I cannot think of an argument against this

Oh fantastic, no one else posted this concept yet
So, I think there's an important connection there you're touching on. Samurai and cowboys occupy the same space in media, and I'll give you some examples.
Someone else mentioned the movie, but Seven Samurai, a HIGHLY influential and well received film from japan in the 50s, helped inspire The Magnificent Seven, a key cowboy film from the early 60s.
The film Yojimbo (please watch it if you haven't, it's just very well done, really funny, have to get over the 'movies had NO real soundtrack back then' problem if you're not used to old films) is like watching The Matrix AFTER you've already seen the slow-mo and 'i know Kung fu' tropes in movies. The man rolls up into town, two sides opposed and neither really 'good' but innocents in the middle.
What were called 'spaghetti westerns' in the past due to the Italian directors at the time, a majority chunk of those movies utilized similar filmography techniques and plots. The kids who watched those westerns also watched samurai films (cheap movie is a cheap movie on a weekend night) and the concept sort of melded over time to where the Ronin of Japan and the Lone Ranger of America are two flavors of the same steel-wielding hero.
The way samurai in movies revere their swords, talking about the efficiency of a weapon, the artfulness or it, all VERY similar to how revolvers took/take a center stage for western fantasies. Add to that the individualism of the west, the rugged nature of a traveler with a weapon, the tie-in of 'honor' in both cultures, the 'only lawmen can have a weapon in city limits' laws that were featured in the America AND Japan at that time.
Super neat
- I think this is why Star Wars is so successful. It's western, samurai, and sci-fi all mixed together (at least the good stuff is).
  
  Seven Samurai was made by Kurosawa, which became "The Magnificent Seven" and "A Bug's Life".
  He also made "Yoimbo" and is sequel "Sanjuro", which became "A Fist Full of Dollars" and "For a Few Dollars More".
  And he made "The Hidden Fortress", which inspired "Star Wars."
  Dude was influential.
- I forget it's not a super widely known thing that samurai movies and westerns have built off each other in a way. Slow burn, fast climactic action, stoic protagonists. It's one of those things that you wouldn't expect at face value, but actually have a lot in common when you start breaking it down. They have influenced each other a lot over the years, with 7 Samurai itself even pulling some inspiration from Ford's westerns.
  It's cool seeing some of the history laid out. That sharing of ideas has led to some incredible films.

Drawing your katana with speed and faster than the other guy killing him in one blow
Drawing your revolver faster than the other guy and killing him in one shot
Checks out to me
- There's a reason why they made westerns out of samurai movies.
  
  And samurai movies out of westerns too.
  
  Isn't that reverse logic?
  Westerns were adapted from samurai movies therefore they have a lot in common, not the other way around.
- Fistful of Dollars came out 2-3 years after Yojimbo, they have the same plot except one is Samurai and one is a Western. Kurosawa even got paid from it after a lawsuit.
  
  They changed the setting to Mexico (kept most of the set design choices) changed the names, and added guns.
  I like Yojimbo and cowboys enough that I'll watch both

Both weapons and users coexisted at the same period of time too.
In fact, you could write a story about a samurai and cowboy playing with Nintendo cards and drinking Coke and it could be historically accurate.
- I forget if it's Yojimbo or Sanjuro where one of the bad guys is basically just a guy with a revolver who looks down everyone else for using swords.
  
  Pretty sure its Yojimbo, mostly becuase Fistful of Dollars had the same gimmick with a rifle vs a revolver. And I know it was Leone's remake of Yojimbo
  
  It is Yojimbo.
- Plus you could add faxing Abraham Lincoln. Faxing is surprisingly old.
- Please elaborate, with links for further reading.
  
  Samurai class existed until 1870 but presumably they didnt just vanish at that date https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samurai?wprov=sfti1
  Cowboys in the traditional sense existed in the 19th century, if not not earlier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowboy?wprov=sfti1
  Revolvers in some form have existed even longer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolver?wprov=sfti1
  Nintendo was formed in 1889 and produced playing cards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo?wprov=sfti1
  Coca Cola formed in 1886 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola?wprov=sfti1

Can't do this with a katana. Check mate atheists.

Ways in which revolvers are not the katanas of guns:
...
Revolvers are generally incredibly simple and cheap to build, operate and maintain compared to semi auto pistols, submachine guns, assault rifles, light machine guns, etc.
Conversely, katanas require a significant amount of skill and practice to wield proficiently, as compared to many, but not all, other kinds of swords, and are/were also comparatively more difficult to properly forge and balance than many other kinds of swords, and were quite expensive.
...
Revolvers were incredibly common during 'the West', almost anyone could fairly easily equip themselves with one, and many did.
Katanas, for essentially all of their history, were only allowed to be carried by wealthy, royals or nobles or warlords, and their extremely small in number official bodyguards/goons, and soldiers. The vast majority of people were/are legally barred from owning or carrying them.
...
One on one revolver quickdraw duels almost never happened in real life.
One on one katana honor duels were actually somewhat/fairly common amongst those who actually had them.
...
Other points:
Revolvers are romanticized akin to Katanas because A Fistful of Dollars is basically a shot for shot remake of Yojimbo.
Kurosawa sued Leone over this, and won 15% of A Fistful of Dollars' sales revenue.
Nonetheless, A Fistful of Dollars was widely influential on future western films.
The modern, relative popularity of revolvers in real life is a result of their simplicity, reliability and inexpensiveness compared to other hand guns.
They would still be largely popular irl even without their depiction in media.
Katanas, on the other hand, are basically only popular in media in the West due to media, very few people actually own a katana, ever fewer have enough Iaido training to know how to use one.
Compared to revolvers, they would probably be far less popular irl were it not for the media exposure.
- Forging a katana is not specifically more difficult than any other shape of blade. It's just forging any steel sword with the less-than-stellar japanese ironsand and the lackluster smelting methods they had was a LOT of work compared to European iron ore and techniques. Starting the iron age some 700 years earlier with better geology is a hugely imbalanced move.
  The shape of the Katana is more influenced by how hard it was to get quality metal than anything else, but making one isnt any harder than making a longsword. It's different though.
  
  You are the best kind of correct, technically correct.
  Yeah, what I was going for was that compared to revolvers as guns, katanas as swords were much more difficult and time consuming to produce, primarily due to all the techniques used to compensate for the very poor ore quality and lack of high temperature forges.
  The result in a weapon that was far more expensive and rare, taking waaaay more hours of specialized labor than a revolver coming out of a factory.
  Making a katana in the modern age, with modern forges and access to high quality ore/alloys is yes, not much more difficult than with any other style of sword.
- In other words, revolvers are popular, which is why they showed up in movies, whereas katana showing up in movies is what made them popular?
  
  It depends on what you mean by 'popular'.
  Do you mean popular in the media, in people's general conception of 'badass weapons?'
  Or do you mean... actually popular, in real life, everyday ownership and usage?
  The 4 chan post says 'only popular because of how they're depicted in media'.
  If you are using the first definition, this is a meaningless tautology, thing is popular in media because thing is popular in media.
  If you are using the second definition, this is just a false statement, hardly anyone actually owns or uses katanas compared to revolvers.
  Both absolutely have been emphasized as 'cool guy weapon' in media.
  But probably 1,000x to 10,000x more people actually have revolvers than katanas.
  Both revolvers and katanas are largely popular in media and general public conception, becauase the characters depicted using them are often well written compelling characters, or at least are the heroes of compelling plots, and their usage of them is often depicted as extremely skillful...
  ..., but revolvers are far more popular in real life, because they are far easier to use, and more practical.
  If you can be more specific with your question, I can probably be more specific with my answer.
- Correct me if I’m wrong but weren’t katanas fragile (in sword terms) because low iron quality and a one on one sword duel was less clashing blades and more of a mobile type of duel that ended in a few decisive strike
  
  A well made katana is probably (?) more flexible and less brittle than many european bastard or two handed longswords.
  That is to say, they're more likely to deform from bending, from striking or blocking at an improper angle, whereas a stockier european style sword is more likely to crack or shatter generally from hitting something solid too many times or with too much force.
  That is a huge generalization though, an in depth look would require a lot more specificity.
  One on one katana duels varied in character depending on the nature of the combatants, relative skill levels, level of armor of combatants, overall scenario.
  Some duels would be more as you first describe, a drawn out struggle, others were finished in seconds.
  I am far from an expert as to the relative commonality of different natures/kinds of one on one duels but they did actually happen with decent regularity, as compared to one on one revolver quick draw duels, which there seems to be no solid evidence of more than a handful of occurences of, and even those are contested.
  The quick draw duel trope as we know it today largely comes from A Fistful of Dollars outright doing its best to emulate a fast, one on one or one on many katana engagement scene from Yojimbo, but with revolvers instead.
  Such scenes with katanas as depicted in Yojimbo may not be literally historically accurate, but are generally more grounded in reality.
  It would kind of be like if that movie version of Romeo and Juliet with Leonardo Di Caprio, where they just use modern guns that are named 'Longsword' and such for artistic liscense... somehow kicked off a greater cultural trope or meme about how street gangs in the 90s often conducted armed disputes with guns.

Are you at gun point @Stamets@lemmy.world ?
- Well I'm pointing, does that count?

I can imagine a few hundred years from now the same thing will happen with AKs.
- Of all the weapons in the vast Soviet arsenal, nothing was more profitable than Avtomat Kalashnikova model of 1947, more commonly known as the AK-47, or Kalashnikov. It's the world's most popular assault rifle. A weapon all fighters love. An elegantly simple 9 pound amalgamation of forged steel and plywood. It doesn't break, jam, or overheat. It will shoot whether it's covered in mud or filled with sand. It's so easy, even a child can use it; and they do.
  
  Lord of War is such a good movie.

Single Action... maybe. But double action revolvers are a great choice for most people. They can be more reliable than semi-auto. They can hit harder too.
- Imagine proving a joke this hard.
  
  Hey I'm just deferring to the GOAT
- High bore axis, more recoil energy, shit trigger on DA
  Meaning you can't hit anything
  One third the capacity, slow reload
  dead operator
  
  "Used to revolvers, .38 don't jam"
  "It don't hold 15 neither"

Single action is a godsend. Virtually no trigger pull, and the mechanism just feels satisfying. Very reliable as well.
Also, revolving rifles. Taurus Circuit Judge my beloved..
- I use a single action .22 Ruger more than any other gun. Long barrel, easy to aim, instinct shots for ratshot, cheap, durable. Use hollow points for groundhogs. One of my favorite tools.
  
  I'm heavily in the market for a small .22 rifle soon. I'll likely go with a Ruger 10/22 because there are so many options, but that Henry Survival Rifle looks pretty cool and I could just pack it in my bag when camping.

The m1 garand as a better example?
- Hearing an m1 ping... that's what life's about
- Wasn't it actually a pretty damn good semi auto rifle for the time ?
  
  It was for reliability in the 40s, lost the edge in the 50s
- No quick draw mechanic like with katanas and revolvers. Also no dueling with M1.

I thought the fedoralord firearm of choice was the Colt 1911.
- YOU SHUT YOUR WHORE MOUTH

Magnificent Seven is the western version of Seven Samurai. Prove me wrong.
- Wait till you hear about A Fistful of Dollars and Yojimbo.
  
  I love Fistful of Dollars. I tell any of my DnD rogue players to watch it as inspiration. Dude is the roguest ass rogue.
- Fist Full of Dollars is the western version of Yojimbo.
  You can’t prove me wrong because it’s verifiably true.
- Is that even debated? I've thought for decades that that was an accepted fact.

They're popular because they're reliable, easy to operate, easy to work on, and come in a wide range of calibers.
That being said, yee-haw motherfuckers!
- One great thing about revolvers are they don't jam. They leak gas instead.
  
  They seldom jam. When they do they are much tougher to clear than a semi-auto. My LCR is famous for jamming.

Semi-automatic magazine fed pistol boys 😎

To be fair, revolvers can be significantly more powerful than semi-automatic handguns, depending on how you measure. A 10mm is almost on par with a .357 Mag, and 10mm is the most powerful common semi-auto cartridge. For revolvers, you have a few common-ish cartridges that are significantly more powerful than that, like .44 Mag, .454 Casull, and .500 S&W.
Otherwise, yeah, pretty much. At this point, you're at a distinct disadvantage in most cases if you're carrying a revolver.
- These power differences don't matter much in practice. A .40, 9 mm, .38 special, or smaller can stop and kill a person just fine. The ergonomics of a weapon and especially training are more important.
  
  A person, yes. 9mm is absolutely adequate for defending yourself against people, and even .380 works pretty well. 99% of the time, the correct answer for self-defense is something like a Glock 19, and a lot of time at the range and dry firing.
  For hunting mid-sized game (pronghorn through elk) or as a bear defense weapon if you hike in grizzly or kodiak country, bigger is generally better, as long as you can shoot it accurately.
- Big plus of a revolver is that you can just pull it out, point and pull the trigger, without having to engage a safety mechanism while carrying it.
  So getting a semi auto pistol "combat ready" requires more steps and more training. For self defense revolvers make more sense imo.
  
  Most modern striker fired semi-autos have no manually operated safety. Using either a semi-auto or a revolver, will require a similar amount of training.
  
  You can do much the same with any double action semi-auto pistol though, or most striker-fired semi-auto pistols. If you, for instance, carry any Glock, or most other striker-fired pistols, you carry in condition 0; the striker is cocked, and there's a round in the chamber. There's a safety on the trigger that help prevent it from being unintentionally fired, but pulling the trigger normally will also disengage the safety. Double action semi-autos are usually carried in condition 2; there's a round in the chamber, but the hammer isn't cocked. As with a revolver, the safety is--usually--the long and heavy pull of the trigger for the first shot. The Beretta 92X RDO has a decocker, but the CZ Shadow 2 Compact has a manual safety; you have to (carefully) let the hammer down on an empty chamber, and then the safety is optional.
  You won't find anyone except the most fuddy of fudds that would recommend a revolver for self defense anymore. You won't even find too many people seriously recommending a 1911 as a carry gun (those would be carried in condition 1; a round in the chamber, the hammer back, and the safety on). The only time I would suggest carrying a revolver for self-defense is if you regularly went hiking in grizzly or kodiak bear country, and then I'd be suggesting the largest revolver you could shoot accurately.

The first thing I try to do in RDR2 is get a semi-auto pistol because the way the revolvers work is wonky by comparison to other shooters because you have to click once to pull the hammer back after firing because it doesn't do it automatically, and it just fucks with my rhythm.
I don't like this with traditional controls, but it would actually be fun in VR if you had to actually use your thumb or free hand to pull the hammer back.
- so you dont spam the shoot button until it goes click?
  
  Hell naw. I go for headshots, like a civilized murder hobo. Plus some of the extra challenge things for gold stars on mission require a certain percentage of accuracy and the not shooting when I expect to shoot messes it up.
- It was tough to get used to the way revolvers and lever action rifles controlled in that game, but once I did, it was so satisfying to use them.
  I probably would have liked that semi-auto broomhandle pistol, but I hated the way it looked in the holster.

I was told many years ago by a biker, who looked like Danny Trejo, "revolvers don't leave behind empties".

Katana (Samurai), Revolver (Cowboys) and long swords (knights) are of a similar genre and they get era dramas around them because of thier lasting renown.

No... don't do this to me...

because there is none