# Sword Vs. Gun



## Eric Daniel

Hey guys
I am not a swordfighter or anything but I would like to know what you guys think on this subject.
A couple days ago my friends and I were discussing what the supeior weapon is, a gun or a sword. I said that it depends. I think that in close range a sword would be superior and in a longer range a gun would be the superior weapon. What do you guys think?
Does anyone know the statistics on this situation? Does anyone know how fast a proffesional gunsman (like we see in Western movies) can draw a gun and how fast a samurai could draw a sword? I was just wondering. Maybe this will lead to a great thread.

Sincerely, Eric Daniel


----------



## Solidman82

actuaklly, it sort of depends how close range you're talking. If you had a guy with a sword grappling he wouldn't be very usefully besides some stabbing that may or may bot critically injure you. A gun just takes one simple movement pressed up against your body and you're dead.


----------



## Flying Crane

depends on skill.  One of the inherent strengths in a gun is that it takes much less training and skill to use effectively.  With a real sword, you just might stab or cut yourself if you haven't spent long hours, weeks, months, and years in training.

As a side note: this is exactly what brought about the demise of the English Longbow in the middle ages.  Primitive muskets were being developed, but the effectiveness of the longbow at the time still reigned supreme.  The difference was that the longbow took a lot of ongoing practice to be effective with it.  The muskets could be used by most anyone who had a small amount of training.


----------



## Eric Daniel

Thanks for the history lesson on why the english longword died out. You have said that it depends on the skill so I will have the same question, who would win a battle, a samurai (who has trained with a sword since his birth) or a western guy like clint eastwood? Clint has a gun and a samurai has a sword. Who do you think wins? Does the winner depend on the range? If so what range do you think the samurai would win, and what range would the western(Eastwood) win?

Sincerely, Eric Daniel


----------



## arnisador

Charles Bronson was in a movie like that.

I'd take the gun. The sword will rarely be a superior weapon to it.


----------



## Flying Crane

I once saw a film clip of a quick-draw gun expert, old west, six-shooter style.  He pulled out the gun, fired off a round, and re-holstered it faster than I could blink.  seriously.  Until the film was shown in slow-motion, I did not even see the movement.  Assuming his shooting is accurate, I would put my money on the gunfighter.

Of course, this is also an extreme example,  Not everyone has this kind of training or ability with a gun.  Probably half the people out there would end up shooting themselves.  Still, my money goes with the gunfighter, all other things being equal.  In reality, there are still a lot of factors that could make it go either way.

I wouldn't put my money on Clint Eastwood himself, tho.  I doubt he could really pull it off. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





any distance greater than about three or four yards, I think the odds begin to heavily favor the guy with the gun.  Not only is the beginning range out of reach of the sword, but the swordsman would have to be able to cover the ground very very quickly.  Some people could probably pull it off, but I think the gunfighter has a real advantage.  It also helps to have a high-capacity clip, incase you miss...


----------



## bignick

21 feet is the average range needed for a police officer to draw and fire their weapon befor a knife weilding attacker can get to them


----------



## Tgace

I usually dont participate in teenage debates of sword vs. gun...samurai vs. SEAL.....lightsaber vs. M1 Abrams....less filling vs. tastes great...but I always say this.

If bladed weapons were "superior" we would still be using them. Theres a reason combat evolved into firearms. The whole 21' rule boils down to who has the initiave...who makes the first move. You jump a person with any weapon not in hand and the 21' rule applies. Try drawing a knife and charging me from 21' when I already have my sights on you......Its not just a blade vs. gun thing.


----------



## arnisador

The 21 foot rule assumes the opponent has his knife at the ready and is charging. Yes, if one person has a drawn sword and the other person has a holstered gun then, depending on the range, the sword might be better...but that's giving the sword-wielder an extra advantage.

Incidentally, in those scenarios the knifer typically ends up shot to death...it's just that he gets a stab or two in before he goes.


----------



## arnisador

Tgace said:
			
		

> samurai vs. SEAL


 
Actually, that debate sounds interesting!



> If bladed weapons were "superior" we would still be using them.


 
Yup. There's the key idea. If it was better, we'd have soldiers in Iraq with longswords.

For a alsight historical quirk in this regard, look at Giving Up the Gun: Japans Reversion to the Sword, 1543-1879 by Noel Perrin.


----------



## Tgace

arnisador said:
			
		

> The 21 foot rule assumes the opponent has his knife at the ready and is charging. Yes, if one person has a drawn sword and the other person has a holstered gun then, depending on the range, the sword might be better...but that's giving the sword-wielder an extra advantage.
> 
> Incidentally, in those scenarios the knifer typically ends up shot to death...it's just that he gets a stab or two in before he goes.


 
Yup...and even within 21' thats assuming the shooter stands still and trys to draw. I have done simmunition training that shows that if you MOVE! Laterally...behind cover...stiff arm the attacker and take a few arm cuts as you back pedal etc...you can get your shots off effectively and not get stabbed to death.


----------



## Cryozombie

I'm gonna disagree with all of you.

The 21' rule applies to any weapon, not just a knife.



I know, Im nit-picking... 

Hey which is better, The Enterprise or the Deathstar?

I think the debate between Sword/Gun is moot... each has its place.  I'd rather have a gun in a straight up confrontation, understanding, of course, that if I dont drop that guy with the sword before he closes, the gun aint saving me at that point.  If I pump 2 rounds in him before he chops my head off, we may both die, but the gun didnt save me.

By the same token, in my house, in the dark, I _might_ choose my sword over my gun if I know there is an intruder... because if I am in my darkened bedroom room hiding alongside/behind the door, and I know somone is in the house, I FEEL the advantage is still with me, and If I can take the SOB from below/behind as he comes thru the door... and not worry about my round killing my neighbor, roommate, or houseguests. 

Similarily, in a crowded environment, if I was pressed to engage an opponent and NEEDED a weapon, I would most likely NOT go for my gun... a knife, club, sword or whatnot would serve me better. (assuming, theoretically, I had one on me)

Although I guess that doesnt address the Question of Who would Win, Clint Eastwood or a Samurai.


----------



## Tgace

Tgace said:
			
		

> I usually dont participate in teenage debates of sword vs. gun...samurai vs. SEAL.....lightsaber vs. M1 Abrams....less filling vs. tastes great...but I always say this.
> 
> If bladed weapons were "superior" we would still be using them. Theres a reason combat evolved into firearms. The whole 21' rule boils down to who has the initiave...who makes the first move. You jump a person with any weapon not in hand and the 21' rule applies. Try drawing a knife and charging me from 21' when I already have my sights on you......*Its not just a blade vs. gun thing.*



I said the same thing. 

The main advantage of a firearm is its range and the fact that little to no strength is required to operate them. Yes a gunfighter needs to be able to "fight" with a gun, but theoretically, a paralyzed man in a wheelchair that can only move one hand can shoot you. When properly employed, a gun can negate many physical disparities.


----------



## Odin

I remember I saw this documentry on discovery once that was listing the worlds top 10 greatest weapons (incase you were wondering the human mind came first!) and I remember Andy McNab was upset because a kitana sword scored higher then a gun,he said simply if your standing on the over side of that field with a sword and im standing here with a ->insert complex gun name<- rifle what exactly can you do to harm me with a bloody sword?what throw it???with a gun distance does not really become a factor,(antone seen the end of tom cruises last samurai??lets charge then guns!!yeah!....whoops maybe we shouldnt have....)but hey check these links out...kitana vs bullet!!

*http://www.compfused.com/directlink/252/*

*http://www.compfused.com/directlink/608/*


----------



## Shane Smith

Solidman82 said:
			
		

> actuaklly, it sort of depends how close range you're talking. If you had a guy with a sword grappling he wouldn't be very usefully besides some stabbing that may or may bot critically injure you. A gun just takes one simple movement pressed up against your body and you're dead.


 
The above is untrue in the European tradition. There are many techniques that involve arm and shoulder breaks from the bind or the grapple that would go much further to disable a guy on the spot that a random thrust or three. There are several throwing techniques that land an opponent on the back of their un-protected head. There are various slices and halfswording levers used at krieg as well...all of which are designed to take a man out with the sword at pressed-flesh range. The steel pommel of the longsword makes for a vicious pummeling instrument as well(that's arguably where the modern word "pummel" comes from according to some researchers). The above does not even enter the realm of WMA unarmed ringen which is very formidable in it's own right to seriously injure an opponent right now. 

Also consider that a gunshot is far from always being an immediate stopper of hostilities. What good was your .38 snubby to you if your tactics allowed a Swordsman to lop off your head before he bled out(a drastic dismemberment by blade is perhaps a more sure stopper than a gunshot to the abdomen...It's the old rapier versus cut and thrust debate in another guise..).

All the above said, I'll take my .45, but I'll be sure to use it from beyond the reach of the Swordsman.Better yet, I'll take my M14 and affix the bayonet so that I can shoot him and when he gets closer, I'll use polearm tactics to run him through%-} :boing2:


----------



## Cyber Ninja

I'm gonna have to take a "gun" on this one. Swords are nice, but if given the opportunity, I would take a gun to a knife/sword fight.


----------



## Cryozombie

Shane Smith said:
			
		

> Also consider that a gunshot is far from always being an immediate stopper of hostilities. What good was your .38 snubby to you if your tactics allowed a Swordsman to lop off your head before he bled out(a drastic dismemberment by blade is perhaps a more sure stopper than a gunshot to the abdomen...


 
Thats what I just said!


----------



## Eric Daniel

Sounds like most people go with the gun. my question is why? I think that if your close enough a sword can cut the person before they shoot their gun. The weserners might have been fast with a gun but the samurai's were fast with a sword.
As far as evolution I sort of agree. Guns are now used and not swords but I don't know (think) it's because it's superior to the sword. I think it's because people have more fun with guns.

Sincerely, Eric Daniel


----------



## arnisador

Eric Daniel said:
			
		

> Sounds like most people go with the gun. my question is why? I think that if your close enough a sword can cut the person before they shoot their gun. The weserners might have been fast with a gun but the samurai's were fast with a sword.



But the Japanese Defense Forces now use rifles. Why? Because, in general, they're a superior weapon.


----------



## Tgace

Eric Daniel said:
			
		

> Guns are now used and not swords but I don't know (think) it's because it's superior to the sword. I think it's because people have more fun with guns.
> 
> Sincerely, Eric Daniel


 
Fun? I dont think people who have had to shoot to live would agree. Name me any culture of signifigance who hasnt given up the sword for the rifle?

Maybe the Knife vs. gun in a "street confrontation" debate has some merit (who carries swords around anyway???) , but in COMBAT the firearm beat the sword hundreds of years ago. If we are talking about attacking or defending a position you can keep your sword and ill keep my M4 and we'll see who comes out on top.


----------



## BlackCatBonz

i think if warfare was still fought at the hand to hand level with spears, knives, and the bow and arrow, people would be be a lot more reluctant to take up arms and go to war. i doubt a cop or soldier that has his weapon drawn to engage an enemy that is bearing down on him finds it fun. 
the difference is, that person rarely, if ever has to look his opponent in the eyes before he takes his life.


----------



## cdhall

Gun.
See "Raiders of the Lost Ark."
:snipe2:
 Sorry. I couldn't resist.


----------



## dasgregorian

I was the person the OP was talking about having the discussion with so I wanted to chime in:

The debate is situational.  In some circumstances, a gun would certainly be better... any time range is an issue... but the same thing can be said about any weapon.  (example: a chain saw vs. a bow and arrow... at range... the ranged weapon has the advantage... except light sabres... nothing beets a light sabre, yo.)  Any time you have your target in range and you are out of your targets range, you have a distinct advantage... therefore, the range argument is a bit out of context.   

You have to assume both people are of equal skill with their respective weapon and they're both within the range of eachother.   My opinion is in melee range, a swordsmen would have an equal chance (if not an advantage over someone with a gun).  My reasoning is it takes one motion to draw a sword, pulling the sword straight from it's sheath is an attack.  A gun takes a motion to change the gun's position and a seperate movement to squeeze the trigger.   One motion is generally quicker than two motions (although the sword starting from a sheathed position will take a significantly longer motion).  There is also the following argument:  Guns shoot one bullet in a straight line... a (katana for example) attacks everything within it's path.  It's much easier to miss with a gun than it is to miss with a katana.  With a gun, you may very well hit an arm, painful, but not a 'fatal blow' ... with a katana, any swing can be carried through a vital area.  Further, a swordsmen may be able to draw, aiming for the hand holding the weapon, a gun wielder has no defense against this, and would be disarmed, leaving himself completely defenseless.   

Also, it's a matter of taste.  Guns are loud and scary and... umm... loud.  Swords are undoubtedly more artistic.  With a gun, you point and click... a small child can kill anyone with a gun, you need no skill whatsoever to use it... With practice, you can 'point' much faster and more efficiently, but there's little 'art' to shooting a gun.  However, a sword is very artistic.  You can do more with a sword than hunt, target practice, and commit crimes... practicing with swords is a very good excersize (much more of a work out for the mind and body than pointing your gun at stuff and squeezing your trigger), etc.  

Swords are also more... friendly... eherm... kinda.   Two people holding guns are in a very dangerous position.  There is no 'defense' with a gun.  It is impossible to 'defend yourself' with a gun.  You are simply commiting an offense before your opponant can.  However, two people holding swords may be perfectly safe.  From my training, I'm confident that some random punk on the street with a sword (or weapon used as a sword, i.e. a bat, pipe... anything of the sorts) would be safe for me to go up against with any similar weapon, because I can comfortably DEFEND myself by stopping his attack rather than just shooting him first. 

Lastly remember this... guns run out of bullets.... swords don't.  Assuming you're using the quickest gun to draw (a pistol of some sort), you have a fairly limited amount of bullets (6 by old west standard... or however many your clip can hold).  If the gunmen can assume range, the swordsmen can assume he has cover...  Either the gunmen must come within sword range, or fire until he has to reload... allowing ample time for the swordsmen to come and attack, seeing as how a gunwielder is completely helpless while reloading (although I realize some modern guns have clips that can be reloaded pretty drrrn fast.)


----------



## dasgregorian

solidman82 said:
			
		

> actuaklly, it sort of depends how close range you're talking. If you had a guy with a sword grappling he wouldn't be very usefully besides some stabbing that may or may bot critically injure you. A gun just takes one simple movement pressed up against your body and you're dead.


I disagree. I've grappled with many different sizes of knife/sword/axe (in practice form, obviously, just foam boffers), and you can not only use your weapon to great effect... but in some cases the melee weapon is more effective while grappling. I was well known in yakima for getting in very close range with my 90 inch long sword (not a typo... 7 1/2 feet) and using it as leaverage to take people down. It can be worked in as part of your grappling tecnique very efficiently. In contrast, if I see you have a gun, I just have to make sure 'bad end no pointy at me.' A gun gives you no leaverage... if anything, holding a pistol by the butt in grappling range is a bad thing, you have SIGNIFICANTLY more leaverage on the other end of the gun to turn the gun to point it at the original wielder. (simply put, the fulcrum of the gun will be the trigger, the barrel has a longer arm than the butt, therefore you have a mechanical advantage.)



			
				flying crane said:
			
		

> any distance greater than about three or four yards, I think the odds begin to heavily favor the guy with the gun. Not only is the beginning range out of reach of the sword, but the swordsman would have to be able to cover the ground very very quickly. Some people could probably pull it off, but I think the gunfighter has a real advantage. It also helps to have a high-capacity clip, incase you miss...


ALso have to disagree Swordsmen with very little training learn to cover ground quickly. I was shown a trick with a rapier where you can stand a good 12 to 15 feet away and pierce someone through the heart in the time it takes to make one step. Obviously taking a step is slower than just drawing though... but 4-5 feet is way closer than necissary.



			
				Tgrace said:
			
		

> I usually dont participate in teenage debates of sword vs. gun...samurai vs. SEAL.....lightsaber vs. M1 Abrams....less filling vs. tastes great...but I always say this.
> 
> If bladed weapons were "superior" we would still be using them. Theres a reason combat evolved into firearms. The whole 21' rule boils down to who has the initiave...who makes the first move. You jump a person with any weapon not in hand and the 21' rule applies. Try drawing a knife and charging me from 21' when I already have my sights on you......Its not just a blade vs. gun thing.


Well, if you want to bring a lightsabre into it, you can deflect bullets with them, so it's just silly to bring that up. Your sarcasm is duely noted, though. The typical "I hart teh militaree" responce to the gun vs. sword debate is 'why aren't we still using swords then?' But... a real military person (especially seals) should definitely know about the tricks they're tought with a knife. If a gun is in all ways superior to melee weaponry why train with a knife? Answer: Because guns are superior when you're at range... ranged weapons are superior at range... makes sense. However, in many situations, melee weaponry are superior. also the 'drawing your knife while I have my sights on you' is an unfair statement. That is like saying drawing your gun while I have a rapier to your throat. A fair analysation of that would be a rapier to your throat while I'm in your sights.

... getting a little long, more in the next post.


----------



## dasgregorian

technopunk said:
			
		

> By the same token, in my house, in the dark, I might choose my sword over my gun if I know there is an intruder... because if I am in my darkened bedroom room hiding alongside/behind the door, and I know somone is in the house, I FEEL the advantage is still with me, and If I can take the SOB from below/behind as he comes thru the door... and not worry about my round killing my neighbor, roommate, or houseguests.


Another wise argument. Bullets don't always stop. I sleep with a ninja sword by my pillow... if someone comes in the house, I want to know: A: I won't hit my roomate or fish tank, and B: I won't run out of bullets. Plus C: if someone breaks in I can take away his arms and knock him out without killing him... I don't know, call me a hippy, but I don't like killing people. I know it's popular nowadays that "if you touch my car I'll ----ing shoot you" but... honestly... if someone just wants to steal my PlayStation... I'm not honestly going to become a murderer in defense of something I can go buy for $50. If I defend myself, and in the process my attacker dies... oh well. But I'm not automatically going for his neck if it's unnecissary.



			
				Shane Smith said:
			
		

> Also consider that a gunshot is far from always being an immediate stopper of hostilities. What good was your .38 snubby to you if your tactics allowed a Swordsman to lop off your head before he bled out(a drastic dismemberment by blade is perhaps a more sure stopper than a gunshot to the abdomen...It's the old rapier versus cut and thrust debate in another guise..).


True, again. Gunshot wounds (not shotguns) are small. If you hit a vital spot they can stop you immediately, but usually you won't be instantly dropped. A couple shots to the belly WILL kill you... in a while... but it won't save the gun wielder. I'm related to a former EMT who went to a suicide attempt... an old man shot himself in the head 14 times. In the head... point blank... 14 times. I've seen the X-rays... the guy lived... The guy was awake and speaking clearly in the ambulance, so I've been told. Gunshots aren't always fatal.



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> But the Japanese Defense Forces now use rifles. Why? Because, in general, they're a superior weapon.


(buzzer sound). It's a weapon with more range that takes little to no training to become proficiant with. Point... click... thing on other end has a hole. (I won't bash guns though, people can get EXTREMELY good with them... they can point... better... and faster... but they're still just pointing and clicking.) However, most military forces that I'm familiar with (short of the airforce) train with knife attacks too... because in some situation, their gun is less effective. 

Further point: Note that anything you take to a confrontation CAN be taken away from you. Any idiot can point a gun at you and make you bleed to death, therefore it's more dangerous for YOU to use as well. However, if you bring a sword/knife, and he takes your sword/knife, you're much more likely to find something to defend yourself with.



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> Maybe the Knife vs. gun in a "street confrontation" debate has some merit (who carries swords around anyway???) , but in COMBAT the firearm beat the sword hundreds of years ago. If we are talking about attacking or defending a position you can keep your sword and ill keep my M4 and we'll see who comes out on top.


This reminds me of another point... if you're good with a gun (and no further empty hand training)... and you don't have one... you're helpless... if you train with a sword (and no further empty hand training)... and you can find any stick like... thing... you can easily use it as you would a sword. Unarmed, a gun fighter has no advantage over anyone with no training at all... but someone trained with a sword is generally able to use sword tecniques empty handed. Yes... people like guns.. they're easier and you can cowardly be farther away from danger when using it... but if you don't have a functioning gun WITH bullets... your training is useless. A swordsmen has a weapon without needing a sword.

