Joined
·
809 Posts
The Honorable Firearm
It has been said that the gun has no honor. I beg to differ. Many have cited the ease of use, or perhaps more accurately, its ease of “kill” to be the deciding factor. Anyone who has trained for any substantial amount of time knows that this is largely a false sentiment.
The sword is the paramount example of honor when discussing weapons. With its sweeping artistry, its flowing motions, and its intensive training requirements, it holds the place of honor among weaponry as the most “noble”.
However, I would contend that the gun is a more noble and honorable weapon to carry.
Why?
The premise of nobility stems from the idea that you are placing all the responsibility of honorable function on the item in question. Not only is this illogical, but it can be very dangerous from the standpoint of safety consciousness. I concede that a sword may in fact require more training, perhaps even a lifetime of such, but are not firearms also a “lifetime mastery” pursuit as well?
I prefer to view the concept as a more personal ideal. When you carry a firearm, you are carrying a lethal and precise (in most cases) tool that is designed for only one purpose: To kill. It can be wielded more easily than a sword, especially in an enclosed environment, or vehicle. It requires little training to operate initially, and it is an advantageous choice when concealment is necessary. Why are these things considered detractors when it comes to honor? Does difficulty a weapon noble make? If that were the case, all one would have to carry to “corner the market” on honor would be something that is unlikely to effectively defend oneself. Like, say, a Cupie Doll, a Banana Cream Pie, or a Member of Congress.
Basically, the weight of nobility and honor falls squarely on your shoulders. The true honor of the gun lies in its relative ease of use and your decision as to whether or not (and how) to use it. You may only have to train for two weeks to consistently hit a four inch target at seven yards, but this only magnifies the point that you are now the true bearer of honor instead of the gun.
Rather than skill being the deciding factor, you have morals as your judge. Instead of artistry, you have efficiency. In the place of raw strength, you substitute intelligence (one should hope).
There is no shame in carrying an efficient means of dealing with that which chooses to deal with you. We progress as a species, and someday (O Glorious Day!) we will have something even more effective and devastating than our current choices of weaponry. This in no way detracts from one’s ability to act and carry in an honorable fashion; it only makes one more efficient.
To conclude, I suppose that I have just always seen the gun as a catalyst for a more necessarily refined thought process. The consequences are more easily achieved, and are therefore more drawn in stark moral contrast. Due to this, I believe that the gun is quite possibly one of the most honorable weapons ever seen and carried by Man.
-EvilMonk:22a:
It has been said that the gun has no honor. I beg to differ. Many have cited the ease of use, or perhaps more accurately, its ease of “kill” to be the deciding factor. Anyone who has trained for any substantial amount of time knows that this is largely a false sentiment.
The sword is the paramount example of honor when discussing weapons. With its sweeping artistry, its flowing motions, and its intensive training requirements, it holds the place of honor among weaponry as the most “noble”.
However, I would contend that the gun is a more noble and honorable weapon to carry.
Why?
The premise of nobility stems from the idea that you are placing all the responsibility of honorable function on the item in question. Not only is this illogical, but it can be very dangerous from the standpoint of safety consciousness. I concede that a sword may in fact require more training, perhaps even a lifetime of such, but are not firearms also a “lifetime mastery” pursuit as well?
I prefer to view the concept as a more personal ideal. When you carry a firearm, you are carrying a lethal and precise (in most cases) tool that is designed for only one purpose: To kill. It can be wielded more easily than a sword, especially in an enclosed environment, or vehicle. It requires little training to operate initially, and it is an advantageous choice when concealment is necessary. Why are these things considered detractors when it comes to honor? Does difficulty a weapon noble make? If that were the case, all one would have to carry to “corner the market” on honor would be something that is unlikely to effectively defend oneself. Like, say, a Cupie Doll, a Banana Cream Pie, or a Member of Congress.
Basically, the weight of nobility and honor falls squarely on your shoulders. The true honor of the gun lies in its relative ease of use and your decision as to whether or not (and how) to use it. You may only have to train for two weeks to consistently hit a four inch target at seven yards, but this only magnifies the point that you are now the true bearer of honor instead of the gun.
Rather than skill being the deciding factor, you have morals as your judge. Instead of artistry, you have efficiency. In the place of raw strength, you substitute intelligence (one should hope).
There is no shame in carrying an efficient means of dealing with that which chooses to deal with you. We progress as a species, and someday (O Glorious Day!) we will have something even more effective and devastating than our current choices of weaponry. This in no way detracts from one’s ability to act and carry in an honorable fashion; it only makes one more efficient.
To conclude, I suppose that I have just always seen the gun as a catalyst for a more necessarily refined thought process. The consequences are more easily achieved, and are therefore more drawn in stark moral contrast. Due to this, I believe that the gun is quite possibly one of the most honorable weapons ever seen and carried by Man.
-EvilMonk:22a:
