Aye.
They are tools, nothing more. No more magic to be had inside a sword than a firearm.
Reputation: 232
Aye.
They are tools, nothing more. No more magic to be had inside a sword than a firearm.
Reputation: 71
swords have unlimited ammo, therefore swords > guns.
Reputation: 1151
I get out quite often but have never EVER required the use of a kevlar vest...Originally Posted by dannylamb
Now if they made a KNIFE resistant shirt, I'd buy it in a heartbeat...
****ing bums.
Reputation: 629
i just shot you in both arms before you got within 100 yards of me.
wot now *****.
Reputation: 78
What if he deflects your bullet with his uber sword techniques?i just shot you in both arms before you got within 100 yards of me.
wot now *****.
Reputation: 629
then i'll throw the damn gun at him and run.What if he deflects your bullet with his uber sword techniques?
Reputation: 492
Wimp.then i'll throw the damn gun at him and run.
Be strong.... you could always use Gun-Kata.
Reputation: 30
wow Immature much?
- Swords cant deflect bullets
- Swords cant kill if you not within about a meter of the person
- Swords arnt romantic, if you kill someone, having blood splattered on the sword and your arms and shit isn't gunna attract girls
- How is buying a tazer a Stereotype of a Albertan/American?
- Swords Dont have ammo so its impossible to have unlimited ammo for a sword.
- My old Kevlar vest was knife resistant, it could stop a Steak knife.
Just had to clear some stuff up
and thank you to the people that ACTUALLY help, Congrats you get +rep
Reputation: 467
Reputation: 30
fixed it for you
Reputation: 268
I meant that you're a typical weapon-loving Albertan (and that the stereotypical Albertan (ie. "you") has more in common with Americans than he does with Canadians)
and the difference between swords and guns is, with a sword, you're less likely to kill someone if you haven't put in the training to use it. That, in my opinion, is why they're better than guns. Plus, with swords, you're closer to the person you're attacking, and thus more likely to feel remorse for what you're doing. This is a good thing.
edit: my argument has nothing to do with the combat effectiveness of swords vs guns (if you'd read what I'd said closely, you'd already know this), so all those arguments are null.
Also, I never said swords were romantic. All I said was that guns aren't romantic. They're the combat equivalent of a Mac though, any idiot can use one.
Gun fetishes = ******ed
second edit: also, calling me immature and then editing someone's post with a childish insult is a contradiction.
Reputation: 34
Get out your wallet.....I get out quite often but have never EVER required the use of a kevlar vest...
Now if they made a KNIFE resistant shirt, I'd buy it in a heartbeat...
****ing bums.
http://www.turtleskin.com/Stab-Resistant-Vest.aspx
Reputation: 268
Bottom line, if you want to be cool and impress girls, go join a band
Making music is, in every way, a better idea than pretending to kill people with guns lol
Reputation: 38
Typical American to use guns.
In my country we used axes and we wearing viking helmets and light armor and had huge beards and long hair.
Then we destroy anything we see without any skill and **** every woman and drink every alcohol in the land.
We screamed in the name of Odin, and travel any sea and destroy everything there.
I call "that" romantic that is why every year I wear my viking outfit and fight on events.
These days war isn't fun.....sounds weird.
Ontopic:
Go without a vest like the cool kids down the block.
Reputation: 268
Is this an attack on what I said?
Vikings would have spent alot of time training with their weapons and keeping in shape, and learning to sail their ships, you know.
Reputation: 629
so do paintballers, but with less ships...
Reputation: 268
1) Why would someone playing paintball need to keep in shape (at least, compared to the shape a sworsdman or axe fighter would need to be in, I do realize that paintball is more than just firing guns (ie. a fair bit of running and dodging), but so was sword or axe fighting) It doesn't take much strength at all to fire a gun.so do paintballers, but with less ships...
2) Even fighting like a Viking would have taken more training with weaponry than that required to use a gun.
Reputation: 38
Well without skill I mean they slaughter innocent people or just killed them in their sleep and burn down their town etc.
Well you don't need much weapon skills then.
Still the vikings were strong and feared across many seas and lands.
Reputation: 447
On the flip side of this, somebody may say "Making it easier for 'good' to win over 'evil'".
And if the cloud bursts, thunder in your ear.
You shout and no one seems to hear.
Reputation: 268
a sniper rifle isn't an ordinary gun though o_O. a more valid comparison would be to the use of, say, a flail, or some other weapon above and beyond the average sword, as a sniper rifle is above and beyond the average gun.
imo that's kind of a naive statement. I think that, if war were less easy to fight, and given more of an intimate aspect, we'd see a lot less unjust wars (an unjust war being defined as one not being fought to defend against a direct and imminent threat to one's own property, family and life)
Reputation: 629
i imagine swinging a flail would require a momentum not unlike the swinging of a sword.
but then again i have not had to chance to swing any flails as of late.
maybe the correct usage of a whip is what you are looking for, now that would take some skill and experience.
Reputation: 447
I agree, but, in a war like WW2, you'd want to be as technologically advanced as possible.
Technology is power in this day and age.
And if the cloud bursts, thunder in your ear.
You shout and no one seems to hear.
Reputation: 268
That works.
I was just using a flail as an example (not a very good one, as you just pointed out, but the only one that came to mind at the moment).
mm, I don't think we're understanding each other.
My argument is just that guns can be used by anyone, very easily ,and that giving just anyone that kind of power (without the need for a lot of training and preparation) is not a good thing. It makes killing too easy, and lessens its emotional impact.
I'm not talking about using swords against another power armed with guns and modern tech. I'm talking about a hypothetical situation where everyone was using swords, and whether that would be better than what we have now (and my opinion is obviously that it would be)
But that's not going to happen, I realize. In the meantime, I think that exalting/promoting the use or ownership of a gun is stupid (for all the reasons I've mentioned before in this thread), and therefore pretending to fight with pretend guns (to be cool and impress girls lol) is even more stupid.
Like I said, the OP should just take up the guitar or something.
Reputation: 54
Your argument is void. Seriously where ANYWHERE in this thread did the OP state he plays Airsoft to get girls. Nowhere, your jumping to conclusions, calling him a typical American is a uneeded personal attack and one that many people might take offense to. Nowhere in this thread did Danny even make the slightest hint of him playing airsoft to be cool or impress girls. He doesn't purely because its a hobby. Instead of criticizing him why don't you try helping him, its pretty clear if he likes his hobby that much your pointless sword and guitar statements aren't going to change his mind.
There shouldn't be any emotional impact in killing someone, swords guns Flails, whatever weird weapons you can pull out your hat are all killing weapons, if one let there emotions take over the main killing tool which is the soldier (or person using the weapon) would be useless. As sick as this sounds bloodshed has solved many problems in different countries.
Reputation: 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannylamb
Gives you the real (or closest) feel of war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannylamb
shit isn't gunna attract girls
Besides which, my whole point is that it's a dumb hobby. I've stated my reasons why several times now.
And as for the rest of what you posted, about how soldiers should be emotionless killing machines, well I disagree. If a soldier is more emotionally involved, he is more likely to think about what he is doing and realize the truth, that he is killing fellow human beings, most likely for a poor reason.
As I said before, imo the only good reason to fight a war is if your own property, self, or family are under direct, imminent threat.
Posting Permissions
