Why isn't a gun considered an elegant weapon?

[Zorak the Mantis]

I would argue that certain guns are elegant, just like certain melee weapons. For example a halberd may not look pretty, is very simply to use, and is hardly elegant in it's function. Same with a lot of guns. However, something like a rapier or a precision sporting rifle are very elegant not only in form, but in their function.

 

[Ledan]

Because you can train a militia in a week on how to use a gun (i remember this from history channel shows). Learning how to use a sword takes loads of training. Also, there is no duel culture with guns. You don't go meet up with other people and attempt to outwit them with your skills. There is no technique beyond point and shoot, not varying styles to counter. It lacks any point of finesse.
Finally, the ranged soldiers have never been respected. Only in england was the longbow respected. The gun falls into the same category as the crossbow and the peasant archer.

Does that answer your question?

 

[jameskillalot]

Any weapon a toddler can wield effectively - is not something that earns respect. It looks pretty and it is an amazing weapon of war, but it would only be elegant if wielded by an extremely talented individual.

 

[Axzarious]

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.

I have never really seen how one can consider a gun or a sword could be considered phallic. Intimidation or dominance, sure? But phallic? The penis is neither bladed, nor does it shoot deadly pellets of lead (Or anything) at lethally high speeds.

To me, they are just tools, and look like tools. Sure, they are tools for ending life, but they seem to be about as efficient as they are shaped for what they were made for when they were made.

As for swords fights? Real ones rarely last very long. The first to make a mistake loses, and the first mistake is often made within the first 3 swings, and can be just as deadly.

 

[Dr. Feelgood]

It's too deadly and hyper-efficient at killing to be considered elegant. It's far more effective than a sword.

 

[Jezzascmezza]

Is there really such thing as an "elegant" weapon?
I don't know what's so elegant about any instrument designed to cause pain and/or death.

 

[Suijen]

Consider why a crossbow is not an elegant weapon but a rapier is. One requires years of training; the other doesn't.

 

[Midnight Crossroads]

I work in an ER. I see gunshot wounds every day. Yes, they are messy. Very nasty, much more than you see on TV. But compared to the kind of cuts that swords make? Its relatively clean. A 9mm bullet might make an exit wound of a couple inches at the very most, and that would be considered an EXTREMELY nasty wound. A sword chops off limbs, causes colossal amounts of tissue, muscle, and nerve damage. And the wounds are NASTY, to boot. Very big, very destructive. Plus, you mention artillery shells blowing people up and machine guns tearing people apart, but you fail to mention people getting their skulls pulped by warhammers, eye gouged out one at a time by knives, entrails forcibly torn out by spears. Every weapon causing physical trauma, thats the entire point. But you are comparing a sword to an artillery shell; thats like comparing a handgun to dropping an anvil one someone. Simply a biased comparison.

This is important to everyone calling guns brutish.

You want to see brutality?

Find one of the videos of Taliban or Mexican drug cartels decapitating another human being. There is no elegance or grace to it. It's a human corpse twitching like a butchered pig. Look at the end of result of what Ed Gein did to his victims. Using a bladed weapon to kill another human being is particularly cruel and deranged specifically because of how visceral they are. Claiming that swords are more elegant because you have to see the person up close is barbaric.

Consider how the Romans used to advance on their enemies with their gladii outstretched and behind a wall of shields as they plowed into the enemy like a meat grinder. Or how sailors used to lay salt on the decks of their ships before a battle so the blood from the melee wouldn't cause them to slip.

People need to stop basing their assumptions about the sword on Ingio Montoya and other PG-13 bullshit.

 

[Himmelgeher]

My guess is because guns are much more mechanical in the nature of their operation. There's a series of steps you go through to line up the proper shot, eliminate variables that affect your accuracy (breath, stabilization, etc) and then you pull the trigger. Overall, it's a much subtler and less emotional process than using a sword or a dagger. Don't get me wrong, I love guns and I own a few. I've been shooting since I was four years old. I guess people like to think that there's a certain "artistry" in the way that they brutally and painfully murder somebody. Because apparently shooting somebody in the brain or heart is quick and relatively painless, and therefore barbaric. But hacking somebody's face off is "poetic" or "graceful" or something like that. You can talk about grace and beauty all you like, at the end of the day both weapons are equally elegant in their own way, and designed to do the exact same thing: kill. And there's no such thing as an elegant way to kill somebody.


Unless you're Thane.

 

[Shock and Awe]

Part of me likes to think of firearms as elegant, and part of me does not.

I do because its often a complex piece of machinery, or so simple its beautiful. It also takes great skill to use one properly, despite what many say. To line up a shot in just the correct way and let loose a piece of copper plated lead 300 meters into a man sized target with only iron sights is a skill that almost none can do without intensive training and a steady hand. People like to downgrade it from the martial skill it is to something of a game of luck, which is totally untrue.

I want to say it isn't because the gun is not a toy or piece of art on purpose, it is a functional tool made for one thing only, to take the life of another, no matter what fancy ornaments you stick on the outside. Its not a play thing for the nobles to play fight with friends, its a weapon.

So my opinion depends on my mood, but most people's arguments for it not being elegant are pretty stupid.

 

[SteakHeart]

I work in an ER. I see gunshot wounds every day. Yes, they are messy. Very nasty, much more than you see on TV. But compared to the kind of cuts that swords make? Its relatively clean. A 9mm bullet might make an exit wound of a couple inches at the very most, and that would be considered an EXTREMELY nasty wound. A sword chops off limbs, causes colossal amounts of tissue, muscle, and nerve damage. And the wounds are NASTY, to boot. Very big, very destructive. Plus, you mention artillery shells blowing people up and machine guns tearing people apart, but you fail to mention people getting their skulls pulped by warhammers, eye gouged out one at a time by knives, entrails forcibly torn out by spears. Every weapon causing physical trauma, thats the entire point. But you are comparing a sword to an artillery shell; thats like comparing a handgun to dropping an anvil one someone. Simply a biased comparison.

This is important to everyone calling guns brutish.

You want to see brutality?

Find one of the videos of Taliban or Mexican drug cartels decapitating another human being. There is no elegance or grace to it. It's a human corpse twitching like a butchered pig. Look at the end of result of what Ed Gein did to his victims. Using a bladed weapon to kill another human being is particularly cruel and deranged specifically because of how visceral they are. Claiming that swords are more elegant because you have to see the person up close is barbaric.

Consider how the Romans used to advance on their enemies with their gladii outstretched and behind a wall of shields as they plowed into the enemy like a meat grinder. Or how sailors used to lay salt on the decks of their ships before a battle so the blood from the melee wouldn't cause them to slip.

People need to stop basing their assumptions about the sword on Ingio Montoya and other PG-13 bullshit.

I think the Jackal, from Far Cry 2, says it best:

"Men have this idea that they can fight with dignity, that there is a proper way to kill someone. It's absurd, it's anaesthetic. We need that idea to endure the bloody horror of murder."

 

[Whoatemysupper]

The way I see guns are sophisticated pieces of equipment, powerful, intimidating and above all else they demand respect.

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

It's the difference between...

...respect demanded out of fear (I respect my dad because I'm afraid he'll ground me if I break his rules)...

...and respect earned because of admiration (I respect my dad because he has proven himself to be loyal, trustworthy, and kind. I look up to him and I don't want to disappoint him.)

There's no admirable trait in "point and fire" in and of itself because ANYBODY can do that. Not just anybody can pick up a sword and easily kill someone with it.

That being said, I think a gun CAN be considered an elegant weapon if the person weilding it is trained marksman who wields it with skill, discernment, and finesse. Example: the "gunslinger" legends of the old west who could, supposedly, pull from the holster and shoot a hole through a falling silver dollar. In THEIR hands, the gun is an elegant weapon.

I don't see sniper rifles as elegant, and this whole topic has oriented more towards SwordsMEN vs. GunMEN and not the weapons.

 

[Typecast]

Because a lit fart shoving a bit of metal out the proverbial bum-tube of a gun, is less elegant than something that doesn't make that kind of crude noise and mess, BEFORE it hits anyone.

 

[Shock and Awe]

Point. Squeeze. Bang. Done.

It's so impersonal. With any other weapon it's about skill. Yeah, anybody can swing a sword but to duel another person with a sword is nothing like picking up a gun and firing it at someone. Similar deal with a bow, it takes a lot of strength to draw a bow. And since they fire at such lower velocity, aiming one is a much trickier deal.

NOOOOOO, ask anyone who has actually been trained to use a weapon in anger, its not a matter of point and shoot by any means.

 

[sapphireofthesea]

Fact, guns changed the state of warfare forever. How did it happen. Once guns were mass produced they could easily be handed to any peasent and you produce a person realistically capable of killing any of the best of the same (Training times for muskeets were on the order of half that for other weapons). Previous weapons took quite a degree of trianing and physical ablity in order to successfully kill, 2 years of training ment you could easily kill a peasent who randomly obtained a weapon.
That being said, there is still alot to be gained from trianing in guns, but the distinguishment of guns as inelegant came from the point they first saw mass combat (Think of the mess of WW1) and the change over points from previous weapons. Another point is due to their being operateable by peasents and the resulting Mass Production method of producing them, the end results were visually inferior and seen as a cheap and easy weapon to come by, and so lesser compare to more expensive (and thus upper class) weapons.

So it has some history and some practical reasons. Guns are by far the easiest weapons to kill with (8yo needs only make one mistake to kill with a gun; sword, if they can lift it would still be short on hitting power) and when they first appeared they were dodgy at times, mass produced and resulted in some of the bloodiest massacares humanity has ever tried to forget about.

 

[Shock and Awe]

Fact, guns changed the state of warfare forever. How did it happen. Once guns were mass produced they could easily be handed to any peasent and you produce a person realistically capable of killing any of the best of the same (Training times for muskeets were on the order of half that for other weapons). Previous weapons took quite a degree of trianing and physical ablity in order to successfully kill, 2 years of training ment you could easily kill a peasent who randomly obtained a weapon.
That being said, there is still alot to be gained from trianing in guns, but the distinguishment of guns as inelegant came from the point they first saw mass combat (Think of the mess of WW1) and the change over points from previous weapons. Another point is due to their being operateable by peasents and the resulting Mass Production method of producing them, the end results were visually inferior and seen as a cheap and easy weapon to come by, and so lesser compare to more expensive (and thus upper class) weapons.

So it has some history and some practical reasons. Guns are by far the easiest weapons to kill with (8yo needs only make one mistake to kill with a gun; sword, if they can lift it would still be short on hitting power) and when they first appeared they were dodgy at times, mass produced and resulted in some of the bloodiest massacares humanity has ever tried to forget about.

The problem with that argument though is that early guns were just point and shoot. Thats why they had mass lines of men just opening up all at once. They were very inaccurate. The moment you had rifles that could reach out accurately you had snipers in trees killing enemy officers. You can't do that these days.

 

[anANGRYkangaroo]

I did not state that a sword is an elegant weapon. In fact, I don't believe a single elegant weapon exists.

I believe a bo staff fits the description actually.
True skill is needed to do serious damage, a real battle of the wits, and no major gore is necessary. It can be a simple practice battle, a duel of honor, or a defense.

 

[TheBoulder]

Because it's not from a more civilized age.

Shitting in a bucket and throwing it in the street is civilized? Okay then.

 

[Infernai]

I think the older style 'one-shot' weapons are a bit more elegant and require a bit more skill: Before you question me on this, think about it. Those weapons, you had at best one shot you could make count before subjecting yourself to a long reload time. This meant you had to time and plan your shots better, making them count rather then just spraying randomly, leaving you open to attack and meant you had to stay on your feet just as a regular archer or swordsmen would have too. In short, a one shot weapon fight could be just as interesting or elegant as a sword duel, as they were basically just slightly more powerful crossbows. Nowadays, throw in a clip and fire away enough bullets to kill an entire room of people.

That said, it's, as most others have said. Guns just make fighting really easy and very unpersonal, meaning a person can be detatched from the fight very easily. There is no honor, no glory, and nowhere near the skill required to use older style weapons.

 

[alandavidson]

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

Have you ever seen what a sword can do to a human body? I'll take a bullet wound over a sword any day.