I assume this is a weeaboo thing, right up there with stuff like believing the katana is a superweapon (and not a chip-prone piece of crap).
Why isn't a gun considered an elegant weapon?
- Thread starter ShotgunZombie
- Start date
I don't know if you've ever held a sword or what kind of swords you are familiar with, but my longsword weighs less than 3-4 pounds (A Desert eagle weighs 4 lbs), and it's balanced (a good deal of the weight comes from the pommel), so it feels like less when you're swinging it.Jegsimmons said:
Can be avoided if you know what you're doing
Guns can rust too. If you know what you're doing breaking a sword is really hard (I've personally managed to break a sword myself, but it was of low quality, and I was using it in an improper manner). Significant bending of a sword is pretty much not going to happen. Steel is way too springy for that. It'll break before you manage to get a permanent bend on it.
Silencers don't really do all that much to lower the volume of a gunshot. http://www.cracked.com/article_18576_5-ridiculous-gun-myths-everyone-believes-thanks-to-movies.html
I say the reason guns aren't considered elegant (design notwhitstanding) is that any skill that goes into operating them isn't explicitly visible during use.
The user merely stands still, and then the gun goes bang; whereas in a swordfight you practically have a dance going on.
If you wish to win a swordfight you need to parry, dodge and riposte.
If you wish to win a gunfight, you need to be the first to aim and pull the trigger.
?adjective
1.
tastefully fine or luxurious in dress, style, design, etc.: elegant furnishings.
2.
gracefully refined and dignified, as in tastes, habits, or literary style: an elegant young gentleman; an elegant prosodist.
3.
graceful in form or movement: an elegant wave of the hand.
Now while the first may be a bit of taste but it really depends on the gun. A sniper could be considered elegant with the skill required while a shotgun or assault rifle wouldn't. A sword is considered elegant because it is a weapon of the upper class and is harder to use than say an axe or spear. There is not much elegance in an axe or spear just chop or stab and maybe slice.
So no the grunt weapons of any age are not elegant but ones you need special training for are elegant.
The anyone can use it argument does not hold true for this as anyone can use a martial weapon as well as gun first time but it takes training to use most things well. Things that require less training are stuff like Spears and Axes since they were given to the bulk of armies.
1.
tastefully fine or luxurious in dress, style, design, etc.: elegant furnishings.
2.
gracefully refined and dignified, as in tastes, habits, or literary style: an elegant young gentleman; an elegant prosodist.
3.
graceful in form or movement: an elegant wave of the hand.
Now while the first may be a bit of taste but it really depends on the gun. A sniper could be considered elegant with the skill required while a shotgun or assault rifle wouldn't. A sword is considered elegant because it is a weapon of the upper class and is harder to use than say an axe or spear. There is not much elegance in an axe or spear just chop or stab and maybe slice.
So no the grunt weapons of any age are not elegant but ones you need special training for are elegant.
The anyone can use it argument does not hold true for this as anyone can use a martial weapon as well as gun first time but it takes training to use most things well. Things that require less training are stuff like Spears and Axes since they were given to the bulk of armies.
Not to be a terrible pest, but what would you call those ranks upon ranks of pikemen, then? (Besides fodder, of course.) Pikepersons? Because back in that much-adored day of chivalry, they'd fill the front ranks with serfs holding pointy sticks, since swords were rather pricey if made properly. Don't get me wrong, I adore swords, but if only the nobility and such got to play with them, that leaves a lot of 'men' out of the running.pwnsore said:
Captcha: accidentally on purpose. How fitting.
The actual use of the gun is not anywhere as elegant as a sword. Its been said many times already.
However, just because anybody can pick up a gun and use it, its doubtful they know how to use it well. People seem to always talk down to guns, what they tend to think (or atleast what I think they think...) is that guns work just like in videogames. Yes, a person could pick up an AK-47 and fire it, but if they never fired a gun before, they will be more likely to kill themselves than hit a target. Plus, guns are complicated, much more so than any sword. Guns need to be cleaned and have they parts lubricated to run smoothly, and you need to learn this, a person cant just field strip a rifle, clean it, and reassemble it like Forest Gump right off the bat.
Also, I myself dont care for rapiers and katanas, they are more flowery in my opinion. If im getting a sword, I want a good English longsword or a kilij. Or even more so, a pair of Katars. swords can be just as brutal, if not more so, than a gun (this depends on the gun itself, do not want to be on recieving end of .50 sniper round).
However, just because anybody can pick up a gun and use it, its doubtful they know how to use it well. People seem to always talk down to guns, what they tend to think (or atleast what I think they think...) is that guns work just like in videogames. Yes, a person could pick up an AK-47 and fire it, but if they never fired a gun before, they will be more likely to kill themselves than hit a target. Plus, guns are complicated, much more so than any sword. Guns need to be cleaned and have they parts lubricated to run smoothly, and you need to learn this, a person cant just field strip a rifle, clean it, and reassemble it like Forest Gump right off the bat.
Also, I myself dont care for rapiers and katanas, they are more flowery in my opinion. If im getting a sword, I want a good English longsword or a kilij. Or even more so, a pair of Katars. swords can be just as brutal, if not more so, than a gun (this depends on the gun itself, do not want to be on recieving end of .50 sniper round).
My argument would be that guns are, for the most part, designed to be inelegant. A sword, bow, or similar weapon requires extensive training to use, and is designed to hit its target as often as possible. A miss with a bow is a wasted opportunity.
Guns, on the other hand, are designed to be easy to use, and modern firearms are often designed to shoot dozens or even hundreds of rounds that miss the target (but frighten, intimidate or impede the aim of the enemy). It's the main component of suppressive fire, and it actually works very well, but it's hardly an elegant way to fight a battle.
Guns, on the other hand, are designed to be easy to use, and modern firearms are often designed to shoot dozens or even hundreds of rounds that miss the target (but frighten, intimidate or impede the aim of the enemy). It's the main component of suppressive fire, and it actually works very well, but it's hardly an elegant way to fight a battle.
, most guns are the application of brute force. I appreciate the tacticalt think and placement of soldiers and equipment but that comes into play in any war or war game. A sword takes years to master... and ok guns are not just a case of pick one up and be an expert right away but they became so common because it doesn't take as much training to get you started as with a bow and arrow for example. I'd guess some sniper rifles could be considered elegant as they have the pinpoint distance and calculation of accuracy.. that certainly takes more training as a counter-point to my previous statements.
Yes guns are deadly, and require great care when you are around them. The problem is the equipment is deadly not necessarily the person holding it. All you need is either a gun with a good site, good aim, or just get close enough. Even at 2 meters where it is easy to hit target the size of a human it becomes far more effective than a sword ever was. And while it may be difficult to hit at a distance if you don't have a proper scope the accuracy of a gun is far better than a bow. Here are three reasons I can think of why they aren't considered to be as elegant of a weapon.ShotgunZombie said:
One the previously mentioned ease of use to be effective. While it is actually more difficult than it looks to hit something you are aiming at it isn't improbable with a handgun especially if you only two meters away. Riffles and shotguns are much easier to hit with and basically anybody could easily kill their instructor after an afternoon of lessons of how to use the gun. This in contrast with a sword, or knife, or even a bow which a capable enough fighter could compensate when using a less effective weapon.
This brings me to my second point, they are a very very effective weapon. For a sword or bow the effectiveness largely depends on the person using them. A child wielding a sword (lets say a 8 year old) is unlikely to be able to hurt any adult around them unless the adult is caught unaware. A child holding a handgun is plenty capable of killing the adult although they are likely to hurt themselves in the process. To support this all you have to ask is who would win this fight. A completely open field with a trained soldier equipped with a musket and 15 yards away a 15 year old with state of the art fully automatic weapon.
Lastly they are common, at least in the USA. More common than swords ever were or are. If something is common it takes away from its awe factor.
I'd like to know why any method of, (or tool for), killing can be considered elegant.
However, in terms of skill, firearms require as much training, practice, and knowledge to use as any other weapon. It's no easier to kill some one with a rifle than it is to with a knife, especially if your opponent is armed with a similar, or same, weapon. People have this delusion that guns are simple and easy weapons to use, that all you have to do is point and squeeze the trigger and you'll kill some one. At close range, (within thirty, thirty-five feet), this is usually true, but lets also consider the situation: if you are in a point of your life where you have no choice but to aim your weapon at some one and pull the trigger, your breathing is likely rapid, your thoughts are running about, and your pulse and adrenaline levels are both considerably high. This means that every part of your body is moving. Each rise of your chest (or gut if you naturally breathe that way) moves your arms and head. Every beat of your heart causes your arm to twitch, as does the involuntary muscle movements that accompany stress. Most of the time, your choice of action is to pull the trigger (which, unless your finger is centered perfectly on the trigger, changes your angle of fire just before the hammer is released), and if you believe you missed, unload. The kick of the weapon sends your barrel upward (if you're holding the weapon properly) and the average person doesn't notice the slight change in angle that results. Add all of these factors up and the normal person will have a considerably difficult time even hitting their target, with killing them in a single shot being the equivalent of getting a critical success in any role-playing game.
All weapons are like this. They aren't objects of art. They're tools to destroy your enemy with.
The elegance won't be found in the weapon. It's in the heart, mind, and soul of the individual who uses it, that elegance is found. The will and courage required to remain calm, control your body, and stay on your target is the only part of conflict that can be admired in anyway, regardless of which battlefield, which weapon, or which war.
EDIT: Another thing to consider.
Why are firearms so prominent?
Psychological: An individual with a gun gets a much larger boost to their morale for many reasons. Guns can kill from farther away, and this creates the illusion that you have removed yourself from harm by engaging at a distance. The flash of the muzzle, the sound of the shot, and the smell of sulfur all add onto this. Being in such an extreme environment, and knowing that you are the one holding the gun, gives you a feeling a "might." (Which is unfortunate.) Compared to melee weapons, which require you to get close enough to swing at your enemy, guns are favored for the false feelings of safety they bring.
Economical: Firearms are considerably cheaper to produce and repair than the majority of other weapons, and war is as much about funding as it is anything else.
It's the same reason why crossbows became popular, and explosives, and guerrilla warfare. They provide a larger ego boost, and are more efficient in terms of money.
ANOTHER EDIT: Minor grammar issues.
However, in terms of skill, firearms require as much training, practice, and knowledge to use as any other weapon. It's no easier to kill some one with a rifle than it is to with a knife, especially if your opponent is armed with a similar, or same, weapon. People have this delusion that guns are simple and easy weapons to use, that all you have to do is point and squeeze the trigger and you'll kill some one. At close range, (within thirty, thirty-five feet), this is usually true, but lets also consider the situation: if you are in a point of your life where you have no choice but to aim your weapon at some one and pull the trigger, your breathing is likely rapid, your thoughts are running about, and your pulse and adrenaline levels are both considerably high. This means that every part of your body is moving. Each rise of your chest (or gut if you naturally breathe that way) moves your arms and head. Every beat of your heart causes your arm to twitch, as does the involuntary muscle movements that accompany stress. Most of the time, your choice of action is to pull the trigger (which, unless your finger is centered perfectly on the trigger, changes your angle of fire just before the hammer is released), and if you believe you missed, unload. The kick of the weapon sends your barrel upward (if you're holding the weapon properly) and the average person doesn't notice the slight change in angle that results. Add all of these factors up and the normal person will have a considerably difficult time even hitting their target, with killing them in a single shot being the equivalent of getting a critical success in any role-playing game.
All weapons are like this. They aren't objects of art. They're tools to destroy your enemy with.
The elegance won't be found in the weapon. It's in the heart, mind, and soul of the individual who uses it, that elegance is found. The will and courage required to remain calm, control your body, and stay on your target is the only part of conflict that can be admired in anyway, regardless of which battlefield, which weapon, or which war.
EDIT: Another thing to consider.
Why are firearms so prominent?
Psychological: An individual with a gun gets a much larger boost to their morale for many reasons. Guns can kill from farther away, and this creates the illusion that you have removed yourself from harm by engaging at a distance. The flash of the muzzle, the sound of the shot, and the smell of sulfur all add onto this. Being in such an extreme environment, and knowing that you are the one holding the gun, gives you a feeling a "might." (Which is unfortunate.) Compared to melee weapons, which require you to get close enough to swing at your enemy, guns are favored for the false feelings of safety they bring.
Economical: Firearms are considerably cheaper to produce and repair than the majority of other weapons, and war is as much about funding as it is anything else.
It's the same reason why crossbows became popular, and explosives, and guerrilla warfare. They provide a larger ego boost, and are more efficient in terms of money.
ANOTHER EDIT: Minor grammar issues.
yes but guns tend to have very good balance, and i own a katanna and its WAY heavier than my glock 22. to to mention the amount of fire power from a gun's size and wieght will REALLY be more of a plus than a 4-8 pound sword (or if you use a william wallace type swaord, almost 20 pounds if not heavier) you have to train years with to get up close to the guy hey may kill you faster.Jonluw said:
and fuck danceing, im fighting for my life, screw the foreplay, click, bang, drop, go home.
and maby they wont make noise if you know what you doing, but when it comes to swords who the hell knows what they're doing? like 1 out of a thousand people?
and skill not viable in use? ever fired a handgun at a target from 30 paces? shits hard, you have to practice, hitting moving targets is hard also, and im not talking ducks at a carnival here.
you cant point and click a gun as easy as they say or show. you just fire you miss unless you take aim, you run, you wont hit shit, so yeah you find cover and take aim. like you would with a cross bow or bow and arrow. hell take snipers for example, its not like video game, sniping is HARD as hell to master. and takes SERIOUS intelligence.
lets not even get into safety mechanisms, cleaning, loading, arming, aiming, ect.
guns are not only elegant, but fairy complicated and end fights quick. which is what baffles me about swords, how is a sword more elegant when its a sharpen club that requires you to be in your opponents striking range? you dont fight to dance or show sword skill, you fight to end shit quickly, like the samurai (who had whole companies of riflemen) who used bows, and fast killing weapons.
im just saying, you pick sword, i pick gun, i go home that day.
