Why isn't a gun considered an elegant weapon?
- Thread starter ShotgunZombie
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The funny thing is I don't. In fact I've never played Civilization though I did ask a freind once if he would lend me Revolution, he said no...espressojet said:
Would you recommend it? That's a genuine question not sarcasm...
They are loud, obnoxious and they just make a mess of the victim's insides.
I prefer to just incinerate anyone I don't feel like resurrecting.
I prefer to just incinerate anyone I don't feel like resurrecting.
I wouldn't knock the spear as a useless weapon. A cohort of well disciplined and trained spear men would have been invaluable in any ancient or medieval battle. They are good defensive weapons as they keep the enemy at a manageable distance, and can really ruin a cavalry man's day. That plus they have a lot of thrusting power, probably more than a sword. That said, a sword's a better weapon overall due to it's versatility.Eclectic Dreck said:
I can think of a few significant exceptions to the sword being based around individual combat. The Romans and the Germanic and Norse peoples such as the Saxons, Franks and Vikings used swords inside shield walls, a battle tactic where your very much reliant on the skill and bravery of the man next to you. The individual native British swordsman from the warrior caste of Celtic society was probably a lot better than an individual Roman legionary, but the Roman legionaries won because they fought as a tightly drilled and disciplined team.
But beyond that i agree with most of what you say, i'm only nit-picking.
***
Well, according to Google the definition of "elegance" is that which is "pleasingly graceful and stylish in appearance or manner." I wouldn't call guns graceful, they're bloody loud and fucking dangerous. Stylish in appearance and manner though? I think guns are most defiantly stylish and can be every bit aesthetically pleasing as a fine sword.
It's true that it takes much less training to become good at using a firearm than it is a sword, although it's worth pointing out that shooting a sniper rifle accurately does take a lot of practise, like archery. Still, i think the amount of training it takes to fight and survive in a modern warzone is comparable to being a swordsman in a medieval warzone.
With a sword, you mainly need to be good at using it. With guns, it's easier to use but in addition you need the training to fight effectively in a war-zone- how to take out a machine gun nest, how to take out a tank with explosives, how to call down an airstrike, how to flank and manuver, when to attack and when not to attack etc.
After six weeks of training, most people can proficiently wield a sword or know how to fight in a modern warzone. However, put then against someone whom has had years of training and experience, and it's not hard to guess whom will win. Experience and training to still count when it comes to modern combat with guns, it's not just about being good at using your weapon lie with swords, it's about being good at everything else.
I believe that guns are inherently inelegant because of their status as "equalizers". We consider the flight of birds elegant because we can't do it. We consider dresses elegant because few of us have the curves to pull off a well-designed dress. Granted, few people undergo training for firearms, but the problem is that many more than the trained few possess firearms. The mass-produced gun essentially gave the common idiot a voice, and has dramatically reduced the requirement of good sense in many denizens of society today.
Additionally, I think they're fairly ugly things. Crudely constructed dicks made of metal.
The funny thing is that I'm actually pro-guns. I fully support the rights of others to own and use firearms. However, I refuse to own one myself because I know I have a horrible temper and do not know what lengths I'd go to once angered (If I go to prison, I'd want it to be over something meaningful -- not because I shot some fool for looking at me the wrong way.)
Additionally, I think they're fairly ugly things. Crudely constructed dicks made of metal.
The funny thing is that I'm actually pro-guns. I fully support the rights of others to own and use firearms. However, I refuse to own one myself because I know I have a horrible temper and do not know what lengths I'd go to once angered (If I go to prison, I'd want it to be over something meaningful -- not because I shot some fool for looking at me the wrong way.)
Here's a though I had after a bit. It may have been brought up before for I know but I don't feel like reading all of the stuff since last I posted.
Imagine, if you will, it's the future! Soldiers fight with guns that instantly vaporize their opponents. Some people start this argument that goes like this:
Guy: Man, these vaporizer guns, they lack the elegance of the explosive firearms of the past.
Guy 2: What do you mean?
