Why isn't a gun considered an elegant weapon?

[MetroidNut]

My argument would be that guns are, for the most part, designed to be inelegant. A sword, bow, or similar weapon requires extensive training to use, and is designed to hit its target as often as possible. A miss with a bow is a wasted opportunity.

Guns, on the other hand, are designed to be easy to use, and modern firearms are often designed to shoot dozens or even hundreds of rounds that miss the target (but frighten, intimidate or impede the aim of the enemy). It's the main component of suppressive fire, and it actually works very well, but it's hardly an elegant way to fight a battle.

 

[CplDustov]

, most guns are the application of brute force. I appreciate the tacticalt think and placement of soldiers and equipment but that comes into play in any war or war game. A sword takes years to master... and ok guns are not just a case of pick one up and be an expert right away but they became so common because it doesn't take as much training to get you started as with a bow and arrow for example. I'd guess some sniper rifles could be considered elegant as they have the pinpoint distance and calculation of accuracy.. that certainly takes more training as a counter-point to my previous statements.

 

[Navvan]

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?

Yes guns are deadly, and require great care when you are around them. The problem is the equipment is deadly not necessarily the person holding it. All you need is either a gun with a good site, good aim, or just get close enough. Even at 2 meters where it is easy to hit target the size of a human it becomes far more effective than a sword ever was. And while it may be difficult to hit at a distance if you don't have a proper scope the accuracy of a gun is far better than a bow. Here are three reasons I can think of why they aren't considered to be as elegant of a weapon.

One the previously mentioned ease of use to be effective. While it is actually more difficult than it looks to hit something you are aiming at it isn't improbable with a handgun especially if you only two meters away. Riffles and shotguns are much easier to hit with and basically anybody could easily kill their instructor after an afternoon of lessons of how to use the gun. This in contrast with a sword, or knife, or even a bow which a capable enough fighter could compensate when using a less effective weapon.

This brings me to my second point, they are a very very effective weapon. For a sword or bow the effectiveness largely depends on the person using them. A child wielding a sword (lets say a 8 year old) is unlikely to be able to hurt any adult around them unless the adult is caught unaware. A child holding a handgun is plenty capable of killing the adult although they are likely to hurt themselves in the process. To support this all you have to ask is who would win this fight. A completely open field with a trained soldier equipped with a musket and 15 yards away a 15 year old with state of the art fully automatic weapon.

Lastly they are common, at least in the USA. More common than swords ever were or are. If something is common it takes away from its awe factor.

 

[NS001]

I'd like to know why any method of, (or tool for), killing can be considered elegant.


However, in terms of skill, firearms require as much training, practice, and knowledge to use as any other weapon. It's no easier to kill some one with a rifle than it is to with a knife, especially if your opponent is armed with a similar, or same, weapon. People have this delusion that guns are simple and easy weapons to use, that all you have to do is point and squeeze the trigger and you'll kill some one. At close range, (within thirty, thirty-five feet), this is usually true, but lets also consider the situation: if you are in a point of your life where you have no choice but to aim your weapon at some one and pull the trigger, your breathing is likely rapid, your thoughts are running about, and your pulse and adrenaline levels are both considerably high. This means that every part of your body is moving. Each rise of your chest (or gut if you naturally breathe that way) moves your arms and head. Every beat of your heart causes your arm to twitch, as does the involuntary muscle movements that accompany stress. Most of the time, your choice of action is to pull the trigger (which, unless your finger is centered perfectly on the trigger, changes your angle of fire just before the hammer is released), and if you believe you missed, unload. The kick of the weapon sends your barrel upward (if you're holding the weapon properly) and the average person doesn't notice the slight change in angle that results. Add all of these factors up and the normal person will have a considerably difficult time even hitting their target, with killing them in a single shot being the equivalent of getting a critical success in any role-playing game.

All weapons are like this. They aren't objects of art. They're tools to destroy your enemy with.

The elegance won't be found in the weapon. It's in the heart, mind, and soul of the individual who uses it, that elegance is found. The will and courage required to remain calm, control your body, and stay on your target is the only part of conflict that can be admired in anyway, regardless of which battlefield, which weapon, or which war.



EDIT: Another thing to consider.

Why are firearms so prominent?

Psychological: An individual with a gun gets a much larger boost to their morale for many reasons. Guns can kill from farther away, and this creates the illusion that you have removed yourself from harm by engaging at a distance. The flash of the muzzle, the sound of the shot, and the smell of sulfur all add onto this. Being in such an extreme environment, and knowing that you are the one holding the gun, gives you a feeling a "might." (Which is unfortunate.) Compared to melee weapons, which require you to get close enough to swing at your enemy, guns are favored for the false feelings of safety they bring.

Economical: Firearms are considerably cheaper to produce and repair than the majority of other weapons, and war is as much about funding as it is anything else.


It's the same reason why crossbows became popular, and explosives, and guerrilla warfare. They provide a larger ego boost, and are more efficient in terms of money.


ANOTHER EDIT: Minor grammar issues.

 

[Jegsimmons]

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

bullshit, ill give you noisey, but sword are EXTREMELY HEAVY,

I don't know if you've ever held a sword or what kind of swords you are familiar with, but my longsword weighs less than 3-4 pounds (A Desert eagle weighs 4 lbs), and it's balanced (a good deal of the weight comes from the pommel), so it feels like less when you're swinging it.

they make a shit ton of noise just to carry them,

Can be avoided if you know what you're doing

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.

Silencers don't really do all that much to lower the volume of a gunshot. http://www.cracked.com/article_18576_5-ridiculous-gun-myths-everyone-believes-thanks-to-movies.html
I say the reason guns aren't considered elegant (design notwhitstanding) is that any skill that goes into operating them isn't explicitly visible during use.
The user merely stands still, and then the gun goes bang; whereas in a swordfight you practically have a dance going on.

yes but guns tend to have very good balance, and i own a katanna and its WAY heavier than my glock 22. to to mention the amount of fire power from a gun's size and wieght will REALLY be more of a plus than a 4-8 pound sword (or if you use a william wallace type swaord, almost 20 pounds if not heavier) you have to train years with to get up close to the guy hey may kill you faster.
and fuck danceing, im fighting for my life, screw the foreplay, click, bang, drop, go home.

and maby they wont make noise if you know what you doing, but when it comes to swords who the hell knows what they're doing? like 1 out of a thousand people?

and skill not viable in use? ever fired a handgun at a target from 30 paces? shits hard, you have to practice, hitting moving targets is hard also, and im not talking ducks at a carnival here.

you cant point and click a gun as easy as they say or show. you just fire you miss unless you take aim, you run, you wont hit shit, so yeah you find cover and take aim. like you would with a cross bow or bow and arrow. hell take snipers for example, its not like video game, sniping is HARD as hell to master. and takes SERIOUS intelligence.

lets not even get into safety mechanisms, cleaning, loading, arming, aiming, ect.
guns are not only elegant, but fairy complicated and end fights quick. which is what baffles me about swords, how is a sword more elegant when its a sharpen club that requires you to be in your opponents striking range? you dont fight to dance or show sword skill, you fight to end shit quickly, like the samurai (who had whole companies of riflemen) who used bows, and fast killing weapons.

im just saying, you pick sword, i pick gun, i go home that day.

 

[Beliyal]

It's mostly because of history. Weapons like swords and spears have been around since the dawn of time. Their everyday attachment to humans was essential for our survival, they carried various symbolism and were connected with various deities and heroes. They were more than just weapons; they were expensive, important, deified. They were symbols of honour, strength, rank, wealth, status and many other things. During the Crusades, swords were the symbols of the heavenly war against the heathens (because when put up-right, a sword looks like a cross). Swords are also a much more "elegant" phallic symbol (spears too, for example). They are not "only weapons", but symbols of various things and are also older and had much more time to develop myths and legends. We share a longer connection with them, and a very different one at that.

Guns, however, are "just weapons". You don't have to be anyone specific to own one, your life doesn't depend on it, you don't need specific amount of honour, strength or any significant rank or status to attain it. It's also expendable and mass produced, unlike the weapons like swords which required much more work from, usually, a single person or two-three people (also, to make a sword, one needed a lot of metal and metal was expensive and hard to come by). It is usually connected only with murder, and not chivalry or protection. And of course, as a phallic symbol, it's considered to be much more "dirty" than the sword, as it only shows brute and short-lasting strength, while the sword is... well, considered elegant and as something that has history and, very often, personality.

Besides, what does "elegant" really mean in this context? Efficiency? Usage? Looks? Strength? To each his own. In general, they lack the history of the sword, and the sword's psychical attachment to us as something solemn and heroic. So people see firearms differently and consider them less valuable or as something that anyone can get and use however they like, without the involvement of something personal and honourable. Nobody just decided it'll be like that, it's just how our sentiments develop over time. We already have some sort of fascination with old guns (flintlocks, Wild West pistols), while we can't really say the same thing about uzis for example. It's all about having enough time to evolve into something with a personality and heroism.

Now, this is just some sort of an analysis which excludes the technical stuff (skill needed to use one or the other and such). I don't find any weapon more elegant than the other as they are all very different, both in the practical and symbolic (and historical) way. But gun currently loses the "elegant" fight because it's too much of a novelty and lacks historical, heroic and symbolic background (at least, it doesn't have enough of it, like the sword or a spear). It'll get it eventually though, firearms from the earlier centuries already kinda have it.

 

[phantasmalWordsmith]

Dunno.

I think it's because a duel with guns basically amounts to *Two guys standing opposite eachother. Bang bang bang, one guy dies, battle over*
There's no parrying and ripostes, dodging or footwork and techniques like that. There's only one technique: Aiming, and being able to squeeze the trigger without dislodging your aim.
There is no skill to other aspects of it than aiming. It's just boring.

No matter how many times I watch Equilibrium, I never get bored. Possibly one of my favourite movies. Reason? This video explains it.

Anyway. Yeah, all the reasons have been pretty much covered: more static, too simple and too brutal. I myself would never ever hold a gun, even to save my own life. However...I think they are the coolest thing, especially handguns. Anime, manga, movies or TV; if a gun is used with skill I will enjoy it (hopefully). Trigun, D.Gray-man (Cross Marian), Black Rock Shooter, Witch Hunter, Kurohime, Grenadier while on the movie side there's R.E.D. (guns with old people, even better), the aforementioned Equilibrium and Zombieland ("I love rednecks" and the kiosk + handgun scene)

Don't get me wrong, I hate just spraying but if you show me gun kata like in Equilibrium I probably won't be able to look away.

 

[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.

True, but then what is your definition of elegance when speaking about weapons, are swords not also powerful and intimidating? Also, I don't remember saying one weapon is better than other simply because it's elegant.

Well that would be where the really problem in this discussion. It's pretty weird to argue over which thing designed to take a life is more elegant than another. However, it's easier to argue there is some level of grace in the way two master swordsmen would duel each other (or at least in the way they are choreographed nowadays) that is rather lacking in guns.

Yes but that level of choreography implies that the two swordsmen are experienced and seasoned veterans. So in that light lets take two, for the sake of argument, professional soldiers and stick them in a battlefield with orders to kill each other. They quietly stalk and study each throughout successive firefights which neither is quiet sure how they've survived. Is there not some level of elegance in such a violent game of cat and mouse?

I mean, sure I guess. Though really your hypothetical really brings to light the whole point that people should be taking away: it's not the weapon that's elegant.

 

[Olyver]

Obi wan said so....

 

[psychguy57]

because no one has seen Equilibrium or they haven't been to UK because they have diamond covered guns. Pistols used with skill are the equivalent of a sword in Beatrix Kiddo's hand

H3H3H3

 

[jyork89]

Is there really such thing as an elegant weapon? A gun you shoot someone and make holes in them. A sword you either stab or hack the person to death. Saying a sword is elegant is like saying Norman Bates is elegant.

 

[shinigamisparda]

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?

Now, let me say right off the bat that I am one of the people who sees swords as more elegant than guns. That being said, you've got me thinking. Even though I don't consider the gun a very elegant weapon there are two types of gun wielders I respect: gunslingers and snipers. Just in the way the sword is seen as elegant where one could draw it, make a decisive slash and sheathe it in one stroke I've also found a certain romance in being able to draw a pistol and shoot five before they could do the same and also in being able to hit a target over a mile away while taking into account the distance, humidity, wind speed and direction and even the turning of the earth to make sure that one tiny piece of lead lands true. Many argue that it takes no skill to use a gun but takes years of training to use a sword. Yet, after giving it some thought, I remembered just how hard it can be to fire a pistol accurately. So why is the sword the gentleman's weapon while the gun isn't?

My answer: The media. We've been conditioned to like long, sprawling action scenes and, although it can be done, the gun makes that considerably harder without having a small army to kill through. When a long gunfight between just two people is done, often it looks like very messy with bullets missing and people jumping and ducking behind cover. In a swordfight, by contrast, the two men are able to face one another by blocking and parrying each slash and stab. Yet in the real world a sword fight is often as short as a gunfight, sometimes decided in one stroke or one counter. If you look at that messy gunfight in a different, each duck behind cover and barely dodged bullet as a parry, it feels more elegant.

Also, this topic has actually been addressed before by Extra Credits in the "Myth of the Gun" episode. I think Japanese sentiments, things like inner strength and being one with the blade, have begun to leak into western nations where the idea of a weapon is to empower a weapon, where the weapon has the strength and no the person. Now, as the episode explains, one of the ideals of the western world is that a weapon and determination is all that person needs. However, another western sentiment is being able to something yourself, and in a way the japenese ideal of inner strength fits this ideal of self empowerment. What if it's not a weapon and determination I need, but just determination? What if I'm strong enough to take on the world without a weapon, just by my own power? This melds very well with the western masculine ideal of self-sufficiency.

Anyway, your free to agree or disagree with my romanticized ranting. Just thought I'd throw my opinion out there.

 

[LarenzoAOG]

A gun can look elegant, as I believe these examples show, also, have you ever seen someone who is truly skilled at shooting fire a gun? I would define it as elegant.

By definition just about anything can be elegant.


el·e·gant
   [el-i-guhnt]

?adjective
1. tastefully fine or luxurious in dress, style, design, etc.: elegant furnishings.

2. gracefully refined and dignified, as in tastes, habits, or literary style: an elegant young gentleman; an elegant prosodist.

3. graceful in form or movement: an elegant wave of the hand.

 

[Feline Jaye]

Guns work via explosions. Explosion tend to be a rather messy thing, especially when compared to the slicing of a sword.

Guns also tend to look more bulky. From an aesthetic P.O.V. sword are more elegant (while remaining functional).

Also it may be mainly left over from when guns were a lot cruder. A few decades ago guns did nothing but blow holes in people. Usually, big holes. Does that sound elegant?

 

[BurnTheIdea]

A gun isn't considered an elegant weapon in the same way that an axe, hatchet, broadsword, longsword, claymore, pike (medieval weapon, not a staff), clubs, the ball-with-the-chain-with-spikes, and sledgehammer aren't considered elegant weapons: They all use brute force. Elegant, in reference to a Katana, is almost synonymous with finesse. A weapon which requires nothing but brute force to use (*cough* gun *cough*) is not considered elegant. It seems that elegant refers to a more feminine fighting style: Martial arts is elegant while boxing is not. It refers to a showy fighting style, compared to a brute force fighting style.

 

[Mr.Numbers]

Clint Eastwood disagrees with this topic.

See a western sometime

 

[Florian Wicher]

Because a gun is designed to be functional and is easy to use.

 

[Jonluw]

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

bullshit, ill give you noisey, but sword are EXTREMELY HEAVY,

I don't know if you've ever held a sword or what kind of swords you are familiar with, but my longsword weighs less than 3-4 pounds (A Desert eagle weighs 4 lbs), and it's balanced (a good deal of the weight comes from the pommel), so it feels like less when you're swinging it.

they make a shit ton of noise just to carry them,

Can be avoided if you know what you're doing

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.

Silencers don't really do all that much to lower the volume of a gunshot. http://www.cracked.com/article_18576_5-ridiculous-gun-myths-everyone-believes-thanks-to-movies.html
I say the reason guns aren't considered elegant (design notwhitstanding) is that any skill that goes into operating them isn't explicitly visible during use.
The user merely stands still, and then the gun goes bang; whereas in a swordfight you practically have a dance going on.

yes but guns tend to have very good balance, and i own a katanna and its WAY heavier than my glock 22. to to mention the amount of fire power from a gun's size and wieght will REALLY be more of a plus than a 4-8 pound sword (or if you use a william wallace type swaord, almost 20 pounds if not heavier) you have to train years with to get up close to the guy hey may kill you faster.

William Wallace wielded a claymore, right?
They weighed up to 5 pounds (And AK-47 weighs 10 pounds).
Read this: http://www.truefork.org/DragonPreservationSociety/Swordheavy.php

And of course swords are balanced. That's what the pommel is there for.

Edit: I took the liberty of taking my sword down and weighing it. It weighs 1.3 kg. (2 lb and 13 oz.)
The weight of a smallsword (which is the most recent kind of sword. The kind used in ceremonies these days.) Is half that of a beretta 92, by the way.
Although I don't see why the weight of the weapon has anything to do with the elegance of its usage.

and fuck danceing, im fighting for my life, screw the foreplay, click, bang, drop, go home.

I'm not arguing that swords are more powerful than guns. No matter what you say, most people will agree that a sophisticated dance where the dancers' lives are on the line is more elegant than pointing at someone, creating a bang, and then seeing them die.

and maby they wont make noise if you know what you doing, but when it comes to swords who the hell knows what they're doing? like 1 out of a thousand people?

Very many, actually.
Manufacturing swords is costly. If you're a lord in medieval times, you can't afford arming your army with swords. The sword has always been the weapon of the nobility. The unwashed masses that made up the brunt of ancient armies were armed with spears, halberds and other simple weapons that are more suited for mass-combat as opposed to one on one battle.

and skill not viable in use? ever fired a handgun at a target from 30 paces? shits hard, you have to practice, hitting moving targets is hard also, and im not talking ducks at a carnival here.

Visible. I said 'visible', not viable. Maybe my point will be more clear if you try reading my post again.

you cant point and click a gun as easy as they say or show. you just fire you miss unless you take aim, you run, you wont hit shit, so yeah you find cover and take aim. like you would with a cross bow or bow and arrow. hell take snipers for example, its not like video game, sniping is HARD as hell to master. and takes SERIOUS intelligence.

Yes, and I've said nothign to dispute this claim.
I don't really see what you're arguing against here. (Although I did hit 9 out of 10 clay pidgeons the first time I held a shot-gun.)

All I'm saying is that the skill required to operate a sword is more visible in the usage of the weapon, making the usage more elegant. I'm not saying using a gun doesn't require skill. I've tried aiming with a scoped weapon. It's hard. However: to an onlooker, there is nothing elegant about a man firing a gun. Something being difficult doesn't make it elegant. The action itself needs to be graceful, something which firing a gun just isn't, as opposed to fencing.

lets not even get into safety mechanisms, cleaning, loading, arming, aiming, ect.
guns are not only elegant, but fairy complicated and end fights quick. which is what baffles me about swords, how is a sword more elegant when its a sharpen club that requires you to be in your opponents striking range? you dont fight to dance or show sword skill, you fight to end shit quickly, like the samurai (who had whole companies of riflemen) who used bows, and fast killing weapons.

im just saying, you pick sword, i pick gun, i go home that day.

And for some reason, you're still thinking I am arguing that a sword is a better weapon.
There is a reason swords aren't in mainstream use today. They are, however, more elegant and graceful. (Design notwhitstanding)

And what is elegant about swords, some would say, is exactly the fact that you have to approach your enemy as an equal and be within his strike zone. It requires skill, movement and bravery to win a sword-fight. And most importantly: All this is very visible in the act of fighting.

And the mechanical intricacies of a gun do not make its usage more graceful or elegant.

 

[Zyxx]

Here's an idea that doesn't seem to have been mentioned yet: it's a visual aesthetic, sexual thing. Most older weapons (many types of sword, battleaxes, bows, etc) have very noticeable curves (femininity) of one kind or another. Straight swords, daggers, spears are very phallic, much more so than even the most suggestively-shaped gun, particularly if you think about how the respective objects are held. Humans like sexily-shaped things: a gun can have sexy designs ON it, but the overall physical shape generally isn't enough to trigger the same aesthetic response.

 

[debossman21]

guns aren't elegant. even if i look at one the first word in my mind isn't "what an elegant piece of weaponry". plus its psychological. think of the effort that went into making the weapon, and the skill it takes to use it well. with guns its just aim, fire, reload, repeat.