The topic is me. This never happens......

I wonder if I should even bother posting. This thread seems to be doing just fine without me. Ah well, why not. As usual when I have a lot of points to make, I will do it in point form:

1) Alexandria, that is a beautiful name. The kinda name I am gonna give my daughter if I have one. Ranks right up there with Catherine, Virtue, Grace, Rose, Verity, those kinds of names.

2) Bullet, your cat has some serious gangsta swag goin on, and I like it. I dont respect it, but I do like it.

3) Shade, I have to disagree with your assesment of difficulty. I could take a firearms safety course in one afternoon and walk out qualified to use a deadly weapon that I carry in my pocket. But if I spent tens of thousands of hours in training and learning and constant self-discipline, I could turn my whole body into a deadly weapon. You would have to register your gun with the government, I have to register my hands with the government. I think I would win that one. Plus you have to remember, 120 feet.

4) It is cowardice to use a bomb or gun, especially a bomb. Because you dont feel it. These people dont mean anything to you. Do you think the people who crewed the Enola Gay ever thought about what they had done? They didnt, because they didnt see it. They werent connected to it. When you objectify your enemies, yes it is easier to rampantly destroy them, but you arent satisfied when you defeat them. It is apathy, pure and simple. Apathy, the unseen blade that strikes our heart and rips our soul. Corrupts our will, poisons our heart, and turns us into something ugly. Something Evil. When you feel your kill, you cannot be unaffected. You are connected to this person. You are the person who took their life. It was yours to give or take, and you took it. Man can kill from thousands of miles away, with the push of a button. He is not satified with his kill. The man who earns his kill, who wins because he was faster, stronger, smarter, he is satified with his kill, because he known that he did indeed earn it. He worked for it, and it is his.

5) Alaska: first of all, cool name. I dont know why you are representing a frost dragon with a manga oriental dragon, but whatever. Second of all, those weapons do not fall into the category of cowardice apart from the catapult. The bow, the sling and the javelin? See above what I think about weapons that require dedicated training.

6) I will be removing my avatar right after this post and never putting one up again. I always match my avatar with my sig, and if theres no sigs then I'm not having an avatar.

Thank you. Actually, it's neither: http://alaskanwyvern.deviantart.com/#/d4dgwcq I'm Alaskanwyvern because I live in Alaska (although I'm in PA for college, which wouldn't flow nearly as well, haha).


I assume you've never used a gun, much less a handgun, because you're talking like someone who's either some kind of savant, reckless, or never seriously shot a gun. Mostly the latter, though.

I'd say he falls under all three, alaska.

In all honesty, he has a point, though. It can take what, half a year to get proficient with a gun? Compare that with the years spent learning to shoot a bow, or the decades to learn enough martial arts to be a living weapon. so yeah, his point is valid. especially considering all the school shootings we see. they might not have taken classes, and maybe not every shot hits, but they kill tons of people, with no training. If we had no guns, you know what would happen? no school violence on anything near that scale. You talk to me when you can repeatedly hit a target at 20 meters with even a X-bow. then tell me they're no harder to use than a gun.

So, he's good with a gun, reckless, and has never shot a gun? How does someone accomplish this, Joural. (I presume AW ment a gun savant.)

no, I meant he may or may not be a savant. I did not specify guns.

also, a savant is someone who is good at things the first time they try them. Therefore he could be a gun savant, and not know it yet.

I was under the impression that just ment someone who was exceptionally gifted at something. Reguardless, carry on with this, if it's any consolation, I agree with you, guns are at the very least a far better military option than anything else.

Dictionary definition: a person of profound or extensive learning; learned scholar.

If we're using school shootings as our measure, then we might as well be talking about hitting the broad side of a barn. That's not skill for anything at all; you spam shots in the appropriate direction, and you'll kill your target eventually. Even a sword can do that.

And I'm pretty sure that low training time establishes a clear superiority of the gun as a weapon.


Yes, I was referring to some superhuman who can master gun shooting in a couple of weeks.

No, have you even read about what happened at columbine? they didn't waste shots. they only missed a couple of times when using their rifles. and really, if it's a sword then the problem is quite a lot less severe- I can throw rocks at you to win, and if you haven't trained with it the odds you can swing without overextending and falling over are minimal. never mind the strength needed to swing one at all. never mind that people can just run away. I made the cross-bow comparison for a reason- without a ranged weapon those types of scenarios are nigh-on impossible.