It's mostly because of history. Weapons like swords and spears have been around since the dawn of time. Their everyday attachment to humans was essential for our survival, they carried various symbolism and were connected with various deities and heroes. They were more than just weapons; they were expensive, important, deified. They were symbols of honour, strength, rank, wealth, status and many other things. During the Crusades, swords were the symbols of the heavenly war against the heathens (because when put up-right, a sword looks like a cross). Swords are also a much more "elegant" phallic symbol (spears too, for example). They are not "only weapons", but symbols of various things and are also older and had much more time to develop myths and legends. We share a longer connection with them, and a very different one at that.
Guns, however, are "just weapons". You don't have to be anyone specific to own one, your life doesn't depend on it, you don't need specific amount of honour, strength or any significant rank or status to attain it. It's also expendable and mass produced, unlike the weapons like swords which required much more work from, usually, a single person or two-three people (also, to make a sword, one needed a lot of metal and metal was expensive and hard to come by). It is usually connected only with murder, and not chivalry or protection. And of course, as a phallic symbol, it's considered to be much more "dirty" than the sword, as it only shows brute and short-lasting strength, while the sword is... well, considered elegant and as something that has history and, very often, personality.
Besides, what does "elegant" really mean in this context? Efficiency? Usage? Looks? Strength? To each his own. In general, they lack the history of the sword, and the sword's psychical attachment to us as something solemn and heroic. So people see firearms differently and consider them less valuable or as something that anyone can get and use however they like, without the involvement of something personal and honourable. Nobody just decided it'll be like that, it's just how our sentiments develop over time. We already have some sort of fascination with old guns (flintlocks, Wild West pistols), while we can't really say the same thing about uzis for example. It's all about having enough time to evolve into something with a personality and heroism.
Now, this is just some sort of an analysis which excludes the technical stuff (skill needed to use one or the other and such). I don't find any weapon more elegant than the other as they are all very different, both in the practical and symbolic (and historical) way. But gun currently loses the "elegant" fight because it's too much of a novelty and lacks historical, heroic and symbolic background (at least, it doesn't have enough of it, like the sword or a spear). It'll get it eventually though, firearms from the earlier centuries already kinda have it.
Guns, however, are "just weapons". You don't have to be anyone specific to own one, your life doesn't depend on it, you don't need specific amount of honour, strength or any significant rank or status to attain it. It's also expendable and mass produced, unlike the weapons like swords which required much more work from, usually, a single person or two-three people (also, to make a sword, one needed a lot of metal and metal was expensive and hard to come by). It is usually connected only with murder, and not chivalry or protection. And of course, as a phallic symbol, it's considered to be much more "dirty" than the sword, as it only shows brute and short-lasting strength, while the sword is... well, considered elegant and as something that has history and, very often, personality.
Besides, what does "elegant" really mean in this context? Efficiency? Usage? Looks? Strength? To each his own. In general, they lack the history of the sword, and the sword's psychical attachment to us as something solemn and heroic. So people see firearms differently and consider them less valuable or as something that anyone can get and use however they like, without the involvement of something personal and honourable. Nobody just decided it'll be like that, it's just how our sentiments develop over time. We already have some sort of fascination with old guns (flintlocks, Wild West pistols), while we can't really say the same thing about uzis for example. It's all about having enough time to evolve into something with a personality and heroism.
Now, this is just some sort of an analysis which excludes the technical stuff (skill needed to use one or the other and such). I don't find any weapon more elegant than the other as they are all very different, both in the practical and symbolic (and historical) way. But gun currently loses the "elegant" fight because it's too much of a novelty and lacks historical, heroic and symbolic background (at least, it doesn't have enough of it, like the sword or a spear). It'll get it eventually though, firearms from the earlier centuries already kinda have it.
No matter how many times I watch Equilibrium, I never get bored. Possibly one of my favourite movies. Reason? This video explains it.Jonluw said:
Anyway. Yeah, all the reasons have been pretty much covered: more static, too simple and too brutal. I myself would never ever hold a gun, even to save my own life. However...I think they are the coolest thing, especially handguns. Anime, manga, movies or TV; if a gun is used with skill I will enjoy it (hopefully). Trigun, D.Gray-man (Cross Marian), Black Rock Shooter, Witch Hunter, Kurohime, Grenadier while on the movie side there's R.E.D. (guns with old people, even better), the aforementioned Equilibrium and Zombieland ("I love rednecks" and the kiosk + handgun scene)
Don't get me wrong, I hate just spraying but if you show me gun kata like in Equilibrium I probably won't be able to look away.
I mean, sure I guess. Though really your hypothetical really brings to light the whole point that people should be taking away: it's not the weapon that's elegant.ShotgunZombie said:
because no one has seen Equilibrium or they haven't been to UK because they have diamond covered guns. Pistols used with skill are the equivalent of a sword in Beatrix Kiddo's hand
H3H3H3
H3H3H3