Also... the 'why do we always use guns now' is a pointless arguement as well... as... we don't. Modern warfare is almost entirely fought with explosives. Missles here, bombs there, etc. I believe vietnam was the last time we got most of our kills at a range were we could see the whites of our enimies eyes. Just because we're running away from danger doesn't mean we're getting 'better'... we're just caring less about innocent bystanders. With a sword, you kill ONLY who you mean to kill... bullets don't stop, and explosions keep destroying well after your target is dead.


----------



## Tgace

Been to Fallujah lately? The infantryman is still the only sure means to win a war. Which means taking and holding ground.

SEALS may train with knives but they enter CQB with MP5's or M4's why is that?


----------



## Tgace

dasgregorian said:
			
		

> You have to assume both people are of equal skill with their respective weapon and they're both within the range of eachother.


 
You have to do no such thing and thats the problem with these comparisons. The power of the gun is that an untrained man can kill a swordsman with decades of experience. Even the Samurai had to give it up....as a matter of fact, up against a skilled swordsman I would take a firearm 110% of the time. 

Regardless of weapon, range and initiave wins...the person close (or far) enough to make use of his weapon before his opponent can react, will win most of the time.


----------



## dasgregorian

Tgace said:
			
		

> Been to Fallujah lately? The infantryman is still the only sure means to win a war. Which means taking and holding ground.
> 
> SEALS may train with knives but they enter CQB with MP5's or M4's why is that?


 
They enter unknown terretory with ranged weapon because they don't know what range their possible target will be at.... they, ideally, want to stay as far from danger as possible, so if they have to, they'll stab them, if they can they'll shoot them, they'd prefer to snipe without being seen, but the best solution would be to blow them up from miles away.  The farther away we are the safer we feel and the less accurate we become.  If we save a few hundred soldiars and kill a few thousand people here and there... so be it.



> You have to do no such thing and thats the problem with these comparisons. The power of the gun is that an untrained man can kill a swordsman with decades of experience. Even the Samurai had to give it up....as a matter of fact, up against a skilled swordsman I would take a firearm 110% of the time.
> 
> Regardless of weapon, range and initiave wins...the person close (or far) enough to make use of his weapon before his opponent can react, will win most of the time.


 
Yes, that's the unfortunate thing.  Any child can pick up a gun and kill a person as fast as any navy SEAL with 30 years of experience.  But we're not debating about range... It's a simple fact a gun is a ranged weapon, if someone has a target in range, but is outside of  their target's range, they have the siginficant advantage.... this goes for ANY weapon with longer range than their opponant's weapon (be it a gun or swords of different lengths).

However, you can't say that JUST because a gun has range it will win... we still haven't addressed if both people are within range of eachother.  The time it takes to draw a gun vs. the time it takes to draw a sword.  If the swordsmen draws quicker he can take out the hand and open the personfrom waist to shoulder in one swipe.  The gunmen will have time for only one shot (unless you assume he has a SMG or something).  That having been said, they may have an equal chance of killing their target, but with a sword you have a much higher chance of survival yourself.   If someone is in the process of drawing a sword, there are very few targets that will instantly stop the person (thus save your life).... and those targets are the highest up, hense take the longest to get to.   If you're worried about your own life, you'll wait to shoot your opponant in the head.... during that time, a swordsmen can aim for his closest target, at the same level of the sword, the gunmen's hand.    Once that's gone, the gunmen is defensless.

I honestly think that if both people are within range of eachother... a sword has the advantage of attacking a larger area in one pass.


----------



## dasgregorian

Also... answer this one:

Your family are taken hostage, their captor, standing directly between you and your family) says you can have one weapon to fight him with as their only chance for life.  When he hands you the weapon, you can use it .... therefore you'll be within melee range... would you  honestly want a gun?  What if you miss, and hit your wife? What if you shoot him, bullets don't always stop.  You could hit your children standing directly behind.  

In some cases swords are useful.


----------



## dasgregorian

Btw, I know the whole hostage, 'fight like a man' thing wouldn't happen, but this example comes from something an old 'teacher' once told me (horrible old man, IMO)... he said that he is never more than three steps from a loaded, unsafetied gun in his home.  And he told his wife and two sons never to leave their room at night because if he ever hears a door open at night, or what sounds like an intruder, he'll just fires off some shots into the darkness hoping to hit something.... and if he shoots them, then it's their fault for getting up.

Another reason I don't like guns as much as swords... they can be used with very deadly force by a complete idiot with no self control... that's not a good thing.


----------



## Tgace

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1175621,00.html


----------



## Swordlady

How does that saying go, "Never take a sword to a gun fight" - or something like that.  :ak47::jedi1:


----------



## Eric Daniel

Most of you think guns will be a superior weapon against a sword in a fight but what if a swordsmen were to cut off a gunsmens hands? the swordsmen would than follow with killing his opponent and the gun will have lost to a sword.


----------



## Tgace

I cant believe Im having this conversation... x-box isnt real life. Neither is the Matrix.


----------



## Flying Crane

Maybe we can summarize our findings here:  A sword/knife or gun each has its advantages and disadvantages, and these become prominent depending on the circumstances, and depending on who is wielding the weapon.  Under the right circumstances, either weapon can have the advantage, or the disadvantage.  It is always possible to think of a sitation where one weapon has the advantage over the other, and vice-versa.  I don't think that is a profitable line of thought to pursue, however, because it would just go on forever and never really mean anything.  Let's just understand that it all really depends on the circumstances.


----------



## arnisador

Tgace said:
			
		

> I cant believe Im having this conversation... x-box isnt real life. Neither is the Matrix.


 
I agree. We can all imagine circumstances in which a sword might be preferable...but for the most part, this is fantasy. As a rule, a gun is better...including that most of us will not be experts in either, and it's better to be an untrained gunman than an untrained swordsman. Some of those swords are so heavy it's hard to lift them! Sure, a gun can kick back, but by then you've shot it.


----------



## dasgregorian

Tgace said:
			
		

> I cant believe Im having this conversation... x-box isnt real life. Neither is the Matrix.


 
If all you have to contribute to the conversation is "Oh NoOo Teh Swords... that's Like Onm Th eViDEO Gam es.  I Dont' Heart bideo games." then... please don't have the conversation. 

So far we've established that 'swords are dumb because I'll just pull out my gun and shoot you before you get to me.' ... no one's even attempted to contrast the two assuming they were both in range.


----------



## Charles Mahan

dasgregorian said:
			
		

> no one's even attempted to contrast the two assuming they were both in range.


 
Why would anyone want to?

I'm not just being flippant here.  What's the point of this discussion?  Why should we spend any time on it?


----------



## MartialIntent

dasgregorian said:
			
		

> If all you have to contribute to the conversation is "Oh NoOo Teh Swords... that's Like Onm Th eViDEO Gam es. I Dont' Heart bideo games." then... please don't have the conversation.
> 
> So far we've established that 'swords are dumb because I'll just pull out my gun and shoot you before you get to me.' ... no one's even attempted to contrast the two assuming they were both in range.


