The Emo Picture Thread

Bigity · Post by **Bigity** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 2:37 pm

16 rounds? You gonna fight 10+ people with a sword? Nope.

dmpotter · Post by **dmpotter** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 2:40 pm

Who said there were 10 people? Who said the pistol had 16 rounds?

You just asked when a sword is better than a pistol, and I gave you an answer.

Nukinblackmage · Post by **Nukinblackmage** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:31 pm

A sword is better than a pistol when you don't hear the man with the sword creeping up behind you

naturesrevolt · Post by **naturesrevolt** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:31 pm

sword is much better then a pistol in many ways. let's see here, Untracable, balistics, gunpowder residue, and the ilk are completely tracable to who killed who. with a sword, all you have to do is clense it with alchohol and a match and then there's no trace. another one is pistol sucks when you're right up close, face to face, you can't aim it right, with a sword however, all you need to do is cut them to bring them down, then use a coupe de grace. another reason. sword is stealthy! now, I know you'll chime in "silencer!" but a silencer doesn't mean anything when there's a group, because chances are, someone's going to hear that "ptungt" sound and alert the group. slitting someone's voice box open however is silent. rounds of a pistol are uncontrolable, a sword is kept positioned where the attacker wants, but with a pistol, you can easily shoot your buddy while trying to shoot someone else. swords cut through flak jackets and bulletproof vests. a forceful stab goes right through the vest and kills the person, while with a pistol, you need to either aim higher, or get a magnum, and even then it may not work. Any other questions on why a sword's better then pistol?

Wite_Rabit · Post by **Wite_Rabit** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:55 pm

Anyone ever seen an emofag? Tends to be non-tobacco, running against the crowd. Black wrapper..

But you can really tell the emofags from the regular cigarettes by the tiny slashes of blood near the filter.

But then, to be off-topic and following the crowd, when is either weapon better than either? Bottom line, they're still weapons. Weapons have no other use than to kill, or to put the fear of being killed into play. Boogity, boogity, boo. In the end, it doesn't matter what weapon you use, we're all nerds here.

Nerds with swords, yeah. Because, swords can be bought at the farmer's market.. >_> Guns, too, but you've gotta go find that one guy with the mustache, hope he's not a cop.. etc, etc. Unless you live in the south. >_>

Really, though. Ninja's do it in the shadows, but Chuck Norris doesn't use either weapon. He stares at shadows and the ninjas inside shit themselves.

Chuck Norris is better than a pistol. And sword. Combined, like some kind of.. gunblade.

edge · Post by **edge** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:57 pm

Today is Chuck Norris's birthday!

Bigity · Post by **Bigity** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:14 pm

[quote="Nukinblackmage";p="616019"]A sword is better than a pistol when you don't hear the man with the sword creeping up behind you

[/quote]

Yes, because holding a pistol makes so much noise?

Posted Fri Mar 10, 2006 12:22 pm:

[quote="naturesrevolt";p="616021"]sword is much better then a pistol in many ways. let's see here, Untracable, balistics, gunpowder residue, and the ilk are completely tracable to who killed who. with a sword, all you have to do is clense it with alchohol and a match and then there's no trace. another one is pistol sucks when you're right up close, face to face, you can't aim it right, with a sword however, all you need to do is cut them to bring them down, then use a coupe de grace. another reason. sword is stealthy! now, I know you'll chime in "silencer!" but a silencer doesn't mean anything when there's a group, because chances are, someone's going to hear that "ptungt" sound and alert the group. slitting someone's voice box open however is silent. rounds of a pistol are uncontrolable, a sword is kept positioned where the attacker wants, but with a pistol, you can easily shoot your buddy while trying to shoot someone else. swords cut through flak jackets and bulletproof vests. a forceful stab goes right through the vest and kills the person, while with a pistol, you need to either aim higher, or get a magnum, and even then it may not work. Any other questions on why a sword's better then pistol?

[/quote]

Well, aside from the shortage of formatting in your area, let's see:

Untraceable? Only helps if they find the gun. I'm pretty sure there are tests to compare residue/chips from a sword and find matches, and they leave just as much blood laying around. A push.

Lol, what sword (as in sword), has a shorter useable range then a pistol? None. I don't have to extend my arm out fully to shoot, unlike what you see in the movies. You do have to stab or slice with a sword, that requires more room. Winner: Pistol

A sword is stealthy? What? Maybe the actual strike makes less noise (even you get lucky and don't hit anything hard), but it's far more bulky to carry, despite the crap you saw on Highlander. Winner: Pistol

A true pistoler has just as much control of his bullet as a true sword master has of his blade. A push here.

Vests: May stop the round from penetrating, but the target it still down for the count. Just shoot them in the face while they are gasping for breath and clutching broken ribs. However, since most people don't wear chain mail as a normal thing, I'll give this one to swords. Winner: Swords

Blackie · Post by **Blackie** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 8:38 pm

There is actually a kevlar composition vest used to aid in stab wounds and the such. My brother had one when he was doing security in a local mall.
I don't think it is the same composition as a kevlar vest for projectiles (bullets) however.

HTRN · Post by **HTRN** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 8:59 pm

[quote="dmpotter";p="616003"]Who said there were 10 people? Who said the pistol had 16 rounds?[/quote]

There are double stack 1911's that can hold 20 plus rounds of .38 Super.

[quote="Nukinblackmage";p="616019"]A sword is better than a pistol when you don't hear the man with the sword creeping up behind you

[/quote]

Pistols don't make noise until you pull the trigger.

[quote="naturesrevolt";p="616021"]<diatribe about why swords are better>[/quote]

1) Handguns can kill at a distance, swords cannot.
2) Alot of very lethal handguns can fit into your pocket(See Kahr's Pocket 45), a sword cannot.
3) They can match wound profiles, and more often than not, with a hard blow, you'll leave steel behind in the wound. They can match that to the sword.
4) A pistol makes noise, so what? By the time you hear it, you're already dead. Effective silencers are easily made from stuff at home depot. and as for the "he'll hear it and alert the group", ever heard a gun with a "can" on it? Sound attenuates rapidly. At 25 yards it's virtually silent. I know of at least one subsonic RIFLE cartridge that can't be heard at 50 yards
5) If Swords are so great, why did All of Europe make the wholesale switch to muzzleloaders(and crappy ones at that) the minute they became available?

HTRN

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:06 pm

They never made a movie about a Last Cowboy, though.

Guns might be more effective, but Swords are more romantic.

And also, make better art.

dmpotter · Post by **dmpotter** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:15 pm

[quote="HTRN";p="616114"]5) If Swords are so great, why did All of Europe make the wholesale switch to muzzleloaders(and crappy ones at that) the minute they became available?[/quote]
Range. The secret to swords is that they've never been an effective weapon. Archery/pikeman have always been superior to swordsmen soley due to their range, and muskets simply replaced the already superior longbows/crossbows.

But there's a reason (beyond "simple utility") that our soliders still carry a combat knife. When you get into close quarters and you have a non-functioning gun, a blade is simply a good thing to fall back on. The utility is an added bonus.

Swords just look cool. Despite that, they've never been very effective.

And my answer still holds. A sword is far superior to a pistol that can't fire.

HTRN · Post by **HTRN** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:16 pm

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="616116"]Guns might be more effective, but Swords are more romantic.

And also, make better art.[/quote]

I disagree

HTRN

Ser Arthur Dayne · Post by **Ser Arthur Dayne** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:58 pm

really, it's not a fare comparison. It's like apples and oranges. Pistol is a much better ranged weapon than a sword could ever be. A sword is the better melee weapon. They are both great tools, but they're for different jobs.

HTRN · Post by **HTRN** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:02 pm

THe idea is NOT TO GET INTO "MELEE" range.

Honestly, how many armies still use swords other than ceremonial purposes?

Besides, a long rifle with a bayonet is more dangerous than both.

HTRN

Nitz Walsh · Post by **Nitz Walsh** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:09 pm

This is silly, arguing about what is more romantic or what makes better art... a sword or a gun...

But clearly the most romantic weapon that makes the best art is a car.

You can paint the car all pretty and stuff and then go run over people, back up over them and run them over again.

Real Life Forums

The Emo Picture Thread

Who is online