Why isn't a gun considered an elegant weapon?

[CountChopula]

because a vast majority of the same people have never actually picked up a firearm

 

[Stall]

I think it has a lot to do with cultural perspectives. We associate swords with medieval knights, who we believe were chivalrous and noble, and bows with people like Robin Hood, who was a noble and heroic outlaw. But who do we associate guns with? Common criminals and murderers. We don't have a very common, proud, and valiant folk hero who was a skilled gunman, or at least one who we immediately associate with guns. The weapons we think of as elegant are associated with heroes and people we hold in high regard, but guns are associated with riff raff and generally unsavory figures.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

People who say swords are elegant either have no actual experience with one, or are butthurt that someone invented a weapon that beats the sword 9/10 with absolutely no training involved. The gun is an EXTREMELY elegant weapon. Its light, its easy, its extremely deadly. Its quick and its efficient, unlike the sword which is messy, violent, and honestly not even all that effective. Swords are stopped by armor, they are stopped by other weapons, hell, they can even get jammed up in bones and sinew or broken by an errant swing. Guns have nearly none of these problems, minus jamming which is easily cleared.

Swords are nasty, brutish weapons. They are barely a step above a club, with some sharp bits added on so you can maim and mutilate more easily. They've an undeserved reputation as "skillfull" weapons because a bunch of thugs made up their own rules for fighting other people with swords and called them "duels". Its disturbing that so many people buy into the myth seriously. If anything, it reminds me of the MLG gaming scene. Yeah, if you make up your own rules and conditions the fights have to take place under, of course it will seem more skillful. But if someone came at me with a sword and I had a gun, I'd "elegantly" shoot them in the face and end the fight in half a second. That's pretty damn clean, if you ask me.

 

[CountChopula]

its the demanding of respect. plus, have you ever seen a real gunshot wound? its not a little hole, even a pistol exit wound can blow the back of your head off. they take skill to use professionally, but at the end of the day its something that can take your face off from the other side of a room in less than a second. you cant really have a drawn-out 1-on-1 gun battle IRL. you can with a rapier.

Hold up so respect is garnered by the length of two participants trying to fight one another? Really?

 

[StBishop]

Simply, they are the most efficient weapon currently available.

When lazer-eyez[sup]TM[/sup] are made, they will be less elegant than guns.

 

[Jegsimmons]

Short version: every moron can use a gun and kill someone, but you need skills to use other weapons (like swords) properly.

Any moron can kill someone with a sword as well really if they run in hacking and slashing, but it takes skill to use a gun and kill someone from more than a couple hundred yards.

Just sayin'

OT: Guns can be elegant, very much so. See below for example:

not to mention the proper cleaning, ammunition, way you hold it, the way you aim, the safeties, ect
any shmuck can grab a sword and hack and stab. It takes time to know how to properly operate a gun.

 

[CountChopula]

They're not considered elegant because it doesn't take any kind of training or preparation to fire a gun. As I once heard 'a bullet from a 14-year old is as effective as a bullet from a 40 year old' (bonus points for who recognizes that movie quote).

That kind of goes against the whole idea of the best man winning, and preparation paying off, so they're considered the weapons of cowards.

Of course, like a few dozen heroic Japanese samurai who stuck to the olds ways, learned the hard way, they're also very effective weapons, so nobody would think of fighting a war any different way than we do now. That however doesn't change the fact that it's a coward's weapon.
Fighting off a big agressive burglar by sheer determination is heroic. Doing the same with a piece of wood, slightly less heroic. Just shooting him: cowardly, unnecessary and murderous.

Because swinging a sharp object at people takes so much training right?
A stab wound from a 14 year old is the same as a stab wound from a 40 year old dude. The only reason you consider it a coward weapon is because your stuck on some romanticized notion about swordplay. This is like trying to hear an analysis about military armaments from someone who just watched an episode of Naratu.

 

[Wadders]

Short version: every moron can use a gun and kill someone, but you need skills to use other weapons (like swords) properly.

Any moron can kill someone with a sword as well really if they run in hacking and slashing, but it takes skill to use a gun and kill someone from more than a couple hundred yards.

Just sayin'

OT: Guns can be elegant, very much so. See below for example:

Spoiler

not to mention the proper cleaning, ammunition, way you hold it, the way you aim, the safeties, ect
any shmuck can grab a sword and hack and stab. It takes time to know how to properly operate a gun.

Precisely, it's true that you can pick up a gun with limited prior knowledge and use it, but its effectiveness will be pretty limited I'd guess. Same with a sword.

 

[Grant Hobba]

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

exactly.

Good weapons need to be honed and a style developed a gun is a gun. They are simply for the lazy, I have yet to see the dude with a gun out cool Jason Statham in fight scenes

 

[Razzigyrl]

Hmm. I seem to be alone in this, but as a person who enjoys watching Top Shot and the idea of sharpshooting and trickshooting, I think that the use of guns as a tool can be elegantly done. But that's the thing- to me, it's not the weapon that holds the elegance, but the skill of the user. To time your shot to that lull in your heartbeat, taking out a target half a mile away is rather impressive, in my little mind. Anyone can flail a sword and eventually cut something. Anyone can pull a trigger and do damage. Heck, you could take someone out with a shovel to the head, but I wouldn't call that elegant.

 

[Nurb]

Complexity and ease of use of a gun VS simplicity and a lot of training and practice being required of a sword, spear or other hand-to-hand weapon or Bow and arrow.

Sort of like how riding a horse is considered more "elegant" than driving a car.

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

exactly.

Good weapons need to be honed and a style developed a gun is a gun. They are simply for the lazy, I have yet to see the dude with a gun out cool Jason Statham in fight scenes

No. They aren't "for the lazy", they're used because they're more effective and usable at long range, and all things considered, you'd probably die faster from gunshots than bleeding out after getting stabbed.

At any rate, they're used because they can be used quickly after a few weeks of training for military instead of months and months of training and practice.

 

[archvile93]

Because they haven't been around long enough to have legends created about them involving gods and magic. Give it another thousand years.

 

[Jegsimmons]

Guns are noisy. Guns are heavy. Guns can jam.

bullshit, ill give you noisey, but sword are EXTREMELY HEAVY, they make a shit ton of noise just to carry them, and they can BREAK in half or dent,bend, rust,ect!
you know how to fix the average gun jam? *KLAK CHIK!* boom, one motion to pull part of the gun back and the jam is gone, even stove pipe jams can be fix with a fingernail.
hell guns arent even that noisey until you fire them, thats why we invented the silencer.

 

[mercifulwrath]

Because it's not from a more civilized age.

 

[emeraldrafael]

I've always considered them... not inelegant, but... i dont know. Id ont romanticize them the way I do a sword because they made fighting less personal. Any one can kill somoene from over a mile away and never have their foe know (shut up, dont want to hear about teh training it takes to be a sniper, i'm tired of nit picking). But to kill a man with a sword, to engage in a personal way, to have your face and eyes be the last thing he sees as you send them to hell and watch the light fade fromt heir eyes.

tahts just something you dont get much with a gun.

 

[Genrael]

They're loud, not exactly easy on the eyes (ugly as f---), require little training to use (terrorists, school shooters, etc.), can fail in a fight ("Cover me bro, my sword jammed!"), and they leave blood and body tissue about after a kill.

That doesn't really happen with swords...wait...they still leave blood and bits all over. Granted, swords leave much bigger bits.

"The frost. Sometimes it makes the blade stick."

- Maximus, Gladiator.

 

[pwnsore]

As me and every other age of chivalry player can tell you, real men use swords.

 

[Jegsimmons]

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.

Edit: ninja'd

so basically, wearing a sword is just asking for trouble, when when i carry a concealed firearm for protection...what? how about, dont go flaunting your weapons around.

 

[teebeeohh]

guns take a lot less training to use effectively when compared to melee weapons, especially swords. To kill somebody with a sword you have to get close and personal while with a gun you can shoot somebody from hundreds meters away.
guns are also a lot younger than swords so this might be similar to the sentiment that chatting with someone is lesser form of communication than talking face to face.