Why isn't a gun considered an elegant weapon?

[TheBritishAreComing]

A pistol or musket can be considered elegant weapons, as cowboys in the Old West duelled and looked elegant and skilled. And muskets required a good working knowledge and tactics for a military to be good with them. The only elegant modern weapon seems to be a sniper rifle, as you have to take into account wind speed, direction, velocity of the bullet, etc.

Of course the most elegant weapon of all would be information, a person with information can make or break nations, all without a drop of blood spilt.

 

[spartan231490]

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?

I would say that your observation about their level of sophistication is false. They are actually amazingly simple pieces of equipment. Even a full-auto works based on very simple technology. Also, they haven't really advanced much in like, 100 years.

As for why they aren't considered elegant, I would say because of the lack of skill required to handle them. Really, I can teach you how to shoot a rifle with a relatively high degree of efficiency in like 30 minutes.

The other thing, is the randomness and inherent dishonor that they introduce to the battlefield. You can't dodge/block a bullet. No matter how good you are, if the bullet comes at you, you're pretty much dead. Whereas, with swords and the likes, skill comes into it. You can block, parry, and if you're the better swordsman, you've got a very good chance at winning, and therefore surviving. Also, there's something more honorable about fighting it out with a guy face to face, when you can see the fear and anger in each-other's eyes.

 

[Zinaxos]

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.

God, Equilibrium is a good movie.
OT: Bang! That's not very elegant sounding is it?

 

[Dense_Electric]

In the same way that any fool can pick up a gun and hit the broadside of a barn, any fool can pick up a sword and swing it wildly at a training mannequin. To use it properly is a different matter entirely, and it can take as much time to become proficient with a firearm as with a sword or a knife. And if we're going to talk about mastering a blade taking longer than mastering a gun, I suggest you read up on some of the more amazing sniper-shots in history. In 2009 a British sniper shot and killed a Taliban fighter at a range of nearly two and a half kilometers, or one and a half miles. But some people here would tell me he picked that skill up in a few months of basic training.

A weapon is only as elegant as its wielder. As one can be a master of the blade, one can be a master of the gun.

 

[floppylobster]

Because as others have said - because my grandmother could kill me with a gun. But she wouldn't have a hope with a chakram.

Also Obi-wan says they're uncivilized.

I love that clip. One of the funniest ever. I love how Harrison just looked annoyed. Awesome fact: Originally, he was supposed to get in a sword fight with that guy, but he thought it was stupid and said he'd just shoot the guy. So, that's what they did.

Also, he had diarrhea so he couldn't be on set for long.

 

[Mouse_Crouse]

Honestly I think a well crafted pistol can be elegant. Heck even a well adorned rifle can be elegant. Needs to be single shot and expertly crafted. Full auto just ruins it.

 

[nightangel346]

i believe the teacher from game of thrones said it best

"What do we say to the God of Death? Not today"
it dose not matter what you wield. its how you wield it and how you move.
in devil may cry, Dante wields his guns elegantly, while Marcus Phoenix from Gears dose not.
in Braveheart, william wallace dose not wield his weapon with elegance at all its strictly maim and kill but in game of thrones syrio forel fights as if he is in a intricate dance.
the weapon dosent matter. its how that weapon is wielded. thats my opinion

 

[A.A.K]

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?

Because guns can be used by idiots, and whilst yes it takes training and practice to use one accurately in half a second, it doesn't take skill in the conventional sense, that and the gun demands respect, not the wo/man who wields it. The fasted gun in the west is useless - without the gun.

Though I do believe guns themselves can be elegant without question, I've seen some amazing work with firearms, but then in combat I believe it's a different story.

EDIT: I agree with the bloke above me. If you have honest skill and grace with your weapon, say a pistol or a revolver, an extension of who you are, then yes, it does become an elegant weapon.

 

[jumjalalabash]

Its not elegant because anyone can pick up a gun, unload it at someone's general direction, and kill them. Something like a sword takes a lot more skill and practice to actually use.

 

[Riddle78]

Depends on the gun itself. I define elegance as something being dificult to do,and looks pretty to boot.

Going full auto with a C8...Not elegant. You're just throwing a wall of 7.62 rounds downrange.

However,landing a shot square in between the eyeballs (or in the middle of the chin) with a C6 from 700 meters...Yeah. Elegance.

Swords are the same way. You can use a rapier,foil,katana,shortsword...Pretty much any single hand blade. They require an ASTOUNDING amount of skill to use in combat,and most of them look beautiful in their own respect. Bigger swords,like no-dachi,zweihanders,claymores...They rely more on their mass to do the work. One swing,straight down=dead HORSE for most two handed swords. (FYI: a charging,armoured horse was nearly impossible to kill in ye olde times).

Think analogues here. Zweihander=machine gun (inelegant,effective),shortsword=rifle (elegant,effective)

That's just my $0.02 CDN.

 

[galdon2004]

If you are holding a gun and attack someone, they are good as dead if you have the simple ability to point there is hardly anything the person can do about it.

