Why isn't a gun considered an elegant weapon?

[Treblaine]

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?

It depends, it's hard to be respectable lugging around a submachine gun, but when done right:

I'll tell you what isn't a respectable weapon: a knife. Or as it may be presented in court "a dagger" it is a thug's weapon. Associated with cowardice (concealed and deployed without warning) and deceit (used silently) and metaphorically damning (can literally lead to blood on your hands).

Ultimately it is down to who uses it, and the type of weapon my imply certain things about the user.

But a marine and his rifle has (well earned) a lot of respect.

 

[Sporky111]

Point. Squeeze. Bang. Done.

It's so impersonal. With any other weapon it's about skill. Yeah, anybody can swing a sword but to duel another person with a sword is nothing like picking up a gun and firing it at someone. Similar deal with a bow, it takes a lot of strength to draw a bow. And since they fire at such lower velocity, aiming one is a much trickier deal.

I do say that some guns are elegant, mainly old guns. Revolvers especially. And I won't deny that it takes skill to get accurate with one. BUT, anyone can pull a gun at close range and demand control of a fight. Even if more than one person pulls a gun, there's no competition. It's not a duel, it's just a battle of nerves. Whoever shoots first is going to win, provided they hit their target. Nothing elegant about that.

 

[synobal]

By a proper gun enthusiast some guns are elegant. It's all about perception, and most people think old weapons are elegant.

 

[zerobudgetgamer]

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.

Very few people are trying to debate that the first definition isn't true. It's the second and third that they find fault with. Say what you will about well-trained gunners, there are a LOT more inelegant(2) ways that guns are used, especially nowadays. Swords, which is about the only thing most are trying to compare it to, has always had a slightly more elegant(2) form with it. In the past, when the sword was THE weapon of choice, not everyone owned one, and the design of the sword was often a tell of a person's stature; obviously, if commoners had swords they were very basic and probably quite dull, while nobles and the like would have finely crafted swords with uniquely designed hilts and etchings on the blade. Nowadays, anyone with the proper forms and training can go out and buy a top-of-the-line, expertly crafted gun, so it becomes somewhat less of a status symbol by comparison.

And as for the third definition, just play any video game that has both swords and guns to play with. Notice how many more animation frames are necessary to show the movement of the sword, while most gun animations simply require holding the gun firmly, possibly slightly in front of or beside the user, depending on the size. Ignoring how accurate the user may be, you have to admit that the swing of a sword requires much more grace, both in form and movement, than holding a gun.

 

[Clarkarius]

It's all in the history.

Compare the history and war stories from that of the medieval period (pre-gun), to the 18th-19th (the transition) century conflicts and last but not least the wars in the 20th century(swords becoming obsolete in warfare etc) and what you see is war and conflict portrayed in a very different light over time.

For example despite the English forces deploying a scorched Earth campaign in the first part of the hundred years war in the 14th century Froissarts chronicles described the conflict in a vibrant fashion, as two monarchies battling it out on French soil with significant emphasis on the chivalric ethos, painting a colourful picture in what would no doubt been a viscous campaign at the time. Compare this to the World War 1 however, where many lives were lost to machine gun fire, and the story is very different, with war portrayed as much more grim affair with danger at every turn, in which people died in horrific ways, this all largely being down to the invention of and standardisation of the machine gun in warfare leading to stalemate which in turn encouraged sides to consider more inventive ways of killing people such as mustard gas and flame throwers in order to gain the advantage.

So in answer to your question as to why guns are considered inelegant weapons, I would argue that it is because of how they changed the nature of how we percieve warfare and conflict today. With the gun turning warfare from an honourable affair to that of a more grim scenario in the eyes of the people. Furthermore if you look at how guns have tipped the balance in wars during the 18th and 19th century, well the numbers speak for themselves...

Apologies for the huge text wall btw, I had a similar argument like this one in a seminar not long back.

 

[Blemontea]

Guns are like video Games or teenagers, they are still young and thus command no respect in a vase majority in peoples eyes, though people who study guns/video games/teenagers see the potential that is their.

Like people say anybody can pick up a gun and shoot someone. Anybody can also pick up a sword swing hard and kill someone. if you put the former two into a battle situation against trained experts of course they are going to lose.

Assassins who use bullets train years to master trajectory, bullet speed, wind influence etc. Just like swordsman train for years to become one with their sword and let it be an extension of the arm. Its all just opinion till once gained experience.

 

[Best of the 3]

Has anyone said swords aren't elegant!!

OT: Because swords take effort and skill, just cause you can swing a blade doesn't mean you can use it effectively. A gun, doesn't take a lot to use that eddectively. And therefore in my logic a gun just isn't elegant.

 

[justnotcricket]

I think it's because, while the gun itself can be elegant in design/function/efficiency etc, *using* a gun isn't all that elegant. It can be accurate, impressive, technical, and a whole host of other things, but not really elegant. Something like a sword has quite a bit of engineering in it too, and they can also be downright beautiful, but because the whole body is more obviously engaged in using the weapon it becomes more elegant - particularly if it is a smaller sword like a rapier, sabre, katana etc. I'm not going to try and say a Zweihaender is exactly elegant =P.

