Guns that shoot swords.

OP is a faggot.

File: 1486935296673.jpg (67KB, 598x469px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 598x469px

Immediately thought of this

OP is a massive faggot

What if Sword Technology would become so advanced, we'd give swords AI? Would there be sword marriage laws? Swords ghettos, real estate, sword communities? What about sword matrixs?

OP is a gigantic faggot.

File: mr.-burns.jpg (52KB, 615x345px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 615x345px

>>33655772
That is three levels of fucked up.

First off, swords are not a projectile weapon. You should have picked out something that is, like axes.

Second, in the first place, swords were a mistake! Spears were better. It's just that autists everywhere are so fucking ignorant that they insist on clutching to silly shit like two handed swords, when polearms were generally far more useful and effective.

Third, you need to think more outside the box. Like mutated seabass with phrickin' phazer beams attached to their heads! Or dogs that shoot bees out of their mouths.

>1951
>everything delayed like 10 years by use of swords instead of god damn bullets
>Japanese attack Pearl Harbor
>Nip divebomber drops a massive katana on the Arizona
>large explosion of broadswords and battle axes erupts from its ammo storage
>no cloud of smoke in the sky
>just a swarm of blades clanking around a few hundred feet in the air before falling back to the water and docks below
>35 more casualties from debris in this timeline
>hundreds recovering from typical shoulder injury from high recoil infantry weapons launching 21000 grain projectiles

OP is remarkably homosexual

>>33655939
Swords were remarkably useful though.
If they hadn't been, how come they become successful? Why did they not just stop making them?
Warfare is a buffet, blood is just the sauce.

>>33655795
>OP is a faggot.
>>33655860
>>33655898
>>33655981

yes always but he has a point
I want a revolver that fires little swords now

File: not some farcical aquatic ceremony.jpg (17KB, 273x212px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 273x212px

>>33656003
Swords were only feasible by exploiting the masses, through farcical hierarchies, that circumvented the public will by forcing everyone to accept that someone has a hereditary right to rule predatorily just because some watery tart threw a sword at someone!

A whole lot like the five-seven!

And when opposition to them did not cooperate effectively, when spears, halberds and such became competitive!

>>33658815
>1v1 duel
>parry spear with sword
>buy do I wish I had something that is effective less than 10 feet away

>>33658874
Flail, axe, morning star. Or a shield. The shield is probably presumed to be paired with a shield, so spear and shield seems expectable.

And the point was that the sword is too expensive. That implies you have one ultra fancy knight against 3 normal, not all that armored guys with polearms.