Why isn't a gun considered an elegant weapon?

[T8B95]

Because it takes no skill to pick up a gun and use it. Point the end with the hole in it at the other guy and pull the trigger. It takes years of hard practice to master fighting with a sword or knife.

Also, guns are too quick. Using a knife is much more intimate, feeling it go in, twisting it, and watching...(looks at avatar). Nevermind.

 

[Dastardly]

snip

The simple answer comes back to the definition of elegant: "graceful in form or movement." Guns are loud, explosive, violent objects. They spew fire and metal, emit thunderous barks, and leave spent cartridges on the ground. There's just nothing graceful about a gun.

Now, if you want to get into other "criticisms" of guns, in relation to swords, it has less to do with their perceived elegance. Maybe you mean to say "Why are guns considered less civilized or less honorable weapons?"

To this, I'd say it has to do with the fact that guns are machines. A sword is simply a sharpened extension of the combatant's reach. It doesn't help the person move faster, think better, or avoid danger. What's more, being within reach with your sword assures your opponent is within reach as well, and one sword can actually be used to defend against another.

Guns, however, have all manner of parts and pieces that are designed to provide superhuman advantages to the combatant. They can strike from far greater distances. Their attacks travel faster than the speed of sound. The gun does much of the work, in the same way a car does most of the work when driving. Beyond this, you can use a gun from outside your opponent's ability to defend. Even if they have a gun, they can't use it to defend against yours (ie, block or deflect bullets with it).

Others may criticize guns as being less "skillful" weapons. It's valid criticism even if you compare modern firearms to classic dueling pistols.

You and your opponent get one shot each, and that's it. There's no probability game to be played (put enough lead downrange, and someone's getting clipped). This gave dueling a bit more in common with swords -- in order to succeed, you had to be far more aware of what your opponent was doing at any given moment, and you had to react.

Combat was a physical conversation, requiring that each combatant pay attention to and address each other at all times. Firearms, especially repeating firearms, changed that. You could just keep pulling the trigger until the opponent stopped moving. Despite what movies may tell you, most gunfights kind of go that way--either ridiculously one-sided, or just plain waiting for someone to get lucky. Using a gun against someone isn't a conversation, it's a proclamation. They are not afforded the opportunity to respond, and you don't have to really think about them.

There's no doubt that guns are effective weapons. But this may shed some light on why they aren't quite as romanticized as swords.

(Of course, actual sword or martial arts combat isn't nearly as theatrical as the movies would have you believe, either.)

 

[Kroxile]

Its because guns allow the weak and unskilled to defeat the strong and skillful with the greatest of ease. That is why guns are not considered an elegant weapon.

 

[Booradlee]

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 would like to note, in a self superior manner, that a lot of people here don't seem to know what 'Elegant' means. Anyway more to your point.

First, Considered is a key word here. Just being considered doesn't make it true. Which I think you did a fine point of pointing out.

Guns are not considered elegant because:
1- They are new. Age adds to elegance.
2- They are loud. Headaches and elegance don't usually go together.
3- Many are not shiny. They are not an accessory. They're not even much of a fashion statement as much as they are just a statement. Also they stopped making gem encrusted guns years ago.
4- Using of Guns is seen as jerky, elegance demands fluidity.
5- Guns are not known for being sleek. Many guns are blocky with hard corners.
6- Gunmanship is rarely shown as an art.


You were right about guns demanding respect, and in their favor anything elegant demands respect. A gown, a katana, a horse, a musical instrument, all deserve respect in their elegance.

There Are elegant guns. They often mention or do'
1- Talk about the year they were made. Giving them a title, or even a lineage.
2- Quieter guns are less... Un-elegant.
3- Shiny guns, with engravings, particular metal, or anything to add to style.
4- Using fluidity and grace makes a gun a lot more elegant, and can be done in practical ways. *edit*
5- Guns can, and often are sleek. (This is probably the easiest step)
6- There are artistic shots. Gunmanship can be treated as an art, and skill at the same time.


When I think of an elegant gun I think of Bond Girls and small hand guns. I think of an old west sheriff in a black suit, and the only gun he will ever use, just as old as he is, but somehow still shiny. Finally I think of a Sniper, and her gun, on the edge of a snowy mountain, haven't moved for an hour pulling the trigger, connecting two people so intimately from hundreds of feet away.

 

[Ramzal]

That's like saying Chuck Norris is a transsexual,

As far as martial arts go Chuck Norris is a circus lion. Dangerous, and swift but honestly, overhyped and not as dangerous as the ones not in the spot light. But I would rather refer to Chuck Norris as a Lion and those who are not in the spotlight as Tigers.

