Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2010 15:51:06 GMT
anyway, I chuckled when I saw forestfox's forum rank ( Man at arms), SBG has got to do something about that... Yeah, everytime I read it, it reminds me of Man-at-Arms from He-man. I'm not that kind of guy. . .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2010 15:58:28 GMT
Its good to be the king.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2010 16:51:26 GMT
I suppose I should've expanded on where I'm coming from. I've dealt with numerous people who dislike firearms (though I personally believe this to be silly, it's their right to like/dislike as they please), believing them to be weapons of violence. The part that BOTHERS me is that these people (it's a sword fan forum on facebook) then turn around and claim they would prefer to carry a sword for self/home defense because it "takes more skill" and is more "honorable" ... I totally agree. Both swords and firearms take skills. Different skills, but skills nevertheless. Hell, even a hydrogen bomb takes skill, though it's a concerted skill among many, and the intellectual skill to make one. Yet the person whose romantic self-persona as a "swordsman" will tout his smarts over going hand-to-hand w/o a weapon against a hulk, skilled or unskilled. And many a self-identifying swordsman will tout battlefield unit cohesion--if he's on the winning side because of it--when from the opposite perspective the adversaries could point out "are you too cowardly to each of you face us one on one?" To the Romans, fighting as a unit was smart and brave, to the Celts the Romans were wussies. Even the much-vaunted Spartans--would they have done anywhere near as well, even matched up one on one in separate fights w/ an Immortal? Then again, w/o weapons, hand-to-hand, is it "fair" only to match opponents up of similar size, or should the weight-classes, so to speak, be open? The fact is, when it comes to conflict, each one of us is filled with paradoxes and hypocrisies, trying to win, and trying to frame the way WE win as the most "honorable" method.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2010 16:53:45 GMT
Not to derail this thread, but I keep hearing statements like this and I've got to say this is a serious case of viewing the past through rose-colored lenses. There were some "rules" or other pomp and circumstance when dueling was involved, (sword or pistol) which is what I had in mind when I wrote the statement. Aaron Burr seemed to enjoy it and utilized it quite effectively to his political downfall. I do not pretend to think this was the norm nor do I feel that you are wrong in your assessment of criminal use. I do, however, find the length of your personal assumption astounding. www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/duel.htm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2010 17:25:15 GMT
Steckfretman That is amazing that there are people that would favor a criminal with a sword over any victim. I briefly considered turning to a life of crime where I break into people's houses with a sword strapped to my side and "kindly" ask for people's loot.
Then I quickly realized that most people would just shoot me and my life of crime would be short lived.
ForestFox Thank you for showing me a part of the internet I haven't discovered yet. I'm about to go search that site to see if they have the one where someone challenged Lincoln to a duel and Lincoln, being a massive man, chose broadswords (because he didn't want to fight)
Lemal I think that there are plenty of people out there who don't make any qualms about using every advantage in combat. I can only best sum it up with this movie quote from "El Diablo":
Billy Ray Smith: [outraged] You just shot that man in the back! Van Leek: [unperturbed] His back was to me.
I think there might be a direct corrilation between the amount of physical conflicts a person has been in and how he feels about fighting fair. I haven't been in many "fights" and I probably wouldn't kick a man in the jewels after he's down. But I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that would, and they've probably been in more fights then me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2010 17:40:12 GMT
ForestFoxThank you for showing me a part of the internet I haven't discovered yet. I'm about to go search that site to see if they have the one where someone challenged Lincoln to a duel and Lincoln, being a massive man, chose broadswords (because he didn't want to fight). No problem! Glad I could help. I've always found first hand eyewitness accounts of history interesting and moving. Hope you find what you're looking for. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2010 18:25:50 GMT
I have a problem with this too. When the semprini hits the fan "more skill" equates to "gets deaded quicker." I'd rather ambush someone, no honour, like war, it's all a dirty messy affair that has been romanticised. Honour is subjective. In my religion the honourable thing would be not to fight and not to cause harm to another human being. It is quandry'som. Part of me agrees with my religion and part of me agrees with my training. In terms of home defense swords are a psychological disadvantage to the wielder because any normal person would have a measure of hesitation, after all the cutting videos and experiences many of us have had could we honestly bring ourselves to use a sword against another person? Just as war isn't about dying for your country but making the other bastard die for his, so to in home defense. Don't die to protect your home, make the other bastard sorry he painted you into a corner. Melee weapons are not good for home defense. I have to agree that a shotgun is the way to go, especially one with a loud pump action. The spine tingling terror inspired by the meaty sound of a shotgun being racked would be enough to get rid of all but the most hardened thief or criminal. Also if you can manage it, shoot through a door, then there is no hesitation cause you can't see your attacker
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2010 18:48:03 GMT
It's because it's not acceptable to kill someone on the streets anymore. It's messy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2010 19:31:14 GMT
Your talking as if swords and firearms were treated separately.
As far as some of the laws go yes, but both lead to the outlawing of dueling in France. I read somewhere (years ago) that over 30% of Frances male population had been involved directly in a duel. It was fashionable and you weren't considered a man in some instances if you hadn't had a duel. Considering their duels didn't involve fisticuffs, it is easy to see that the amount of deaths and maiming played havoc of the adult male population, effecting economics and the ability of France from defending itself militarily, hence the outlawing.
France was at the time the hallmark for Enlightenment, so it's easy so see why carrying weapons socially, became improper, throughout Europe and America thereafter, as specific needs declined.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2010 19:35:49 GMT
I'm conflicted when I think about this. On the one hand, there seems to be something... honorable? about carrying a sword on your person, as much a part of you as your arm or your leg.
The thing is, I'm afraid that, like someone else pointed out, I'm romanticising things. My experience with fighting and being threatened and having to threaten others is that it's fast, brutal, messy, and something to be avoided if possible or handled as quickly and safely (keeping yourself safe I mean) as possible. The two ideas, one being somewhat romantic and the other being brutal and, quite frankly, something that I'll always associate with that weak trembling feeling, just don't mesh in my head at all.
I think I can best illustrate my feelings on the matter like this: I think the sword is an excellent symbol and badge of... something. That something is something I can't describe with any real articulation, but it feels like "honor, determination, bravery in the face of fear." Beside it should be carried a symbol that means "kindness, willingness to help, patience."
I wish everyone would want to carry around the attitude that would go with carrying the symbols I'm imagining. Then it wouldn't matter what else they carried, gun, sword, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2010 20:18:17 GMT
theres the old saying. Free men (and women) have guns/swords. slaves dont.
that is a very wise saying.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2010 20:34:55 GMT
ah, attitudes toward armed conflict... if every person were honorable, only rampaging beasts would ever experience the business ends of our weaponry. I've recently had my feelings on this subject summed up by an author... never could put it to words well before this. Paraphrased: "There are only two purposes to physical conflict. The first is camaraderie in practicing with your comrades. The second is to take the life of your enemies. There can be no in-between." ...I've never been one to fight for dominance, though. I really don't think there should be any step between warning with words and taking a life. Of course, if not everyone understands such a rule, the philosophy falls apart in a flurry of half-measures.
|
|
Brett Whinnen
Member
I know enough to know I still know nothing
Posts: 208
|
Post by Brett Whinnen on Apr 6, 2010 20:52:36 GMT
*snip* Also if you can manage it, shoot through a door, then there is no hesitation cause you can't see your attacker This is a comment that I fear the most with respect to home defence and firearms of any sort. This is also why training, experience and overall proficiency with a weapon of any sort is essential. The problem I have with this is that shooting through said door where you cannot see your attacker means that your attacker could be anyone, or even holding anyone hostage. Fear is a wondrous thing, it can root you to the spot, freezing any action and it can also give you the ability to act blindly without thinking to protect yourself. My attitude towards firearms and their use comes from years of being a safety officer / trainer at a pistol club as well as shooting. If you can't see the target, your finger should be no where near the trigger in the first place. Accidents happen (or they wouldn't be accidents), it is doing what you can to minimize the risk of them happening that is essential. But on the subject of pumping a shotgun, that is one of the most recognisable sounds out there. Followed closely by the slide action of loading a semi-auto handgun. To the OT, it comes down to a simple fact, weapons are a symbol of violence in the political arena, politically the human race is peaceful and has no need of such items. Do what I say, not what I do, isn't that the political model?
|
|
|
Post by sparky on Apr 6, 2010 21:27:56 GMT
I always figured it was because "I" am a law abiding citizen and therefore not to be trusted with a weapon. Relates back to a previous comment about those in power wanting to stay in power. There is also, IMO, an attitude of nothing being anyone fault. So If some crazy person goes off with any weapon those in power want to take all of our weapons. After all it's not their fault, it's the bad evil weapons fault! I also couldn't agree more; there is no such thing as a fair fight. You fight to win, period. And now that I have kids........ whatever it takes. Part of whatever it takes is moving my family to a better area, even though I now have to drive 200+ miles a day. edit: to addOh yeah on the pump action shoot gut! My wife actually had to rack ours at our front door once, a long time ago. (Hence the move to a better area.) Someone was trying to break into our apartment one night, so she got it and racked it at the door. Guess what? The bad guy left....... fast. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2010 21:41:55 GMT
Hypothetical question: Does every thread have to turn into a discussion on fire-arms and home defense? I'm getting a bit tired of it, no offense. I see this all the time. Let's stay on topic please edited to add: I know I can just "not read" the relevant posts, but I'd really not like to have to do that. Some of you make really good points outside of all of the gun and home-invasion bicker.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2010 23:24:17 GMT
It is probably best summed up Tom Berringer who played Theodore Roosevelt in the movie Rough Riders: "will someone please relieve me of this cursed saber!" Carrying a sword is a pain in the ass, especially in a modern warfare situation. Imagine trying to wear a sword everywhere you go for a week.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2010 23:29:31 GMT
...I think the sword is an excellent symbol and badge of... "kindness, willingness to help, patience." Ok, don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of the sword for it's historic significance and it's impact on fiction. But I'm sorry, if I saw a guy with a sword strapped to his hip, I don't think my first thought would be, "My, he looks like a kind gentleman. I bet he's looking for an old lady to help cross the street. He probably volunteers at an animal shelter or something." No, my first though would be, "Huh, I wonder if he'd let me see it." But MOST people's first thought would be, "Oh my! Why is he wearing that? I hope he doesn't start killing people." In fact, I don't think that anyone in history would have looked upon someone wearing a sword and made a positive character judgment based solely on the sword. Edit 1:Imagine trying to wear a sword everywhere you go for a week. I tried that, for a day, with my longsword and found out not only why the chape was invented for scabbards, but that a longsword is probably not the best thing to wear on you hip all day in a modern home. Granted I didn't GO anywhere, but it was still cumbersome. I might try it again with an arming sword once I get one. Edit 2:ForestFox, Here is a link to the dispute between Lincoln and Shields: www.lib.niu.edu/1995/ihy950248.html It's a rather hilarious tale that involves swords.
|
|
|
Post by Kilted Cossack on Apr 7, 2010 1:05:13 GMT
Hypothetical question: Does every thread have to turn into a discussion on fire-arms and home defense? I'm getting a bit tired of it, no offense. I see this all the time. Let's stay on topic please edited to add: I know I can just "not read" the relevant posts, but I'd really not like to have to do that. Some of you make really good points outside of all of the gun and home-invasion bicker. Grayson, of all the threads that would turn to firearms and home defense, this seems like it would be the top of the list, and appropriately so. I mean, the title pretty much asks why we stopped carrying swords, and in the Western world, the answer is "firearms." I understand your point---there are other boards I visit when I want to talk about guns, this is the board I visit when I want to talk about swords, but both the gun and the sword fall under the category of individual weaponry, and some overlap is probably inevitable, absent a heavy handed moderating regime.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2010 3:03:29 GMT
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 Just wait till the zombie apocalypse. Don't joke about that. It's coming.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2010 3:07:35 GMT
The fact is, when it comes to conflict, each one of us is filled with paradoxes and hypocrisies, trying to win, and trying to frame the way WE win as the most "honorable" method. Except for those of us who aren't real worried about How we win and survive. So long as we DO. And the other guy doesn't...
|
|