Why isn't a gun considered an elegant weapon?
- Thread starter ShotgunZombie
- Start date
True, but then what is your definition of elegance when speaking about weapons, are swords not also powerful and intimidating? Also, I don't remember saying one weapon is better than other simply because it's elegant.burningdragoon said:
Because it is a weapon that ANYONE can use and will win any confrontation with someone who is not also using a gun.
It is the weapon of a coward.. it can be used at extreme range in some cases, without ever having to see the victim's face, and still have an almost certain chance of victory.
It is a weapon that makes killing easy and impersonal.
With any form of melee weapon you must be there, in the face of the enemy. Not only must you be more skilled or physically overpower them, but you also have to be able to deal with the crushing reality of watching a person die by your hand, right in front of you.
Even with bows and crossbows, you have to have a measure of skill to even have a chance to outright kill someone with it.
With a gun you can point and pull the trigger and be fairly certain of severely injuring or killing someone.
It is the weapon of a coward.. it can be used at extreme range in some cases, without ever having to see the victim's face, and still have an almost certain chance of victory.
It is a weapon that makes killing easy and impersonal.
With any form of melee weapon you must be there, in the face of the enemy. Not only must you be more skilled or physically overpower them, but you also have to be able to deal with the crushing reality of watching a person die by your hand, right in front of you.
Even with bows and crossbows, you have to have a measure of skill to even have a chance to outright kill someone with it.
With a gun you can point and pull the trigger and be fairly certain of severely injuring or killing someone.
Well, let me put it this way; "Any weapon's weakness is it's user."ShotgunZombie said:
One problem with guns is that while it does take a good deal of practice to use a gun to its full potencial, pretty much any one can use at least one of the many many kinds of guns to easily kill someone.
Also, while its not imposibile to have a realistic and "elegant" gun fight, we most often see a big ol chaotic fight with bullets flying everywhere, and no visable pattern.
Though, I have seen a few good gun fights in some games. Like the Metal Gear Solid games.
The weapon of a coward? Say that to the men fighting over in Iraq with the guns. Go ahead. Try and call them cowards.Craorach said:
Then you go ahead and charge at them with a club or sword or what have you. See what happens.
Not saying guns are elegant- they aren't. They definitely aren't. But to call it "the coward's weapon" is just downright foolish.
When you think elegant, do you think "loud and smelly"? Seriously, have you ever fired a gun before? They're very loud, and the smell of gun smoke isn't exactly pleasant. Granted they are extremely useful, 'cause I'm sure as fuck not going to try and take down a white tail or moose with a knife or sword.
Because heroes don't use guns. (gunslingers are exceptions)
"Point, fire, they drop dead. This is so mundane that monsters and heroes who were cool enough became Immune to Bullets. After all, if it were that easy, the police would be able to deal with it."
~tv tropes.
"Point, fire, they drop dead. This is so mundane that monsters and heroes who were cool enough became Immune to Bullets. After all, if it were that easy, the police would be able to deal with it."
~tv tropes.
The same thing can be said of most weapons. Anyone can swing a sword, but it takes "care and precision" to not cut yourself or an ally. Few people know what kind of work it takes to maintain a sword either. Do you think people would have needed years of training, that often started when they were still children, to use a sword if anyone could just "pick it up and kill with it?" Probably not. Why do you think crossbows were banned? Simply because any peasant could "pick one up and fire" and kill a knight who had trained his whole life how to fight with a blade. You can bet that crossbows required maintenance just as any weapon does, but I'm wiling to bet that a crossbow is bit harder to aim than a modern gun. I also don't know anyone who calls a crossbow "elegant."ShotgunZombie said:
It takes time to learn ANY weapon, but guns tend to be much easier to learn than older weapons. Part of the allure of something like a sword is the knowledge that it takes years to truly learn the weapon. Where as a gun can be learned in less than 6 months. It is the same allure you find with martial arts. Everyone knows any martial art takes a long time to learn, but when you see what a master can do with that skill it can seem beyond human limits.
To give an example, my mother who had never even held a gun before was capable of 95% (bullseyes) or better accuracy on her first visit to a shooting range. My first time with a gun I could hit targets reliably at 100 yards. I once got an opportunity to spar with a man who had formal training with a sword (I had no training with a sword) and I could not land a single hit on him the whole time. It was hard to believe how many openings he could find to strike at me from.
I honestly doubt "looking cool" is part of being an "elegant" weapon. I would imagine it is more about the skill behind the use of the weapon that make it considered "elegant."
Because people like to romanticize one form of killing another person over another.
When people think fencing, they think chivalric days of yore where war was more civilized. Which is bullshit. It's like thinking everybody with a gun wears a duster and a cowboy hat while using a sniper rifle with a feather on it from the peregrine falcon the shooter killed while it was in full dive.
There's just as much skill involved in marksmanship as fencing. If you don't believe me, grab a revolver and and a nut, throw the nut up into the air and try to put a bullet through the nut without touching the rim. Or put the cigarette out of your friend's mouth from 50 paces.
When people think fencing, they think chivalric days of yore where war was more civilized. Which is bullshit. It's like thinking everybody with a gun wears a duster and a cowboy hat while using a sniper rifle with a feather on it from the peregrine falcon the shooter killed while it was in full dive.
There's just as much skill involved in marksmanship as fencing. If you don't believe me, grab a revolver and and a nut, throw the nut up into the air and try to put a bullet through the nut without touching the rim. Or put the cigarette out of your friend's mouth from 50 paces.
It's a load of crap to say anyone can use a gun but a sword takes years of training. Having never handled one outside a military ceremony, I've never wielded a sword, but I'm pretty certain I could pick one up, run outside, and kill someone with it. It wouldn't be elegant, or efficient, but it would be effective. If I were to trade my sanity for a sword, anyway.
To use a sword well, and to be confident you can kill someone who is similarly armed, takes years of training and experience, I'm sure. To use a gun equally well also takes a considerable amount of training and experience. It may not be romanticized like a "gentleman's duel" but taking a shot from 800 meters and actually hitting your target, that's not something everyone can just pick up and do. Try hitting multiple targets in less than a second, not with the old spray and pray approach, but one shot each.
If you don't see the elegance of a skilled marksman at work, then it's because you're closing your eyes and focusing on the unskilled shooters who give guns a bad name. Because you're not seeing unskilled swordsmen hacking away with an over-sized knife. Those terrorists and school shooters someone mentioned earlier could have just as easily picked up a sword and walked into a public place, hacking up at least a few people before someone stops them. They won't do it with style or precision, but people will die regardless. Just like when they empty the magazine into an unarmed crowd.
Summary/TLDR: A weapon is a weapon. Whether you are skilled with it or not you can kill someone. There are skilled users of all weapons, but the majority will be unskilled. Firearms are more common today than swords, therefore most examples of firearm use will be from unskilled users, and most examples of sword use will be from collectors and those who have a specific and dedicated interest in their use, therefore the elegance of a skilled shooter is lost to those who do not look for it.
Damn, even the TLDR is a paragraph. My point must be far too complicated for the internet.
To use a sword well, and to be confident you can kill someone who is similarly armed, takes years of training and experience, I'm sure. To use a gun equally well also takes a considerable amount of training and experience. It may not be romanticized like a "gentleman's duel" but taking a shot from 800 meters and actually hitting your target, that's not something everyone can just pick up and do. Try hitting multiple targets in less than a second, not with the old spray and pray approach, but one shot each.
If you don't see the elegance of a skilled marksman at work, then it's because you're closing your eyes and focusing on the unskilled shooters who give guns a bad name. Because you're not seeing unskilled swordsmen hacking away with an over-sized knife. Those terrorists and school shooters someone mentioned earlier could have just as easily picked up a sword and walked into a public place, hacking up at least a few people before someone stops them. They won't do it with style or precision, but people will die regardless. Just like when they empty the magazine into an unarmed crowd.
Summary/TLDR: A weapon is a weapon. Whether you are skilled with it or not you can kill someone. There are skilled users of all weapons, but the majority will be unskilled. Firearms are more common today than swords, therefore most examples of firearm use will be from unskilled users, and most examples of sword use will be from collectors and those who have a specific and dedicated interest in their use, therefore the elegance of a skilled shooter is lost to those who do not look for it.
Damn, even the TLDR is a paragraph. My point must be far too complicated for the internet.
I believe you just described the recruitment process for a lot armies back in the day...Xiado said:
Maybe but you have an army that can't shoot for shit. If guns are so easy to use, why does any army worth its salt spend months training soldiers in their correct use for Christsake?Xiado said:
Any moron can kill someone with a sword as well really if they run in hacking and slashing, but it takes skill to use a gun and kill someone from more than a couple hundred yards.Takuanuva said:
Just sayin'
OT: Guns can be elegant, very much so. See below for example:
I dont understand how swords are any more civilized than guns or any other weapon. They are all tools designed with but one purpose, to kill and/ or injure people. Nothing particularly civilised about that.
I don't know, its probably some kind of cultural bias either that or simply that swords are typically 'prettier' (they are shiny usually)
When it comes down to it a sword is a sharp metal bar with a handle. I doubt the bias is really to do with training and skill as many people proclaim, it takes as much skill and training to be effective with any melee weapon, stone clubs, and wooden batons included. However neither stone clubs or batons are shiny or sharp.
Personally I find some firearms fairly elegant in terms of how all the various parts all work together neatly.
Edit: Besides, the real elegance comes from the lance, during a tournament not all this hackity slashing of those riff raff footmen.
When it comes down to it a sword is a sharp metal bar with a handle. I doubt the bias is really to do with training and skill as many people proclaim, it takes as much skill and training to be effective with any melee weapon, stone clubs, and wooden batons included. However neither stone clubs or batons are shiny or sharp.
Personally I find some firearms fairly elegant in terms of how all the various parts all work together neatly.
Edit: Besides, the real elegance comes from the lance, during a tournament not all this hackity slashing of those riff raff footmen.
its the demanding of respect. plus, have you ever seen a real gunshot wound? its not a little hole, even a pistol exit wound can blow the back of your head off. they take skill to use professionally, but at the end of the day its something that can take your face off from the other side of a room in less than a second. you cant really have a drawn-out 1-on-1 gun battle IRL. you can with a rapier.
back before the creation of gunpowder, samurai would constantly bully town of people who couldnt defend themselves because they were more skilled with a sword.Craorach said:
it doesnt matter what weapon is popular the person with the bigger stick will have the advantage...until the invention of the gun. now as we speak 2-4 million americans a year defend themselves against robbery, rape, murder, ect. while guns vary in size and roll, the craziest most well trained machine gunner can be brought down with a 22. rifle. so now the bullying part is only an option when you have no weapon to begin with, and since i live in america and own guns and carry on my person or in my car, i have no such problem.
the invention of the guns has brought us into a more civilized age by leveling the playing field. The gun is not a cowards weapon, the coward is a coward holding a weapon.