Quote from Badkarma
No, it's a terrible point in that it's a reply to me, yet completely misses my point. Completely.
It wasn't my intention to debate how hard it is to use a gun or sword to kill someone. My point was that if I handed you one or the other, you'd automatically know the basic principle behind using a sword, and have the ability to use it.
Are you kidding me. Are you honestly going to say that most human beings alive today, if handed a gun, would not know which way the bullet comes out of? Or that you would pull the trigger and point it at someone in order to fire at them?
In terms of knowing the basic principle behind the sword, its pretty much the same as knowing the basic principle behind a Gun. Point, and shoot. Hold and slash. It really doesnt get any easier than this. Its so easy that even kids can hold AK-47s, and many do, and fire them. Id say that the "Basic" principle behind both weapons is similar.
Quote from Badkarma
Of course it's harder to kill someone with a sword! It's primitive, lacks any decent range, and the wielder's strength is a bigger factor, but at least because it's primitive, any clown knows what to do with it. You swing it, and things get cut. If you put the pointy end in the squishy thing, it bleeds and dies. Pretty self-explanatory. No, you don't know how to rend Heaven and Earth with it, but unless you're a complete moron, you know how it functions and can use it.
This is the point I'm illustrating. Smillo wrote that he or she'd pick guns because you wouldn't have to know how to use it. As a person who owns and has handled a variety of different guns, this statement trips my berserk button.
Then why bring up the point about how you would be able to cut someone in half, pretty quickly, or atleast make them bleed, as opposed to how long it would take before you could shoot someone? It sure as hell sounds like youre trying to say that its easier to harm or kill someone with a sword, than it is with a gun, when you clearly make a comparison between being able to cut or kill someone, as opposed to how many shots it would take for you to shoot someone.
Quote from Badkarma
...
You don't have to know how to use it...?
WWWWWWWWWHHHHHHHAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!?? That's insane! Do you even know how to load a handgun?? How 'bout a shotgun; you know how to load that too?? A rifle?? Know how to cock any of these weapons?? Hmmm?? Do you know if the safety's on, or how to even check?? My Glock tends to aim high, whereas my Ruger tends to aim low. Did you somehow automatically acquire that information by merely TOUCHING them!? What if your gun jams?? Do you know how to fix it?? Do you even know how difficult it is to make a good follow-up shot taking into consideration the blow-back?? Do you know what kind of trigger pull your gun has?? Can you pull the trigger without jerking the gun?? You know how loud guns are?? Did you know that without any ear protection, you WILL momentarily lose your hearing?? What about after you're done using it?? Do you know how to disassemble and clean them?? HMMMMMMMMMMMM??
Now youre entering the territory of proficiency. As in, which is the weapon that allows you to more easily kill someone with a lack of training.
As I said before, Id be much more afraid of a maniac weilding a gun and wildly shooting at me, than I would be of a maniac weilding a sword and blindly slashing at me.
Now, ive learned both Kendo, and how to shoot. Guess which one took more lessons to grasp even the bare basics? And if i took only one lesson of each, guess which one id feel more safe with, if i ever got into a fight with? Or were mugged with? Or have to defend my friends and family, with?
Hell, even with no lessons, id still feel safer with a gun, if given the option between a sword and a gun.
I mean, everything you wrote, is important, But you dont need to know all that to be deadly with a gun. A baby can be deadly with a gun.
Quote from Badkarma
Actually, I was imagining a more defensive scenario, where the person with the weapon has to defend themselves. If in ten seconds you're about to be beaten to a bloody pulp and you've never fired a gun, that is, loading the magazine, putting the magazine in the gun, cocking it, taking the safety off if it has one, aiming and pulling the trigger, then you're probably better off with a sword.
As opposed to... Unsheathing the sword, moving your hands, your body and your sword into the right position so that you dont harm yourself, Putting enough force in your hands in order to swing at your opponent, hitting him with enough force that actually stops him...?
Lets ignore for the fact that, if were talking about a sword, then the length of the sword necessarily means that it takes larger movements and more effort to get it into position, as opposed to the smaller movements and less effort to Load, click off safety, aim and pull the trigger(Which can be done at point blank range, mind you). Lets ignore the fact that it takes far more strength to use a sword than it does a gun.
I think the point about defending yourself is that you would actually, oh, i dunno, stop the person from beating you to a pulp. I dont see that happening with a sword. Whether you choose FMJ or HP, the potential damage, ease and stopping power, caused by a Gun is far far higher.