A) European swords almost NEVER cut through plate mail. It just didn't happen, because a slash didn't contain the kinetic energy needed to slice through a suit of plate mail, especially with the chain mail beneath it. War hammers, long bows, and maces were far more effective against armor because you didn't have to get through it to fuck a guy up with them. As for stabbing motions, most suits of european plate were angled to deflect stabs, which made stabbing almost completely useless unless you could hit the armor just right, and THEN you'd need lots of force to push it through and your sword would get stuck. I don't know where you get the idea that european swords were 'known to cut through steel armor'. Maybe if a guy in armor was falling on you and you managed to get the sword up in the right position, you MIGHT be able to. Most of the armor piercing that you read about was done by a knight's knife that they carried for close quarters combat, and even that wasn't good at piercing armor.

2) Katana were strong and sharp, this is true, but they were NOT razor blades. Any metal, no matter how many times it's been folded, will chip and break on contact with another piece of metal or bone. As a result, the katana were extremely sharp but not razor blade sharp, although it's true they'd probably cut through kevlar... they'd also be slowed down on the way through (and chip a bit if they were razor blades). Parrying and fencing with them was not unknown, despite the fact that many battles were settled with an iaido draw.

3) Samurai armor was made to stop katana, and it was able to do just that, which is why fencing with the katana was not unknown. Sometimes an iaido would hit the plates on the opposing samurai/infantry's armor, and the blade would stop before hitting flesh. This would leave the opposing samurai/infantry capable of fighting, if a bit beaten up. In other words, katana were not undefeatable.

4) Iaido draws rarely, if ever, went to the head. They were drawn low, struck across the body, and then returned to their sheaths. They COULD strike across the neck, but it's considerably slower getting the blade that high, because you have much more space to cover, and you have to start farther back so you don't hit their arm or body as you're getting it up... Iaido was done from the hip and quickly across/through the chest. AND it has to be in a straight line, furthering the 'katana are not invincible razor blades', despite the fact that a katana could have well over 1000 layers of metal in it, cutting into, but not all the way through, a body or cutting in an arch can bend and screw up your sword, resulting in a warped or rolled edge.

5) Close range is 5 feet and closer... and I can slam back a trigger (which is bad for longer range aiming) faster than anyone is going to draw and strike with a sword, after all, my finger has under about an inch to go while their arm has a foot or so, after their feet and legs close a few more feet of distance, and, at five feet, if you miss what you're aiming at by more than a few inches, you're quite possibly the worst marksman ever.

6) Neither silk nor ceramic plates are going to stop a .16 much less anything bigger, and they certainly aren't going to stop buck shot at 10 foot or closer.

Ok quick clarification, I never said that Katanas were invincible. Also, yes they kinick but when first sharpend they are as sharp as razor and they were usually repaired after each battle. I was tlking about comparing a draw to a draw. Not sword and gun both out. No the silk armor wont stop a 16 gauge slug but it has been shown to stop normal pistol rounds and the like because there is 10 to 20 layers of tightly woven silk. (forgot where I saw this) And the european swords that cut through armor I was talking about where claymores. They took two hands and a while to swing but they certainly did sice trough armor. In fact breastplates with diagonal slices through the front and back have been found buried on battle fields. Not the fullplate you see in on display. That was never worn out side of tournament.

Edit: I never said fencing never happened I said it usually didn't and when it did it was no where near the type of fencing that a special forces officer would be trained to do.

As for the traditional draw there is more than one way it was done. The style of martial arts I take was founded by a Samurai. The first thing we are taught is a traditional opening of class that is basically a draw but without the sword. My sensei demonstrated it and he drew striat up than sliced diagonally down from left to right. I also have a friend who takes Kendo and he draws the same way. His teacher told him the every Samurai's draw is different. Some come straight up and others go straight across. Also, the strike doesn't have to be horizontal or vertical it just has to move in a straight line. Diagonal straight lines work just as well as long as you dont twist or try to move the blade in any other direction.

Do flame throwers count as guns? Just curious about that.

No, flamethrowers I would consider a firearm, but not a gun. It doesn't propel a bullet unless you somehow light a magazine cartridge.

Basically if you're drawing up and then down, you're making two movements instead of one. Further, your first movement has a lot more space to cover than a gun draw.

Even a normal diagonal up (which is what I meant by across/through the chest), is going to require more movement before it hits flesh than a gunman drawing to his hip and pulling the trigger, which could be done faster than a sword draw, due to a pistol being smaller/not needing to make it to your enemy and, thus, needing to be pulled a shorter distance.

So... a samurai draw is slower than a gun draw, even when allowing the fastest samurai draw--from hip to hip up through chest--and any other sword draw is going to be easily out done. And at closer than 10 feet it's pretty easy to draw and hit someone with your gun, especially if you're just drawing to the waist, which was a technique known as 'shooting from the hip.' It's not as accurate, but at that distance it doesn't matter too much, and it's extremely fast. Especially when you got a semi-auto... you could fire off 2 or 3 rounds before the sword wielding person cleared the 10 feet. More if one hit them, because it would definately slow them down.

Basically, your gun vrs sword close range scenarios require the gunman to be unskilled with their gun, unskilled with their ability to dodge/move, and slow while the swordsman is very fast and skilled...

I could see a guy with a sword possibly being able to beat a guy with a rifle (Starting at close range though).

Just a question...

Would the aforementioned silk armor be able to protect a samurai against a shotgun round at close range? Medium range?

(I'm joining in as pro-guns :D)

Shotgun>Melee. Full plate body armor loses to a shotgun.

So, technically, wouldn't the use of a shotgun (especially an automatic one) basically prove this argument moot? Or has that point already been argued?

The agruement has mainly been Pistols vs. Swords. Everyone knows a shotgun would kill anyone with a sword (No one can make an arguement against that, and if they do, it will be completly random things they are making up), so it's just been ignored.