Why isn't a gun considered an elegant weapon?

[ShotgunZombie]

So this is a thought that I've been mulling around in the old noggin'. Why isn't a gun considered an elegant weapon? I've heard it said that it's because guns take the challenge out of duel or fight, that it's over too quickly and that guns make said duels unsportsmanlike but I never bought that line of thinking.
The way I see guns are sophisticated pieces of equipment, powerful, intimidating and above all else they demand respect. A gun is something you do not handle lightly no matter how much experienced you may have with one unless you have a death wish, and forgive me for being blunt but they look pretty damn cool.
Hell you can even add decals or engravements to give them that last touch of finesse. So why are they still considered inelegant weapons? Alright you've heard my opinion so what's yours?

 

[otakon17]

Probably because it is so young compared to the sword. And likewise, learning to use a gun accurately and correctly take comparatively less time than mastering the katana per say. I'd say a military grunt learns how to properly use and clean a firearm in less than six months, but that's only a guess on my part. To use a sword properly, takes more time and years to "master". And even than, that is not true for a master of the sword is never truly as such as long as other ways to use it exist. How many variations of technique and learning are there when learning to use a sword versus a handgun. Probably a lot, another guess on my part though. Though yes it takes skill and a steady hand to properly use a gun, I am not denying that.

 

[Gammro]

Because the "bang" from a gun simply isn't as elegant as the "woosh" from a sword

 

[Esotera]

Have you seen what a gun can do to a human body? There's your answer.


EDIT: Stop quoting me asking me if I know what a sword can do to a human body. The point has been made five times already & I've already covered the fact that whether a gun is elegant is entirely independent of whether a sword is, or any other weapon.

 

[ShotgunZombie]

Yes, they DEMAND respect, they do not earn it like ones skill with a rapier, or bow, that is why they aren't "elegant".

Have you ever seen the kind of care and precision needed to operate a gun effectively? Picking up a gun and firing it is something literally any one can do but to do it without putting your own life or the life of someone else in danger, anyone who's not a target that is, is another matter entirely.

 

[Jonluw]

Dunno.

I think it's because a duel with guns basically amounts to *Two guys standing opposite eachother. Bang bang bang, one guy dies, battle over*
There's no parrying and ripostes, dodging or footwork and techniques like that. There's only one technique: Aiming, and being able to squeeze the trigger without dislodging your aim.
There is no skill to other aspects of it than aiming. It's just boring.

 

[Lonely Swordsman]

Have you seen what a gun can do to a human body? There's your answer.

That's stupid. Every weapon that's used correctly right can and will considerably fuck up a human body, a sword probably more so than most common handguns.l

Guns are considered barbaric weapons because they reduce the battle, which should be a match of wits, strength and skill to a pull of a trigger, most likely from far away. When you beat someone to death face to face with a club or a blade, it's a very intimate experience between the two fighters.

 

[newwiseman]

They can be elegant in terms of design but at the end of the day you just point and shoot. Even a sling and a rock is more elegant than that and takes more than the ability to grasp objects to use.

 

[FalloutJack]

Yes, they DEMAND respect, they do not earn it like ones skill with a rapier, or bow, that is why they aren't "elegant".

Raphael from Soul Calibur has invalidated the rapier.

OT: I would state that the original hand-crank gatling guns were elegant.

 

[Grand_Arcana]

Because using a sword requires years of training and studying the texts of several Masters.

With guns you aim and squeeze; no matter what your physical condition you can use a gun. All of the science is put into its construction, rather than the application.

 

[GentleMad]

I don?t think ?elegant? is the right word to use. Elegance is feminine and complex; a wedding dress is elegant, as is a sword. You can turn a swordfight into flowing movement, almost like a dance. Guns are very male, chunky and straight-forward (point and shoot). I?m sure guns are sometime, just not elegant.
P.S
One minor point, guns are really hard to clean and always dirty (I don?t think something covered in carbon as elegant)

 

[Takuanuva]

Short version: every moron can use a gun and kill someone, but you need skills to use other weapons (like swords) properly.

 

[manythings]

Yes, they DEMAND respect, they do not earn it like ones skill with a rapier, or bow, that is why they aren't "elegant".

Raphael from Soul Calibur has invalidated the rapier.

OT: I would state that the original hand-crank gatling guns were elegant.

Dandies in general but Inigo Montoya and the Dread Pirate Robertses used rapiers too.

OT: It isn't an elegant weapon because the very basis of a guns mechanics concentrated brutality, it's a warhammer hitting a much smaller point. Spray and pray will make people just as dead as pcking a shot. Swordplay? The better swordsman wins.

 

[m1garand23]

Have you seen what a gun can do to a human body? There's your answer.

But then again a sword can do far more damage, decapitations, dismemberment, eviseracions and severe lacerations.

But then again a gun can be conceled very easily, while a sword is openly worn on the belt it shows a person is not afraid of confrontation.

Edit: ninja'd

 

[A Sad Soul]

They're loud, not exactly easy on the eyes (ugly as f---), require little training to use (terrorists, school shooters, etc.), can fail in a fight ("Cover me bro, my sword jammed!"), and they leave blood and body tissue about after a kill.

That doesn't really happen with swords...wait...they still leave blood and bits all over. Granted, swords leave much bigger bits.

 

[Gralian]

Because they require no foreplay. With a swordfight, there is the exchanging of blows, the respect between adversaries; but with a gun, it's the simple pull of a trigger.

Guns are also extremely phallic and are an overused symbol of male power. They are also used as a form of intimidation and an expression of dominance or power when an individual in a given situation otherwise has none. It's a ridiculous method of overcomepensation and an extension of "male dominance", if you look at it from a feminist perspective.

Though i personally think guns are by their very nature exciting; though that may have more to do with their intimate, fragile relationship between life and death. A man can survive many scrapes from a sword, but one or two shots from a gun are often fatal.

 

[Lonely Swordsman]

Because using a sword requires years of training and studying the texts of several Masters.

Only if you're out to fight other people who are trained in swordplay.
Even if you never held a sword in your life, you could probably still easily kill a random schmuck on the street just as well with it as you could with a gun.
And just like with swords, when you're up against other people who use guns, you need training which doesn't stop at just learning how to aim.

 

[Alex Cowan]

In a firefight, there's no human contact. If we take a duel as a case in point, you're staring at each other from 50 paces, and it's over within a second. With a sword duel, there's more of a sense that it is a test of skill against an opponent, as well as an increased sense of personal conflict. A gun is, ultimately, an impersonal weapon - the force that kills comes from the act of creating a spark, which in turn generates a much larger force through chemistry and mechanics. Compare this to a duel with epées, where the energy that wounds comes directly from the combatant. Also, in terms of 'elegance', the act of duelling with swords is quite dance-like, as some of the key virtues of the technique are balance and posture. In fact, I would go as far as to say that in order to win, one must be elegant. It's not the elegance of the weapon itself that matters (a simple Google can yield beautifully crafted rifles and hideous utilitarian swords) but the technique with which it is used that defines it.

 

[Tjebbe]

The only weapon i've ever heard being called elegant is a lightsaber, and those probably don't count. In fact, I think 'elegant weapon' is an oxymoron. The only 'weapons' that might qualify are those that trap but not hurt. And the one's I've seen that do that are hard to call elegant

But in keeping with the original question, I would suspect it is because swords (I'm assuming you're talking about swords) are associated with knights, duels and chivalry, conveniently ignoring the bloody mess that you get from real fights.