrent without a shot fired)
(and that's just handguns)
-Silhouette
-Benchresting
-3-Gun
-Plinking
-Varmiting
-Big-game hunting

And just general collecting.

And I'm sure I've left some off. Memorize this list and use it next time someone tells you guns are for killing.

HI express
May 10, 2005, 06:39 PM
...that this old dog who had been in the unarmed martial arts for 46 years suggests that he quit watching those old Hollyweird and chop sockey movies. Those fights are choreographed and they go over and over again the step by step sequence of the fight...therefore it looks good.

Having a sword for self-defense is romantic, but it is like unarmed self-defense, when the sh&t hits the fan, you will get hurt. The other guy might be better than you, he might have a better weapon than you, he might have more guys that are willing to kick your behind...than you do. Taking on multiple fighters means everybody gets hurt.

I was getting training by Bruce Lee...this after I was already had black belts in two other styles...and his answer in response to multiple attackers in a real fight? Use a gun.

Ever get in a kendo match? Escrima match? See the results? Broken thumbs, broken collar bones, etc., etc.

Getting killed is one thing...being maimed for the rest of your life by a blade is not romantic.

There was a sequence of pictures shown by a THR member some years back. He showed the results of a knife fight with each other...both participants were severly cut with ghastly knife cuts all over their body...how about pain the rest of your life?

Going back to swords? Do more research about people who have been on the receiving end. Search some of the THR and TFL files...I don't think your friend would like to go back to the sword days after that.

entropy
May 10, 2005, 11:48 PM
People kill People, not guns.


Sadly, DavidK76, you are wrong. People kill guns all too often. :( As a gunsmith, I see far too much of it. Unfortunately, the first part of your statement is correct; people kill people, far too often, and for increasingly idiotic reasons it seems.

mustanger98
May 11, 2005, 12:04 AM
I've heard from a Vietnam vet who witnessed several knife fights- he said some of those fights the winner and loser were determined by who died first, usually separated by 5-10 minutes.

Forget swords. Like I always say, somebody comes after me with a knife, sword, machete or bayonet, or any other weapon, they ain't gettin' that close. That's what the .45's for, assuming I'm not carrying a rifle right then.

If you enjoyed reading about "Guns vs Swords" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!