Why isn't a gun considered an elegant weapon?

[azukar]

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.

Your points in favour of the gun are: technical sophistication, power, intimidation, respect, gravitas and looking cool.

Whether or not those points are true, none of them relates to elegance. Elegance is a refinement of style or movement. It's about being graceful and dignified.

 

[CarlMin]

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.

It takes a whole lot of freaking skill to use a gun. A sword is not a complex device. Anyone could use it, much like anyone can use a knife, whereas most people probably wouldn't even figure out how to switch the safety on a USP, let alone how to fire accurately.

If anything, "guns" are more elegant than the glorified sword. (In my opinion)

 

[Jonabob87]

If two people have swords and are trying to kill each other, they have to have a lot more skill than if they have guns.

 

[Abengoshis]

I don't consider any weapon "elegant". >.>

 

[Exocet]

How is a gun fight not as much a battle of wits than a sword fight?

One can even argue it's even more difficult,considering your enemy can kill you from farther away in 1 shot.
Sure it takes much longer for someone to learn how to use a sword properly,but inefficiency can hardly be used as a criteria for elegance,unless you want to argue that roller skate are more elegant than a Rolls Royce as a means of transportation.

Besides,how can anyone say that a gun is simple point and shoot,learn in 2 weeks sort of weapon?
Try to imagine it like that: you have to aim a somewhat heavy rifle steadily enough to line up a target that can be up to a few hundred meters away while controlling your breathing,hoping that a small piece of metal hits a target far away.

Lastly,since when is 2 people trying to stab each other considered graceful and elegant? Have you seen Olympic fencing? No graceful twirl leading to a parry and fancy contre-attaque,they just parry the opponent's lunge and try to lunge fast enough to it first.

 

[HooterNanny]

First of all, everyone seems to have these mostly ridiculous preconceptions that a battle of swords is 'and intimate duel of wits and sophistication. Two oponents who respect each other fighting with honour', when, in realtiy, it isnt't. I mean, sure those fights DID exist, but say, when two large armies fought on a battlefield, there was no honour, if fact, fights could be as short as 5 seconds long, just, parry, thrust, dead.

If you look at the gun nowadays, using a gun requires more skill than a lot of people seem to think, especially in a combat situation.

Then again, elegance is subjective anyway, so it all comes down to your own personal view

 

[Talespinner]

There's not a single objective statement in the OP. That makes it kind of hard to take it seriously. Guns are elegant because you personally think they're cool? Wow, what an argument...

Well, I personally don't so by the same rules of debate as put down in the first post guns are not cool.

So now we have a problem. The two are mutually exclusive but according to the rules set down to begin with they're both true. Where do we go from here?

You see why real debates are based on objective facts rather than subjective opinions?

 

[ascorbius]

Wow, 10 pages.. this'll never get read.

First Thought:
A sword is seen as an extension of the human body - so during a sword fight, you're battling your opponent with your own hands (by extension). With a gun, there is no such connection. You are not one with the bullet. You did not make the killing blow, the bullet did.

Second Thought:
As a sword fight is something you lose through a lack of skill, the victor is often seen as a warrior (unless they cheated - concealed knives have no honour). With a gun fight, there is no blocking, parrying, little skill - a child can fell a man.

Third Thought:
The gun is known as the Great leveller. Anyone can use a gun, which makes it cheap. We're all gamers here right? We all hate the cheap boss attacks which kill your character dead.
Someone trains for years to become a master of hand-to-hand and close combat only to be taken out by some-one with little or no training. Cheap!

Final Thought:
Taking a life is THE most serious thing someone can do. They'd better give it a lot of thought. During training you have the time to learn to respect life and the consequences of taking it. Anyone with access to a gun can kill without thinking if their emotions get the better of them. Being civilised is about controlling our animal instincts and not giving in to our base impulses. Therefore a sword is the more civilised weapon whereas a gun is a killing tool. It's also far harder to kill many people with a sword than with a gun - the situation in Norway would not have happened if the perpetrator was armed with a sword.

Disclaimers:
I have never fired a gun in my life.
I have never taken a life.
I have never been in the situation where I needed to kill or be killed.
My sword training is minimal to non-existent.
Not everyone with a gun is unskilled or uncivilised.
Not everyone with a sword is trained and civilised.

 

[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.

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

Using gun kata as an argument for the elegance of guns is deeply ironic though.
The whole concept there is that they have had to introduce factors from fencing and hand to hand martial arts to make the use of a gun look elegant. This is particularly visible in the protagonist's one on one fight against that... guy.
Noone parries and dodges in a real gun-fight.
Gunkata is basically kung fu with bullets instead of punches.

So hey, using a gun can be elegant... If you don't use it like a gun, but like a sword or fists instead.

 

[SuperNova221]

el·e·gant/ˈeligənt/Adjective
1. Pleasingly graceful and stylish in appearance or manner.

I don't think I really need to say more.

Actually wait yes, my captcha is "smoking guns" which is rather conincidental.

Also, look at he into to this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6rxabCtfOs

Just. Urgh. Really? Guns are, at least to me, associated with those type of people and that type of behaviour. There's another reason that I don't think they're graceful in any way.

 

[Michael Hirst]

No weapon in the world is elegant by nature only the way in which the user adopts it. Killing is never elegant it's brutal and painful to all those concerned.

When a martial artist takes up the sword and perfects his art through years of rigirous training it could be said that he can show elegant displays with that weapon.

