Are swords more honorable then guns?

  • Thread starter Thread starter metalwolf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No… i’d Say the opposite is true. Swords favor stronger more athletic individuals. Guns level the field. Both killing instruments that we live with unfortunately
 
Last edited:
In the Bible an angel was placed by God to guard the garden with a flaming sword. So swords are special in heavenly realms
 
I remember the lead singer for Mötorhead, Lemmy Kilimeister being a huge collector of swords and knives. He said he respected those more than guns because if you had to kill a man in a fight, a knife is way, way more personal.
 
Q: Are swords more honorable than guns?

A: Swords are more honorable than guns, otherwise the Knights of Columbus would be packing Glocks and rifles.
 
metalwolf said:
I meant in anime and tv shows.
Click to expand...
Why are you trying to affix the concept of honor to something that is not real?

Edit: not trying to be snarky, just genuinely curious as it looks like people have given you some really good answers
 
Last edited:
thistle said:
No I am definitely not a pacifist.
Anyone who thinks war/killing is honorable or glorious needs help.
Click to expand...
One could perhaps say that it is honourable, and even glorious, to be prepared to give one’s life for a just cause. As we approach the 75th anniversary of D-Day, for example, I imagine that most people would agree that the 4,414 Allied servicemen confirmed to have been killed on that day do indeed merit the epitaph ‘THE GLORIOUS DEAD’.

I would agree that war as an abstract idea is never glorious and that the taking of somebody’s life should never be celebrated, even in the case of necessity. However, one could argue that the conduct of a war may sometime be honourable, or even glorious. The Battle of Westerplatte would perhaps be one such occasion, when in the opening battle of the Second World War a Polish garrison of barely more than 200 men were able to hold off the German invasion for a week despite vastly inferior resources and being outnumbered 16 to 1. Poland’s refusal to surrender or to collaborate while suffering the greatest per capita losses of the war during six years of brutal occupation by both Germany and the Soviet Union was also surely both honourable and glorious.
 
Having use both extensively in reenactment settings, I would say neither.

Both are tools, inanimate objects. People have honor, things themselves do not.
 
CCHcolonel said:
I think swords are infinitely more classy, require more skill, and have a certain flare that guns will never have.
Click to expand...
The requirement for skill is relative. If you are engaged with an equally armed opponent, I would claim that both require you to be more skilled than your opponent.

Sure, ‘Princess Bride’ duels need a lot of skill, but don’t underestimate the amount of skill that a modern military sniper needs either.

For killing an unarmed opponent, neither require much skill.
 
thistle said:
No I am definitely not a pacifist.
Anyone who thinks war/killing is honorable or glorious needs help.
Click to expand...
If you’re not a pacifist, presumably you agree that there are some scenarios in which war/killing is necessary, then?
 
I don’t mean to pull the veteran card, but as a veteran of two wars this kinda grates on me. Weapons aren’t about “style” or notions of honor derived from movie described in flowery language. I get that this is abstract to a lot of people but not to everyone.

I’m sure you don’t mean anything by it, but just had to get that out there.
 
I believe the actions of Charles Martel at Tours were honorable and glorious. Ditto the rear guard actions of Roland and Oliver, if true. And the 1st (“Prince’s,” anyway) and 3rd Crusade. The Battle of Lepanto, and the defense of Vienna (John III Sobieski!)–honorable and glorious!
 
Last edited:
LawyersGunsAndMoney said:
If you’re not a pacifist, presumably you agree that there are some scenarios in which war/killing is necessary, then?
Click to expand...
I did not say killing in war or even in self defence is not necessary. I said there is nothing honourable or glorious about taking a life.
 
However, we must not be chronocentric.
What we in the 2000s think of as “honor” is not what was meant by it in the past. Then, honor had a lot to do with fighting, killing, and being killed.

ICXC NIKA
 
Honorable, certainly, particularly by the standards of the time, but the death of a human being is never “glorious” however necessary, or beneficial to the victor.

ICXC NIKA
 
It’s the victory over an enemy force that can be glorious, and yes, beneficial to the victor. Such victory entails casualties. That’s why it’s called “war.”
In all the examples I mentioned, the victories were glorious. And beneficial to the victors, particularly in the cases of Tours, Lepanto, and Vienna. Except of course from the jihadist Islamist perspective. For Christendom, the benefits were undeniably huge-- for example, continued existence.
 
Last edited:
metalwolf said:
Because like in animes and certain shows,people have to face one another when using swords. While with guns they shoot and hide behind a corner or such,which for some reason doesn’t seem very honorable. i’m not sure if i’m expressing myself. But i think you know what i mean
Click to expand...
A few years ago I watched an interview with a British soldier who had fought in the Falklands. He’d been involved in hand to hand fighting. And he related the killing of a young Argentinian soldier. Using his bayonet. He remembered being frustrated that he wouldn’t die. He wanted it to be clean and quick. But it wasn’t. It went on and on and the kid wouldn’t stop screaming for his mother. He sounded almost bemused in the interview.

It is still one of the most chilling things I have ever heard.
 
Here is a man who has pulled the trigger an estimated 2 MILLION times.
Jerry is a complete handyman, gunsmith, mechanic, certified welder, pipe fitter, and machinist. Jerry estimates that in his lifetime he has shot over 2 million rounds of ammunition, which equals approximately 30 tons of lead.
Click to expand...
No one has died.

???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top