What's Happening

Troperville

Tools

collapse/expand topics back to Main/GunsAreWorthless

Thecommander236
topic
06:14:34 PM Apr 1st 2013
Can't you say that this is somewhat true? Sure a single bullet can kill you, but how often can one bullet cut you in half compared to a katana?
Peteman
06:18:12 PM Apr 1st 2013
No, because if you're dead, you're dead.
aaeyero
topic
01:27:55 AM Jan 9th 2012
I'm surprised Sam & Max isn't referenced here. Can somebody add some info on that?
MrDeath
07:51:14 AM Jan 9th 2012
Why should they be? If the trope applies, you can just edit it in yourself.
aaeyero
12:53:36 AM Feb 19th 2012
I've only played the Devil's Playhouse. I'm not sure about most of the series. I does anybody have any more information about this?
Kastorr
topic
09:04:38 PM Jul 11th 2011
Upon examining this trope, it occurs to me that it is very similar to the Annoying Arrows trope, and was wondering if that could or should be worked in anywhere.

It might be a good idea to slip it in as a "compare Annoying Arrows."
CleverPun
topic
05:30:01 AM Aug 21st 2010
There's a lot of natter in the Real Life section, but I'm not sure what to do about it; the main paragraph of the first example and a bit of the replies are relevant to the trope,but it quickly gets out of hand. How much and what should I prune if I want to make it smaller but also prevent more arguments?
WiseBass
09:56:27 AM Oct 5th 2010
To be honest, I think we should keep the whole thing. The information in it is very useful.
agnosticnixie
12:33:59 PM May 11th 2013
Most of the natter is parroting english historians' nonsense about bows and completely ignoring the fact that half the world had abandoned guns before they did while the "superior" english warbow was obsolete already by the 1450s. Japan and the steppe nations, all famed at war for their horse archery, all switched to guns earlier than the english army.
IndirectActiveTransport
07:31:01 PM Mar 19th 2014
Ignoring that the "natter" started at least in the 1200s. 250 years is hardly what I when I would say "already" regarding a weapon's obsolescence.
TweedlyDee
topic
03:16:59 PM May 19th 2010
Let's face it: This trope is a major wallbanger. No-one can dodge bullets, deflect them with swords, or brush them off like a bee sting. And before you start telling me some story of a guy who did, consider this: There are 6-7 billion people on earth. Only about twenty (just an estimate) of them dodged/deflected bullets with a sword. And most likely 90% of those instances are coincidental. Let's face it: Guns > Swords. If that weren't true, swords would be standard issue for modern soldiers.
WiseBass
09:55:50 AM Oct 5th 2010
True, particularly if we're talking about modern guns (which are vastly superior to swords as a personal weapon).

That said, if you have a setting where the logistics for guns don't really work out well (i.e. gunpowder and ammunition is expensive to replace*), you could maybe make a justification for your protagonists to carry around swords, provided that almost nobody else is carrying around firearms.

  • The cost of munitions isn't a minor concern, either. It wasn't until the second half of the 19th century, for example, that most of the European powers (plus the US army) sent fresh troops into battle who had fired their guns more than once or twice in training.
GordonSchumway
05:35:24 PM Apr 7th 2011

The problem is that you're conflating the real world with fictional worlds where people survive much more serious things than gunshots. If Cloud Strife can be hit with a bloody supernova and come out alive, then I have no problem at all believing that he can shrug off a bullet like a bee sting.
back to Main/GunsAreWorthless

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy