Why isn't a gun considered an elegant weapon?
- Thread starter ShotgunZombie
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That's a little different than what I was talking about. The sword and gun are both tools explicitly created by man for the purpose of killing. They both are created with form, function and purpose in mind. A rock is rock is a rock, created by nature that can be used as a tool and weapon, but never specifically with that function in mind. That is what separates it from just being in the class of "old" as you stated. When I said old, I meant the tradition and importance that society puts on these individual tools that they can be considered as "elegant".One Hit Noob said:
your all laboring under a romantic depiction that the sword is some glorious lofty weapon when in reality it was often brutal dirty a and harsh, were talking 2 guys rolling around in the mud trying to tab each other with shards of their blades, that good sir is not elegant! the gun IShowever and elegant weapon a prime example is a sniper dual 2 opponents matching wits and skill in the give terrain waiting for the other to slip up and setting up the perfect shot, watch the final scenes of enemy at the gate and you try and tell me that the gun doesn't require skill or that it isn't an "elegant" weapon.
you dont have a 50/50 shot of killing someone the second you pick up a gun odds are youll hurt yourself before the other person and if the other person is skilled enough in firearms trianing they kill you 9 times out of ten, useing a gun takes traing as much or more than a tradinal wepon to master it, and when you do, its a beutile sight.
and here all the proof you need that the gun is an elgent wepoan
"'Love' is making a shot to the knees of a target 120 kilometers away using an Aratech sniper rifle with a tri-light scope... Love is knowing your target, putting them in your targeting reticule, and together, achieving a singular purpose against statistically long odds" - HK-47
you dont have a 50/50 shot of killing someone the second you pick up a gun odds are youll hurt yourself before the other person and if the other person is skilled enough in firearms trianing they kill you 9 times out of ten, useing a gun takes traing as much or more than a tradinal wepon to master it, and when you do, its a beutile sight.
and here all the proof you need that the gun is an elgent wepoan
"'Love' is making a shot to the knees of a target 120 kilometers away using an Aratech sniper rifle with a tri-light scope... Love is knowing your target, putting them in your targeting reticule, and together, achieving a singular purpose against statistically long odds" - HK-47
Simple.
It takes considerably less effort to fire a gun at someone than it does to swing a sword, so the more skilled but less effective martial arts whiners need to have some way to look down on it.
Second, just go look up early firearms... They had to put the ball into the barrel, fill it with powder, light a fuse and THEN aim it in the direction of the thing they wanted to kill... They were unwieldy and often misfired or simply refused to work.
It's basically because it evens the field between a normal human and someone who's trained for years on end to become a killing machine... Because it's not 'esoteric', because John Normal can pick one up and kill people, it's 'inelegant'.
Personally, I'd rather have an effective weapon than an elegant one >>
It takes considerably less effort to fire a gun at someone than it does to swing a sword, so the more skilled but less effective martial arts whiners need to have some way to look down on it.
Second, just go look up early firearms... They had to put the ball into the barrel, fill it with powder, light a fuse and THEN aim it in the direction of the thing they wanted to kill... They were unwieldy and often misfired or simply refused to work.
It's basically because it evens the field between a normal human and someone who's trained for years on end to become a killing machine... Because it's not 'esoteric', because John Normal can pick one up and kill people, it's 'inelegant'.
Personally, I'd rather have an effective weapon than an elegant one >>
A few things, mostly because there is generally no "swoosh" in a gunfight, even in movies, and even then, the viewer knows it is nonessential to the operation of the gun, while the "swoosh" can be conceived by the viewer to be essential to the operation of the sword. The most experienced marksman is not going to go as much cool shit (turns, parries, twists, the usual.) that an experienced swordsman would. Also, guns are currently in use, swords aren't. Therefore, swords are generally heavily romanticized, there was probably a lot less "swoosh" than is now currently seen in movies involving swords. Then, guns are hella loud, and noise makes a really big difference on someone's impression of the tool in question. Next, guns do not need anything to be used properly, the opponent stands much less of a chance if the other person has a gun. A sword can be dodged, even by someone unarmed, though that is very improbable. A bullet cannot. There is also the fact that swords require much more effort to use than a gun. With a gun, you just have to pull the trigger and BOOM! a sword, you have to at least accelerate the sword into your target's gut, that takes much more effort. Lastly, there is the problem that a gun allows its use from very far away, a sword requires the combatants to be close, at least able to see the other person's eyes. The way swords are portrayed now a fight is more like dancing with your opponent, there is a beauty to dance, and this is one of the more engaging ones there is.
Anyone who says skill isnt needed to shoot hasnt done long range shooting, ie, over 1000 yards. But that said, i see the arguement for the inelegance of a gun.
I think its to do with the raw nature of it. The sound and the flash of the gunpowder.