And with proper training, you can also disarm a shooter in fairly short order: stand inside a doorway, and when he comes through, jump him. They even teach courses on how to do this in an organized fashion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2tIeRUbRHw&feature=player_embedded

But back to the original discussion, I fail to see where "cowardly" is a relevant issue to anyone other than a romantic. The idea is to make the other guy dead before he does it to you. Guns do very well at that. Romantic attitudes are all well and good when your opponent thinks the same way (as in honor duels), but when he doesn't, you're screwed.

So we are now talking about superiority of Weapons... oh wait we were earlier too weren't we.
Well, I suggest we lock this Eo. Nobody is going to sway their opinion, I think we are all too stubborn for that. Just saiyan.

And for the record, becoming good with a sword and a gun (as well as Bow, fists, anything else) are both equally difficult, and require equal amounts of discipline. But a gun just requires less effort. I think what Z is saying is, it requires so little effort, people do not appreciate the other types of attack (Bow, sword, etc.)

Personally I think the way you fight should depend on your environment, and like everything in the world, balance is needed. A sniper will be of little use if you are in close quarters, and your fists do little good out on the tundra or savanna, where you are in the open. Do the math. (Today though, the weapon of choice is the computer, as one click and several lines of code can send an entire country into turmoil and they will never know where it came from.)

Zorthax wrote:

1) Alexandria, that is a beautiful name. The kinda name I am gonna give my daughter if I have one. Ranks right up there with Catherine, Virtue, Grace, Rose, Verity, those kinds of names.

Aw, thx! Lol my middle name is, literally, Rose.

... It was a city in Egypt. [Giggle]... Well the original name was better, but still.

Lol. I get that a lot, the Egypt thing.

We have a busy day tomorrow building floors and beds and stuff in this forum. So for now I will sleep on the floor. *lies down on floor and slowly falls asleep. Wings fold close to her body and act as a blanket*

Alexandria Rose. Truly a name worthy of the most precious of angels. I for one am humbled by the power, grace and beauty of you who would stoop to walk among us. I thank you with all my heart that you have chosen to grace me with your attention. Sleep in peace, precious one.

Wrong quote, oops. I meant the one about the male clone of you.

Alex, you suffer from chronic masturbation?

Patches wrote:

Wrong quote, oops. I meant the one about the male clone of you.

Alex, you suffer from chronic masturbation?

*Wakes up*

....what's that?

Well I don't have poor hygiene and chronic masturbation...

You just don't know you have poor hygiene... >.> Like... You ate too much salt today. [Random guess]

Zorthax, the estimated casualties for American deaths if we tried to take Japan were 500,000. Estimated deaths of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was 260,000. You do the math.


I will concede that yes, you can use a gun without much training. But let's put a person with a gun and a person with another equal gun against one another, and a person with a gun against a person with no again against each other.

Now lets put any given medieval weapon against someone with the same weapon, and any given medieval weapon against someone with no weapon.

The person with more training will win against their equal: whoever has a weapon will win against the defenseless.

Sure, there is the RARE case that you could defeat someone with a gun or even say a sword. Being able to use a weapon, and being trained with a weapon are two very different things. I can go pick up a gun and shoot it right off the bat. I could also go pick up a sword and go kill a ton of people in a school right off the bat. Would I be clumsy with a sword, would I have any technique or skill? No. And for the record, I have no desire to massacre people, I'm just pointing this out. Any FBI/Patriot Act Feds, keep that in mind.

Your point about being a living weapon makes no sense, to be honest. If you don't have a sword and you're a living weapon, how is that any different than being a normal guy without a gun and being a living weapon? Soldiers train in melee combat in the army. They still use bayonets.

You can argue all you want that melee weaponry requires more skill: okay, maybe it does. But replacing guns with swords won't fix school shootings: it isn't the GUN that causes a school shooting. Giving someone a gun doesn't automatically make them a seriall killer or a mass murderer. By that logic, giving someone a sword automatically makes them a super skilled friggin samurai whose of a higher mental and physical discipline than everyone else because, ya know, they're using a sword.

