Why isn't a gun considered an elegant weapon?

[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.

 

[GaryH]

Because they kill people by hurling chunks of metal towards them at high speed using an explosion. There's nothing elegant about that.

 

[Tsaba]

snip

It's ignorance, quite simply ignorance.

The whole counter is is takes a day to fire a gun where it takes years to master a sword, maybe they don't realize, bullets, cost money, soldiers only get so much range time a year, special forces get A LOT more, and that's why they are much better than anyone else, they get more trigger time, it's just that simple. The army says that marksmanship has 4 fundamentals:
Steady position
Trigger squeeze
Aiming
Breath control

Firearms are just like any other weapon, it has only just created a longer standoff than those of times long passed and aren't romanticized like those weapons.

 

[Jonluw]

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.

I guess that would be - in the scenario you created - because most people don't think of all the stalking around as part of a duel. Besides, most duels wouldn't be performed in this manner, and indeed your cat and mouse argument is equally valid for any weapon used in this scenario -For example daggers - and is therefore useless as an argument for the elegance of guns, because the game of cat and mouse has nothing to do with guns.
People only think of it as a duel from the moment the combatants have spotted eachother; and from that point on the duel only consists of the two people pointing at each other and conjuring explosions from their weapons.

Like I said:
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.

Pretty much every person in the world will be in agreement on which is more elegant.

(I do of course not count the weapons' design into the equation, since any weapon can be made to look as elegant or intricate as you like.)

 

[Xanadu84]

2 reasons, as I see it. One, any idiot can look at an expert swordsman and go, "Damn that takes skill". While being an expert at the gun can take just as much skill, a layperson can think that the only thing to using a gun is point and click. Secondly there is the random factor. When 2 equal parties fight with swords, there's a 50/50 chance of success. When one person terribly outclasses the other, the better person has more like a 95% chance of winning. If 2 equal parties have a gun, theres a 50% chance of one winning. But if one person outclasses the other in skill...well then they have more like a 75% chance or success. Lucky shots are more likely, it only takes one shot to win a fight, and environmental factors can absolutely screw one party instead of simply offering a sizable advantage. Guns are far, far, FAR more practical, but there effectiveness means that there is also a better chance of luck playing a factor.

 

[galdon2004]

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?

First of all; showing a pretty gun and a dull dirty thing that might be called a blade to compare them just demonstrates bias.

Second, the 'fight' you described is entirely fictitious. I know you've watched plenty of action movies where people dodge bullets; but in reality, the only way for you to avoid a bullet aimed at you, is if you change direction unexpectedly when being shot at from hundreds of yards away. If you two are standing in the same room, the bullet will reach you before you can move your body far enough to be out of the line of fire.

I could hit a target on my first time to ever hold a gun in my life. the only instruction given to me was 'it has more kickback than you might expect' SO yeah, any fool can kill a guy with a gun.

If you are holding a gun and attack someone, they are good as dead if you have the simple ability to point there is hardly anything the person can do about it. If you had no skill with a sword and attacked someone, they can still block, dodge, or run away. So yes, it takes more skill to use a sword than a gun.

 

[Sean Steele]

Can we dispel the idea that there is any such thing as an 'elegant weapon' weapons are tools, for killing, which ends in blood, agony and defecation.

 

[Veylon]

To put it bluntly, the gun is a commoner's weapon, like the crossbow or spear or grenade. It does not require years of practice and exercise to use; anyone can use it properly with a few weeks of training. It is a simple, anonymous weapon used to kill strangers indiscriminately. There is no mystique. As a famous fictional character once put it:

Happy were the blessed ages that were free of those devilish instruments of artillery, whose inventor, I feel certain, is now in Hell paying the penalty for his diabolic device ?a device by means of which an infamous and cowardly arm may take the life of a valiant knight, without his knowing how or from where the blow fell, when amid that courage and fire that is kindled in the breasts of the brave suddenly there comes a random bullet, fired it may be by someone who fled in terror at the flash of his own accursed machine and who thus in an instant cuts off and brings to an end the projects and the life of one who deserved to live for ages to come . . . I could almost say that it grieves my soul that I should have taken up the profession of knight-errant in an age so detestable as this one in which we now live. For although no danger strikes terror in my bosom, I do fear that powder and lead may deprive me of the opportunity to make myself famous and renowned, by the might of my arm and the edge of my sword, throughout the whole of the known world.

Of course, the gun is infinitely more effective than the sword, which is why we rarely see the latter used in battles these days.

 

[One Shot wonder]

how does a handgun even come close to a rapier.

How does a mass-produced roman gladius, used to blindly slash from behind a shield wall come close to a hand-crafted break-barrel hunter's rifle with an engraved breech? It doesn't.