With a sword, you have a masterwork that someone spent countless hours on forming, the edge is a work of art. The endless skill of the creator.
that all said, i love guns, and swords. All weapons catch my interest.
I think its to do with the raw nature of it. The sound and the flash of the gunpowder.
With a sword, you have a masterwork that someone spent countless hours on forming, the edge is a work of art. The endless skill of the creator.
that all said, i love guns, and swords. All weapons catch my interest.
Basically this, while you CAN hone your skills with a gun to the point of it practically being an art form (snipers for example fit that description beautifully), you pretty much NEED to do that in order to be considered a skilled sword user.LordLundar said:
Plus, swords, bows and the like are generally alot more attractive then guns which might be a part of it.
It depends, it's hard to be respectable lugging around a submachine gun, but when done right:ShotgunZombie said:
I'll tell you what isn't a respectable weapon: a knife. Or as it may be presented in court "a dagger" it is a thug's weapon. Associated with cowardice (concealed and deployed without warning) and deceit (used silently) and metaphorically damning (can literally lead to blood on your hands).
Ultimately it is down to who uses it, and the type of weapon my imply certain things about the user.
But a marine and his rifle has (well earned) a lot of respect.
Point. Squeeze. Bang. Done.
It's so impersonal. With any other weapon it's about skill. Yeah, anybody can swing a sword but to duel another person with a sword is nothing like picking up a gun and firing it at someone. Similar deal with a bow, it takes a lot of strength to draw a bow. And since they fire at such lower velocity, aiming one is a much trickier deal.
I do say that some guns are elegant, mainly old guns. Revolvers especially. And I won't deny that it takes skill to get accurate with one. BUT, anyone can pull a gun at close range and demand control of a fight. Even if more than one person pulls a gun, there's no competition. It's not a duel, it's just a battle of nerves. Whoever shoots first is going to win, provided they hit their target. Nothing elegant about that.
It's so impersonal. With any other weapon it's about skill. Yeah, anybody can swing a sword but to duel another person with a sword is nothing like picking up a gun and firing it at someone. Similar deal with a bow, it takes a lot of strength to draw a bow. And since they fire at such lower velocity, aiming one is a much trickier deal.
I do say that some guns are elegant, mainly old guns. Revolvers especially. And I won't deny that it takes skill to get accurate with one. BUT, anyone can pull a gun at close range and demand control of a fight. Even if more than one person pulls a gun, there's no competition. It's not a duel, it's just a battle of nerves. Whoever shoots first is going to win, provided they hit their target. Nothing elegant about that.
Very few people are trying to debate that the first definition isn't true. It's the second and third that they find fault with. Say what you will about well-trained gunners, there are a LOT more inelegant(2) ways that guns are used, especially nowadays. Swords, which is about the only thing most are trying to compare it to, has always had a slightly more elegant(2) form with it. In the past, when the sword was THE weapon of choice, not everyone owned one, and the design of the sword was often a tell of a person's stature; obviously, if commoners had swords they were very basic and probably quite dull, while nobles and the like would have finely crafted swords with uniquely designed hilts and etchings on the blade. Nowadays, anyone with the proper forms and training can go out and buy a top-of-the-line, expertly crafted gun, so it becomes somewhat less of a status symbol by comparison.LarenzoAOG said:
And as for the third definition, just play any video game that has both swords and guns to play with. Notice how many more animation frames are necessary to show the movement of the sword, while most gun animations simply require holding the gun firmly, possibly slightly in front of or beside the user, depending on the size. Ignoring how accurate the user may be, you have to admit that the swing of a sword requires much more grace, both in form and movement, than holding a gun.
It's all in the history.
Compare the history and war stories from that of the medieval period (pre-gun), to the 18th-19th (the transition) century conflicts and last but not least the wars in the 20th century(swords becoming obsolete in warfare etc) and what you see is war and conflict portrayed in a very different light over time.
For example despite the English forces deploying a scorched Earth campaign in the first part of the hundred years war in the 14th century Froissarts chronicles described the conflict in a vibrant fashion, as two monarchies battling it out on French soil with significant emphasis on the chivalric ethos, painting a colourful picture in what would no doubt been a viscous campaign at the time. Compare this to the World War 1 however, where many lives were lost to machine gun fire, and the story is very different, with war portrayed as much more grim affair with danger at every turn, in which people died in horrific ways, this all largely being down to the invention of and standardisation of the machine gun in warfare leading to stalemate which in turn encouraged sides to consider more inventive ways of killing people such as mustard gas and flame throwers in order to gain the advantage.
So in answer to your question as to why guns are considered inelegant weapons, I would argue that it is because of how they changed the nature of how we percieve warfare and conflict today. With the gun turning warfare from an honourable affair to that of a more grim scenario in the eyes of the people. Furthermore if you look at how guns have tipped the balance in wars during the 18th and 19th century, well the numbers speak for themselves...
