I enjoyed reading this thread. It looks like we have quite a few warriors at the CAA
.
As for the swords vs. guns question, it really depends on the situation. Personally, I would like to have one of each.
If my oponnent was a fair distance away, I would prefer a gun, probably a semi-automatic rifle of some sort. I am a decent marksman (although I haven't practiced in a while, since we can't exactly keep guns--or swords for that matter--in our dorms
), so I wouldn't be too worried about accuracy.
If I was 4-10 feet away, a sword would be my weapon of choice, perhaps with a pistol as a secondary weapon. I haven't had a lot of formal martial arts training, but I have had some experience with melee weapons, and I am trying to learn when I have time.
Any closer than 4 feet, and I would go for a short sword/dagger. I might not be able to draw the sword in time (especially if the oponnent already had his weapon drawn, or was using a dagger).
Granted, guns are the better weapons overall. Although swords are a bit more glamorous, it doesn't do any good to have a "cooler" weapon if you have a bullet through the head. Then again, it is important to keep in mind a bit of wisdom that I learned from the "Zombie Survival Guide:"
"Blades don't need reloading."
A gun is only a superior weapon as long as you have ammo and no mechanical difficulties. Otherwise it is just a high-tech club (if that).
Of course, it takes a lot longer to master swords. That is why firearms replaced sword/bows on the battlefield. You can give a bunch of troops (modern) guns, and they will decimate a force armed with blades/bows. Then again, that assumes that you aren't fighting in dense forest/jungle. Then all bets are off.
But yeah, with a claymore if they get inside your zone then you can't get enough leverage to swing, but with a spear or pike, you can just move your hands down the length of the weapon to shorten it. Though you would have a "tail" sticking out of the back.