 

You're coming from two different viewpoints. The OP was trying to illicit a debate on a hypothetical situation. Tgace is reporting from real world experience. I'd hate to think there are martial artists out there deluding themselves into invincibility. But FWIW, I too would _like_ to believe the sword/katana could - as you say - slice and disarm the shooter [similarly with Escrima aiming stick strikes to the hands to remove the opponents weapon or ability to use it]. But I'd have to say in the real world, no. Bang! Gun wins.


----------



## Tgace

If I believed that all you need in the world is a gun I wouldnt be here, Id be on some gun forum. 

That being said,when I was a kid I thought "who needs a gun when I can just use my mad emptyhand skilz" too. I grew up.

http://www.themartialist.com/1004/nihonto.htm


> True, a sword will kill a man just as well today as it did in 1600. One can also dispatch ones foes with a Kentucky rifle or a heavy stone, but that doesn&#8217;t mean that these are the best tools for the job in our day and age. Unlike an unarmed fighting system, there is little means of testing the combat effectiveness of the techniques one has invented for the sword, an obstacle not shared by those who devised the real JSA. Thus, I consider the sword more or less an obsolete weapon. You cannot strap one on and walk the streets like Blade or the Highlander. There are far more efficient, effective, and more legally defensible weapons and tactics for home defense. Those "pragmatists" who obtain a sword for the sole purpose of ham-handedly slicing and dicing assailants without either the background or desire to appreciate the most basic principles for using or even holding it correctly are seen as quite odd and possibly delusional.


----------



## Tgace

Ya know, I said that tongue in cheek, but I have had teenagers at various PR events ask me questions and make statements about weapon capabilities based on the latest vid game they are playing. Its a scary sign of the times.


----------



## arnisador

On the other hand, some have suggested that video game players are better prepared to be fighter pilots because they're used to reading all that info. on the screen while working the controls.


----------



## Eric Daniel

Charles Mahan said:
			
		

> Why would anyone want to?
> 
> I'm not just being flippant here. What's the point of this discussion? Why should we spend any time on it?


We should have this discussion because it helps us improve our knoledge of the arts. Everyone has their own opinion whether it's truth or false, for them it's truth and probably always be the truth. However, we all should be open minded. "studie with an open mind, not and empty head". (Shihan Tony Annesi). Having discussions and debates can be helpful in a way. Look at presidents of the U.S., two candidates for presidency have debates even though one wins and one losses, they both gain insight into the other's perspective and that may or may not be helpful.


----------



## Eric Daniel

arnisador said:
			
		

> On the other hand, some have suggested that video game players are better prepared to be fighter pilots because they're used to reading all that info. on the screen while working the controls.


I have also heard that people who play video games have good reflexes wich may or may not contribute to the discussion but I would just like to let everyone know about what I have heard concerning games and those who play games.


----------



## Eric Daniel

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Maybe we can summarize our findings here: A sword/knife or gun each has its advantages and disadvantages, and these become prominent depending on the circumstances, and depending on who is wielding the weapon. Under the right circumstances, either weapon can have the advantage, or the disadvantage. It is always possible to think of a sitation where one weapon has the advantage over the other, and vice-versa. I don't think that is a profitable line of thought to pursue, however, because it would just go on forever and never really mean anything. Let's just understand that it all really depends on the circumstances.


This is a good point.


----------



## Tgace

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1097



> Historical Validation of the Superiority of the Firearm for Self-defense
> by Michael Z. Williamson
> 
> Often, an anti-defense activist will argue that rather than defending oneself with a firearm, one should use teargas, martial arts, or some other method.  These methods simply are not effective.  The chemical sprays and "non-lethal" weapons pack neither the power, the fear factor, or the usefulness against multiple opponents that a pistol does. Martial arts have their own flaw.
> 
> Let us consider an historical parallel.  At the battles of Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt and others, Welsh longbowmen under English control slaughtered heavily armed French knights backed up with crossbowmen. The power of a bow come from its draw weight times its draw length.  A crossbow may have 150-200 lbs of draw weight, but only a 12" draw. Longbows recovered from the wreck of the Mary Rose averaged 120 lbs (minimum 90 lbs, maximum an incredible 170 lbs), and had a draw length of at least 30".  I say at least because there is evidence that longbowmen overdrew the chisel-like bodkin points used to pierce armor over their hands to the 32-33" mark.
> 
> The longbow in skilled hands could fire 12 AIMED rounds per minute, almost silently, for ranges up to 400 yards, with accurate direct fire at human-sized targets up to 100 yards, and could be used for indirect fire over barricades.
> 
> The French and all other Europeans stuck to the mechanically-operated crossbow, usually wielded by hired mercenaries.  It was cheaper, since archers took years to train, had to be fed decent food with adequate protein, and--important at the time--treated as professionals rather than gutter scum, lest they pack their kit and go home.  They were hard to replace.
> 
> The early matchlocks replaced the crossbow, displaced the longbow, and were in standard use by the English Civil War ca 1650.  It fired a whopping twice a minute by the book, perhaps three times by an expert in combat until it fouled after 4-5 rounds, and was individually accurate to about 25 yards.  Volley fire made it useful to ranges of about 200 yards.  The typical combat load was 12 rounds, at which time either the musketeers retreated behind the pikes, clubbed their muskets (the bayonet not having been invented yet) or drew swords or any other weapons they'd personally acquired.  It had no indirect-fire utility.
> 
> Clearly, the longbow was a superior arm.  This state of affairs continued (with slight improvements in rate of fire) until near the end of the US Civil War when breechloaders were made practical.  If we were to take 1000 troops each with Enfield muskets and longbows and put them behind wooden palisades at 200 yards, the longbowmen would exterminate the musketeers in short order, firing three to four times as fast, dropping their armor-piercing points over the palisade and skewering the hapless fusiliers at the rate of scores per second.  (I have used all these weapons at historical re-enactments.  Anyone who would charge bowmen behind cavalry traps and pitfalls is simply seeking an early death.)
> 
> So why did the firearm displace the bow so quickly?  To be sure, the noise and smoke made it more intimidating than a crossbow, but it was even less effective at short ranges. Back to our example for the answer:  the 1000 dead fusiliers can be replaced by new recruits in a matter of a couple of weeks.  The 20 or so bowmen taken down must come from a finite pool that has worked with the weapon daily for several years to build the shoulder strength and accuracy necessary.  Simple logistics.
> 
> Coming back to the modern day:  to train our potential victim in the martial arts will require a psychological willingness to close and attack, full mobility and range of motion, several years of thrice weekly, quite expensive practice, and will STILL not put a 120 lb woman on par with the superior strength of a 250 lb brawler.
> 
> The basics of firearm safety and utility can be taught in a day.  Unless one plans to engage in serious competition, a practice weekly or monthly with $10 worth of ammo is adequate to maintain proficiency.  One can even dispense with much of that by practice operation with snap-caps and dry fire.
> 
> The pistol is the most effective, cheapest (in terms of cost over span of usefulness), easiest means of self-defense yet created.  It is simply unbelievable that any rational person would oppose its use.