Shoot you, take cover as you go through the surprisingly long process known as 'aiming' needed to shoot anything other than yourself.

If you had no skill with a sword and attacked someone, they can still block, dodge, or run away. So yes, it takes more skill to use a sword than a gun.

Hah. I couldn't. And i'm willing to bet most people couldn't with any use whatsoever. just like most people can't pick cover, hiding behind car doors when even a pistol round will punch straight through.

You just basically proved my point. "its easy to defend against a guy with a gun; use a gun first" vs "I assume people to be too stupid to flee or grab an object to block with"

 

[matoasters]

Both are only elegant depending on who uses them. Anyone can point a gun at something they want dead and pull the trigger, just as anyone can grab a sword and slice until whoever they were trying to kill is dead, but to actually ensure a one-shot kill (or cause as much pain as possible before death) every time using a gun, takes just as much skill as effectively and efficiently fighting with a sword.

 

[Dense_Electric]

Its not elegant because anyone can pick up a gun, unload it at someone's general direction, and kill them. Something like a sword takes a lot more skill and practice to actually use.

Once again, it really doesn't. Any idiot could pick up a sword and stab you with no prior training whatsoever.

You just basically proved my point. "its easy to defend against a guy with a gun; use a gun first" vs "I assume people to be too stupid to flee or grab an object to block with"

Right, because if someone starts swinging a sword at you, you're going to have time to stop, think, look around, find a suitable object within arm's reach, pick it up, and put it between yourself and the sword. A very practical defense.

Dodging it is BS, a sword at full swing travels much faster than you can. This is real life we're talking about.

And running only works if you can outrun the person, so let's hope you're in better shape than they are.

 

[Ulquiorra4sama]

Because unless you're from Devil May Cry you're not going to get much more than point and bang from it.

There's something caled the "flow" of a battle. And nothing breaks the flow of a graceful, intense swordfight like the loud, obnoxious bang of a gun.

 

[RamirezDoEverything]

They aren't?

I thought a sniper rifle was the most elegant weapon on the face of the planet.

What about the Ak-47?! [sub]so beautiful...[/sub]

 

[tobuji]

i'd say it's because guns are loud, messy, and can kill people far too easily. anyone can learn how to properly handle a gun, while weapons like swords and such, take years to fully master. but i dont know the true answer.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

It is the same with anything: it isn't the weapon, its the wielder:

I have had brief training with Katana, but I still look like a fish floundering on dry land. I have no experience with firearms and therefore am more of a danger to myself than others if I picked one up, right now.

In Europe and parts of Asia, the lingering legends of the Knight Errant, Samurai and other swordsmen still have powerful sway on the consciousness of the people. The United States however, was built on the legend of the Pioneer and the Cowboy.

A skilled marksman is as well drilled, practiced and intelligent as the swordsmen of ages past.

 

[trooper6]

I think it is important to look at this in historical context.
When the idea that guns aren't elegant came about, it was the Renaissance. The Renaissance was the time of Rapier Art...people were really obsessed with the idea of swordfighting as Geometry, as art, as a sign of nobility.

Guns, on the other hand, at the time...*were* inelegant. You had to load them by hand with dirty black powder, put the ball in, pack it, then fire it...but it was entirely possible that it wouldn't strike right, and the gun wouldn't go off...you'd have to jiggle the pistol and try again. When you get the gun to fire it does so in a burst of loud noice and a cloud of noxious smoke. Then you can't fire it again until you reload it....which will take a lot of time again. The sword on the other hand, you can dispatch a number of people in that time.

It is also important to note that historically, only nobles were allowed to carry swords, so it carries a lot of connotations of elegance. Guns were loud, smelly, dirty, and just not noble. That is why guns have been considered inelegant. The sort of guns we have now are very different than the guns of the 1600s...but the associations still linger.

 

[Bruden]

Because of people like George Lucas who inserted the "swords are more elegant" bs into pop culture. There is absolutely no other reason.

To all the people talking about the years of skill to use a sword vs a gun... They are both equal in skill requirements. Pick up a gun, the barrel goes at the bad guy and squeeze. Pick up a sword, pointy end goes at the bad guy and shove. Neither takes much skill on a base level, both takes years of intense training to use effectively. I've been shooting for years and I still pull to the left on large caliber hand guns.

So no, it's not about skill, it's not about the way you fight with them, none of that. The only reason is people like Lucas who inserted the idea into pop culture, and geeks who thought "yeah it was so much better back when people never bathed and died of horrible diseases and rarely lived past 40!"

 

[floppylobster]

Its not elegant because anyone can pick up a gun, unload it at someone's general direction, and kill them. Something like a sword takes a lot more skill and practice to actually use.

Once again, it really doesn't. Any idiot could pick up a sword and stab you with no prior training whatsoever.

My grandmother could not. A guy in a wheelchair could not. A young child could not. All could use guns. The guy in Norway could not have done what he did with a sword.

Bombs and guns are distance weapons. Weapons developed to overcome the difficulty in training soldiers to kill, because of our natural resistance to killing other people.

They can be elegant, but more than often, they're not.