Follow TV Tropes

Following

Discussion Main / GunsAreWorthless

Go To

You will be notified by PM when someone responds to your discussion
Type the word in the image. This goes away if you get known.
If you can't read this one, hit reload for the page.
The next one might be easier to see.
SeptimusHeap MOD (Edited uphill both ways)
Mar 23rd 2021 at 7:04:16 AM •••

Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: Permission to rewrite/expand, started by Leaper on Dec 29th 2010 at 1:11:14 PM

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
danime91 Since: Jan, 2012
Sep 14th 2015 at 9:31:16 AM •••

I'm not all that experienced with the whole "write an entry with all the correct annotations and blue text" thing, so would someone else kindly add an entry for John Ringo's Council Wars in the literature section?

GrantMK2 Since: Apr, 2012
May 9th 2015 at 9:40:46 PM •••

Can anyone confirm the Devil Survivor scenario described in the second bullet point? I do not remember any situation like that in Devil Survivor. It is possible that they're discussing Devil Survivor 2, which I haven't played in a while, but I don't remember it there either.

Thecommander236 Since: Aug, 2011
Apr 1st 2013 at 6:14:34 PM •••

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?

Don't make me destroy you. @ Castle Series Hide / Show Replies
Peteman Since: Jan, 2001
Apr 1st 2013 at 6:18:12 PM •••

No, because if you're dead, you're dead.

methodoverload Since: Feb, 2014
Oct 13th 2014 at 3:49:16 AM •••

And a katana is not going to cut you in half. Thats a gross exaggeration of it's effectiveness. But even if you could, a gun's lethal attack can be delivered at distance and with relatively little training.

CleverPun Bully in the Alley Since: Jan, 2001
Bully in the Alley
Aug 21st 2010 at 5:30:01 AM •••

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?

"The only way to truly waste an idea is to shove it where it doesn't belong." Hide / Show Replies
WiseBass Since: Sep, 2010
Oct 5th 2010 at 9:56:27 AM •••

To be honest, I think we should keep the whole thing. The information in it is very useful.

agnosticnixie Since: Mar, 2010
May 11th 2013 at 12:33:59 PM •••

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 Since: Nov, 2010
Mar 19th 2014 at 7:31:01 PM •••

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.

That's why he wants you to have the money. Not so you can buy 14 Cadillacs but so you can help build up the wastes
aaeyero aayero Since: Apr, 2011
aayero
Jan 9th 2012 at 1:27:55 AM •••

I'm surprised Sam & Max isn't referenced here. Can somebody add some info on that?

Hide / Show Replies
MrDeath Since: Aug, 2009
Jan 9th 2012 at 7:51:14 AM •••

Why should they be? If the trope applies, you can just edit it in yourself.

aaeyero Since: Apr, 2011
Feb 19th 2012 at 12:53:36 AM •••

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 Kastorr Since: May, 2010
Kastorr
Jul 11th 2011 at 9:04:38 PM •••

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."

I don't even know.
TweedlyDee BWAAAH! Since: Apr, 2010
BWAAAH!
May 19th 2010 at 3:16:59 PM •••

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.

I TELL YOU HWAT! Hide / Show Replies
WiseBass Since: Sep, 2010
Oct 5th 2010 at 9:55:50 AM •••

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 Since: Aug, 2009
Apr 7th 2011 at 5:35:24 PM •••

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.

Top