With the gun there are people who become highly skilled at target shooting such as the videos seen above which could also be called elegant.

Just to emphasise this again, killing isn't cool or elegant, it's sad, horrific and ugly, noone gets the glorious heroic death in warfare, the best they get is taking a hit for a fellow soldier. Then you get whack jobs like Anders who just shoot up a whole load of defenceless people for no GOOD reason at all.

TLR Recreational weapons use can be fun and elegant (see target shooting, archery, Kendo, Wushu etc)but ACTUAL wepaons use to take lives is always crude and disgusting, definitely not cool.

 

[remmus]

for me guns can be elegant, if they are the right kind, todays soulless, mass-produced plastic "guns" are far from elegant, while I would consider a well crafted, hand made revolver where the maker poured his love of his craft into to be the gun of a proper gentleman.

 

[Rhymenoceros]

They're loud, unlike a sword or a bow. They smell, unlike a sword or a bow. They're new, unlike a sword or a bow. And they're "Unsportsman-like", unlike a sword or a bow.

They do look pretty cool though.

 

[Sgt. Dante]

Maybe it's because guns seem so unsportsman-like.

You can't stab someone in the back at 50ft whilst they're running away.

Elegance comes from flow, form, refinement and restraint. It's easy to pull a blow with a sword, not so much with a bullet. Not to mention i've never seen an ornate gun that didn't look gaudy, whereas an ornate sword can look beautiful. Guns are so... Bruteish.

 

[thahat]

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

ahve you seen what ANYTHING can do to the human body? the human body. is squishy and breakable and not verry nice to look at on the inside.
then again, you point is perfectly valid.

also OT: to master a sword takes years. to master a gun enough to kill someone, minutes.

 

[thahat]

for me guns can be elegant, if they are the right kind, todays soulless, mass-produced plastic "guns" are far from elegant, while I would consider a well crafted, hand made revolver where the maker poured his love of his craft into to be the gun of a proper gentleman.

this, is very muchly so something i can agree to. also, the antiquated pistols they had in the 'look we have wooden boats and pirates'-era, e.g. my country's golden age. (the netherlands )
were sometimes highly stylish.

 

[captaincabbage]

I dunno. I personally think guns can be elegant weapons, just certain kinds of guns. Just like swords. Sure you have the sleek Katana

Spoiler

and the graceful falchion,

Spoiler

but then you have swords like the Roman Gladius. Nothing fancy, just sharp and to the point.

Spoiler

Like wise you have a more seasoned gun like the Sharps Buffalo Rifle, which makes a point of being the prettiest gun in the shop.

Spoiler

Then you have something like the Glock 17. It's not looking to set the world on fire, it's just there to get the job done.

Spoiler

This is at least how I see it in terms of asthetic appeal. In terms of actually doing the job, I think the yes, a sword is definitely considered much more elegant than a gun. Namely because a sword akes years of practice to weild efficiently, whilst a firearm can be picked up by anyone and used instantly (assuming you have a basic grasp of how a gun works). It's a laymans weapon. Not the weapon of a master.

The only people I would consider in the same league as swords masters would be military snipers. They are one in the same, dedicating their time and effort to the perfection of their single craft.

 

[CrystalShadow]

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?

OK op. Forget what a gun does, what it looks like, or any of that other stuff; Elegant is a word that implies a certain kind of look and behaviour.

An elegant woman, implies a certain thing. An elegant gun? Sorry. I'm not seeing it.

Now, to be fair, in a realistic scenario, no weapon is likely to be elegant. Because elegance isn't very practical.

But look at fictional depictions of sword-fights, (or staged ones, or martial arts forms that are more about appearance than functionality), and you'll notice quite frequently someone using a sword has a certain grace and fluidity to their movements.

Now contrast this to someone using a gun. Blunt. To the point... Some depictions you might describe as cool, or impressive, but hardly ever elegant.

Consider Zorro Vs. The matrix for instance.

The matrix made guns look pretty impressive, but Zorro pretty much defines elegant swordsmanship.

Now, is it impossible to depict elegant gunplay? Not entirely. Equilibrium makes a fair stab at making guns look graceful.

But it doesn't come naturally, while graceful use of swords is almost part of the mythology.

(graceful and elegant commonly go together. It's possible to be elegant without being graceful, and to be graceful without being elegant, but usually you find both together.)

So, in answer to your question, guns aren't elegant because a person using one hardly ever looks the part.

Elegance is defined by how something is used more so than what it looks like.

 

[Jonesy911]

If Ben Kenobi says they're clumsy and random who are you to disagree?

 

[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.

It takes a whole lot of freaking skill to use a gun. A sword is not a complex device. Anyone could use it, much like anyone can use a knife, whereas most people probably wouldn't even figure out how to switch the safety on a USP, let alone how to fire accurately.

If anything, "guns" are more elegant than the glorified sword. (In my opinion)

I said it takes skill to use a gun to the best that it is capable of, no need to quote me to restate that. I also responded to another view in rebuttal that a rock is old and could take years to master. There is also the view society has on such weapons as a whole while the sword came into it's own. Only the wealthy could afford them, and have access to proper teachers to learn to use them. In a stark contrast it can be said that any thug nowadays could get a hold of a 9mm pistol off the street if they knew the right people. The sword is a status weapon most of all, more than likely why many still equate to "elegance". I'm really digging this forum so far, lots of good points all around.