Why isn't a gun considered an elegant weapon?
- Thread starter ShotgunZombie
- Start date
Because they make people's heads go boom. And swords make people's limbs go floop, so they aren't elegant either.
I vote the noble brick as the most elegant of weapons. Proper right angles and a dashing red; now that is a man's bludgeoning tool of choice.
I vote the noble brick as the most elegant of weapons. Proper right angles and a dashing red; now that is a man's bludgeoning tool of choice.
"do you wanna why i use a knife...guns are too quick,you cant savor all the little emotions...you,you see.,in their last moments people show you who they really are,so in a way i knew your friend better than you ever did"
Heath Ledger as "the Joker" 'The Dark Knight'
I think that's my reason. Too quick and two impersonal. "Its not the killing of a living thing but simply the pulling of a trigger" if I were to put it needlessly poetically.
Heath Ledger as "the Joker" 'The Dark Knight'
I think that's my reason. Too quick and two impersonal. "Its not the killing of a living thing but simply the pulling of a trigger" if I were to put it needlessly poetically.
I think what makes guns 'inelegant' to people is the ease of access to its power.
It takes a bit of skill to do damage with other weapons. With a gun, all it takes is a point and a squeeze (Marksmanship notwithstanding).
Another downpoint for them attached to ease of access to its power is also the potential price for misuse. If someone is foolish with a melee weapon, it's most likely they will hurt themselves. If someone is foolish with a gun, it's most likely someone ELSE will suffer for their lack of respect for the weapon.
It takes a bit of skill to do damage with other weapons. With a gun, all it takes is a point and a squeeze (Marksmanship notwithstanding).
Another downpoint for them attached to ease of access to its power is also the potential price for misuse. If someone is foolish with a melee weapon, it's most likely they will hurt themselves. If someone is foolish with a gun, it's most likely someone ELSE will suffer for their lack of respect for the weapon.
clint eastwoodpwnsore said:
john wayne
clive owen
jason stathom
chuck norris
Sly Stallone
Samuel L Jackson
Sam Elliot
Wyatt Earp
Jesse James
Several US Presidents and Generals
The US Army (and every military man after 1600s)
audie murphy
and so forth.
hey....just saying.....
I disagree; throughout history any weapon that is easily used by the people helps protect against tyranny, while weapons that are too expensive or too difficult to be used by anyone but the professional soldier help to protect tyranny. In my mind, the rifle is the ultimate tool of the working class. It can just as easily hunt for food as it can protect against invaders.Craorach said:
A gun can practically win by picking it up and aiming. My first time on a rifle range with no training: hit 7, miss 3.
A sword, mace, and melee weapons require training to exact a fight, as they are duels of mental concentration and the ability to see weakness in a foe's stance and properly pursue, akin to warfare consisting of formations, rather than relying on the miscalculated aim of the foe. The personal ability of the user is the deciding factor of the result of the conflict.
While arguably, both can constitute different parts in the art of war, the gun seems less animate than the melee, as it is a far distance technique, without any proper honor to look the enemy in the face, while a sword can get your normal eyes to recognize the sweat on an opponent's nose.
A sword, mace, and melee weapons require training to exact a fight, as they are duels of mental concentration and the ability to see weakness in a foe's stance and properly pursue, akin to warfare consisting of formations, rather than relying on the miscalculated aim of the foe. The personal ability of the user is the deciding factor of the result of the conflict.
While arguably, both can constitute different parts in the art of war, the gun seems less animate than the melee, as it is a far distance technique, without any proper honor to look the enemy in the face, while a sword can get your normal eyes to recognize the sweat on an opponent's nose.
Well that would be where the really problem in this discussion. It's pretty weird to argue over which thing designed to take a life is more elegant than another. However, it's easier to argue there is some level of grace in the way two master swordsmen would duel each other (or at least in the way they are choreographed nowadays) that is rather lacking in guns.ShotgunZombie said:
To everyone who is making the "Guns are impersonal" responses. Are we denying that people don't get shot at point blank or engage in short distance shootouts? I'm just saying...
Also I like how this post is going so far, plenty of good points on both sides.
Also I like how this post is going so far, plenty of good points on both sides.
I doubt any weapon would be very "elegant" when actually put to use. Human remains tend to have a morbid, repulsive tinge to it.
Fine if I give you a simple M4 Carbine and tell you to kill someone with it, would you know how to use it? If I gave you a sword and told you to kill someone, would you know how to use it?Grand_Arcana said:
As gun collecter myself it take a long time to clean prepare,check, and recheck firearms before use. As well as ballistics and ammunition types on different materials through size and penetration.
That's not to say a Katana or Rapier require's any less finesse and experience to wield.
This argument is invalid, why?
Everyone get's down to the whole "Bang" "Swish" When really both weapons are deeper then that.
A lot of good arguments have been given, but on a personal level, guns tend to be a brutish weapon of force while swords are sleek and precise.
That's not to say a gun can't be elegant, and a sword always is, but the wielding plays a large part.
A soldier doesn't have a whole lot of finesse, but neither does a battle using swords. They both end up being rather brutish and untidy displays, but on the alternate hand, a well trained swordsman can have poise and grace, much the same as a skilled assassin.
That's not to say a gun can't be elegant, and a sword always is, but the wielding plays a large part.
A soldier doesn't have a whole lot of finesse, but neither does a battle using swords. They both end up being rather brutish and untidy displays, but on the alternate hand, a well trained swordsman can have poise and grace, much the same as a skilled assassin.
no its gained by the ability to show your opponent your skill without killing them in every usage. getting shot in the shoulder can be fatal. in a duel, rapiers would be replaced with the similar foil, which has a capped end for fencing. wheres the respect in knowing someone can turn around a blow your face off: none, its fear. knowing someone can hold off his opponent, then get a killing blow, but will only do so to protect his country or honour, is. thats what fencing duels were about: respect and honour.CountChopula said:
It's just not really elegant, walking up to someone and blowing all their limbs off. I mean, a slash with a sword is a worthy death, as you'd been clearly outskilled. Guns are more of the I-hit-I-win category. Not very elegant. Just for butchering as many enemies as you can (Ooh sweet irony, having swords and calling guns a butchering weapon hahaha)
Yes but that level of choreography implies that the two swordsmen are experienced and seasoned veterans. So in that light lets take two, for the sake of argument, professional soldiers and stick them in a battlefield with orders to kill each other. They quietly stalk and study each throughout successive firefights which neither is quiet sure how they've survived. Is there not some level of elegance in such a violent game of cat and mouse?burningdragoon said: