[Zatoichi]

Read the entire thread to get up to speed.

What was with all of that cowardly bull crap. If I'm going to decide to engage at least one other being in combat (with intent to kill) where there is even a remote possibility that I may lose my life becuase of said situation, how is tipping the scales in my favor cowardly?

Same thing goes for strategy in any given situation, how is gaining an advantage cowardly?

Whether it was meant to or not, any physical thing can be used as a weapon. Even ridiculous examples if used in a certain manner are deadly. Even things that do not have physical presance, but physical consequence can kill. (I dare say thought is the deadliest weapon of them all)

This might sound retarded and unconvincing, but isn't it possible to dodge gunfire. I don't know if the comparison is proper, but I have actually dodged bullets playing paintball. Or even getting out of the way before the trigger is pulled.

Seriously, why do people fight at all? Why don't we all live in perfect harmony? Because it is impossible. The two things that people react the most favorably to are violence, and the fear of violence.

Over the summer I had seen a site with everything on America's gun laws, and the arguments of both sides. It was extremely informative and generally unbiased. I'll try to have it up some time next week. Whether or not the laws are enforced is not the case, but what the laws themselves state.

Hope nobody gets too worked up.

[barend]

i'll tell you why it's wrong to bring a gun to a physical fight...

because it's cheating.

the gun is a piece of technology, that was invented by someone else.
a device of missile propulsion designed and refined over the years by countless scientists to cause massive damage to living tissue by removing parts of and tearing apart areas that technology has yet to perfect a way of medically treating or replaceing.

to use one's body as weapon is an art form. it's natural defenses...
some animals have horns, we have opposable thumbs, an upright spine, and advanced strategic logic.

a sword or knife fight (assuming that both or all parties are armed as such) is still with merit because it relies on the human body to wield it and the human mind to maximise the efficiency of its use.

the gun, like it's close cousin the leaf blower, is something that just creates a mess. it is without craftsmenship, it is without class, it is without honour.

and combativley speaking it is a whore!!! a whore that will serve any ,master... even an 8 year old knock kneed girl with poor natural eyesight.

if that doesn't get though then i'm sorry.

it's really not the sort of thing that can be articulated.

either you get it or you don't.

but if people think guns are alright, i feel sorry for them, because there's a whole world of wonder and interest of intellectual and philosphical stimulation out there that they will never be able to grasp.

and if you understand why killing someone with a gun is a hollow victory, then you're one of the rare people i would call intelligent.

*this thread is not targetted at anyone... i'm just saying is all.*

[Mnesymone]

Its a machine designed to kill. It has no purpose beyond causing and threatening death and injury. It has no other use - the Simpson thing of Homer using his gun to get balls of roofs and open beer cans demonstrates this points. You might be able to hammer nails with the butt, or put a pencil sharpener in the barrel, but thats about it.
The blade is a tool - sometimes a weapon. However, a swordsman can use a sword to defend themselves, but the only way a gunman can defend himself is by attacking.

The gun is a weapon for murderers.

That's all I have to say about that.

[Slade]

Using a machine to kill is to take advantage of the limbic system, intelligence, opposable thumbs, and tool using that humanity is in possession of. Granted, it's a wretched waste of the materials and

"You're cheating" really is a really weak argument against gun ownership. A good argument against a set up fight, sure... But thanks for lumping me in with the masses, Barend, I appreciate it.

[barend]

machine guns don't require intelligence.

point and shoot...?

machine guns even more so... they fire heaps of bullets really fast in case you're a crap shot!


re: cheating.

it's not a weak argument. i'm not saying so much that it's an unfair advantage, so much as it is using a product that someone else made to weasle out of a fight you got yourself into.

either way i agree with mynes.

guns are murder tools...

and to pull one out on someone is the worst insult you could ever make.
and to support such a tool is morally objectionable, and turning your back on humanity.

but maybe its just a cultural thing.

it's pretty easy to buy a gun in australia, but hardly anyone wants one...

for a country of convicts, i think that's really quite amazing.

[Zatoichi]

barend if you get killed by that girl, even at close range that’s pretty sad (and I doubt you would) The average person is horrible with ranged weapons. The recoil throws shots way off for those with little or no experience. Even people trained in their use practicing on firing ranges aren't so hot (referring to the FBI, and I'll elaborate if you like. Might take a bit to find the stats). In close combat/point blank range, it is likely that you could grab the gun right out of their hands (unlike in the movies). Beyond that, you could probably dodge the bullet simply by presenting a smaller target or taking cover. Only those who posses a talent for shooting, or train a lot are any good at all. The only exceptions are those with automatic weapons and/or scatter guns (shotguns) to even the odds.

As for swords, or any other melee weapon in this case answer this. Did you invent it? Did you make it yourself? Don't be ridiculous if you even think about answering the first question with a yes.

You know, you don't have to shoot to kill, just like you will probably disarm or disable your opponent in a melee fight if you do not wish to kill them.

Does the phrase "Victory by any means necessary" ring a bell? The only thing that would ever hold me back would be my morals.

[barend]

Victory by any means necessary.

it does ring a bell...

pretty popular with the suicide bomb public transport crowd i beleive...

a sword is a weapon that is designed to still rely upon the body to train with it. it's not that far from unarmed combat in the grand scheme of things.
it is still your hand that pushes the blade. it is your feet that must step with it and dodge. you can use the sword to parry and deflect.

guns take away all involvement.

point and shoot. sure you could become a better aim with practice, but the thing that does the damage is a shell of metal propelled by explosives and a detenator. all you do initiate the firing mechanism.

that's totally cheap.

besides which...

swords are the weapons of kings and concorers.

guns are the weapons of hillbilies, rednecks, and rubberneck homeboys...

seriously...
fuck guns.

it's like running someone over with a 4wd...

[Zatoichi]

swords are the weapons of kings and concorers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

edit: that is conquerors

[barend]

i don't beleive in conquest...

i beleive in concorage!!!
(you'd have to be a metal head to appreciate that)

[civilian_number_two]

Barend, even as you're typing your paean to the sword, you must know that the argument is ridiculous. The history of the sword goes like this: Once upon a time men would kill one another with their bare hands. One day a fellow found that if you held a big rock or a tree branch you had a better chance of winning the death match. Later, folks stared making long pointed stiock weapons, often tipped with sharpened stone held on with plant material or sinew. Later, soft metals were mastered, and folks started making knives and later swords. The point was always to win a fight to the death with another guy. The moment someone invented efficient ranged wepons, their use in warfare was inevitable. The only reason that the sword was not replaced by the bow and arrow or the crossbow is that the latter is slow and unreliable. Once effective barricades are found or built, and two armies at range start shooting at one another with arrows alone, they can pretty much guarantee that no one is going to get killed.

So along came the gun. The moment that it was available folks started using it, and now the sword is a ridiculous alternative. Soldiers may keep a knife around for close combat, but swords are gone man.

What was the point of all this: there is no special honour to sword use, despite any need for skill or talent. It's just another tool for killing people, and a gun is more efficient. So if you're going to own a sword, you have killing on the mind. In that case, why not own a gun?

[barend]

a sword looks nicer on the wall.

it's sophisticated.

and if you've ever seen a sword form demonstration of kung-fu, you'll find it's quite entertaining and graceful...

what are you going to do with a gun? shoot the audience.

i have swords from lord of the rings decorating my house i don't have murder on my mind.

guns and swords are two very different things.

and classing them both in the same catigory is absurd.

you can't conceal a sword, if you walk into combat with one it's not a sneaky ass methode to rape someone, or mug someone, or what not...

a sword can defend, i'm just repeating myself...

fuck this...

you guy's want to love guns and refuse to see my point... fine...

enjoy your technological vulgarity.

i'm off to kung fu, have a good weekend.

[Wayne]

Weapons are useless. When you get into a fight, just do what I do. Enroll your enemy in "Seduction 101"

This post has been edited by Wayne: 23 September 2005 - 02:01 AM

[Slade]

Wushu is pretty sweet to watch, but a sword is a weapon too. I'd be redundant if I babbled on at all.

Clearly, you haven't seen Revolver Ocelot showing off his skills. Granted in MGS:TS, he goes a little overboard until you feel like being asking if you should take a seat because he's taking so long with his gun twirling and flipping and such.

Like any weapon, a gun is a last resort, except for the stupid, in which case it doesn't matter what kind of weapon it is, they're still going to use them. If memory serves me correctly, Wyatt Earp almost never fired a shot from his Peacekeeper during the time he was sherrif in the Old West, if you exclude the OK Corral business...

[Mnesymone]

I'm still rolling with the idea that older weapons were extrapolations of tools, but the gun was something invented anew for the express purpose of a) killing armoured men in the battlefield or breaking walls with earth-shattering kabooms.

It's a purely offensive weapon. And Zatoichi - you can't say 'it takes a great deal of training to be any good with a gun' and 'you can aim to disarm' in the one point, separately they are both good points, but together... well, the whole aim-to-disarm thing takes even more training than just 'aiming'.

[Zatoichi]

You read my run-on sentence wrong. I meant like shooting someone in the leg or the arm or something. Who says you can't bring a sword, knife, or whatever else to a gun fight? What if you run out of bullets. What if both you and your opponent need to reload? I'd say take whatever advantages that you can get.