I'm not explaining myself very well, but I think most of the 'elegance' of a weapon comes from the elegance and gracility of the person using it. Even the very sophisticated and technical use of a gun (I dunno, say sniping?) isn't really elegant. I mean, you're just sitting/lying very still until you move your forefinger slightly. (Any snipers out there can correct me on the particulars, but I'm talking about what it *looks* like to the outside observer).

Depends on your personal view of 'elegance' though, I suppose. =)

 

[Mordwyl]

Because Harrison Ford shoots first:

 

[Jonluw]

To boil it down:

A swordfight is a series of intricate, flowing movements.
When firing a gun, a person stands or lies completely still and pulls a trigger, unless there is some reason for him to be moving.

If you have any clue what the concept of grace or elegance means, you'll know which is more elegant.

 

[galdon2004]

They aren't elegant because they do not require elegance. They barely require coherence. All you have to do is point it at a guy who's face you don't like, and pull the trigger. Hell if you are using a shotgun you don't even have to be pointing directly at the guy if you are close enough you'll hit them anyway.

A sword isn't as efficient a killing machine, but the grace, skill and movements that a combatant with a sword requires to defeat their opponent is much more elegant than seeing who can pull a trigger fastest.

 

[Treblaine]

IMO i think its more or less like the asian views on em.. Like a weapon should be an extension of yourself (was also mentioned in EC), could be a sword, a suit or something.. A gun just takes away all personality..

You should check out John Woo's action movies. Interesting considering the idea of "weapon as extension of body, strength from within" on how he makes his films, particularly how he is able to give his parts such characters with how they use guns. They aren't using them like tools in a regimented fashion, they use them as an extension and

Check out this scene:


Contrasts a lot with, say a western action movie or show like 24 where the gun is used much more methodically.

 

[Dyme]

Because using guns doesn't require skill or bravery or anything. The weapon does all the work, the person who uses it only pulls the trigger. Which even a child or a retarded person can do.

 

[One Shot wonder]

A gunfight is all about footwork, angles and relative positions. Instead of knowing where your opponent's swing will go from their current position, you must know where their rounds will travel, instead of placing your feet to thrust or parry you must place them top brace your firing stance and to give you the maximum opportunity for rapid movement. A gunfight between trained combatants is every bit as 'beautiful' and deadly as a swordfight (inverted commas becasue it's still ape-derivatives breaking each other).

Saying 'any fool can use a gun' is the same as sayng 'any fool can use a blade'. I could probably kill someone with a sword as effectively as I could with a gun (morality/sanity aside). Training for 6 months like frontline infantry will teach you the basics, six months with a sword would do the same: basics. A marksman will train for years, every bit as devoted to his craft as the ideal of this swordsman of old and just as much set above those who merely practise his 'art' as a 'trade' or necessity. The difference is the setting, and that is all.

Spoiler

Spoiler

Which of those is more beautiful? One is a bladed weapon designed for slashing or stabbing an opponent(Sword or sword-analogue), the other is a 'gun' (in this case a .303 calibre Short, Magazine Lee Enfield).

How can you deny the elegance of the Enfield, yet affirm that of any sword? Holding one - even a de-activated museum piece - is an experience, it is balanced, it has weight and purpose but is not bulky, its very design speaks of care and preparation, a very 1900s British feeling of what was 'sporting' in warfare. The introduction of high-velocity spitzer ammunition for the weapon was unpopular because it made the wounds it caused messier, less civilized... Less Elegant, perhaps?

 

[Jabberwock King]

Because people like things that are exotic. Guns are common, contemporary, and efficient, exactly what people find boring. When you play a sci-fi shooter, which weapons do you want to look at first? My answer would be the enemies crap, as it usually involves flashy attacks that make you drool with delight over how the weird effects mangle the corpses' of your enemies.

 

[ShotgunZombie]

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.

Well the weapon can be made to be aesthetically elegant and if the user knows how to, well, use it then why is not elegant? Why is a duel between swordsmen more elegant than one between gunmen? That is the point of all this.

 

[Slayer_2]

Maybe because they're so loud, swords and other older weapons make very little sound, but even a .22 makes a fair bit of noise when it goes boom.

 

[Sean Steele]

Swords were weapons that allowed a warrior caste to rule over the members of the other castes. However a gun was a great equalizer in that an untrained peasant could kill someone who practiced the mastery of combat their whole life. The gun is a weapon that fits the egalitarian west, it is equal and all and all it is the tool, not the wielder that mostly determines the outcome. To a more traditional war caste system it was considered vulgar that it was a matter of a proper tool over a proper user by a great deal.

 

[Merkavar]

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

this^^^^

Also to me most guns are just loud ugly tools. unlike a beautiful slender sword. how does a handgun even come close to a rapier.

But im sure some guns are elegant. the ones that come to mind are like revolvers with wooden grips.