How does a scottish 6 foot claymore compare to the oiled action of a well loved M/28 rifle in the hands of The White Death, Simo Häyhä? Once again, doesn't. (the idealised 'two men stalking each other' thing happened to him. A lot. He took on the instructors of a soviet sniping school in the forests of finland, without support or allies. Just him, and a small number every bit as skilled as him in individual combat). Discounting the stalking or any other parts from a gunfight to leave just 'bang. you're dead' is like cutting every move from a swordfight except 'stab/slah. you're dead', it is simply a bias as to the mechanism, rather than any genuine objection to the combat itself.

How does a rapier in the hands of a man who has devoted his life to the study of the blade compare to a glock in the hands of a drug-addled 'gangsta'? Very well, actually.

You see, the problem is 'gun' encompasses a wide variety of things, as does sword. Taking the full variety of examples there are clear ways swords can be inelegant, crude and brutish every bit as much as 'guns' and there are examples where guns can be just as subtle and nuanced as the finest of swords, though comparing a handgun to a sword is like comparing a dagger to a sniper's rifle.

First of all; showing a pretty gun and a dull dirty thing that might be called a blade to compare them just demonstrates bias.

As much bias as comapring a glock to a 17/18th century rapier?

Second, the 'fight' you described is entirely fictitious.

Nope. vast majority of all bullets hit nothing, it's all about where you put yourself when they're fired.

I know you've watched plenty of action movies where people dodge bullets; but in reality, the only way for you to avoid a bullet aimed at you, is if you change direction unexpectedly when being shot at from hundreds of yards away.

Ad hominem. I'm not implying soldiers are Neo from the matirix, I'm implying taking cover in a good position is the same as having a good stance in a swordfight. Without either you're going to die, with either you're in a position to strike.

If you two are standing in the same room, the bullet will reach you before you can move your body far enough to be out of the line of fire.

If you're in the staircase of a castle tower and can't swing your sword becasue you're an attacker and right handed, your opponent will have stabbed you before you can stop him. Same difference, just half a millenium apart.

I could hit a target on my first time to ever hold a gun in my life. the only instruction given to me was 'it has more kickback than you might expect' SO yeah, any fool can kill a guy with a gun.

Try it at 150m when the 'target' is shooting back and hiding behind hard things. I could stab a dummy on my first try with a bladed weapon, doesn't mean I'd be any use in actual combat with someone who blocks, moves and conter-thrusts.

If you are holding a gun and attack someone, they are good as dead if you have the simple ability to point there is hardly anything the person can do about it.

Shoot you, take cover as you go through the surprisingly long process known as 'aiming' needed to shoot anything other than yourself.

If you had no skill with a sword and attacked someone, they can still block, dodge, or run away. So yes, it takes more skill to use a sword than a gun.

Hah. I couldn't. And i'm willing to bet most people couldn't with any use whatsoever. just like most people can't pick cover, hiding behind car doors when even a pistol round will punch straight through.

 

[ajh93]

Unfortunately I've seen many people answering this thread to the tune of "Anyone can use a gun" and "swords, blades, clubs, etc. take years of practice and study". And while both of these statements are, generally, true, it doesn't make it untrue for guns and fire arms.

Could anyone pick up a standard .30 ought 6 and shoot it at a target? Well, yes of course they could. Very much in the same way anyone could pick up a sword and swing it at a wooden dummy. Believe it or not, it takes training to aim and fire a gun effectively. Sharpshooters, expert marksmen, and military snipers train for hours a day, practicing breathing technique, trigger pressure and how to squeeze it, sight adjustment, and body position. This is equated to the hours that a swordsman may spend practicing a certain strike, block, or foot movement.

To add more, when it comes to firearms, the farther away a shot is, the more factors you have to account for in bullet trajectory. When it comes to sniper fire, you do not simply point and shoot. You (or your spotter if you're on a team) must crunch the numbers for distance, bullet velocity, wind speed (both near the shooter and down range, and how it changed throughout the bullet's path), humidity, and temperature of the climate that you're in.

So, while anyone maybe able to pick up and shoot a gun (just like anyone can swing a sword), it too requires training and proper skill to use one to it's full effectiveness.

amen!thank you for saying that!

OT: i feel that the mechanical aspect of firearms is elegant in a way;you need to design the weapon in such a way that it actually functions,and if one thing fails,the entire thing fails,so a certain degree of elegance there is required.i think it isn't really considered an elegant weapon because it's too fast.swords are more prolonged and it's fair game for both parties involved...while in a duel you turn around and bang,done,whoever turns around first wins.duels like that don't seem to have any "sportsmanship"...that's how i see it anyway

 

[Jake0fTrades]

Well, the word "elegant" implies something smooth, subtle, modest and even a little b- BANG!!! YOU'RE DEAD!!!

 

[Philip Petrunak]

A child can kill a warrior completely accidentally with a gun. It lacks the skill and sophistication that other weapons require.