Why isn't a gun considered an elegant weapon?

[Ubermetalhed]

Because it takes no skill to pull a trigger.

 

[LiftYourSkinnyFists]

I think a sniper rifle is the closest thing to elegant guns will ever get.

Maybe if a sniper rifle shot katanas...

 

[SnipeHunter11]

I don't know why people keep thinking that sword duels were any longer than a typical gun fight. On average, perhaps. But they don't happen like in the movies. Usually it's between one person who's very skilled... and another who isn't as skilled. Most were over very quickly. That's the point of being trained in proper sword fighting techniques. Dispatch your opponent quickly, so you can move on to your next opponent. It's not about scoring points like modern fencing. It's about killing. And killing quickly at that. Which guns just happen to do more effectively.

 

[bootz]

My crazy thinking:
Guns pretty much have no defense except to hide behind chesty high walls. Thats giving people no chance. It's no fair on your part. Just point and shoot It needs no training for it to be deadly. Guns are more inpersonal you dont have to be right next to the guy and watch him die. You can win by hiding in a bush are sniping from a mile away which is cowardly to me.

With swords whoever is more skilled is a lot more likier to win. You have to get close which means you can't hide in a bush and win. You have to out fight your opponent. This takes way more bravery than people think. That whats elegant about it: it takes way more guts to be on even terms in melee range of your enemy, then to run away and hide behind something to shoot.

 

[sofareal]

As far as I'm concerned, the elegance of a weapon is based on the use of the weapon, and the person using it, in rebuttal "what is it good for, absolutely nothing, Say it again y'all"

 

[Ordinaryundone]

Edit : The point is that there is no grace in death, there is grace in mercy, you're view of elegance is quite strange if you feel it only has to do with the ability or inability to mortally wound, and that I mean in your way of putting it not mine
you're mistaken in your referral my friend

A gentlemans duel in swordsmanship can go on for hours on end , like a fencing match, or exactly like a fencing match cause that's swordsplay there, I don't know if you ever watched fencing?
Anyway, yeah you can go sit behind cover, there is still no grace in that
You're just sitting there

The point sir , is not wether or not it requires skill to use a gun or not, but if the gun is an elegant tool, as such it is not, for you just cannot duel a man with a gun as you can with a sword. unless you mean to tell me we're going to have man to man shooting matches in the olympics of 2012 which I would very much like to see

Untill you can prove me the last point, I'll give you the sport of fencing. modern day duels in swordsmanship, with no lethal outcome whatsoever

Why would you want to wound someone? A wound in a fight is simply giving your opponent another chance to kill you. No weapons accept the most brutal ones are designed to wound; they are designed to kill. Wounding someone is not only pointless, its also insulting and dishonorable.

And aren't most fencing matches over in seconds? I mean, between each point, which are designed to count as stabs, correct? And each stab is, theoretically, a debilitating strike in real life with uncovered blades, which is the way classic duels were done. They didn't bring seconds for nothing. You certainly can duel a man with a pistol, people have been doing so since its inception. The only difference being, when you fight with pistols, there is a smaller chance of both parties walking away. Which, really, is the entire point of a duel in the first place.

Fencing is NOT an accurate representation of swordplay. Thats like saying boxing is an accurate representation of an actual fistfight. Fencing is done with fake swords (which sway and bend!), and extremely rigid with rules and which hits "count". A real fight with real swords is over normally as soon as someone gets stuck. Fighting in real life isn't a game, you can't keep going at top form until you run out of hitpoints. One real hit is often enough to take a fighter out of the game, even if its completely non-lethal.

 

[espressojet]

You said it was a sophisticated piece of equipment. So was the catapult. 'Nuff said.

 

[Hawgh]

Well. The limb-rending, agony-screaming, organ-grinding reality of combat swiftly becomes really tough to ignore when you consider the gutwrenching effect firearms has on human biology. It's much easier to ignore with more primitive, less destructive weapons.

 

[Dunstann]

Why are people in this thread treating swords like they weren't war weapons?

Years of training, honing your skill, attempt to 1v1 someone on an active battlefield, get speared in the back.
Years of training, honing your skill, attempt to 1v1 someone on an active battlefield, parry/block his every attack, get ready to strike, someone else joins the fray and they 2v1 you.
Years of training, honing your skill, engage the enemy with your unit, slip on some mud, get stabbed while trying to get back up.
Years of training, honing your skill,"trying to do something", die to arrow/other ranged weapon.
Years of training, honing your skill,..........X............., get crushed by calvary.

Wanna know something funny? Even if you are part of the elite, a spear/sword to the back by some "Peasant" will s-kill(cwidt?) you. The peasant would have had little to no training.

 

[Mr.Teatime]

So impersonal...

 

[sofareal]

I don't know if this is an edit or I'm helping the "guns can so be elegant" side but, have you ever heard sniper squad chatter (sniper and spotter). Reading angle, wind speed, projected distance, targets movement, etc. That is elegance...beauty...what-have-you in it's purest form, Mathematics, pure sweet mathematics.

But remember people "War, War never Changes" (Thank you fallout)

 

[The Stonker]

But what about Gunswords?!

 

[ShotgunZombie]

You said it was a sophisticated piece of equipment. So was the catapult. 'Nuff said.

Catapults were the olden days equivalent of Artillery and so I thought this would do nicely...
"The artillery lends honor to that which would otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick II of Prussia

 

[grimer30]

because its a bomb in a tube.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

You want to see a truly elegant weapon?

This is the German 1942 Maschinengewehr 42, aka the MG42 to you WW2 buffs out there. Weighs 25 pounds, 44 inches long, fired the 7.92x57mm Mauser cartridge at over 1,200 rounds per minute. TWELVE HUNDRED ROUNDS. Its firing rate is so fast, it doesn't so much make a bang as a sound like cloth ripping, because the human ear can't hear well enough to differentiate the sound of each shot. Let me give you a reference on what just one of those bad boys looks like.

Just one of those could kill you. Just one. And that death machine above is spitting out 1200 of them in the time it takes you to boil an egg. Thats right, it could mow down an entire Roman century in less time than it would take them to make formation. And its crewed by TWO people. But the most remarkable and elegant part of its design? It can fire all 1200 of those rounds without breaking. Its a remarkably complex machine, cycling remarkably fast, yet it can do it over and over and over again without fail. Barrel overheats? Its a cinch to simply swap it out. A jam can be cleared by swapping the belts. Its the Ferrari of weaponry, and it was made in the freaking 40's. 70 years ago, and the Austrians STILL use a variant of it that was made in 72.

Its stuff like this that really proves why the sword, or really any sort of melee weapon, is simply inefficient. And honestly, there are BETTER weapons in the modern age. Why would anyone bring anything less? The elegance lies in its singularity of purpose. This goes beyond a weapon, its a machine. Its a tool created for an express purpose. There is no pretension to honor, no belief that holding it makes you better than the other guy. It gives proof enough the moment you pull the trigger. Its pure elegance.

 

[WaderiAAA]

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?

Your argument would be good if the discussion was whether or not guns are awesome. Elegant is something quite different. Swords is to guns as figure skating is to ice hockey.

 

[WaderiAAA]

I don't know if this is an edit or I'm helping the "guns can so be elegant" side but, have you ever heard sniper squad chatter (sniper and spotter). Reading angle, wind speed, projected distance, targets movement, etc. That is elegance...beauty...what-have-you in it's purest form, Mathematics, pure sweet mathematics.

But remember people "War, War never Changes" (Thank you fallout)

Metal Gear Solid 4 begs the differ. "War... Has changed."

 

[Raesvelg]

Why aren't guns considered "elegant"?

Well, they're loud, smelly, they take minimal skill and training to use effectively, and they kill at range, rather than up close and personal.

That's pretty much the sum of it.

 

[VaderMan92]

In this thread no one who has ever had to use a sword or a gun in combat. Also anyone who says guns are instant win and bang your dead have been playing too many video games (adrenaline is a wonderful thing, I've seen a deer run 50 yards with a 30-06 through its heart). Sure any idiot can make a gun go bang but the trick is hitting what you aim at. Besides unless you decapitate someone with a sword they are going to bleed out how elegant is that? Having a gun doesn't make you Tom Knapp. Guns are plenty elegant anyone who says they aren't hasn't seen colts new 100 year anniversary custom 1911's. http://www.coltsmfg.com/Portals/0/panels/1911%20ANV%20I%20Description.pdf

 

[XHolySmokesX]

A gun doesn't discriminate between users. even someone who doesn't know the first thing about guns, can kill someone if they're told to pull the trigger, it's not the same with a sword.

Now im not anti gun's, they are incredible feats of engineering and do require skill to be used well, however it's their incredible power and ease of use wich makes them overpowered that loses them respect when in the wrong hands.