Apologies for the huge text wall btw, I had a similar argument like this one in a seminar not long back.
Compare the history and war stories from that of the medieval period (pre-gun), to the 18th-19th (the transition) century conflicts and last but not least the wars in the 20th century(swords becoming obsolete in warfare etc) and what you see is war and conflict portrayed in a very different light over time.
For example despite the English forces deploying a scorched Earth campaign in the first part of the hundred years war in the 14th century Froissarts chronicles described the conflict in a vibrant fashion, as two monarchies battling it out on French soil with significant emphasis on the chivalric ethos, painting a colourful picture in what would no doubt been a viscous campaign at the time. Compare this to the World War 1 however, where many lives were lost to machine gun fire, and the story is very different, with war portrayed as much more grim affair with danger at every turn, in which people died in horrific ways, this all largely being down to the invention of and standardisation of the machine gun in warfare leading to stalemate which in turn encouraged sides to consider more inventive ways of killing people such as mustard gas and flame throwers in order to gain the advantage.
So in answer to your question as to why guns are considered inelegant weapons, I would argue that it is because of how they changed the nature of how we percieve warfare and conflict today. With the gun turning warfare from an honourable affair to that of a more grim scenario in the eyes of the people. Furthermore if you look at how guns have tipped the balance in wars during the 18th and 19th century, well the numbers speak for themselves...
Apologies for the huge text wall btw, I had a similar argument like this one in a seminar not long back.
Guns are like video Games or teenagers, they are still young and thus command no respect in a vase majority in peoples eyes, though people who study guns/video games/teenagers see the potential that is their.
Like people say anybody can pick up a gun and shoot someone. Anybody can also pick up a sword swing hard and kill someone. if you put the former two into a battle situation against trained experts of course they are going to lose.
Assassins who use bullets train years to master trajectory, bullet speed, wind influence etc. Just like swordsman train for years to become one with their sword and let it be an extension of the arm. Its all just opinion till once gained experience.
Like people say anybody can pick up a gun and shoot someone. Anybody can also pick up a sword swing hard and kill someone. if you put the former two into a battle situation against trained experts of course they are going to lose.
Assassins who use bullets train years to master trajectory, bullet speed, wind influence etc. Just like swordsman train for years to become one with their sword and let it be an extension of the arm. Its all just opinion till once gained experience.
Has anyone said swords aren't elegant!!
OT: Because swords take effort and skill, just cause you can swing a blade doesn't mean you can use it effectively. A gun, doesn't take a lot to use that eddectively. And therefore in my logic a gun just isn't elegant.
OT: Because swords take effort and skill, just cause you can swing a blade doesn't mean you can use it effectively. A gun, doesn't take a lot to use that eddectively. And therefore in my logic a gun just isn't elegant.
I think it's because, while the gun itself can be elegant in design/function/efficiency etc, *using* a gun isn't all that elegant. It can be accurate, impressive, technical, and a whole host of other things, but not really elegant. Something like a sword has quite a bit of engineering in it too, and they can also be downright beautiful, but because the whole body is more obviously engaged in using the weapon it becomes more elegant - particularly if it is a smaller sword like a rapier, sabre, katana etc. I'm not going to try and say a Zweihaender is exactly elegant =P.
I'm not explaining myself very well, but I think most of the 'elegance' of a weapon comes from the elegance and gracility of the person using it. Even the very sophisticated and technical use of a gun (I dunno, say sniping?) isn't really elegant. I mean, you're just sitting/lying very still until you move your forefinger slightly. (Any snipers out there can correct me on the particulars, but I'm talking about what it *looks* like to the outside observer).
Depends on your personal view of 'elegance' though, I suppose. =)
I'm not explaining myself very well, but I think most of the 'elegance' of a weapon comes from the elegance and gracility of the person using it. Even the very sophisticated and technical use of a gun (I dunno, say sniping?) isn't really elegant. I mean, you're just sitting/lying very still until you move your forefinger slightly. (Any snipers out there can correct me on the particulars, but I'm talking about what it *looks* like to the outside observer).
Depends on your personal view of 'elegance' though, I suppose. =)
To boil it down:
A swordfight is a series of intricate, flowing movements.
When firing a gun, a person stands or lies completely still and pulls a trigger, unless there is some reason for him to be moving.
If you have any clue what the concept of grace or elegance means, you'll know which is more elegant.
A swordfight is a series of intricate, flowing movements.
When firing a gun, a person stands or lies completely still and pulls a trigger, unless there is some reason for him to be moving.
If you have any clue what the concept of grace or elegance means, you'll know which is more elegant.