----------



## Flying Crane

Interesting that you post this.  I just finished reading a book _The English Longbow men_, (or something like that) that discussed all this. very timely, for me.


----------



## MartialIntent

Eric Daniel said:
			
		

> We should have this discussion because it helps us improve our knoledge of the arts. Everyone has their own opinion whether it's truth or false, for them it's truth and probably always be the truth. However, we all should be open minded. "studie with an open mind, not and empty head". (Shihan Tony Annesi). Having discussions and debates can be helpful in a way. Look at presidents of the U.S., two candidates for presidency have debates even though one wins and one losses, they both gain insight into the other's perspective and that may or may not be helpful.


 
I agree - obviously not all discourses are relevant to everyone but I don't think in any way, that removes validity or merit in the thread itself. And I have to say, personally I find the counter-dialogues in this one entertaining [and informative]. Anyway, just my 2 cents.

Quote from "The Usual Suspects"...
McMANUS - Yeah, I'm just talking here, and Hockney seems to want to hear me out.


----------



## MartialIntent

Tgace said:
			
		

> http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1097


 

It'd be difficult to argue with the idea that the gun is a more compact, versatile and practical weapon than the sword. As has already been stated, for our Sword v Gun scenario, it certainly would depend greatly on the distance, whether the weapons are drawn or sheathed/holstered and the reaction times of opponents. 

Apologies if this has been posted before but I found this an interesting insight into the validity of the 21-foot rule. 
http://www.policeone.com/writers/columnists/ForceScience/articles/102828/

If the gunman in our hypothetical situation were to follow the 21' directive by the book, how confident should he be when confronted with our hypothetical swordsman?? Would we be prepared to acknowledge that the swordsman has a chance? And would it help any if we were to assume the swordsman was the good guy and the _gunman_ the baddie


----------



## Tgace

The 21' rule was developed with the LEO holstered and RESPONDING to the knifeman. Even then if the gunman moved and didnt stand still trying to draw he could win. If I had my gun out already? No problem. If I did not, a sword wouldnt help me anyways as I am not trained with one. In training I have moved and shot knifemen within 21' with simunitions. Sometimes I was struck other times I was not, but in all of them I dumped 7-12 rounds into the BG.

Confident? It depends on the persons training regardless of the weapon.


----------



## dasgregorian

Charles Mahan said:
			
		

> Why would anyone want to?
> 
> I'm not just being flippant here.  What's the point of this discussion?  Why should we spend any time on it?



... ok... assume a gunmen comes into your house... he has the advantage of range, you have the advantage of cover....  If he comes around your cover, he is within your range.

Therefore "I don't care if you have a sword, I'll just pull a gun out and shoot you before you get to me" can be countered by "I'll be around a corner."

Also... it's common knowledge that if one person has another in range while he's out of the range of his target he has the advantage, that's pointless to argue... a bow and arrow will ALWAYS beat a chainsaw... if he's out of the chainsaw's range, and cover isn't involved.

SO... back to the OP's question... if two people of equal skill in their given weapon, in a position that is not advantageous to either person (i.e. no cover, no bullet proof vest, both people within range), is a gun in always infallable? MY answer is no.


----------



## Tgace

In your house, I can shoot through the walls. There is little "cover" in most residences only concealment.

Is the sword always superior? No. But the gun levels differences in size, strength and skill. My best bet against a 300 lb. BJJ blackbelt with a Katana is a gun. If it jams or runs out of ammo than its onto plan B, but the firearm is plan A.

Just do a search on this forum about martial artists shot to death.


----------



## Tgace

The Cutting Edge of Edged Weapons Defense


----------



## Tgace

And as to the gun not having an "art" to it, that only proves ones lack of knowledge regarding weaponcraft. 

I can teach a person to wade into a fight with a machete swinging only #1-2 strikes. No "art", but effective enough. Or I can teach them (theoretically. Im no teacher) the deeper aspects of the "Art". 

Similarly, yes a gun can be as simple as "point and shoot" (hence its appeal to the general public as a defensive weapon) but that ignores such skills as; cover and concealment, firing on the move, firing on moving targets, malfunction clearing, combat reloads, tactical reloads, transitioning from long gun to sidearm, room clearing techniques, "slicing the pie", tactical use of illumination devices, shooting through barricades, movement under fire etc. etc.

There is an "Art" to any weapon. A SWAT/SEAL operator vs. a guy who has only plinked at tin cans.....and an expert swordsman vs. a couple of guys who are "effective enough" from whacking away at each other in the backyard with a couple of Shinai.

A good quote that has some value....and Sgtmac_46's signature.

_"Well, Wild Bill was a pretty good shot, but he could not shoot as quick as half a dozen men we all knew in those days. Nor as straight, either. But Bill was cool, and the men he went up against were rattled, I guess. Bill beat them to it. He made up his mind to kill the other man before the other man had finished thinking, and so Bill would just quietly pull his gun and give it to him. That was all there was to it."_
-Buffalo Bill Cody

The moral...no matter what the weapon its the intention and initiative of its use that matters at close range. Many people have been killed because they hesitated in the decision stage of OODA.


----------



## Charles Mahan

Eric Daniel said:
			
		

> We should have this discussion because it helps us improve our knoledge of the arts. Everyone has their own opinion whether it's truth or false, for them it's truth and probably always be the truth. However, we all should be open minded. "studie with an open mind, not and empty head". (Shihan Tony Annesi). Having discussions and debates can be helpful in a way. Look at presidents of the U.S., two candidates for presidency have debates even though one wins and one losses, they both gain insight into the other's perspective and that may or may not be helpful.


 
Nope.  Not buying it.  There is no value in this "debate".  Anymore than there would be in spending time "debating" the relative merits of a Trebuchet versus a modern artillery piece, or who would win a Mideval night or a samurai.  

I've watched presidential debates and the candidates never gain insight into each other's positions as far as I can tell.  Heck they hardly even talk to each other or address the issues being discussed for that matter.  Question A is dismissed out of hand so the candidate can talk about answer B.  The next candidate is given the floor, ignores Question A altogether, dismisses answer B, and continues a rant begun on the previous question.


----------



## Bigshadow

Tgace said:
			
		

> The whole 21' rule boils down to who has the initiave...who makes the first move. You jump a person with any weapon not in hand and the 21' rule applies. Try drawing a knife and charging me from 21' when I already have my sights on you......Its not just a blade vs. gun thing.


That is why I will choose neither...   I think of it this way...  WHO IS the SUPERIOR person?  The weapon really doesn't matter.


