Why isn't a gun considered an elegant weapon?

[remnant_phoenix]

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.

 

[Samuel Lombardo]

you should watch extra credits "the myth of the gun" http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/3261-The-Myth-of-the-Gun

the elegant weapon seems very much inline with THE internal FORCE-Shintoism-mastery ideas. In fact unless I'm much mistaken the term comes from Star Wars with THE FORCE-Jedi-ism. However we (at least here in the U.S.) have trouble projecting the gun onto these sorts of ideals, because we already have our cultural myth of the gun blasted all over the thing.

So someone with a sword, good enough to deflect bullets, seems to require a lot more skill, than someone who can "just point and click". sure gun usage isn't just point and click, but to those of us on the outside, it certainly seems like it. Also with guns, its so much easier to improve the gun, than the skill.

Imagine if 2 people who never used guns before decide to have a shoot out. The one spends weeks learning to master a pistol, and the other just buys an automatic, it starts to look more and more like the shooters aren't really doing anything.

 

[thethird0611]

Id have to say the reason a gun is "elegant" is because some in their teens, and even younger, can accurately shoot a weapon. At 10 I was hitting targets perfect from 50 yards (without training to do it). Also, to add to a point the OP but out, gun safety ("Using it without putting lives in danger"), is just holding the gun right (easy to do on any gun), and not aiming the thing at anyone.

Swords on the other hand, take training, smarts, and strategy. The ability to duel with someone for longer than "bang bang bang bang", is something that takes a finesse. Every move you make could mean victory or defeat, and there is a constant attack and defense aspect to each fight. Very few people could pick up a sword today and start fighting efficiently with it until years from now, but a gun can be picked up and mastered in a matter of months.

To put it short.

Gun vs. Gun = Bang, your dead
Sword vs. Sword = A intimate dueling of wits, intelligence, and skill.

 

[Richardplex]

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

But then again a sword can do far more damage, decapitations, dismemberment, eviseracions and severe lacerations.

But then again a gun can be conceled very easily, while a sword is openly worn on the belt it shows a person is not afraid of confrontation.

Daggers can do equally devestating things, but can be hidden.

OT: If you can't look at a fight and call it a dance, it isn't elegant. Swordsmanship is very elegant, and dancelike with the flow and all that good stuff, guns... well, I'd want my money back. I think comparing guns to swords would be like comparing the xbow to the long bow.

 

[Carbonyl]

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

 

[Grabbin Keelz]

In L.A. Noir, there's a part in the game where your partner makes a comment about Italians being cowards because they use switchblades. He says "A real man fights with his fists or a gun." Didn't really understand how that makes sense.

 

[Deathlyphil]

A duel with swords is a very personal and intimate ordeal. It requires great skill and concentration in order to win. And when you win you witness the results directly.

With a gun, you can kill your opponent without even seeing their face, or having them know you are there. They are just another body in your sights.


I guess it's a personal thing. If I was being forced in to a fight to the death, I'd much rather be able to stare my attacker in the face.

 

[Thedayrecker]

Because of pro-lightsaber bias...

 

[Esotera]

http://jhs.sagepub.com/content/36/1/70/F1.small.gif

That is from a sword, they're both capable of doing nasty things to the body that is their purpose they are weapons. Not to mention that that is small wound.

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

That's stupid. Every weapon that's used correctly right can and will considerably fuck up a human body, a sword probably more so than most common handguns.l

Guns are considered barbaric weapons because they reduce the battle, which should be a match of wits, strength and skill to a pull of a trigger, most likely from far away. When you beat someone to death face to face with a club or a blade, it's a very intimate experience between the two fighters.

I agree that every weapon when used correctly has the potential to severely harm a human being, but cannot think of any weapon that would instantaneously kill the victim, with limited pain, the majority of the time. That would be my definition of elegance - how is my original statement stupid?

 

[LordLundar]

It's not how a weapon looks that makes it elegant, it's the skill it takes to use it.

Any melee weapon, even in it's basic level of experience requires some knowledge and practice to be effective. A gun, cannon, crossbow, essentially any preloaded weapon basically boils down to "load, point, shoot". No real skill or training beyond that is required to be effective.

Yes, there are those who can take using such weapons to a science or an art form (Gunkata and the Grenadier anime on the more fictional sense, snipers in a more realistic basis) but those are extremely rare. But even basic sword fighting takes time to learn, let alone to master, and there are as many sword fighting forms as there are regions in the world. Guns are "load, point, shoot".

 

[FISHFINGERS]

I'd put it simply down to fact that the legends for the "skill of the gunslinger" is nowhere near as deeply engrained as the legends for the "art of swordsmanship".

The sword has more myths and legends surrounding it. Therefore it is more romanticised and inevitably seen as the more elegant weapon.

 

[Baron Von Evil Satan]

Unfortunately I've seen many people answering this thread to the tune of "Anyone can use a gun" and "swords, blades, clubs, etc. take years of practice and study". And while both of these statements are, generally, true, it doesn't make it untrue for guns and fire arms.

Could anyone pick up a standard .30 ought 6 and shoot it at a target? Well, yes of course they could. Very much in the same way anyone could pick up a sword and swing it at a wooden dummy. Believe it or not, it takes training to aim and fire a gun effectively. Sharpshooters, expert marksmen, and military snipers train for hours a day, practicing breathing technique, trigger pressure and how to squeeze it, sight adjustment, and body position. This is equated to the hours that a swordsman may spend practicing a certain strike, block, or foot movement.

To add more, when it comes to firearms, the farther away a shot is, the more factors you have to account for in bullet trajectory. When it comes to sniper fire, you do not simply point and shoot. You (or your spotter if you're on a team) must crunch the numbers for distance, bullet velocity, wind speed (both near the shooter and down range, and how it changed throughout the bullet's path), humidity, and temperature of the climate that you're in.

So, while anyone maybe able to pick up and shoot a gun (just like anyone can swing a sword), it too requires training and proper skill to use one to it's full effectiveness.

 

[TonyVonTonyus]

I'm assuming because guns don't require finesse (unless you happen to be in a Clint Eastwood/Lee Van Cleef movie) Anyone can pick up and fire a gun and most have a 50/50 chance of winning automatically. Though when talking about a sword or some other similar weapon you have to train for years on end to become skilled.

 

[Wesley Gooch]

Guns are perfectly adequate weapons, that's some bull star wars made up because the Jedi are pretentious. Actually sword fighting is messy and boring, while a gun due is quick and efficient.

I think this is a fallacy based on starwars, trying to make the jedi seem cooler than any dude with a gun, and how the Jedi can block lasers. But it a laser is light accelerated, then wouldn't you need to move the speed of light to block the laser, or just have that good of premonition to know where someone is shooting? But Luke could have dodged lightning by that logic, and the emperor would misses and Luke could've probably saved his dad if that's the case. And if he had such great foresight, couldn't he have foreseen Boba fett was gonna shoot for his wrist? Then it would've never happened, and the writer would have to think of another way to remind us of Luke's robo hand.

The original quote about how uncivilized guns are came from Obi wan in episode 3, but he couldn't have won the duel without that blaster. The only reason he sait it was uncivilized was because lightsabers are eye candy, and he needs an excuse to use it over a gun.

The idea that swords are better dueling weapons than guns is just a selling point for trying to make sure not every samurai and Jedi doesn't go through the Zorro scenario, where you could just easily shoot him in the face and that'd be it. Guns > Swords

 

[burningdragoon]

You say guns are elegant because they are powerful, intimidating and demand respect. Strictly from a definition of elegant, I'd have to disagree.

If you want to argue whether or not elegant weapons are 'better' for some reason, go for it, but guns are not elegant.

 

[Not-here-anymore]

After a little bit of Hellsing, I'll allow that guns can be elegant-ish at times. That and Equilibrium's gun-kata.

 

[SilentCom]

A gun is a whole different type of weapon than the sword and isn't often associated with gentlemen or honor. Guns can still be glorified as elegant by certain people. These kind of people tend to grow up with a gun in their hand and get really good at shooting. Guns just don't have the same long history and culture behind them as other weapons.

But in my opinion, they can be viewed as elegant, at least in design. Think of some of the older guns.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Dandies in general but Inigo Montoya and the Dread Pirate Robertses used rapiers too.

Nnnnn, the swords he/they used were more like small-swords, rather than rapiers. Rapiers are generally long-bladed, complex hilted, akin to that wielded by Charlton Heston in El Cid (1961).

OT: It's all about the aesthetic and how the proficient wielder looks when using it. Swords, goes without saying, a sword fight is basically a dance, after a fashion. Bows and modern archery make you think of meditation (especially compounds, who often stay at full-draw for anything up to thirty seconds... or at least I used to). Other weapons are included, preferably if they have a curved blade. However, the gun is not alone in not being 'elegant', the mace/morningstar, pike, a lot of variants of axes etc.

Artillery on the other hand, I'll leave to the first King of Prussia:

Artillery lends dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl.

 

[Sir Rammington Steel]

I beg to differ. I believe that a gun is a very elegant weapon. Just because a duel ends quickly that doesn't mean anything. I mean look at the stereotypical showdown between two master swordsmen where each man passes the other and slashes and the whole thing is over in an instant.
Next there is the sound. I find nothing more elegant about *clang clang clash whoosh* than *rata tata bang click clack.* Mastery? There is plenty more to master about gunplay than just aiming. You're assuming that you're just going to duel head on at close range? I'm sure the bow and arrow wouldn't be considered very elegant if we just thought about two people standing across from one another firing away. Let's see now, on to mastery. Look at the art, yes art, of sniping.
Any old shmuck could pick one up and fire away, but it takes quite a bit of mastery to learn how to stalk your target properly and take out a target under various conditions from over a mile away. On the topic of skill, a master swordsman can be defeated by a novice just as surely as a master gunman. Sure, guns do level the playing field a little bit more, but I don't think that makes them any less elegant.
Finally there is the gun itself. I don't think that you can just lump them all into one category. There's a difference between a sword, a lance, and a mace just as there is a difference between a handgun a rifle and a shotgun. On the whole I'd say that rifles and handguns are elegant where shotguns and the like aren't just as swords are elegant where war hammers aren't. In the end I think that a rapier is no more elegant than a colt .45.

 

[Jegsimmons]

sword take practice, finesse, are clunky, and messy.

Guns require little practice, give you a tactical advantage, can be easily carried (handguns) and usually dont require an actual fight to end one.

despite what Star Wars says, sword are not really more civilized.
I consider fire arms as very civilized and elegant TOOLS. Also, try sniping a target at 300 yards...tell me that doesn't require some balls out training an finesse.Or quick draws for that matter.