Guy 1: The old guns, were so much more human. When you defeated someone, sure you killed them, but at least they still existed. These new guns it's like wiping the person out of history.
Guy 2: Are you kidding!? Vaporizers remove all the brutality; all the gruesome destruction. They are quick, clean and simple. If that's not elegant, I don't know what is
Guy 1 & 2: rabble rabble rabble. etc, etc.
That's basically what's been going on here. Also, please ignore the overall absurdity of this post and just focus on the point.
Imagine, if you will, it's the future! Soldiers fight with guns that instantly vaporize their opponents. Some people start this argument that goes like this:
Guy: Man, these vaporizer guns, they lack the elegance of the explosive firearms of the past.
Guy 2: What do you mean?
Guy 1: The old guns, were so much more human. When you defeated someone, sure you killed them, but at least they still existed. These new guns it's like wiping the person out of history.
Guy 2: Are you kidding!? Vaporizers remove all the brutality; all the gruesome destruction. They are quick, clean and simple. If that's not elegant, I don't know what is
Guy 1 & 2: rabble rabble rabble. etc, etc.
That's basically what's been going on here. Also, please ignore the overall absurdity of this post and just focus on the point.
Yeah, I still don't quite see what distinguishes the sword from guns when it comes to the skill required. Only because the sword is so terribly useless and inapt in virtually any combat situation today doesn't mean that actually being good with the weapon is an admirable skill.otakon17 said:
Are swords harder to get a hold on the weapons? Not really. I would say it's pretty much the opposite. And this Hollywood-enforced myth that any idiot who picks up a gun can kill anyone with ease is just as stupid as it sounds. Knowing how to fire a weapon, "mastering it" and becoming good at it is if anything harder than handling a sword. There are so many different guns and cartridges, and so many different techniques, that the contrast between a good and a bad shooter is even greater than that between a good and a bad swordsman.
Swords are considered to be more elegant because they are older. BAM, Problem solved.
You could say because a gun is so much easier to use, but I wouldn't buy that. Sure pulling the trigger on a gun isn't rocket science. But neither is swinging a sword, weight is one thing but that has to do with the individuals strength not skill for the most part, but if you equal shooting a gun to swinging a sword that part wasn't that hard. Both take skill to use properly its just skill with a gun involves taking cover and aiming and stuff. Also if you equal the foot movements of the sword fighter then what about the movements of the gunner.
PS: I always looked at guns as being more elegant cause swords involve strength training and exercises while guns involve skillful handling and precision
You could say because a gun is so much easier to use, but I wouldn't buy that. Sure pulling the trigger on a gun isn't rocket science. But neither is swinging a sword, weight is one thing but that has to do with the individuals strength not skill for the most part, but if you equal shooting a gun to swinging a sword that part wasn't that hard. Both take skill to use properly its just skill with a gun involves taking cover and aiming and stuff. Also if you equal the foot movements of the sword fighter then what about the movements of the gunner.
PS: I always looked at guns as being more elegant cause swords involve strength training and exercises while guns involve skillful handling and precision
I'm sorry but if you consider any weapon elegant, then your either full of shit and/or a idiot. They may be beautiful, but any weapon in the right hands is most definitely not elegant. Efficient, asymmetrical, quick and brutal but not elegant... Unless you consider rending a persons life from whatever is left of their body elegant, in which case I would suggest a dull piece of rebar properly inserted, gravity and several days of free time to watch the show.
A little harsh don't you think? Plus that little example you put at the end seems, sadistic. Yes, weapons are meant to take the life of another there's no denying that but you seem to be under the impression that anyone who has ever held a weapon will use it exclusively for murder... That is not the case and I would hate to live in a world where it is.A Shadows Age said:
I always saw Elegance as being the aesthetics of something. I see it as delicacy, beauty, all that jazz, so I'd say that they way I see it, any weapon could be Elegant if you wish it to be. But that's just me. I see everyone else going on about Skill and Preparation, but that's not what Elegance is to me.
Admittedly this is the kind of response I thought I was gonna get when I initially started this thread, I'm a little surprised it took this long for me to see one... On a related note I do believe Skill and Preparation are required of any art form, not saying gun slinging or dueling are art forms that is a discussion for another thread, though they do lend an air of Professionalism to whatever they're applied to, so yes they can be a factor for elegance.Retal19 said:
Because guns result in a lot of collateral damage. Any idiot can pick up a gun and kill something, and it won't necessarily be the thing they aimed for. In traditional, large land army warfare, the gun had nothing to do with any sort of precision (especially in the days before rifling). Sort of like a canon or a bomb, it's basic function was to point it at the enemy and hope one of them died.
Trained soldiers today may fire guns with precision, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of guns in the hands of people who don't give a shit results in a lot of collateral damage, a lot of innocent people being killed, and a lot of "spraying and praying".
Trained soldiers today may fire guns with precision, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of guns in the hands of people who don't give a shit results in a lot of collateral damage, a lot of innocent people being killed, and a lot of "spraying and praying".
I prefer swords to guns and fists to swords, I think the best showing of someone's strength is through their own body, hand-to-hand combat requires finesse, strength, flexibility, speed etc... a bout can last for quite a while with blow for blow, as both fighters gradually weigh down.
I think the real respect comes from how hard it is to use effectively and the challenge that comes with being able to use it.
A gun used against an unarmed person: very unlikely the unarmed person can win or come out alive
A sword used against an unarmed person: More likely the unarmed can win or come out alive
Unarmed person against unarmed person: Much more personal, challenge and it doesn't have to lead to death.
I think that is also why snipers are idolized, the challenge of stealth, stillness, accuracy etc... makes it hard so they are more respected.
You don't respect the person who clears a game on easy, you respect the person who does it on hard mode with no health packs.
I think the real respect comes from how hard it is to use effectively and the challenge that comes with being able to use it.
A gun used against an unarmed person: very unlikely the unarmed person can win or come out alive
A sword used against an unarmed person: More likely the unarmed can win or come out alive
Unarmed person against unarmed person: Much more personal, challenge and it doesn't have to lead to death.
I think that is also why snipers are idolized, the challenge of stealth, stillness, accuracy etc... makes it hard so they are more respected.
You don't respect the person who clears a game on easy, you respect the person who does it on hard mode with no health packs.
I may be coming to this thread when its dead, but in the case that it isn't, here this goes.
The most startling thing I noticed in this thread is that people seem to believe that combat back in the pre-gunpowder (and somewhat into the industrial age, at least those involving melee weapons) was this duel style combat, with fancy maneuvers. Hell, no. What techniques were taught during dueling and what were actually used in battle are two completely different schools. People would punch, claw, bite, shield bash, throw sand in eyes, and generally every dirty thing you could think of. They would use their weapons in ways that could hardly be considered elegant. They certainly was skill involved in these battles, because as someone pointed out earlier, professional soldiers and mercenaries tended to beat the crap of peasant rebellions rather quickly, despite being outnumbered in many occasions. But they didn't usually wield the little "elegant" fencing weapons. They used claymores, sabers, broadswords, longswords, maces, and other weapons that were not pretty, but certainly practical. A Prince who had learned to duel with a sword but not fought in any actual battles would almost certainly lose to the veteran mercenary in a fight to death. To risk sounding like a pretentious prick, I'm going to have repeat that famous FO3 quote of "War never changes". It is not, has not been, or will be, a "gentleman's" dueling space. Its gritty, harsh, and unforgiving to mistakes.
And that seems to be peoples biggest mistake. They see the old days of battle the honorable days, with the modern "dehumanizing" the whole concept of war. So that's why the sword is considered more elegant; it represents a (incorrect) interpretation of our past.
And yes, I consider guns to be inelegant too. And I like it that way. Weapons of war are meant to be practical tools of the their respective trade. There should be no confusion of their danger, uses, and how they work. One should be wary of a weapon that looks "elegant" or beautiful; they often sacrifice use for cosmetic purposes, and have no proper place on the battlefield, unless you want to die. For those of you who have watched Stargate-SG1, you will remember the episode were Jack demonstrates the difference between the staff weapon and the P-90, citing one as the weapon of intimidation(Staff Weapon), and the other a weapon of war(The P-90) to the Jaffa rebels. Any weapon that sacrifices its use for aesthetic purposes is not really a weapon.
There are firearms out there that require little to no skill to use them; the whole design philosophy behind the AK-47 was that principle. But so was the pike in its day and age. Its hardly fair to compare all firearms to the sword, and likewise all melee weapons to the firearm. Different uses means different designs. The sniper rifle requires a great deal of skill, and time in training that skill in order to properly master, as well as the necessary secondary skills to go with it. The machine gun as well, although it may not appear so, requires great skills; properly burst firing the rounds, keeping the barrel cool, and keeping the gun under control at not something that we all are skills we are born with. Even the standard issue rifles that make up the bulk of our armed forces small arms require training to fire properly. And all weapons require proper discipline while using them, and maintenance of that weapon, along with a basic working knowledge of that weapon. Sure, "anybody" could pick up a gun and shoot it, but to properly use it, it requires proper training, as does any weapon.
TL;dr -Screw you. You can either read it all, or not at all. I put some time into this response, so you at the very least can read it.
The most startling thing I noticed in this thread is that people seem to believe that combat back in the pre-gunpowder (and somewhat into the industrial age, at least those involving melee weapons) was this duel style combat, with fancy maneuvers. Hell, no. What techniques were taught during dueling and what were actually used in battle are two completely different schools. People would punch, claw, bite, shield bash, throw sand in eyes, and generally every dirty thing you could think of. They would use their weapons in ways that could hardly be considered elegant. They certainly was skill involved in these battles, because as someone pointed out earlier, professional soldiers and mercenaries tended to beat the crap of peasant rebellions rather quickly, despite being outnumbered in many occasions. But they didn't usually wield the little "elegant" fencing weapons. They used claymores, sabers, broadswords, longswords, maces, and other weapons that were not pretty, but certainly practical. A Prince who had learned to duel with a sword but not fought in any actual battles would almost certainly lose to the veteran mercenary in a fight to death. To risk sounding like a pretentious prick, I'm going to have repeat that famous FO3 quote of "War never changes". It is not, has not been, or will be, a "gentleman's" dueling space. Its gritty, harsh, and unforgiving to mistakes.
And that seems to be peoples biggest mistake. They see the old days of battle the honorable days, with the modern "dehumanizing" the whole concept of war. So that's why the sword is considered more elegant; it represents a (incorrect) interpretation of our past.
And yes, I consider guns to be inelegant too. And I like it that way. Weapons of war are meant to be practical tools of the their respective trade. There should be no confusion of their danger, uses, and how they work. One should be wary of a weapon that looks "elegant" or beautiful; they often sacrifice use for cosmetic purposes, and have no proper place on the battlefield, unless you want to die. For those of you who have watched Stargate-SG1, you will remember the episode were Jack demonstrates the difference between the staff weapon and the P-90, citing one as the weapon of intimidation(Staff Weapon), and the other a weapon of war(The P-90) to the Jaffa rebels. Any weapon that sacrifices its use for aesthetic purposes is not really a weapon.
There are firearms out there that require little to no skill to use them; the whole design philosophy behind the AK-47 was that principle. But so was the pike in its day and age. Its hardly fair to compare all firearms to the sword, and likewise all melee weapons to the firearm. Different uses means different designs. The sniper rifle requires a great deal of skill, and time in training that skill in order to properly master, as well as the necessary secondary skills to go with it. The machine gun as well, although it may not appear so, requires great skills; properly burst firing the rounds, keeping the barrel cool, and keeping the gun under control at not something that we all are skills we are born with. Even the standard issue rifles that make up the bulk of our armed forces small arms require training to fire properly. And all weapons require proper discipline while using them, and maintenance of that weapon, along with a basic working knowledge of that weapon. Sure, "anybody" could pick up a gun and shoot it, but to properly use it, it requires proper training, as does any weapon.
TL;dr -Screw you. You can either read it all, or not at all. I put some time into this response, so you at the very least can read it.