Why don't guns carry the same gravitas and symbolism potential as swords did?

Cuz yr gaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy

Hile gunslinger. Long days and pleasent nights

Short Answer: The ease of access to firearms, as well as an overall cultural shift in perception of firearms has lead the idea of a gun as an honorable weapon to slowly die out.
There was a time when even guns were considered an honorable weapon but assholes had to ruin it by making everyone believe that since it was so easy to use regardless of difficulty of manufacturing or maintaining that it couldn't be found in the hands of the solely honorable anymore.

Swords are for lords, guns are for peasants.

Yea, that user is a faggot. Peasants and shit would generally use spears, and mounted knights had lances and shit. They would also use stuff like maces and flails before the sword.

Guns are too widespread, maybe if there is an event that sends the world into a mad max apocalypse, the gun will become a symbol like the sword due to its scarcity.

because any fucking goober can go down to the store and pick up a gun with a single day's pay. you better start restricting gun ownership to the landed gentry if you want them to become status symbols again.

Because the Queen of England doesn't knight people with a gun. Politifags ITT are fucking retarded.

Guns don't have thousands of years of symbolism and heroics and lies attached to them yet

>The sword was the battle rifle of its day
No they weren't. It was all about spears and halberds and that kinda stuff.

I'd arguably say it was the carbine of its time with the dagger being your handgun

swords did not carry the gravitas and symbolism until the last 150 years, i.e. when they became irrelevant.

Which means everybody had one. It never was a bad idea to have a sword, regardless of what your main weapon was.
Hence why it was the typical weapon.

Swords have been part of human culture since the bronze age
Guns have only been part of human culture since around the 15th century (please correct me if I have my timeline dead wrong)

Swords are more penislike.

????????

What country doesn't have ceremonial riflemen? For fucks sake the British use their service weapon for marches.

Fucking normans.

Attached: Marine ceremony.jpg (1600x1067, 227K)

i guess when you keep bringing out new shit every week with different designs and stuff then it makes it harder to lock it down as a symbol

maybe when modern firearms are irrelevant once we have lazers or plasma guns or whatever then countries will use things like the AK/M16 as ceremonial weapons

swords were never a primary weapon unless you had no other option.

They will in 300 years when we replace traditional chemical-reaction-based projectile-firing firearms with directed energy weapons or something.
Old shit always becomes a symbol as a way to cling to the past.
Guns today carry the same weight that swords did back them.
Landed Knights/Noblemen = Cops and people in the US with CCW's today (individuals given the honor by their leige lord. In this case the Federal Government)
Also swords are sidearms, so think handguns. When the real fight happened you'd get fucked by someone with a pole weapon. I suspect the sword is the continuing symbol only because it can be sheathed and easily carried on the hip.

you can post pics of ceremonial riflemen all you want but if you think guns are anywhere near as ceremonially symbolic as swords then you're fucking insane and just denying reality in order to suit your bias

Swords are for cutting down peasants.

That's a full study worth of a question, but I would assume that:
1. Guns are still new, while swords existed for thousands of years. Even longer if we take in account more primitive forms such as sharp rocks and spears. Give it time.
2. Society, by that I mean western one, has became far more secular, and by thus less akin to symbolism and ritualism.
3. Swords weren't as available to common folks as guns are today, which got them idolized.
4. Also anti-gunners doing their thing.

Attached: 28700760_871825353012745_2254323134129731223_o.jpg (1440x1101, 201K)

Came here to post this.
Guns just generally don't evoke the image of a large, strong, veiny, turgid, and masculine cock in the way a sword does.

Attached: 2498266227.jpg (604x604, 95K)

Guns don't look like a religious symbol. Also they look goofy on flags.

Attached: 1509902172904.png (1280x853, 43K)

not him, but it could be argued that carbines weren't considered primary weapons until more modern era. just from the perspective of US military, at least. idk about any other military adopting a carbine before the 90s or 00s as the main firearm (unless you count the m1 carbine, in which case you have shit taste).

Your fists are for people with real strength. Sticks are for the weak.

also, bashing your skull makes you honourable

Depends entirely on the culture. In Afghanistan, the Afghan Long Rifle is a famous peace of history. They were the pride of Afghan tribal leaders, always engraved with detailed patterns or with precious metals attached. Forgotten Weapons and TFB both had fantastic videos on the traditional Jezail. There is a similar appreciate for American minutemen and other firearm troops. The US battlefield cross features a fucking M16. Russians glorify the AK and feature it heavily in art and statues. There is definite ceremonially significance to certain firearms.

Attached: battlefield cross.jpg (387x479, 45K)

Not a lot of modern Russian statues with swords.

Attached: Kalashnikov Monument.jpg (2048x1365, 537K)

Your cock is for people with real strength, fists are for the weak.

also, bashing with your balls makes you honourable

the Gonzales "Come And Take It" flag is particularly neat looking, though that is a cannon and not a gun.

My rule for flags is that it has to be simple enough for a 4 year old to recognizably draw it in crayon (doesn't have to be perfect, just recognizable), and most guns are too complex for political cartoonists to draw correctly, let alone a 4 year old.

However, simple shapes like a cannon, revolver, musket, or bolt action rifle can do just fine on a flag, I think

Gun is practical but my soul weapon is the sword/knife. It symbolizes my straighforwardness.

there is nowhere near as much artwork featuring guns as there are swords

Because throughout European culture (and some Asian ones) the sword was both a weapon and a status symbol. A fashion piece reserved for the nobility that was a sign of power.

Firearms on the other hand are typically associated common soldiers and in rural American culture as a tool for the common mans resistance against the ruling elite.

>also cutting off your foreskin makes you american

Uh-huh.

Attached: 500 fuck yous per minute.jpg (500x274, 22K)

That is a team weapon.

your mum is a team weapon

In what? The period of history where guns didn't exist? Are we asking why Attila the Hun didn't have paintings of him wielding an MP5? Lets look at a nation like America, young to the point that firearms were around for it's entire life.

Which is more significant in America, the Minutemen musketeer:

Attached: Lexington MM.jpg (1038x539, 314K)

Or the Air Force "Nothin' Personnel, kid" meme swords?

Attached: Air Force.jpg (2272x1704, 1.47M)

>t. jew

Swords had the luxury of being implicated into the social class systems as weapons of royalty and the rich as they were the prime market to afford them, most modern day weapons don't. With that prestigious mantle they gained a reputation for many things including chivalry, which in and of itself is a horribly misunderstood concept but it can generally mean 'good and righteous' or just knightly, a symbol of elevation or status. Furthermore the time when swords were everywhere(ish) i would guess that people were far more tight knit and reliant on each other for defense and so on, so the neighbors with messers and axes who you frequented the innkeep with seemed a lot more friendly and trustworthy that most people do today. These days you can't help but walk into the handful of ignorant people everywhere that seem to plague us with the stigma that 'anyone and everyone can be a mass murderer waiting to happen' along with the social taboo of strangers firearms are in far worse lights than swords ever were.

tl;dr? Guns haven't been all but worshipped at large by the common folk for its capability to be the best thing for common defence in the right hands for a long time, with the media and all it's of no surprise. There is no 'knightly' order nor prestigious rank or status that comes with firearms with the majority.

Attached: 439bbd52369549a39817c841515e3eda.jpg (736x1099, 151K)

Firearms have been the privilege of nobility and their goons (ie the military) in Europe for centuries. So was hunting. Anyone caught with a firearm or hunting was publicly executed.
The French revolution started the end of this.
And now we have gone full circle. Hunting and firearms are always more regulated, already to the point that it is starting to become a privilege, that only a fraction of the population can ejoy. Soon enough, both are going to be banned (2025 is the deadline for the EU total ban on private gun ownership) and they will be once again the privilege of the new nobility (the politicians) and their goons (military and police).

Swords are gay and swordfags are obnoxious shits

Attached: 1525493688302.png (500x575, 216K)

Thank you user, now I really want a painting of Attila dual-wielding MP5's

Attached: 1524918536042.jpg (1500x1125, 282K)

>tfw you just realize the statue lacks trigger discipline

Was trigger discipline even a thing back then ?

Attached: Turn-in-your-arms-2.jpg (483x252, 56K)

honor is always on the losing side.

Furthermore on your point, the plain fact is that while firearms may have been a luxury for many the implications of knighthood and the chivalric orders lessened in military necessity and became purely a social status, with the common soldier becoming prominent with no real comparable shock and awe effect on the commonfolk. Swords were a huge part of the royal servant class among other weapons but the sidearm gained a prestige and aesthetic firearms to my knowledge haven't, being more or less simply tools to an end as a previous user stated, or as tools of terror in warlords or tyrants. Swords may have had the same thing but they had in more measure the 'ooh i want one'. If the fear of firearms hadn't been an issue we may have a majority of people who would've viewed them the same as swords and perhaps a minority still does regardless, knowing the difference between the inane babbling of fearful idiots and reality.

This may be over thinking it to an extreme though, it may be as simple as swords are cool and symbolic and guns are utilitarian with a habit of being used by maniacs with maddening frequency.

>(please correct me if I have my timeline dead wrong)
You are roughly correct. Hand cannons date back to the 13th century in China, and to the 14th century in Europe. But it is indeed in the 15th century that the proper arquebus (with a stock, a trigger and a lock) was invented.

Attached: c442b64a38f0bf429bb68e5f9485c8dc.jpg (739x1031, 141K)

Not always champ.

Sword gonna come back big time when power armor is a thing.

You can't slay people from a distance with a blade. It requires you to go face to face with whoever you are fighting, so in that sense it requires courage (not that being in a firefight doesn't take balls, but there's no where to take cover in a sword fight.) That, and swords have been used for a much longer time than firearms so it's inherently ingrained in both western, oriental, and Muslim symbolism.

Alot goes into the forging of a high quality sword, doubly so in Medieval times. In many cultures and eras it wasn't uncommon for swords & armour to cost many years income.

The 2nd Amendment is for every citizen. Not just the rich. Everyone has the right to defend themselves.

>Landed Knights/Noblemen = Cops and people in the US with CCW's today (individuals given the honor by their leige lord. In this case the Federal Government)
Speak for yourself. My state has Constitutional concealed carry.

Ever knight someone with a gun? You need something with at least a 20" barrel

>Sword gonna come back big time when power armor is a thing.

Why. Why are swords going to make a comeback when power armor never becomes a thing.

When power armor becomes a thing and IF it becomes strong enough to be bullet proof the most likely melee weapon we'd go back to would be maces and hammers. Since those things were actually designed to fuck someone up that is wearing full head to toe armor.

I love these types of images.

Statue obviously made by a nofuns.

Attached: fallout new vegas.jpg (1200x900, 342K)

I would assume mass production but you know what they say about assuming things.

The stories that spread through the middle ages that glorified knighthood romanticized the sword, even though it feel out of favor as a primary arm as time went on.

This is more of a history/culture thing then anything else.

I thought swords were more expensive weapons of the nobility than for regular dudes. It's cheap to make a bow or spear, but swords and metal armor required a lot of labor and materials

High Frequency Blade cyborg ninjas when

much symbolism

Attached: cringe force.jpg (2604x1748, 3.36M)

This and giant mechs

That may have been true in the High Middle Age. But the development of metallurgy has made swords affordable to everyone later.

Based.

Hopefully soon.

Capitalism is truly mans greatest sin.

>when you don't have an ass so you make up for it with shitty posture bec ause you're a whore

Because anyone can use a gun with an accetable level of proficiency in a short amount of time compared to the years of training it took to become proficient with a sword. Not only that, swords were weapons of the rich. Today, anyone can purchase a gun. Even the surfs.

Wrong.

Pistols sort of do though.

In China, for example, the Broomhandle was heavily associated with the Officer Corps largely due to the romanticism produced by Warlord Period "Sword and Pistol Units."

So much so that the PRC Chinese even created a Tokarev pistol aping the Broomhandle style.

Attached: Type 80.jpg (585x320, 30K)

Because progressive knives are sick you fucking retard havent'y oue vrt event senn evangelion

>Statue obviously made by a nofuns.

Attached: You say that to my face you cocksucker.jpg (660x593, 59K)

This is something I've learned growing up, I use to think honor was cool but then I realized its only for losing wars and acting frilly and gay to the enemy who is just gonna kill you in 30 seconds anyways. Better just to play dirty.

Attached: 67555.jpg (350x212, 20K)

Just get a fucking messer my man. It's not a long knife,no matter what they say.

Here on the southern border of Texas, we feel the Colt's revolving pistol and Bowie knife carry the same gravitas, if not more. Rangers of the mid 1800s overwhelmed Spaniard and Comanche cavalry carrying lances and swords, and would decimate them.

They do?

Just because you haven't seen the world does not make it untrue.

But you're right only in regards to western culture. That mostly has to do with the waning interest for concepts like 'honor' and the like since the industrial revolution.

Fun anecdote: I got a sweet officer's knife from doin Officer school in the Swiss military. Comes from dat good Prussian military tradition but I like telling my American friends it's my Hitler knife.

Attached: 912a9e1d1508d8039a7620bde5a6502d.jpg (1085x1007, 187K)

Because jews know that guns are the only thing preventing them from dominating the whole of the US.

Gotta agree with this user. Pistols held that tradition as being the weapon of officers up until recently since we don't care about pomp and ceremony anymore

Attached: df8.png (500x683, 154K)

Don't be a fag like and interpret a pre-20th century sidearm to be the same as a 20th-21st century sidearm. Prior to the ubiquitousness of modern cartridges a sidearm was fully expected to see use.

There's a reason why contemporary historians praised the swords of their times for being useful weapons on the battlefield. You can find tons of accounts of soldiers and mercenaries having to go to swords, axes, and maces on battlefields. There are also tons of skeletons from battlefields that show mortal wounds from non-spear/halberd/lance type weapons, as in killed by sidearms.

On top of that sidearms were also the primary arm off the battlefield.

Sidearm is really a misnomer given how modern people interpret that word.

>The ease of access to firearms
Not an excuse. Swords were also exceedingly common, and any peasant could afford one. That they were expensive and rare is just 20th century elitism.

>Swords had the luxury of being implicated into the social class systems as weapons of royalty and the rich as they were the prime market to afford them

Wrong. Swords as a symbol of the nobility and the rich is a modern invention. In reality swords were incredibly common.

The very first example of the ATF and getting around it was the Prussian states who outlawed swords for the common peasant; peasants who were authorized or nobility were exceptions. Swords were defined by their hilt construction, so peasants used a "knife" hilt construction and the Messer and Langmesser were born.

In other countries peasants were required to keep a sword in their home. They were easily able to do.

Swords were fucking common. They were fucking cheap (unless they were gem encrusted and gold filigreed). They were not some taboo thing that only lords could have.

Quit behaving like a 20th century elitist.

Her "armor" has fucking breastfeeding holes.

>It's cheap to make a bow
Not really no, the Kingdom of England almost went into bankrupt because of how many bowmen they were fielding. You can make a cheap bow easily, but a good war bow means specific wood and other materials and those aren't that cheap.

Swords were expensive for a time, but overall it's very common for soldiers of any period to have at least a form of short sword and a polearm or missile weapon.

that's what it's used for

This is exactly how the Japanese felt until they realized they were way behind Western powers.

The Chinese made so many knockoff pistols.