An "honorable" weapon

Quick disclaimer: This is NOT about gun control, for or against, but rather an observation of a perception I've seen all too commonly. Please, if you wish to have that conversation, by all means do so. But as far as this thread is concerned, the complicated issue of personal ownership of firearms is incidental to my observed perception in others of their use and supposed innately dishonorable status.

(For the record though, I wish to protect my second amendment right even though I don't, nor ever plan to, own a firearm.)

With all that being said and out of the way, I can't be the only one who finds it ridiculous when I hear people talk about swords or similar traditional weapons as "honorable." Especially when they are compared to guns.

As if a samurai bringing shame to his title and station by exercising Kiri-sute gomen on a host who simply did not bow deep enough when welcoming him was more noble than a lawman putting a bullet in the head of a wanted murderer who was pointing a shotgun at an unarmed woman. I know those examples are broad stroke and hyperbolic but I'm using them to illustrate my point.

There is this rather infuriating notion that the weapon makes the man, and while it's true one's weapon of choice might say something about them, what many seem to ignore or simply don't understand is that the weapon itself is not what is indicative but WHY that person favors it over others.

Of course this logic extends to empty handed martial arts as well. No one thinks Daniel-san could be evil "because he does karate." Completely ignoring that the Cobra-Kai kids ALSO know karate. Or to flip this logic entirely on it's head with two opposing characters in both armament and moral alignment, Lt. Lisa Hawkeye of Fullmetal Alchemist and Mad Dog of The Raid.

"I like guns. Because unlike swords and knives, you don't have to feel your victim die."

"I've never liked using these. Takes away the rush. Squeezing a trigger . . . it's like ordering take out. Now this. This is the thing. This is the pulse. This is what I do."

Most of you probably know who said which and those who don't know are smart enough to suss it out.

What's equally bizarre is that sometimes those who hold this view hypocritically ignore it in some circumstances. People who would criticize an armed citizen carrying a concealed weapon or a police officer having a shotgun in the squad car are either silent or actively cheering when Robocop or Alucard (of Hellsing) are blowing away baddies with a hand cannon or two.

Now don't get me wrong, I do believe there is something uplifting about the classical martial arts that can instill a good core within a person and obviously many such involve weapons. Here's the thing though, and ultimately my point, Kung Fu, Karate, Silat, Capoeira, Langswert, or what have you are not inherently honorable because of their raw techniques but that the good schools are unified under a creed or lifestyle that promotes honor, discipline, and other virtues.

Of course, the kicker is, when I ask these people to defend these points further, four out of five times they've never even touched a weapon of any kind.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I hope you all can forgive me for this, more or less, rant. It's just something I needed to get off my chest in a space where I think that even if one does for whatever reason find guns morally deplorable, they would at least know where I'm coming from.

Thank you.

 

It's not the weapon, it's the person carrying it. The samurai are considered honourable in popular culture. As are knights.


It's the person, not the weapon. Although I know many old guys at the pub who would consider kicking, and ground fighting as "very dirty tactics".

 

Wait kicking is considered dirty tactics? Or ground fighting for that matter? I mean I suppose I understand the logic is "kicking a man when he's down" is wrong because it implies that your opponent can't defend himself.

If I'm fighting a Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu guy though, he arguably has the advantage if I manage to knock him on his back!

 

When they say honourable what they mean is elitist.

 

Differing definitions

I can't really speak for everyone I've talked to who holds this view, but it would not shock me in the least if that's actually what some of them actually meant. That if a kind and honest man carrying a revolver was cut down by a merciless ninja assassin wielding a katana. (Just going by action movie logic that such a match up would even take place let alone end with ninja not even being injured.)

That some would not even begrudge the ninja because his ancient ways means he's arbitrarily more deserving of life than that "crass, peasant gunman."

 

Exactly, the idea of honour and chivalry came from greatly divided societies. Both the western aristocracy and the Japanese samurai class were basically families set above the rest because they murdered the right people on behalf of the ruling classes. Their honour was basically an internal code and very rarely extended benignly to the classes below.

There is no honour in fighting, only in the outcome that the fighting is meant to achieve.

 

It's just old guys who fight outside the pub. Fight until one of you goes down. Then buy him a pint after it

 

Kicking is only considered "dirty" by those who can't kick well.

 

I was referring to completely modern speakers, not the old guard though. You know, those people who post on forums about how guns are the source of all evil and that it would be better if people killed each other with blades. (You know, which many people still do, and those same posters would probably puke at if they saw the results.)

Also, I think it's just unreasonable a statement to say that there were NO knights or samurai kindly to the commoners as much as it is to say they all were. Chivalry and Bushido were both ideals and high ones that reality failed to embody many times to be sure, but again, it would be unrealistically cynical to say there was never a knight or samurai born that did not exercise restraint and compassion to those below his station.

 

I disagree somewhat. There can be some honor in fighting, otherwise why would we spar with an opponent or compete in a tournament? On that note, why would we bother to bow to an opponent we are meeting on equal terms? There is a right way and a wrong way to do everything.

My point was simply that it seemed rather silly of someone to hold guns as inherently dishonorable regardless of who is using them, how they are using them, and for what, but holding a swordsman to be of higher moral caliber simply because "he's got a sword, he MUST be a hero!"

 

"Ah the pistol, an elegant weapon from an ancient time. So unlike the tawdry mental death rays of this ugly age."

 

I disagree - I think likely feats of strength with some measured level of force were used to create social hierarchies and resolve disputes in many societies. Breaking the 'rules' and inflicting permanent damage on your opponent weakened your tribe as a whole.

 

The greatest honour is victory

 

Honour is written by the victors

 

I've been around martial arts forums for years now, taken part in many gun control threads and weapon discussions.
I've never seen anyone say anything remotely like what you've written there.
Most people in favour of gun control (like myself) have that view because they don't like seeing people die by any means not because of some bias towards blades.

 

Ahem...who're the evil ones?

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Gz_iTuRMM"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Gz_iTuRMM[/ame]

 

Not if it's achieved through dishonest means. See the ending of The Emperor's Club.

 

I was not referring to these forums or indeed any martial arts forums but the ones I usually lurk around as well as in my actual life.

 

I would say there are just as many exceptions to that rule you've stipulated. John Woo and Chow Yun Fat would have words with you when you say "a gun battle is just noise."

Gun fights can be tense, fast paced, explosive. By the nature of the weapons involved, much coordination goes into them as much as any staged sword fight, the only difference is the combatants aren't touching each other or the weapons.

Same as with defense and my original point, it's not the weapon, it's the man behind it.

(Also, I can name several sword or close combat fights that were little more than flailing around with very little elegance to them. Those tended to be films more grounded in reality.)