Why isn't a gun considered an elegant weapon?
- Thread starter ShotgunZombie
- Start date
They can look nice and fancy, but it doesn't take the discipline and skill you'd need to be effective with a sword or weapon like it.
Unless you're a sniper. Hats off to all the snipers out there, you guys are awesome.
Unless you're a sniper. Hats off to all the snipers out there, you guys are awesome.
Any weapon "demands" respect when used against someone who is less armed. Sure you can spend your entire life learing how best to use a sword, but if you give any idiot a sword and face them off against someone armed with nothing, who do you think is going to win? Alternatively, if both people are armed with the same weapon (sword vs. sword/ gun vs. gun), they're on equal grounds and it comes down skill either way.blakfayt said:
The only difference between guns and swords is how long it takes to learn how to use them best, and I dont think "requiring a lifetime of training" is the definition of "elegance". "Elegence" is in how people view something. Guns could be seen as just as elegent as a sword if elitists would stop belittling them for being easy to use.
Because it is so overt. You can pull a stroke or thrust with a melee weapon, you can vary your pull or even pull a fletching off to chance the arc or add curve to a bow shot, but a bullet only goes one speed and one (mostly) strait trajectory. A mentally handicapped child picking up a sword is likely to only hurt themself unless the people around them are unaware (you can move away or take it from them), a gun needs no skill to be deadly to everyone around them (dont read into that as a flame on gun users please). Case in point: One of my very young cousins picked up a sword (it had no edge) of mine without permission, it took little effort to take it fron her, one of the kids living a few houses away killed a friend staying over at his place with a pistol on a whim during an arguement. If my cousin had picked up a gun there would have been a whole lot more fear and a lot less confidence in me...though I still would have had to take it.
Part of the reason guns replaced bows was because it was easier to teach a dozen men to load and fire a rifle than to teach them archery (again, this isnt a flame on marksmen, think of it as strengths of the gun).
Events like Columbine could not have happened without a weapon other than a gun (or explosives). It is easy power that can be easily given and easily abused or missused.
Part of the reason guns replaced bows was because it was easier to teach a dozen men to load and fire a rifle than to teach them archery (again, this isnt a flame on marksmen, think of it as strengths of the gun).
Events like Columbine could not have happened without a weapon other than a gun (or explosives). It is easy power that can be easily given and easily abused or missused.
Meh I see them both elegant, just depends on who's wielding it. The average soldier isn't elegant with his issued rifle and pistol just as the average grunt back in the day with a Broadsword or claymore isn't elegant, hell that's more bludgeoning then cutting at that point, but ninjas and samurais, and the French Musketeers with their rapiers, those are seen as the high point of swordsmanship. then the Old West cowboys were elegant with their gunslingers wielding their revolvers and lever-actions, then now since WWII onward, Snipers are considered elegant with their rifles. Not to mention the mechanical aspects of guns, each system is elegant as hell
Mass produced, wheras a samurai's sword is his own.
Kinda beats 20 soldiers with the same AR15
And they jam and shit, not very elegant to me.
Though Revolver Ocelot managed to make the use of guns elegant, with silver bullets fancy tricks and such, so it's doable.
A bow and arrow, elegant.
A crossbow, not so much.
Kinda beats 20 soldiers with the same AR15
And they jam and shit, not very elegant to me.
Though Revolver Ocelot managed to make the use of guns elegant, with silver bullets fancy tricks and such, so it's doable.
A bow and arrow, elegant.
A crossbow, not so much.
Small, short swords are more elegant than claymores or two handed swords so only a few swords are considered elegant. Guns just are just everything someone would consider not to be elegant. They're loud, have limited ammunition and have recoil more so than any sword. That said, a compact firearm could be considered elegant if used under the right circumstance.
I am sure someone has already said this but a weapon is only as elegant as the wielder.ShotgunZombie said:
No clue, guns take far more skill to fight against and survive then a sword, and just like a sword even an amateur can score a lucky kill. People who say that a gun is not elegant simply don't understand just how much more skill is needed to survive. With a sword your attacker has to expose himself to you therefor you don't need to stay as vigilant. And despite what television and movies would have use believe, the sword is only actually elegant because it was so expensive to purchase. The majority or people fighting in any given battle were using more versatile weapons such as axes and spears or even farm equipment. And also despite myth and folklore, there were very few incredibly skilled swordsmen. They were simply people who killed alot of people without dying, which are very similar to, oh say, the cowboys of the wild west. Where duels of skill and wits also took place. So to wrap things up, guns are elegant, they just don't have as good marketing.
Capthca: Ladies first. How polite ^^
Capthca: Ladies first. How polite ^^
It's because they don't require lots of skill and up-close risk to kill. With a gun, you just point and pull the trigger. With a sword or some other dexterity-based melee weapon, you have to get in there, do some technique, and really risk yourself. It also allows for more flagrant and graceful swinging motions than does a gun. So between the risk, the skill, and the appearance, guns just look brutish to many. (Same reason why a club looks brutish, because all you do is heft and swing.)
A pistol or musket can be considered elegant weapons, as cowboys in the Old West duelled and looked elegant and skilled. And muskets required a good working knowledge and tactics for a military to be good with them. The only elegant modern weapon seems to be a sniper rifle, as you have to take into account wind speed, direction, velocity of the bullet, etc.
Of course the most elegant weapon of all would be information, a person with information can make or break nations, all without a drop of blood spilt.
Of course the most elegant weapon of all would be information, a person with information can make or break nations, all without a drop of blood spilt.
I would say that your observation about their level of sophistication is false. They are actually amazingly simple pieces of equipment. Even a full-auto works based on very simple technology. Also, they haven't really advanced much in like, 100 years.ShotgunZombie said:
As for why they aren't considered elegant, I would say because of the lack of skill required to handle them. Really, I can teach you how to shoot a rifle with a relatively high degree of efficiency in like 30 minutes.
The other thing, is the randomness and inherent dishonor that they introduce to the battlefield. You can't dodge/block a bullet. No matter how good you are, if the bullet comes at you, you're pretty much dead. Whereas, with swords and the likes, skill comes into it. You can block, parry, and if you're the better swordsman, you've got a very good chance at winning, and therefore surviving. Also, there's something more honorable about fighting it out with a guy face to face, when you can see the fear and anger in each-other's eyes.
In the same way that any fool can pick up a gun and hit the broadside of a barn, any fool can pick up a sword and swing it wildly at a training mannequin. To use it properly is a different matter entirely, and it can take as much time to become proficient with a firearm as with a sword or a knife. And if we're going to talk about mastering a blade taking longer than mastering a gun, I suggest you read up on some of the more amazing sniper-shots in history. In 2009 a British sniper shot and killed a Taliban fighter at a range of nearly two and a half kilometers, or one and a half miles. But some people here would tell me he picked that skill up in a few months of basic training.
A weapon is only as elegant as its wielder. As one can be a master of the blade, one can be a master of the gun.
A weapon is only as elegant as its wielder. As one can be a master of the blade, one can be a master of the gun.
Because as others have said - because my grandmother could kill me with a gun. But she wouldn't have a hope with a chakram.
Also Obi-wan says they're uncivilized.
Also Obi-wan says they're uncivilized.
Also, he had diarrhea so he couldn't be on set for long.Saltyk said:
Honestly I think a well crafted pistol can be elegant. Heck even a well adorned rifle can be elegant. Needs to be single shot and expertly crafted. Full auto just ruins it.