When it comes to war, you have ONE objective, and on eobjective only: to win. Typically, this comes from breaking your enemy's will. Mongols? Used the Black Plague to demolish their enemies. They all had medieval weaponry. War doesn't change: the weapons do. Usually, you go to break the enemy's morale. Shock and awe: it's why they used the Black Plague, it's why they started using gunpowder, it's why they used atomic weapons. Going up against someone with superior weaponry isn't always a guaranteed win, but no one has perfect discipline. You can't expect an army to stay stoic when the enemy can train far faster with gunpowder, you can't expec the enemy to stay focused when they're raining nuclear fire down from the heavens.

I ask that this isn't locked: I enjoy a good debate, win or lose, and as long as things stay civil I see no reason to lock this.

I wasn't going to lock it. There hasn't been any serious breach of etiquette here, so there's no real reason.

No, you could not pick up a sword and kill lots of people. why? because that strategy you discussed for taking out a shooter is even EASIER against someone using a sword. they're tired, they're moving slower, and more importantly it takes far longer to turn and swing a sword than to turn and shoot a gun. never mind RUN AWAY. Plus, all it takes is one bad swing and someone who was about to be your victim will knock you on your ass. Yoiu will never convince me that a sword is as easy to use as a gun, or that people with no training could ever hope to kill just about anyone with a medieval weapon. You know what makes guns unique? if I'm standing 10 feet from you, and we both have a gun, you could have trained for years but if I pull that trigger first, you're dead. this can be true with bows, yes, but someone with no training has almost no hope of hitting a moving target at 10 feet. And unless you plan to grab a bow and try to prove me wrong, YOU WILL NEVER CHANGE MY MIND. We should let this topic die, because it isn't going ANYWHERE, except for maybe a flame war. And flame wars are not good debates, they are useless shouting matches that accomplish nothing.

4) It is cowardice to use a bomb or gun, especially a bomb. Because you dont feel it. These people dont mean anything to you. Do you think the people who crewed the Enola Gay ever thought about what they had done? They didnt, because they didnt see it. They werent connected to it. When you objectify your enemies, yes it is easier to rampantly destroy them, but you arent satisfied when you defeat them. It is apathy, pure and simple. Apathy, the unseen blade that strikes our heart and rips our soul. Corrupts our will, poisons our heart, and turns us into something ugly. Something Evil. When you feel your kill, you cannot be unaffected. You are connected to this person. You are the person who took their life. It was yours to give or take, and you took it. Man can kill from thousands of miles away, with the push of a button. He is not satified with his kill. The man who earns his kill, who wins because he was faster, stronger, smarter, he is satified with his kill, because he known that he did indeed earn it. He worked for it, and it is his.

Didn't notice this before. I'm going to go ahead and say that you've never killed a man before, and therefore have NO Idea what you are talking about. The Enola Gay had no feelings, REALLY? Did you know them? Speak to them? Hey, by that logic, all the swordsmen in the world must just want to see blood everywhere, and that's why they get up close? The tail gunner described what he saw as a glimpse into hell: learn your facts.

No. Throwing around that name doesn't make your point valid. You have nothing behind that, just opinion. If you have ever killed a man before, please enlighten me. The horrors of war aren't something you can elaborate on without having ever experienced. A gun or a bomb isn't cowardice. If it is cowardice, then explain Gary Gordon and Randy Shughart.

If you are unfamiliar with them, durring the 1991 deployment to Mogadishu, they were two Delta Snipers who volunteered to go in to defend a crashed Black Hawk, knowing full well they were in the middle of a city would most likely not get help. THey both died defending a man who was held captive for eleven days in brutal conditions, and won the Medal of Honor for it.

Tell me that wasn't bravery. Volunteering to go in to defend someone against thousands of people against you, knowing that help was likely not coming. There are all kinds of stories like that, and to dismiss them as COWARDICE without having experienced war sickens me. Now if you have fought in a WAR, not played airsoft or sparred with someone, but been in an actual WAR, please let m e know.

I don't think he means people who use guns can't be brave, I think he means that guns are inherently bad because of what they represent. A movement away from skills, skills that are learned at the same time as you learn how to not them. I doubt we'd get as many crazy gun toting lunatics if it took years of studying under a well informed master who would teach you restraint and when to use a gun, instead of months practicing and reading about the specifics of your gun online. his problem is less with the gun, than with the change in how you learn it. therefore, anyone in the military is exempt from his scorn because, while the training takes less time, it is there.

Since he specifically listed the Enola Gay crew as an example, I'm not so sure.