I can't tell if it is a ridiculously unconvincing insult or if you are just trying to be as nonsensical as possible.

*Snicker* My comment has a lot to do with the fact that the Marines are a branch that has originated from The Navy. It's a back and forth thing between the two branches that equates two brothers arguing over who's muscles are bigger. Me and a Marine friend of mine tend to do this to each other frequently.

This "ladies department" is the only part that actually comes face to face with the enemy.

And we ALL know the reputation that those men In The Navy have.

Wanna say that in the face of a Navy Seal?

In contrast the reputation of the US Marine Corps is legendary, earning the title "Devil Dogs" from the Germans and instant respect at the first proven link. They make up the United States' Honor Guard and consistently punch way above their weight.

And that's fine and true. Tougher than the Army by far, and they get the majority of the glory in service detail. But some don't need to show past glory in current day. After all, the only easy day was yesterday.

But back on point, I agree that the bo staff is an elegant weapon as are the nunchucks. They're both weapons meant for non-lethal purposes that takes someone years to understand and years to use properly.

 

[SeriousIssues]

In the same way that one can simply stab a man to death from the moment they pick up a knife, one can also shoot him.
But for the elegant twisting motions of a katana weilder there is also sharpshooting, which another poster has already posted about.
As for dueling?
Both sword fights and sniper vs. counter-sniper can be pretty damn cool.

 

[DyqstARD]

Oh, lets all drop our guns now take out our knifes and have a fight to the death simply because it will 'look better.' Lets say one man keeps his gun, his side wins. Because the gun is so much more useful and isnt considered delicate because theres so many of the same plastic things rather then swords, lean and precise. They just look better, but guns are much more efficient and they beat swords in almost every situation. And no one uses swords anymore.

 

[Vykrel]

i suppose some guns could be considered elegant... like a sniper rifle or a silenced pistol or something like that. those guns require a bit more finesse to use efficiently.

something like an LMG doesnt seem very elegant

 

[SsilverR]

Snip

Well, think of it this way, In almost every real warrior tradition, the bow is considered a cowards weapon .. The spartans, the samurai and most other well known warriors of history deemed it an honorless and cowardly way of fighting.

Now was the bow practical?? hell yes it was, the creation of the crossbow meant that peasants can take out knights with ease ... that was a huuuuge blow to the heirachy system.
Now imagine any Gun ... it's pretty much the great, great grandson of the bow like it or not, and the fact that a kid with a gun can waste a battle hardened veteran with years of experience by pretty much pulling on a piece of metal isn't seen as very "elegant"

Guns are practical, they're the next step in weaponry ... not much evolving a sword can do is there? .. but even today the sword remains a symbol of hard work, dedication and honor.

Man is now equal with the invention of firearms, it's evolve or die. a gun a very effective life taking tool .. and you don't even have to be anywhere near the guy you kill ... nothing poetic or elegant about that

 

[bam13302]

the ability to put a small piece of metal (or other heavy material) in a very small space a long distance away is quite elegant

 

[Ordinaryundone]

Most of what you are saying doesn't make sense at all. If an untrained person fires a gun they won't know how to handle the recoil of it, they probably won't know how to reload it, and it is more than likely that they'll end up shooting themselves in the foot. But this doesn't mean they don't have the ability to kill. When a person fires a gun it is an action, and by the laws of physics there must be a reaction.
I.e: bullet is fired out of the gun(action) wounds/kills somebody (reaction). When the deed is done, the deed is done; it doesn't matter if the person blew their hand off in the process because they still fired the gun and every functional person has the ability to fire a loaded gun. This leads on to my next point.

You forget, the bullet still has to hit the target. And as I said, an untrained shooter typically has a very difficult time of hitting anything, especially in a stressful situation like a firefight. Also, you are making an unfair case. Saying that "anyone can fire a loaded, safeties off gun" is like saying anyone can chop something with an unsheathed blade pointed at the target. Of course its obvious, you've done all the work for them. Also, if you swing a sword at a target, you get the same action/reaction. Put effort into the swing, get a result. You can say that they have to work to make sure the swing hits the target, but thats no different than learning how to aim a gun. The only difference is physical effort, which doesn't make a weapon elegant.

The reason I have listed above is enough for guns to be considered inelegant and so I shall list an explanation to why I mentioned it.
Criminals and gang members alike are notorious for carrying a concealed weapon: either a gun or a knife and in the hands of a criminal these are not considered elegant at all as for what they are: a tool to get the job done.

