Are swords more honorable then guns?

  • Thread starter Thread starter metalwolf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
thistle said:
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.
Click to expand...
So if killing in war can be necessary, wouldn’t you say that a person who does something that is necessary while exposing themself to extreme danger is acting honorably?

I know that’s a weird way to put it, but it seems to me that if you acknowledge both that a) war can be necessary for a society and b) fighting in a war can involve lots of personal risk then it’s hard to say that someone who does something dangerous that is necessary for his society/country isn’t acting honorably.
 
LawyersGunsAndMoney said:
So if killing in war can be necessary, wouldn’t you say that a person who does something that is necessary while exposing themself to extreme danger is acting honorably?

I know that’s a weird way to put it, but it seems to me that if you acknowledge both that a) war can be necessary for a society and b) fighting in a war can involve lots of personal risk then it’s hard to say that someone who does something dangerous that is necessary for his society/country isn’t acting honorably.
Click to expand...
No I would not say that. They joined the military by choice. They are simply doing their job and doing what they are ordered to do in terms of battles against the enemy.
 
I think that there was a lot of sympathy for the Argentinian combatants in the Falklands. They were mostly very young conscripts who were unwilling participants in a pointless war waged by a brutal military dictatorship. The sinking of the Belgrano remains controversial to this day.
 
thistle said:
They joined the military by choice. They are simply doing their job and doing what they are ordered to do in terms of battles against the enemy.
Click to expand...
Not everybody does join the military by choice. There are still a small number of countries that retain compulsory military service. Historically, wars were often fought by conscripts. But even if people do join the armed forces by choice, surely one could say that that is an honourable choice, just as it could be an honourable choice to become a nurse, police officer, or teacher. Most people are not prepared to make the sacrifices and to take the risks involved in serving in the armed fores. To willingly take those risks surely demands some kind of recognition.
 
Londoner said:
Not everybody does join the military by choice. There are still a small number of countries that retain compulsory military service. Historically, wars were often fought by conscripts. But even if people do join the armed forces by choice, surely one could say that that is an honourable choice, just as it could be an honourable choice to become a nurse, police officer, or teacher. Most people are not prepared to make the sacrifices and to take the risks involved in serving in the armed fores. To willingly take those risks surely demands some kind of recognition.
Click to expand...
Killing a person, even when it is necessary, is never honourable or glorious.
 
I don’t think that anybody is saying that killing people is honourable and glorious. I think that what I am saying, and what others are also saying, is that there is certainly honour, and possibly even glory, in being prepared to lay down one’s life for a just cause or in fighting with particular bravery to defend or liberate a country or a people.

Hence my citing the Battle of Westerplatte. I don’t think that anybody is celebrating the deaths of the German personnel who died that week, but the conduct of the Polish garrison was extraordinary. Germany had expected that the garrison would surrender within a matter of hours. Instead, the Polish soldiers, who numbered fewer than 200 by the end of the battle, went on defending their country from invasion for a full week, despite facing an enemy numbering some 3,400 men, a battleship, two torpedo boats, and 60 dive bombers. I think that that shows remarkable courage, especially when you consider that Poland had only been reconstituted as an independent state at the end of the First World War and that Britain and France did not declare war against Germany until 3 September, meaning that Poland was at this point defending itself singled-handed against Nazi Germany (which, as the most powerful and most aggressive country in Europe, had already occupied Czechoslovakia).
 
@metalwolf
Oh I don’t know. While swords are definitely cool, our service members and law enforcement officers are generally pretty honorable 😉

Someone who shoots someone in cold blood, is definitely not honorable. Someone who is taking cover and is defending himself/family is honorable in my book. The vast majority of private citizen gun owners never fire their weapon against another person. Mostly used for hunting and/or target shooting like the range or skeet shooting. Plus they have it to defend themselves and family just in case.
 
Last edited:
Clint summarized war concisely, here:


Then of course there’s the famous three words attributed to General Sherman.
 
Loaded with 300 grain +Ps, this can even teach a grizzly the meaning of “honor:”
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
I agree. So until Christ returns, war is inevitable. Humanity is incapable of stopping it. As a corollary, violent crime is inevitable. Hence the need for law abiding citizens to own firearms. In a free republic, police will never be able to prevent violent crime.
 
A gun or a sword is only as honorable as the person who wields them. A virtuous man might wield a gun where a complete and utter monster might hold a sword, or vice-versa.
 
I’d much rather be shot lethally than stabbed. Few carry the strength or skill needed to wield a sword to a clean quick death. I think few people realize just how painful an idiot with a heavy sword can be… nope. If I gotta die, please let it be a S&W…
 
Maybe swords are more honorable than guns, but I question how honorable either weapon is, or any other weapon for that matter, which is used mainly for destructive purposes.
 
Londoner said:
Interesting to know. I wonder when was the last time a bayonet was used to kill somebody in one-on-one combat. I guess it’s not the kind of statistic the government is likely to publish (or possibly even collect).
Click to expand...
I read an account by British soldier who killed an Argentine in a trench assault in the Falklands war - 1982. He talked about it as just the practical weapon in the situation, not as a curiosity.

They’re probably used in hand to hand combat to the present day, but hand to hand combat is less frequent all the time.
 
Last edited:
Take away every last firearm from criminals, then you might have some credibility.
As far as being uncomfortable, that’s certainly your perogative. Doesn’t bother me a bit.
 
Last edited:
By this same curious logic, the US should completely disarm. After all, no one would want to do us harm, maybe subjugate us, right?
 
Last edited:
Swords are more personal while guns add distance between combatants. Swords are ideal for fiction because they lead to longer and more interesting fight scenes, hence why you see them more often.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top