Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2010 19:07:42 GMT
I Often wonder why civillians stopped carrying swords. i know this may sound silly. but wouldnt it be a much more polite world if we all started carrying swords; of whatever style again?.
Was the reason valid for us all to stop carrying a sword?. i dont understand the reasoning behind it. not very long ago we carried swords. why did it stop?. look at star wars as an example. the Jedi all have lightsabers. bad example i know. but youd figure in the year 2010, we would be allowed to decide on our own. much like the Jedi. Lucas understood what i mean.
feel free to discus, or let this post falter into the silly post category lol. thank you for reading ladies, and gentlemen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2010 19:15:31 GMT
gunpowder.........messed up everything
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2010 19:22:25 GMT
Lots of reasons: Sometimes it was outlawed, like in France which led to cane fighting. Other times, it just became impractical, especially with the invention of the carbine cartrige, the minnie bullet and the gatling gun in the 1800's. After a while, it just seemed silly bringing a sword to a gunfight, as illistrated by Indiana Jones. And weapons weren't meant to be polite, they were meant to kill. By the time it would take you to draw your sword, I'm pretty sure you would at least been shot at once. Combined with the fact that people don't "play fair" or abide by rules in this day in age, swords are just impractical by today's standards.
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Apr 5, 2010 19:22:44 GMT
Yep... When handguns became reliable and small enough to be more easily carried, they replaced the sword and other large blades. Then society evolved (or devolved, depending on your point of view) until it made the carrying of weapons mostly socially unacceptable.
This is changing in some few circles. But mostly it's the status quo now. No weapons, ergo, no swords. And even if the "no weapons" situation were removed, swords would just be inconvenient in today's world of small, confining cars, small rooms, and other confined spaces.
|
|
|
Post by alvin on Apr 5, 2010 19:23:38 GMT
gorram coward lawyers....always mess things up.
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Apr 5, 2010 19:24:56 GMT
Yeah...... lawyers and sub-compact cars make the world an un-fun place. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2010 19:29:10 GMT
Can you guys imagine a Smart car rolling down the road loaded with dudes and there swords!LOL-Now picture them trying to get out all at once and draw there swords-to much.
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Apr 5, 2010 19:32:34 GMT
Yeah, they would have to have those "switchblade katanas" the young Sulu used in the latest Star Trek movie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2010 19:35:12 GMT
Yeah, they would have to have those "switchblade katanas" the young Sulu used in the latest Star Trek movie. Oi Vey. Those thing were ridiculous enough in the movie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2010 19:42:50 GMT
because swords are so bloody messy and having to clean up the dismembered limbs would be unenviable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2010 19:48:56 GMT
Stupid legislators The same people that pass laws like here in Oklahoma it's illegal to hunt whales we can carry handguns (Great) but we can't carry swords or Bowie knives, unless we are hunting and in the Fields or woods (Stupid)
|
|
|
Post by sicheah on Apr 5, 2010 19:50:03 GMT
Yeah, they would have to have those "switchblade katanas" the young Sulu used in the latest Star Trek movie. Oi Vey. Those thing were ridiculous enough in the movie. Or those buster sword
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2010 19:57:33 GMT
I actually checked with my local law enforcement not to long ago and found out that it was perfectly legal to walk down the street with a sword on my hip. I might get a lot of funny looks, and probably refused service at a few. But at the end of the day, if I wanted to feel like I had to defend myself, I'd just carry a pistol.
I own swords for entertainment, guns for defense. I suppose in the past it might have been different when guns first started coming to be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2010 20:29:00 GMT
I don't really buy the rise of firearms as an explanation for the decline of civilian swords. After all, there were plenty of guns in the 17:th and 18:th centuries and back then swords were all the rage.
Rather, I think people started to view them as obselete little by little as the Age of Reason got into gear. Swords were still considered real weapons in the 19:th century, but a modern man simply wasn't supposed to carry that kind of archaic thing around.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2010 20:43:32 GMT
interesting topic. there still many reasons i suppose. just seem's rather odd how it all came to a stop. a gun can kill faster true enough.
and +1 for the video lol.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2010 21:01:26 GMT
I don't really buy the rise of firearms as an explanation for the decline of civilian swords. After all, there were plenty of guns in the 17:th and 18:th centuries and back then swords were all the rage. Rather, I think people started to view them as obselete little by little as the Age of Reason got into gear. Swords were still considered real weapons in the 19:th century, but a modern man simply wasn't supposed to carry that kind of archaic thing around. Hell, the U.S. Navy still had the cutlass as part of the armory until WWII, but that didn't make it practical in war. While I agree the "Age of Reason" could have an influence as to whether or not the everyday man would carry one, I have to disagree with you about your assessment of the influence of firearms. Firearms are continually advancing as far as power, distance, precision and execution while you can only go so far with the evolution of a sword. Until a light sabre is made by Apple and marketed at a reasonable price that is. . .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2010 21:40:41 GMT
Hell, the U.S. Navy still had the cutlass as part of the armory until WWII, but that didn't make it practical in war. While I agree the "Age of Reason" could have an influence as to whether or not the everyday man would carry one, I have to disagree with you about your assessment of the influence of firearms. Keep in mind, I'm talking about civilian swords, not swords carried in the military. I thought the thread starter was pretty clear on that. I don't think it was an issue of technology, per se. Rather, what killed he sword as a military weapon was the adoption of trench warfare and the general decline of cavalry. It was a matter of tactics, really. I mean, even if Apple does build a lightsaber, that doesn't change the fact that it's a close range weapon and that today, wars are fought almost exclusively at long range. Speaking of which... look at star wars as an example. the Jedi all have lightsabers. bad example i know. but youd figure in the year 2010, we would be allowed to decide on our own. much like the Jedi. Lucas understood what i mean. Fun fact: In the original draft, the lightsaber wasn't a weapon used only by the Jedi. In that version they were shorter, one handed blades, kinda like light-cutlasses, and everyone carried them. Heck, the Stormtroopers carried lightabers and complimentary energy shields. (You know those round tube-like things the stormtroopers carry on their lower back? These days explained to be a thermal detonator or something? That's actually design remnant of the Emperial issue lightsaber.) The reason was that when you are on a starship in outer space, it actually makes sense to use melee weapons as opposed to firearms because a stray shot risks breaching the hull and cause decompression, which would ruin everyone's day.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2010 21:54:47 GMT
Great subject. I know that most of us feel we were born in the wrong century, lol. I for one, would love to be able to carry a sword on my hip, not for self defense, but just to feel like that age hasn't died, and chivalry isn't dead, and that a man can be honorable enough to carry a sword responsibly. Many people , including myself, carry a hunting knife on the belt through most of the fall season. It's nothing to see people in the stores and banks with a knife on their hip. Hidden weapons are a big no-no here, but there are no border restrictions or ownership restrictions on long blades. I have a large property in the country so I can carry a sword most of the time anyway, lol.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2010 22:15:40 GMT
Hell, the U.S. Navy still had the cutlass as part of the armory until WWII, but that didn't make it practical in war. While I agree the "Age of Reason" could have an influence as to whether or not the everyday man would carry one, I have to disagree with you about your assessment of the influence of firearms. Keep in mind, I'm talking about civilian swords, not swords carried in the military. I thought the thread starter was pretty clear on that. I don't think it was an issue of technology, per se. Rather, what killed he sword as a military weapon was the adoption of trench warfare and the general decline of cavalry. It was a matter of tactics, really. I mean, even if Apple does build a lightsaber, that doesn't change the fact that it's a close range weapon and that today, wars are fought almost exclusively at long range. I know civilian sword carry was mentioned. That's why I mentioned the whole outlawing of swords in France and the evolution of cane fighting in my first post as an example. As for the cutlass, merely pointing out that even a fighting war machine can hold onto the past and it not be practical. I believe technology has everything to do with tactics. Why would one create a tactic (using the example of trench warfare) to provide cover if the technology didn't put them in danger? As far as civilian carry is concerned, revolvers and rifles were becoming much more advanced. Helped a lot of homesteaders defend themselves moving West in the American Wild West days. Swords, not so much. And rifles eventually evolved to combat the swarm tactics Native Americans performed on said homesteaders (or soldiers) impeding on their lands. I think I'm more than happy to agree to disagree on this subject.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2010 22:21:36 GMT
Great subject. I know that most of us feel we were born in the wrong century, lol. Actually, I'm very happy being born in this age. Longer life expectency, higher living standard, the internet, and sub-$300 swords for crying out loud. However, I do sometimes suspect I was born in the wrong reality. o.O
|
|