Why isn't a gun considered an elegant weapon?

[Eggsnham]

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?

You can pimp out your gun, but that doesn't change the fact that any idiot can pick it up and blast a master swordsman, who had trained to perfect his art for decades, to death in seconds.

In other words, you can pull an Indiana Jones on them.

Elegance isn't how cool it looks while it's in the case, but rather how cool it looks in the hands of a trained professional.

At least that's how I see it.

 

[cybran]

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

Have you seen what a dai-katane can do to a human body ?

that isnt nice either...

 

[awesomeness0407]

Because they are not lightsabers, a weapon for a more civilized age.

No chopping people's heads off is uncivilized.

 

[CounterReproductive]

What is elegant about it having to rely on an external source for its lethality ? I refer once again to ammunition. Without ammunition a gun is just metal. At that point it ceases to have a function and could be considered to be anything other than a tool for killng.

 

[bsga22]

I think for some people elegance = subtle, and guns aren't too subtle.

 

[blind_dead_mcjones]

simply put, the idea of any weapon being elegant is a ficticous construction by societal/culutral media, swords tend to have the advantage here as they have been in existance for thousands of years and has been use by almost all cultures across the world, the gun by comparison hasn't been around for as long and only achieved the same sort of romanticism in the US and what was only due to how it came about as a nation

with all the talk about how fancy and dance like sword duels are, while that may be true for the movies, in reality sword combat was just as brutal and abrupt as any gunfight, in short it would be "stick the pointy bit into the other guy" or "slash at the other guy" or "bash the other guy across the head with the pommel" wash, rinse, and repeat.

 

[Biosophilogical]

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

Also, elegance tends to be a visual-functional attribute. Most guns just looks like blocks of metal that shoot smaller pieces of metal, whereas swords and bows, you actually see the process of death occur in a smooth and almost beautiful way. Think of it like this, a properly used bow is like a masterfully wielded sword, wheras a gun is more like someone grabbing a sword and repeatedly bashing someone over the head with it in a brutal, primitive and unskilled manner.

So I'd imagine it has a lot to do with the flow of the weapon (and the person using it), and guns aren't very flowy. So a gun is rarely elegant because it lacks the flow that other weapons are capable of.

 

[LittleChone]

Guns CAN be elegant, but most people tend to think of them as they are: guns. Things that kill people very easily. And yes, swords can kill people too, but it has more technique and feel to it. Guns are much more strait forward: you point it at something and fire, it gets shot. Not a lot of art in that.

 

[Grey_Focks]

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.

Understandable, and sorry if someone already brought this up, but literally everything you just said for the gun can be applied to the sword, if not even moreso than the gun.

OT: Because they are far easier to use. The difficulty comes in constructing and maintaining, not in the actual application, though accurate aim is a lot more difficult than some of you guys are giving it credit.

 

[blazinwings]

hey everybody. this thread is not about swords. it is a question about GUNS. that is all.

 

[Avistew]

That's because with a gun, most of what's impressive is with the gun itself. With many other weapons, such as swords and bows, what's impressive is the skill of the person wielding it.
While gun training exists and is useful for sure, it is much easier for a debutant to use. Grab it, aim, pull the trigger. You have a chance of hurting the person, and you never need to get close to them so you're not risking as much (unless they have a gun too I guess).
With a sword, or a bow, if you can't use it, you might try but the only person you risk hurting is yourself. On top of skill they also both require strength.

So, with traditional weapons, the person is part of the weapon, the main part of it actually. With guns, they stand alone, and "anyone" can pick them up. There is less skill required to use one properly.

Now it's different in some specific cases, for instance sniping.

 

[Mr.Inarei]

Swords are romanticized to hold that mystique of elegance in them. Any weapon including guns can be a artist's tool, and this includes guns. When most of the posters in this thread think of a duel, they seem to think of pistols at dawn.

