swords are deadlier than guns...

J

Jared Stenoien

Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
1,025
...wow this article made me laugh
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070427/ap_on_re_us/campus_guns;_ylt=AmoBNagUZeDaXymjPIn1h6RH2ocA


Oda said banning guns on campus might do more harm than good. He said people bent on violence might resort to other, perhaps bloodier methods, such as swords.

"A person that's got skill with a sword in a very big crowd could put a lot more people down with a sword than a gun," he said. "They're silent. You'll have people screaming, but nobody knows what's going on."
Click to expand...
 
Wow, that is hysterical. The way they say "bloodier methods" makes it sounds like the clean-up would be a hassle. Of course banning guns on campus will do more harm than good. They're just now realizing this, of course instead their logic being rational and telling them that it's a useless infringement on personal freedoms, they're afraid of ninjas in a crowd of people. Idiots.
 
i see his line of thought (even though it might not be realistic), causing harm with a weapon that is pretty quiet (a sword, come on you hear a swosh and a smack) compared to a loud weapon (fire arm, bang bang bang that carries very far). youll be able to cause harm longer with out alerting as many people.... now the amount of skill you need to take out as many people with a sword as a firearm in the same time is a differant story.

and of course, a sword is so much less noticable than a firearm :rolleyes:
-matt
 
OilMan said:
Does a gun with a silencer trump a sword?:confused: :D
Click to expand...

A gun with a "silencer" still makes noise. If you're in a crowd and start blasting away with a suppressor, people are going to know what's up. You probably wouldn't be able to hear it from outside if it's fired in a building, but it's kind of loud (a weapon with a good suppressor sounds kind of like an air rifle)

The thing about mowing down crowds of people with a sword, is that a crowd of people doesn't like it when somebody starts hacking away at them. This has happened lots of times and I've never heard of anyone killing more than a handful of people. In Israel, before there were suicide bombings, there were "stabbing missions"- where suicidal attackers would wade into crowds and start stabbing as many people as possible before they were overwhelmed or shot down. I don't know how many people were killed in those things but I want to say around 4 or 5 may have been the average. Most mass murderers with a gun tend to kill more than that. I think there was an incident in Japan involving a crazy dude with a sword where he killed 14 people, but in general, a gun is a much more effective "tool" if you're a scumbag intent on killing as many people as possible. A gun gives you some stand-off range.
 
The logic of the original quote is seriously whacked. That said, one could create tactical conditions wherein the skillful use of a sword could take a toll comparable to VT.

It would just take a killing field with no escape, say a basement classroom or cubicle warren with only two realistic exits, both of which have been cut-off or chained up by the crazy and limits cell phone reception for 911 calls.

All the perp would then need to do is ensure he was in a gun-free zone and have potential victims who can't appreciate how they could fight back or are too small to do so.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1377781.stm
 
Mushashi and other historical figures who had above average battle prowess would cut down dozens of opponents in battle. These events were witnessed by top military officials and many others. While the statement in the OP is silly a sword is deadlier than a single shot in most cases. A perfect kesa-giri (diagonal cut) starts at the base of the targets neck and ends its swath under the opposite arm. This effectively seperates the head, shoulder and arm of the opponent. Try fixing that up in the ER. A small hole in someone can often be repaired. A huge gapping wound that spills your organs is not repairable in general. Obviously in large scale battles at this point firearms would be a much more effective killing machine. Swords are deadly but it helps if your opponent doesnt have a gun and 20 feet of starting room.
 
I just want to put it out there that it logically speaking, it shouldn't take mad ski11z to kill people with a sword. There's a pointy part, and a sharp part- when either of them make contact with the flesh, people bleed and die. However, a sword is by no means small or unnoticable.

Boats- I just read the article, and one little quip happened to stick with me
School slayings are - tragically - not that uncommon in the United States, but in Japan, an attack of this nature and scale has never happened at a school before.
Click to expand...

The morons make it sound like it happens regularly.
 
i was saying the ability to kill as many as fast with a sword as with a gun would take skills, just wanted to clarify if that was in any referance to me.

-matt
 
"A person that's got skill with a sword in a very big crowd could put a lot more people down with a sword than a gun," he said. "They're silent. You'll have people screaming, but nobody knows what's going on."
Click to expand...
Here we had a case where a man shot and killed two people with a rifle, - everybody in charge knew about it right away - and he came back 2 1/2 hours later and killed dozens more. Forget about a silent sword. You could come in with a Sherman tank with an air-raid siren strapped on the top and kill everybody on campus before anybody reacted.
 
moving-van.jpg
 
TorzJohnson said:
Here we had a case where a man shot and killed two people with a rifle, - everybody in charge knew about it right away - and he came back 2 1/2 hours later and killed dozens more. Forget about a silent sword. You could come in with a Sherman tank with an air-raid siren strapped on the top and kill everybody on campus before anybody reacted.
Click to expand...

~whisper~ pssst, he had 2 hand guns [/whisper]

-matt
 
BigJimSlade said:
Mushashi and other historical figures who had above average battle prowess would cut down dozens of opponents in battle. These events were witnessed by top military officials and many others. While the statement in the OP is silly a sword is deadlier than a single shot in most cases. A perfect kesa-giri (diagonal cut) starts at the base of the targets neck and ends its swath under the opposite arm. This effectively seperates the head, shoulder and arm of the opponent. Try fixing that up in the ER. A small hole in someone can often be repaired. A huge gapping wound that spills your organs is not repairable in general. Obviously in large scale battles at this point firearms would be a much more effective killing machine. Swords are deadly but it helps if your opponent doesnt have a gun and 20 feet of starting room.
Click to expand...


I don't doubt that it is possible for Musashi to have done that but in battle, at least some of his opponents were advancing TOWARD him, looking to fight it out. In a killing spree I think ppl would be trying to get away. Imagine Mushashi trying to chase down each of the dozens of ppl before dealing his death strike, he'd be pretty tired too.

I agree a sword can deal lethal wounds and would just like to add that a doctor would have an equally tough time dealing with mortal wounds from any source.
 
And all of this could be done ever so much more easily with a couple of gallons of gasoline and a cigarette lighter. So what?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top