Why isn't a gun considered an elegant weapon?

[Watchmacallit]

It really depends on the context. In something like Beyonetta the guns are beautiful and cherished, even in the Devil May Cry series where as in animes such as Kenshin guns are seen as cheap.

 

[Daniel Allsopp]

The elegance of a sword is in how it is wielded and used, a skilled sword fight is almost like a dance. With swords, you can injure your opponent without killing them.

Guns are designed to kill, you cannot be merciful with a gun. You take down your target as fast as possible, or you're dead.

Cut someone's sword arm, or leg, and they cannot fight with a sword. With a gun, they can still fire unless they're practically dead.

No weapon should have the kind of power that allows you to kill someone with the twitch of a finger.

 

[GraveeKing]

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

Hey know fair.... stop reading my mind >.>
And yeah personally I've always said if I had to have a weapon a bow and arrow or a crossbow would be much better.

 

[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.

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?

One the training, I could easily pick up a sword and kill a man with it. If he was trained I might get lucky. If I switched sword for gun in that sentence it would be the exact same.

As for your question, there is a lot that goes into a firefight. Luck does play some part, but that holds true for any fight. First off is basically the skill of the combatants. If a Marine Squad and an equal amount of insurgents were to get into a firefight the result is assured. Theres their aim, can they even hit a target? Their nerve, can they expose themselves long enough and keep their composure while firing exposed to kill their enemy. There are basic tactics, flanking, suppression fire, deception, ect. These are not quite as personal a 1v1 duel with swords, but those rarely happened in warfare at all. The closest equal to that in warfare would be the incredibly rare sniper duel. To be honest I cannot recall one that happened since Vietnam, but those were pretty crazy, look into a man named Carlos Hathcock and you'll see what I mean.

 

[Dwarfman]

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 think it has more to do with the wielder and less to do with weapon. Three examples; The Lance, The Katana and the Aeroplane.

With the first two there are various warrior codes and edicts and half truths about those who lived by them. These people and their beliefs were often of a different class and rank in society and thus they recieved respect. Weapons such as katana and lances were only used by these people and so these weapons recieved the same respect. Then along came the crossbow and later gunpowder and then all of a sudden any old commoner could be a hero. Instead of a duel being among 'gentlemen' with sword or even matchlock being exciting, now is the last desperate fight between two vagabonds in the dusty streets of some town in the new world.

In the later example, yes there are guns involved, but it wasn't the six browning machineguns that made the Spitfire so kick ass. It was the engineering and the pilots. Spitfires, Mustangs, Hurricanes and their enemy counterpart were and still are amazing to behold and 'elegant' in flight. They inspire the imagination as did he maniacs who piloted them - a group of young individuals who were considerd apart from others because they were the 'chosen'. Such a thing is rarely said of the common soldier.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

but this has nothing to do with elegance as far as the sword is concerned

The elegance of a sword fight as such is that as said before you could be at it for hours on end only wounding your opponent slight in the end

The only mercy shot a gun has is the damn kneecap and even then your in a critical situation

It has everything to do with the elegance of the weapon. What good is a weapon that you can spend hours wailing away, wasting time, and only in the end WOUND the guy trying to kill you? I'd much prefer the sure thing that ends the whole struggle in a second. Also, thats a bad example, as a gunfight can go on for a very long time without someone getting shot if there is cover. Most real swordfights are over very quickly, actually. The proximity to your opponent means you can't really make mistakes, and fighting is a very involved process. Most people can't keep it up, mistake free, for very long. After all, it only takes one good stab to incapacitate. You certainly can't fight if your swordarm is torn up, or if your going into shock from bloodloss. The only long fights would have happened with both fighters were wearing large plate armor, and those fights were less finesse and skill and more "bash each other over the head till someone gives".

 

[Brandon237]

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.

This, using a sword in a truly lethal manner shows skill on the part of the wielder, someone who can take a sharp piece of metal[footnote=special metal]A sharp piece of metal that can take very long to craft into a functional, nigh on indestructible piece of art, adding to its elegance and mystery. Even the sword-maker must be a trained professional and master craftsman, metallurgist and carpenter all in one![/footnote] and turn it into a precision deadly weapon that has been respected for many centuries makes the user themselves more impressive. It is also a long shimmering blade that severs limbs and has purposes other than killing. It is fitness, wilderness survival and precision combat and art all rolled together.

Now compare that to your insanely loud gun-powder killing weapon that uses machinery to do the work for you (not all I know, but a lot of it) and a gun just doesn't stand up to a melee weapon in terms of style and elegance.

 

[Leadfinger]

Random and clumsy. Not a weapon for a civilized age.

 

[Little Duck]

There is nothing elegant about death.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

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.

Yeah, any moron can put a shotgun to someone's temple and blow their brains out. Any moron can also kill someone with a sword if they hit 'em hard enough. But long range sniping is 90% math, 10% percent shooting, just as quality swordsmanship is difficult and requires years of practice.

 

[Dwarfman]

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 think it has more to do with the wielder and less to do with weapon. Three examples; The Lance, The Katana and the Aeroplane.

With the first two there are various warrior codes and edicts and half truths about those who lived by them. These people and their beliefs were often of a different class and rank in society and thus they recieved respect. Weapons such as katana and lances were only used by these people and so these weapons recieved the same respect. Then along came the crossbow and later gunpowder and then all of a sudden any old commoner could be a hero. Instead of a duel being among 'gentlemen' with sword or even matchlock being exciting, now is the last desperate fight between two vagabonds in the dusty streets of some town in the new world.

In the later example, yes there are guns involved, but it wasn't the six browning machineguns that made the Spitfire so kick ass. It was the engineering and the pilots. Spitfires, Mustangs, Hurricanes and their enemy counterpart were and still are amazing to behold and 'elegant' in flight. They inspire the imagination as did he maniacs who piloted them - a group of young individuals who were considerd apart from others because they were the 'chosen'. Such a thing is rarely said of the common soldier.

caught you out here, the planes and the way they are handles as you say are elegant, the guns however are not

I thought I said that!?! Well at least we agree on the same fundamental thing.

 

[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.

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?

One the training, I could easily pick up a sword and kill a man with it. If he was trained I might get lucky. If I switched sword for gun in that sentence it would be the exact same.

As for your question, there is a lot that goes into a firefight. Luck does play some part, but that holds true for any fight. First off is basically the skill of the combatants. If a Marine Squad and an equal amount of insurgents were to get into a firefight the result is assured. Theres their aim, can they even hit a target? Their nerve, can they expose themselves long enough and keep their composure while firing exposed to kill their enemy. There are basic tactics, flanking, suppression fire, deception, ect. These are not quite as personal a 1v1 duel with swords, but those rarely happened in warfare at all. The closest equal to that in warfare would be the incredibly rare sniper duel. To be honest I cannot recall one that happened since Vietnam, but those were pretty crazy, look into a man named Carlos Hathcock and you'll see what I mean.

I love how you guys actually disregard that we're talking about the gun itself in its use

and Im sorry to say point squeeze bang is simply what the issue is here, because you are apparently saying gun related crime is conjured up out of our asses and that such crime never occurs, no family murders, no gangwars nope all big government propoganda

Anyway, Elegance and grace are in the act, sure one could use a sword crudely, but there is almost no elegance in using a gun, as I stated before the tiniest bit of elegance would be a sniper to sniper action with a minimum of 800 yards
and even that is just granting it elegance for the skill of it, it's still the guy with the most nerve wins

1. Elegance is in the use, not the look.

2. If I recall people getting stabbed is a big problem in the UK.....

3. Elegance is a subjective quality. I personally find a well drilled person making their way through a live fire course very elegant.

 

[MazdaXR]

Guns are precise and practical they do there job there is no need for them to be elegant. swords now are from a bygone age that is now romanticised. Still give me the choice between a gun and a sword I will go for the gun any time. if you want to see and elegant gun then you should go to the tower of London where they have an exhibit of guns that have been custom designed. As for elegant gunplay it really only exists in the films or games, such as bayonnetta and devil may cry

 

[MazzaTheFirst]

Hmm. Well the craftsmanship of a well designed gun with attention to detail and power would indeed be a very elegantly created weapon. However, creating a light, strong and balanced sword of any type would also require a lot of skill. I'd say that the mechanics of a gun are insanely more advanced and elegant then that of a sword while a sword is very sleek and elegant in simplicity and functionality.

That isn't even going into the details of how to use the weapons. Personally I wouldn't know much of the training principles of guns or swords and I would never cite my experiences to compensate wisdom on the subject. I'd imagine to skillfully use either would take a lot of effort.

Just on the subject of swords, I noticed throughout this thread a lot of posts involving sleek, nimble swords like katanas. I remember watching this episode on more medieval type swords from the west:


That is just the first part, but it definitely makes the sword seem sluggish and brutish compared to eastern style of swordplay. (Though still looks cool at certain parts.) Though, as shown by other videos, guns can look sluggish and brutish as well, just firing at targets with no real care.

(Sorry if the video has been posted before, I didn't watch every video in the thread.)

 

[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.

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.

Actually you still can. Snipers (and most rifle rounds) use brass bullets which are heavier and stronger than the lead bullets fired by normal fire-arms. Thise rounds easily penitrate a 1" steel block. They use a special ceramic plate designed to crack on impact to mitigate thise rounds, as kevlar (bullet proof vests) are no protection against certain designs.
So for civilian situations what you have said is to a degree true, but the battlefield still hinges very much on chance and as always, if the baddies get a hold of the right equipment they can be just as deadly as the goodies with years of training and expreience (see the present wars, most of the emenies have very little training but are still effective).

All of that being said, as another poster put it, the whole idea of elegant vs inelegant weapons is a belief of the past in civilized war (See American Civil War for how 'Civilized' they got, for starters people used to go and have picnics and watch the battles). The present understanding of war (regardless of what the governments might say before starting one) is that they are messy, brutal affairs. This situation has never changed (most sword fights ended in just a few seconds), only the collective views surrunding them.

 

[BabySinclair]

With exceptions of gunkata and actual gunslingers (people exceptionally skilled with a firearm) there's relatively little form to gun fights. Point towards person and pull trigger.

Melee weapons and bows however (crossbow counts as a gun) can be countered or avoided (that includes arrows, I've caught one). Combatants need to be more aware of many more factors in order to survive.