----------



## dasgregorian

Being able to shoot moving targets or shoot while you're moving with or without concealment doesn't constitute an art.  There is no art to gun use.   You can be skilled.  You can be a very good shot, but there is no art to it.  There is very little that can be learned from using a gun.  Practicing a gun will not train your body, and will do little for your mind other than hand-eye coordination and reflex training (which is a valid reason to practice with one).  But you gain no strength from using a gun. 

My primary arguement for the moment (which no one has addressed) is this:  If you are trained with a gun (with no further martial training), and you are in a situation that needs to be controlled without killing a person you have nothing you can do.  If your friend is drunk and is throwing a fit, you're not going to shoot him in the head to stop him... However, sword training gives you the physical strength to control the situation with something as simple as a broom (which can be used like a sword to knock a person out, or stun them long enough for you to detain them).  

If you want control, a sword gives you that.  If you want to destroy everything around anything you're afraid of, go use your guns.


----------



## Cryozombie

I gotta say, first off, If I didnt believe in the validity of the firearm, I wouldnt own one (plus), and train with it.

However...

What we need to train ourselves on isnt "which is better" but which is more appropriate given the circumstances... I mean, I could do AWESOME home defense with a claymore mine, but given the collateral damage, its not more effective than a gun... and given the right set of circumstances, a gun is not more effective than a sword.  THAT is what we should be concerned with knowing and training... not "which is better"

And to the argument of "MA takes too long and firearms level the playing field" kind of thing...

Who's in a better position, a Thug with a gun who has maybe popped off a few rounds, or a Martial Artist who has spent years in his art AND has a gun? 

IMO, all that MA training has to count for somthing, if only how to move off the line of attack (after all, a gun is only dangerous at what its end is pointing at) fighting while moving, and maintaining calm in a conflict situation...

I think even against a guy who goes to the range weekly and pumps a couple hundred rounds thru his weapon of choice, the MA training would help.  Just like a Guy whos range training includes "threat" shooting etc is gonna benefit more than a guy who hangs a target and shoots.


----------



## Charles Mahan

As someone mentioned farther up, what you want is jodo not sword.  Swords are good for killing folks and little else.  They're very much like a gun in that respect.  Jodo however will teach you how to use a stick to control people much much better than sword arts will.  You can still kill with a jo if necessary and it'll work a lot better with a broom handle.  

Sword techniques frequently rely on the stopping power of actually cutting someone.  If I executed kesa against your shoulder with a shinken, it would drop you like a stone.  If I did it with a bokuto it would make you grunt, cause you to bruise, and if I was lucky, break something in your shoulder joint.  None of that is gonna stop an angry drunk individual from pounding me into powder.  A strike to his head with a bokuto might very well kill him.  Not exactly useful for your proposed self defense situation.  

Jo techniques don't rely on cutting to function.  So all Jo techniques should work pretty well with a stick of roughly jo size, ie broom handles.

If you are looking for less than fatal intervention, try the police.  They're real good at that sort of thing, or keep some mace or a tazer around.


----------



## Tgace

Hmm..empty hand is a martial "art"...swords "art"....archery is a martial "art" (and very closely related to firearms)...swinging sticks, knives, etc. all "arts" but for some reason a firearm which is just another weapon cannot be classified as an "art"? Any weapon can be elevated to an "art" it all depends on the level of commitment to excellence shown by the practicioner. A firearm is just a weapon. Theres a difference between "pointing and shooting" and being a "gunfighter".


----------



## Cryozombie

Charles Mahan said:
			
		

> If you are looking for less than fatal intervention, try the police. They're real good at that sort of thing,


 
LOL

Thats funny.  You obviously don't live in MY neigborhood.

I do a lot more stick work than bladework, and I agree with what you say there... but, IN my home, Im less worried about Incapacitating someone... if they are in my home, I have to assume they are there to harm me or someone else in the house, and I will be much more likely to meet that with escalated force.

I wouldnt use mace indoors.  Been down that road.  Here's a hint... If you are in a bedroom, and you mace someone, you WILL get a 2 for 1 special.  Guess who #2 is?

Yep. 

Like I said, been down that road.


----------



## arnisador

dasgregorian said:
			
		

> If you want control, a sword gives you that.


 
Because you can hit with the flat of the blade? I don't buy it. You can hit someone with a gun, too.

A sword is made for cutting people.


----------



## Shane Smith

arnisador said:
			
		

> Because you can hit with the flat of the blade? I don't buy it. You can hit someone with a gun, too.
> 
> A sword is made for cutting people.


 
Is a man strikes me with his flat, I will be offended and give him my edge. Surely no-one is advocating using the flat to end the fight as opposed to the edge here? If you see me hit anyone flat, it's because I screwed up and if you see someone srike me with ANY part of their weapon, I likewise have screwed up. :flame:


----------



## Bigshadow

In my opinion, this gun versus sword debate is like debating the best technique for when the knife is already buried in you chest. :asian:


----------



## Tgace

What about the caveman's flint axe vs. the sword? I think people just switched over to swords because theyre so shiny. In reality the flint axe would kick ***!!!


----------



## arnisador

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> WHO IS the SUPERIOR person?  The weapon really doesn't matter.



Well, the ascendancy of the firearm is based on the fact that an inferior (in training) person can be very effective with it, No?


----------



## Jonathan Randall

arnisador said:
			
		

> Well, the ascendancy of the firearm is based on the fact that an inferior (in training) person can be very effective with it, No?


 
Yes, that's where the mass production began. Kings and Queens realized they could field HUGE armies of seasonal conscripts more inexpensively and effectively than they could highly trained knights.

I think a firearm can make anybody effective, of course, but in the hands of an expert...  :mp5:


----------



## arnisador

Seasonal conscripts is a good point. Many people don't realize that large standing armies such as we now have were not always the norm.


----------



## Bigshadow

arnisador said:
			
		

> Well, the ascendancy of the firearm is based on the fact that an inferior (in training) person can be very effective with it, No?



It seems to be just a matter of relativity.


----------



## Tgace

Seemed to be relative across the globe.....


----------



## arnisador

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> It seems to be just a matter of relativity.



Relative to what?


----------



## Shane Smith

With the advent of the firearm, for the first time ,a peasant clothed in rags could stand against a highly skilled swordsman armed only with a loaded iron tube and a match and have a pretty good chance of prevailing..and beyond arms reach! That was truly a pivotal change in the state of affairs. The crossbow had a similar yet lesser effect.


----------



## Eric Daniel

Technopunk said:
			
		

> I gotta say, first off, If I didnt believe in the validity of the firearm, I wouldnt own one (plus), and train with it.
> 
> However...
> 
> What we need to train ourselves on isnt "which is better" but which is more appropriate given the circumstances... I mean, I could do AWESOME home defense with a claymore mine, but given the collateral damage, its not more effective than a gun... and given the right set of circumstances, a gun is not more effective than a sword. THAT is what we should be concerned with knowing and training... not "which is better"
> 
> And to the argument of "MA takes too long and firearms level the playing field" kind of thing...
> 
> Who's in a better position, a Thug with a gun who has maybe popped off a few rounds, or a Martial Artist who has spent years in his art AND has a gun?
> 
> IMO, all that MA training has to count for somthing, if only how to move off the line of attack (after all, a gun is only dangerous at what its end is pointing at) fighting while moving, and maintaining calm in a conflict situation...
> 
> I think even against a guy who goes to the range weekly and pumps a couple hundred rounds thru his weapon of choice, the MA training would help. Just like a Guy whos range training includes "threat" shooting etc is gonna benefit more than a guy who hangs a target and shoots.


These are all very good points.


----------



## Bigshadow

arnisador said:
			
		

> Relative to what?


I was really referring to this...



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> Well, the ascendancy of the firearm is based on the fact that an inferior (in training) person can be very effective with it, No?


I think the term very effective is very relative. Even with a gun an untrained person can just as easily hurt themselves as anyone else. In the broader scheme of things it really is person vs person. Firearms are just a weapon of distance, keeping the person weilding the firearm at a relatively safer distance.

However for the purpose of this thread, I think that confrontations or situations are always person vs person, not weapon vs weapon. The weapon is just a tool. We don't fight tools, we use them. My thinking in this is there are many decision leading up to being shot at or cut that boils the conflict down to person vs. person. So my question is are we talking about what to do AFTER the knife is buried into the chest, or what decisions we make so that the knife cannot be used?

It may be something in my coffee, but I really still see conflict as person vs person, not weapon vs weapon or tool vs tool.

A perfect real world example is Iraq.  We have the best technology and weapons in the world and yet, the insurgents are still there and are still killing people.  This isn't about weapons, it about imposing one's will on another and human spirit, it is person vs person.


Again, just my opinions.


----------



## Tgace

All true..but on the other hand, a gun does give even an untrained, infirm, unexperienced person a FAR better chance of surviving an attack against a larger, trained opponent than any other weapon. Its not a magic talisman by any stretch, but in terms of the most BANG for the buck (get it?  ), its the best "equalizer" on tool to tool comparison that there is.


----------



## Bigshadow

Tgace said:
			
		

> All true..but on the other hand, a gun does give even an untrained, infirm, unexperienced person a FAR better chance of surviving an attack against a larger, trained opponent than any other weapon. Its not a magic talisman by any stretch, but in terms of the most BANG for the buck (get it?  ), its the best "equalizer" on tool to tool comparison that there is.


Oh certainly, I don't disagree with that. But I guess I was thinking of, why would I try to use a katana against a gun (as in a duel)? One can use the katana against gun weilding person. But... it would require out-thinking them or out-smarting them. So in my opinion yes a katana can be quite effective against someone who is using a gun but not so easily in the sense of a "Duel".


----------



## Tgace

Exactly...I suppose that a person with a fork can defeat a gunman under the right circumstances. Thats why IMO these X vs. Y debates are unrealistic. Its a combination of tool, person and circumstances. 

However I believe that we can say that some tools are definitely superior to others solely on a functional level, otherwise we would still be using rocks and sticks against each other.


----------



## arnisador

A gun may well be just a tool, but the question here is: Is it the right tool for the job? In a dueling sense, most likely yes. In some other sense? It'd depend...but most often the gun holder will win.


----------



## Bigshadow

arnisador said:
			
		

> A gun may well be just a tool, but the question here is: Is it the right tool for the job? In a dueling sense, most likely yes. In some other sense? It'd depend...but most often the gun holder will win.



Well, I was thinking of "survival" instead of duels (sports).  Anyway maybe this will help.

OK if the intent is tool vs tool.  Maybe this video will help.

http://mail.cu.ac.kr/~cave10/NihotoVSpistol.wmv

This is about as close as your gonna get to tool vs tool.


----------



## MartialIntent

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> Well, I was thinking of "survival" instead of duels (sports). Anyway maybe this will help.
> 
> OK if the intent is tool vs tool. Maybe this video will help.
> 
> http://mail.cu.ac.kr/~cave10/NihotoVSpistol.wmv
> 
> This is about as close as your gonna get to tool vs tool.


 
As swordsman, would we have the luck or skill to beat the bullet... only to get whacked on both shoulders by the fragments?? 

You've probably also seen the automatic versus the Nihoto 
Katana VS .50 Caliber Machine Gun.wmv (8mb)

[beaten but not without a fight - that's what _I'm_ talkin' 'bout!]


----------



## Bigshadow

MartialIntent said:
			
		

> As swordsman, would we have the luck or skill to beat the bullet... only to get whacked on both shoulders by the fragments??
> 
> You've probably also seen the automatic versus the Nihoto
> Katana VS .50 Caliber Machine Gun.wmv (8mb)
> 
> [beaten but not without a fight - that's what _I'm_ talkin' 'bout!]


That is my point... As swordsman, would you decide to put yourself in *THAT* place? Or would you decide to *NOT* be there? The sword or the gun doesn't make that decision, the person does. It is all about choices (aka decisions).


----------



## dasgregorian

arnisador said:
			
		

> Because you can hit with the flat of the blade? I don't buy it. You can hit someone with a gun, too.
> 
> A sword is made for cutting people.


 
Depending on a sword, you can control the situation without inflicting perminant damage just fine... Keep your sword in it's sheath to take away the cutting edge... hit with the flat edge, some swords can be flipped around and you can hit with the back.  Grab a broom stick and use it as a sword, you can use the same technique, minus the blood.  With a sword you can CONTROL a situation without causing someone serious injury... with a gun, there is no such thing (short of hitting them with the gun, but that's no more effective than a good punch).

Again, I'm not saying "swords are superior" I'm simply saying that "swords aren't inferior."  In some situations a sword is STILL a preferable weapon.



> Is a man strikes me with his flat, I will be offended and give him my edge. Surely no-one is advocating using the flat to end the fight as opposed to the edge here? If you see me hit anyone flat, it's because I screwed up and if you see someone srike me with ANY part of their weapon, I likewise have screwed up.


 
No, I was... The proper technique is to hit with the blade, but I was making the point that, with a sword, you can control a situation without serious injury... how can you shoot someone with a gun without making a big hole, unless you're using a gun/ammo not designed to be leathal.



> What about the caveman's flint axe vs. the sword? I think people just switched over to swords because theyre so shiny. In reality the flint axe would kick ***!!!


 
That's just an insulting arguement.  Specifically comparing a useful weapon with an antiquated one doens't prove any point except your incomprehension. However, you're right, in a way.  Axes, in some situations are superior to swords.  In the SCA, I tend to fight with a halberd, because it is more versitile than a sword.  All the attacking power of a sword, more attacking surfaces, and easier to defend with (since you can grab the haft).


----------



## arnisador

People use a gun for control all the time--by intentionally shooting a person in the leg rather than the torso. It's messy, but usually not lethal.


----------



## Tgace




----------