What about a sniper and counter-sniper, always maneuvering and making precise, calculated shots in a battle of wits so demanding that one slip up means death? A master of a craft is a master no matter how it is sliced (pun not intended). A hardened soldier would look just as amazing as a Knight of the Medieval era. A firefight is more about maneuvering and tactical decisions than just squeezing a trigger, and anyone who doesn't think that's true has played too much CoD. In contrast to wars when swords were the mainstay I'd actually say watching a platoon moving through an urban environment against uniformed enemies would be more elegant to watch than a skirmish on a field in Medieval France or some such.

Since this is a mostly game related site, I'd like to draw attention to one very good example of an "elegant" gun duel: Splinter Cell Conviction co-op. *SPOILER* When you and your buddy both get orders to kill one another and you begin to quietly stalk each other through the cargo holds of a plane, it gets pretty intense. You both leap from cover to cover and climb floor to floor looking for one another, and both of you know that it'll all end with one gunshot.

tl;dr A sword can be graceful in single combat, where footwork and parrying shine. The elegance is the weapon. A gun itself is not elegant, but the tactical maneuvering, the trickery, and more often than not the teamwork needed to do it brings out an elegance all its own.

EDIT: A suppression and flanking maneuver in Brothers in Arms is still one of the most satisfying things I've ever seen in a game or movie.

 

[Grey_Focks]

Think of it like this, a properly used bow is like a masterfully wielded sword, wheras a gun is more like someone grabbing a sword and repeatedly bashing someone over the head with it in a brutal, primitive and unskilled manner.

.....and you lost me. Honestly, that analogy was pretty bad. In ways bows were actually used in warfare, there was VERY little skill involved by the people actually using them. There are some exceptions, but even those required no more training than a gun. Now, if you're talking only about which is more aesthetically, than that's purely subjective, but I can see where your coming from.

 

[Blackvegie]

People who say that anyone can shoot a gun are not entirely correct. Anyone can pull a trigger but being able to effectively use a firearm and understand how one works is more difficult than people give it credit for. My guess is that a guns are considered inelegant due to their noise, silencers suppress the sound of gunfire by a very small amount.

 

[Liham]

Because they are not from a more civilized age.

 

[psijac]

If a gun is the ultimate in crassness then most noble death should be beating someone with your fist until they died from internal bleeding. No hit to the face though that would be ungentlemanly.

 

[SimpleJack]

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.

boring and gun duels arent supposed to be in the same sentence... I understand how you feel but i'm fairly sure that you havent been in a gun fight before.. You'd think differently.

 

[ChadSexington]

God damn I wish I'd gotten to this thread early enough to make a lightsabre joke.

 

[Biosophilogical]

Think of it like this, a properly used bow is like a masterfully wielded sword, wheras a gun is more like someone grabbing a sword and repeatedly bashing someone over the head with it in a brutal, primitive and unskilled manner.

.....and you lost me. Honestly, that analogy was pretty bad. In ways bows were actually used in warfare, there was VERY little skill involved by the people actually using them. There are some exceptions, but even those required no more training than a gun. Now, if you're talking only about which is more aesthetically, than that's purely subjective, but I can see where your coming from.

I was just relating it to swordsmanship. Like a bow and a gun fit on a scale of 'projectile elegance' similar to the way a person uses a sword has a sort of elegance (or lack thereof). So with a gun, you point and click (with exceptions), wheras with a bow, you draw the arrow, set it on the bowstring, pull it back to your ear (or chest, or however you are holding it), look down the length of the arrow and release. So it is a trade of your force (pulling back the arrow) for the arrow's, the bow is like an extension of the person, taking their power and using it for death, whereas a gun has its own power, its own function, and it just wants your permission to kill things.

So I guess what I'm trying to say (and thank you for giving me the opportunity to work through my own thoughts) is that the elegance of a weapon, while having some foundation on aesthetics, is also equally dependent on the harmony/synchronicity of the weapon and the one wielding it. So it is the deadly beauty of the act and the actor.

OT: Though you could consider guns elegant on a mechanical level (having an 'elegant design'), but I assume that the OP is talking about the elegance of weapons as weapons, rather than as objects.