Weapons are weapons, criminals will use whatever they can get their hands on. Do they favor small arms? Yes, for obvious reasons. But plenty have uses machetes, swords, whatever over the course of history, and still do. Basically, any sort of weapon gives an advantage to a thug in a "I'm armed, you're not" scenario, which is usually the only scenario they want to be in. People were robbing each other long before the invention of the gun.

The average criminal does not have any expertise in handling weapons but this isn't a problem for them as like I mentioned earlier: anyone can fire a small arms loaded gun. A concealed weapon would usually be something like a Glock or submachine-gun at most powerful as it is concealable and is easy to use. But if we go up the ladder a little we can find the M14 sniper rifle/automatic. This gun takes much more skill to use than a Glock or a submachine-gun where it is literally point the gun at the thing you want to be full of holes and you pull the trigger. This gun is different: it requires training and expertise to be operated and is a much more powerful gun. But it is still just a gun: a weapon which in essence the concept is just as basic as a handgun. A small time criminal would not own this gun as it is far too hard to use and hard to conceal. But an American homeowner might as if they had the license it would be perfected legal for them to own that gun.

First of all, its not fair to assume criminals can't use weapons. Many of them use them every day. Despite your assumptions, I'd assume they'd feel some proficiency in what is keeping them out of jail, or worse, is a prudent investment.

Also, skill with a handgun is not a given. In fact, many people feel handguns are actually trickier to use than rifles, because they're small size and inability to brace them without training makes precision shooting difficult.

I don't know what type of blade you people are thinking of here, but when most people think elegant blade, they think Katana. A Katana is the definitive Samurai sword used for centuries among the highest ranking warriors the Japanese could offer. People spent lifetimes trying to perfect the art of swordfighting centuries ago.

Usually when I think "elegant swords" I think of something decorative, like a Rapier or a fancy Navy Cutlass. Weapons that can be used for fighting, but are mostly ceremonial, designed to indicate status and for the odd sanctioned duel. Or just practice. Katanas are nice too, but they aren't the supersword most fiction makes them out to be. Like all swords, their just a folded piece of metal with a cutting edge. Their isn't anything inherently superior about them, or the people wielding them that gives them some preternatural quality over other weapons. If anything, I'd consider traditional fencing weapons to be more "graceful", if such a word can be applied, because of the focus on footwork and body language. Katanas seem to go more for the "efficient" side of things. Single strike, quick kills. I can certainly appreciate the sentiment, given as I am a gun man, but I'm not sure this is the quality many are searching for when looking for "elegance" in a melee weapon.

--Actually, I've just realized something massively important and so I'll cut to my conclusion quickly:
The reason people think guns are so inelegant is because when countries were invaded centuries ago the natives didn't have guns while the invaded did as they come from a more technologically advanced society and the invaders slaughtered thousands upon thousands of natives with their 'guns' and all the natives could do was pray that they would outlive the day. With this particular war I am referring to when the Red Indian's land was stolen from they are were nearly wiped out to extinction.

Thats a pathos-ridden argument and you know it. History is chock-full of technologically superior peoples completely mopping the floor with the neighbors, well before guns were even a general idea. Guns are not special in this regard, not in the least.

Wars are horrific and guns just make them more so. Guns are plainly used for evil than good things, and that is why I think they are considered inelegant.

A sword is a tool made for killing. Just like a gun. You can't chop wood with it, you can't farm with it. You can't really hunt with it either. Its made for killing other people, pure and simple. Wars have been terrible ever since people first started them. If anything, all guns have done is speed things up. Now, instead of wars taking 50 or 60 years to finish, they take 10 and have far fewer casualties.

 

[Veldt Falsetto]

Now imagine anything like these done with a gun...yeah didn't think so.

 

[Jacob Haggarty]

Well, if john woo has anything to say about it, then they can be.

I don't really think a sword, or similarly bladed weapin, is any more or less elegant.

It seems to me that everyone here has some sort of romanticised view of sword play.
Possibly because everyone seems to be forgeting about some of the less subtle bladed weapons, such as knives and f***-off big claymores and whatnot. The hacking and thrusting moves of weapons like these make them even less efficient than a fire-arm. If you're going on terms of pain (the less pain, the more elegant the kill i would have thought), then the fire-arm will win, hands-down... if handled correctly.

Most people are simply thinking about things like katanas and foils etc. As well as thinking that the only way someone could POSSIBLY use one of these is if they have spent the last decade with some monks on a mountain top. Not true. This also applies to fire-arms, where by which any Tom, Dick or Harry can easily pick up a weapon WITHOUT training, and do serious or lethal injury.

But, en revanche, a fire-arm is just that bit more easy to "pick-up-and-play".

In my opinion, the reason why a fire-arm is viewed as less elegant, is because
A) They are commonly associated with crime, gang-culture, mass killings etc.
B) They come in "spray-and-pray" varieties. 'nuff said.

In all honesty though, it's really personal preferance, and you'll get different answers in different places. Some might avidly scream how you can only use a sword if you're some sort of ninja sensai, others will just tell you to "get yo mess outa ma face, before i bust a cap in yo ass"... you wont hear it though... hip-hop will be too loud.

EDIT: (in proffesor farnsworths voice) I'M NOT FINISHED! (all done). A thought occurs: people are sticking very much to one-sided context. Reading through, it's a gentlemans duel, up against the horrors of war. With odds like that, no doubt the fire-arm will seem significantly less elegant. But picture for me, if you will, the crusades: how elegant do you think THAT war was? A bunch of illiterate peasents handed various bits of sharp metal. They had no training, and i'm sure there was suffering aplenty on both sides.

Now, picture something else: James Bond. James Bond is without a doubt, the very deffinition of finesse... apart from recently, where he's been more of a suave mano e mano brawler. Give HIM a fire-arm, and some training, and he can make gun-play look like a beatiful oil-pastel of a river.

See? It's all about context and perspective.

 

[Alchemist08]

To answer the simple question of why guns are not considered elegant? Well, even the most highly trained, well armed individual, for example, a sniper, will lay down or crouch, aim, check some equations to aim better, then pull the trigger. Impressive yes, elegant, no. A person with an equal amount of training with a sword, especially against someone with comparable skill will turn into something akin to a dance. The gun is a better tool for its purpose, injuring or killing an opponent. But it's not really all that elegant, even the most skilled individuals never do anything but point, click, bang.

 

[SeriousIssues]

Now imagine anything like these done with a gun...yeah didn't think so.

That is a dance with a stick.

 

[manaman]

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 really isn't any different with a firearm. Only a person that has never fired a firearm could think there isn't any skill involved. It doesn't even take an hour to learn how to actually fire and load a firearm, but then it doesn't even take an hour to learn to pick up a sword and swirl it around. It takes a lifetime to master each weapon. Go watch some trick shot videos online. Those guys have spent an entire lifetime mastering their craft.

 

[Booradlee]

I love how people keep saying (etc etc etc)

--Actually, I've just realized something massively important and so I'll cut to my conclusion quickly:
The reason people think guns are so inelegant is because when countries were invaded centuries ago the natives didn't have guns while the invaded did as they come from a more technologically advanced society and the invaders slaughtered thousands upon thousands of natives with their 'guns' and all the natives could do was pray that they would outlive the day. With this particular war I am referring to when the Red Indian's land was stolen from they are were nearly wiped out to extinction.

Wars are horrific and guns just make them more so. Guns are plainly used for evil than good things, and that is why I think they are considered inelegant.

I honestly believe that you regret writing this.
That you pushed enter and then thought 'Doh! I meant something a little different'.
I get it, I've done that, I've been there. Here's your mistakes.


The Conquistadors who first invaded the Americas? How do you think they fought, with their horses, steal breastplates, helmets, Swords, and a small musket with one shot?
I bet they killed more natives with swords than they did by musket.

Finally, I doubt many swords were really used for good. Especially when invading small island countries with their fancy steal weapons, body armor, and fast moving powerful horses.

Guns have not changed the brutality of war.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

Wtf are you calling me out on

You're taking the reference to fencing way to serious
It's about the damned elegance in that

I'm not calling you out. I'm explaining that bringing professional fencing into a discussion of the artistic merits of gunplay vs. swordplay is about the same as comparing military tactics to a paintball match. I.E its a poor example because its not the same thing.

 

[Arkynomicon]

Guns are really loud while swords are not. Swords also used to be a status symbol and has been romanticised a lot trough history as well while guns are pretty new in comparison.

Either way I don't care that much until some idiot thinks spears are heavily inferior to swords or something else stupid.

 

[Wushu Panda]

Now imagine anything like these done with a gun...yeah didn't think so.

Of all the actual martial artists out there performing REAL demonstrations, and you choose a damn video game!? Exactly which kind of mental damage occurred to make you think that is in any way an airtight reasoning. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you?

I could animate a damn elephant dancing and whoosing a sword around with its' trunk, does that provide solid evidence for anything? f*** no. Here is a sample so you don't have to worry about stressing your brain too much with imagining.

EDIT: