Although I agree guns need to be regulated more and there’s too many of them I think your second paragraph is unfortunately unrealistic. Did swords have any purpose besides killing people? Also some guns are used for hunting. Humans go to war and will always create tools of killing I don’t think there’s any way of removing all of those tools because someone will find a way to have them and be at an advantage over others. I’m not sure you can ever convince society as a whole to say no to violence with tools.
Did swords have any purpose besides killing people?
For the last several centuries of their widespread existence, swords were an archaism worn by people as a status symbol and to show their belonging to an in-group - like pickup trucks today in the USA.
Yes, but the creation of the sword was for killing people. They were a status symbol because of that. I’m sure when the next better tool comes along then guns will be the same thing.
Yes, but the creation of the sword was for killing people. They were a status symbol because of that.
Not really “because of that”. The heyday of the sword was during antiquity. Swords as a fighting weapon were later eclipsed by spears and polearms, and yet nobody wore any other weapon as a fashion statement. It’s just that swords were much more expensive to make then a pollaxe or what-have-you, so they were owned by nobility.
That doesn’t really refute the core point I’m trying to make, but also polearms never really “eclipsed” swords. Sure a spear is much easier for a less trained peasant to use but ultimately a spear or polearm is absolutely garbage against a trained opponent closer than the effective range of your weapon or on a large scale battle where you don’t have enough space to maneuver it. If anything crossbows and later guns would eclipsed swords because it’s very easy to train someone how to use those quickly, and they blew through armor.
Spear-wielding infantry continued to exist well into the gunpowder era, whereas swords were pretty much only used by cavalry at that point (ironically the disappearance of armour made swords relevant again, in the form of the sabre)
We can’t “be done with it” as long as guns are allowed to be manufactured and any random lunatic is allowed to have one.
The fact that a tool whose only purpose is to kill people is even allowed to exist outside history museums boggles the mind in its monstrosity.
I’m not sure who told you that the only purpose for a gun is to kill people, but they were very wrong.
Indeed. Guns are tools designed specifically for killing, but not necessarily just people.
There is the caveat that some guns were designed specifically for target shooting (like in a competition setting), but those are outliers.
Although I agree guns need to be regulated more and there’s too many of them I think your second paragraph is unfortunately unrealistic. Did swords have any purpose besides killing people? Also some guns are used for hunting. Humans go to war and will always create tools of killing I don’t think there’s any way of removing all of those tools because someone will find a way to have them and be at an advantage over others. I’m not sure you can ever convince society as a whole to say no to violence with tools.
For the last several centuries of their widespread existence, swords were an archaism worn by people as a status symbol and to show their belonging to an in-group - like pickup trucks today in the USA.
Yes, but the creation of the sword was for killing people. They were a status symbol because of that. I’m sure when the next better tool comes along then guns will be the same thing.
Not really “because of that”. The heyday of the sword was during antiquity. Swords as a fighting weapon were later eclipsed by spears and polearms, and yet nobody wore any other weapon as a fashion statement. It’s just that swords were much more expensive to make then a pollaxe or what-have-you, so they were owned by nobility.
That doesn’t really refute the core point I’m trying to make, but also polearms never really “eclipsed” swords. Sure a spear is much easier for a less trained peasant to use but ultimately a spear or polearm is absolutely garbage against a trained opponent closer than the effective range of your weapon or on a large scale battle where you don’t have enough space to maneuver it. If anything crossbows and later guns would eclipsed swords because it’s very easy to train someone how to use those quickly, and they blew through armor.
Spear-wielding infantry continued to exist well into the gunpowder era, whereas swords were pretty much only used by cavalry at that point (ironically the disappearance of armour made swords relevant again, in the form of the sabre)
A fancy gun is already a status symbol.
Yeah fair point
And have been since their invention