Why isn't a gun considered an elegant weapon?

[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.

 

[EneMalicious]

By the way, @ Earlier post:

We already have weapons more effective than guns. They are called artillery and bombs/nukes.

Anyway, fact is that however you frame it, Melee weapons will always

1. Be more fair. A branch or skilled unarmed combatant is more effective against melee weapons than anything else is against a firearm.
2. Take more skill.
3. Natural intelligence helps more.
4. Is, in a way more elegant because anybody can make a melee weapon and craft it with practice and precision to create something fit for a specific situation. You could, in theory both take a piece of wood or steel and use your brains to fashion the superior weapon and then use your skill to apply it. Guns are made in factories and applied with luck.

 

[Richard Po]

Because a two year old could kill someone with it. It's also how it kills, think about how classy it is to pop someone in the cap rather then swift cold steel decap.

 

[Vakz]

Because guns are loud, messy, and take no skill to do a lot of damage. Just hold it and push the trigger.

 

[AVPMechman]

Because guns are still used, where swords and so on aren't.
The past is more romanticized.
Weapons all require a great deal of skill to use, the only people who don't think so are the ones who haven't used them.

 

[Sporky111]

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.

As an aside, I'd like to make note of the fact that you can pick up a gun and use it as a weapon and expect lethal results with no training. That can't be said with something like a bow or sword, which take years of training to use at all.

But now you've piqued my interest, what are you talking about?

 

[Drizzitdude]

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?

'powerful intimadting and DEMAND respect' this is why they are inelegant. They don't earn the respect like swords do. In a one on one fight with swords, he who has the most skill and has trained with the years of hardwork wins. It has to become an extension of your body, an artform in order to be used well. In a gun fight it could really come down to dumb luck or who has the bigger gun. Sure there is some skill that comes into play but there is also to many variables.

Guns are not elegant, however they are marvels of engineering.

 

[Cypher10110]

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.

I agree.
To wield a sword effectively you must hone your body. You are as much a part of the weapon as it is a part of you, it's an extension of you.

With a gun there is a level of detachment. The gun does most of the work.
Also any weapon designed to miss most of the time (like a machine gun) is brutish in my opinion, not elegant.

Then again, maybe it's just that I've been brought up in a society that romanticizes the sword and fears the gun.

I think it is defiantly possible to portray a gun as an elegant weapon, it certainly is elegant when compared to political power as a weapon. Maybe things seem elegant when they are seen as simple, with rules that seem fair.

 

[BarberToad]

Depends also on the gun...in video games at least.

Shotguns are just savage, and assault rifles are effective yet boring. Snipers on the other hand...while I am useless with them there is nothing more satisfying than the explosive sound of a fired shot. I loved playing the infiltrator in Mass Effect 2 for that reason.

 

[Disgruntled_peasant]

Depends on your definition of 'elegant'. ive seen plenty of swords that are elegant in design, but i'd never consider them elegant in use.

The main reason so many people think of them as such honourable weapons is how they are depicted in films, and how romantasised the periods of history are in which they were used.
Swords inflicted were just as brutal and unforgiving back then as guns are today, you dont need to be some wise old swordmaster to stab a guy in the gut.

 

[Mathak]

Because swords were a nobleman's weapon. Nobility = elegance. Peasants could punch you in the face, so fistfighting is not elegant. Guns never were a weapon specifically for nobles, so they didn't get good rep.

 

[Angry Camel]

Probably because firearms are associated with stereotypical criminals with no sense of empathy. That, and the end result can be very messy, very quickly.

The range of skill required is a lot greater than that of melee weapons. Anyone can pick up a gun. However, using a gun with grace and elegance... interesting idea.

 

[remmus]

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.

personally to me those where nice but all to clumsy, half the time luck was more a factor then skill, to me nothing beats the elegance of a revolver, it´s a intricate machine, working like clockwork, it is easy to pick up and understand, but it promotes mastering.

 

[MCrewdson001]

Almost any weapon can be elegant it just depends on how you use them

 

[Pacerman]

i think people think guns aren't elegant because they don't require finesse to use them.
Watching two people sword fight is like watching a dance of life and death.
To use a sword is to move.
To use a gun is to stay stone stiff.
To duel with a gun is just to be quick on the draw.
To duel with a sword you need everything, upper body strength, endurance, and fancy footwork.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

I love how people keep saying "Anyone can pick up a gun and kill someone, it takes time to master a melee weapon!" Do you really think every peasant they gave a spear to and said "charge that formation" was freaking Lu Bu? Swords (and most melee weapons) were mostly used by people who only understood one aspect of their function: Stick them with the pointy end. There was no finesse, no beauty. You'd see more martial elegance in a butcher's shop. Meanwhile, when is the last time you've seen someone untrained in a firearm hit the broadside of a barn? Check it out on youtube, some of the videos they have of beginners firing guns are hilarious. I'd dare say a newbie would have an easier time killing someone with a sword simply because its more instinctual. A gun requires some knowledge of its mechanisms and workings to even use it. A sword....well, its appearance sort of explains itself.

 

[Hugga_Bear]

Because a gun takes little skill.

OK that's a lie. Because killing someone with a gun takes no skill. Using one effectively? Yeah that takes skill, being a great marksman isn't easy, nor is being able to effectively maintain and use a wide variety of firearms. Killing someone with a pistol is pretty much the easiest thing to do. You point and you shoot, it has to be loaded and the safety off where applicable but beyond that it comes down to aim and let's face it at 10 feet it's hard to miss.

A knife, a sword even a bow takes a lot more skill to effectively use. That's why I know how to disarm a knife and I'm pretty confident that against someone with a knife I'd be OK. I have the training, I have the experience and I have the head to deal with it. Against a firearm it's just not good for me, unless they're extremely close or there's some other factors which might make it plausible any attempt to disarm them is going to end with me meeting bullet.

In games it's similar but more about the flash of a sword, everyone loves that and the simplicity of a gun makes it dull, which is why it tends to get toned down in most games where the two mingle (DMC, FF's) and used as a rapid fire or alternative weapon to the favoured melee action.

 

[UltimatheChosen]

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

This is why.

The GUN is intimidating. Not the person using it. Anyone can shoot someone. A master marksman can shoot someone more accurately and more reliably, but even someone who's never used a gun before is a threat if they point it right at you.

Someone who's never used a sword or a knife before isn't much of a threat to a trained fighter.

 

[Jimbo1212]

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?

Look at the definition of elegant and then how you described them....