Why isn't a gun considered an elegant weapon?

[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.

 

[Wushu Panda]

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

Because the "bang" from a gun simply isn't as elegant as the "woosh" from a sword

Have you seen what a gun can do to a human body? There's your answer.

Because using a sword requires years of training and studying the texts of several Masters.

With guns you aim and squeeze; no matter what your physical condition you can use a gun. All of the science is put into its construction, rather than the application.

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

These are the most idiotic and poorly constructed responses I have ever seen. I doubt any of you have actually fired a gun, let alone fired a gun with any precision or accuracy. I have actually had training with both, so sit down and shut up.

I'm an expert level marksman. I'm pretty good with pistols but I hold records for rifle and shotgun. I'm an Eaglescout, from personal experience attending merit badge courses and other ranges I can assure you not everyone is able to hold a gun and properly fire. Anyone can pull a trigger, sure, but it takes a surprising amount of skill to be accurate and precise.

My martial arts is Changquan Wushu (northern longfist kung-fu). I've studied within a small group of only 5-10 people per class allowing us to have a lot of personal attention from our Sifu. He's been practicing Wushu for over two decades and has competed nationally and noted as a Grand Master when judging competitions. Under him I learned open hand, staff and broadsword before I had to halt my training.

I've had similar conversations with friends, some of whom have had experience with one or the other but none of them have extensively used both like myself. So I am going to take this opportunity to shut down those on the internet who belong to the "most likely have used neither" group.

Blakfayt- that response contributed nothing to ShotgunZombie's question

Gammro- i can tell you've handled neither and once again a useless comment

Esotera- have you seen what non-combustion weapons can do to a human body? guns have been engineered to make holes while swords, spears, daggers, etc have been created to slash, gouge, rip, tear, and mutilate the human body. do yourself a favor and watch a couple episodes of Deadliest Warrior. there is nothing elegant about having your organs ripped to shreds and pulled out by someone standing two feet from you.

Grand Arcana- another one for the "im basing everything i say off movies and television". Using any weapon takes extensive time to use correctly and well. Learning to shoot rifles and shotguns are each their own discipline to be approached carefully. Saying you can be in any physical condition to fire a gun is bull, you also know nothing. The best competitors will train themselves just as much as any other athlete. Proper breathing is just as much important to marksmen as it is to martial artists.
Rifles- you need to be patient, calm, complete control of you body's breathing and fidgeting, to the point where you can ignore itches to line up the perfect shot
Shotguns- they're heavy. you need to be strong to hold it up, sturdy to withstand the recoil, and agile enough to swing a shotgun around when the clay pigeons whoosh through the air.

That last part you said about construction and application, both are linked completely for guns and swords. Every gunsmith and blacksmith when making a weapon carefully consider what the application of a weapon should be and the construction is the physical embodiment of such. Please do research on the topics before you say anything further.

Takuanuva- you're probably the biggest dolt. any moron that can pick up a gun a squeeze a trigger can just as easily pick up a sword and stab someone. as I have already stated it takes an equal amount of skill to properly use either.

Don't trust everything you see in movies and television, they almost NEVER portray EITHER weapon type correctly and ALWAYS exaggerate/add artistic license. There are just as many idiots waving swords around looking autistic as there are idiots who pick up guns and think skill with guns is proportionate to how many bullets you can wildly fire at something.

There was a time in America when proper skill with firearms was praised and respected, the era of Exhibition Shooting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhibition_shooting those people had superhuman abilities for accuracy and precision. You cannot tell me that those individuals weren't elegant with a firearm.

 

[Zaverexus]

Because gun require significantly less skill to wield, they are the everyman's weapon, that's why 're all over the place. Before guns you had to dedicate a large portion of your life to become disciplined in the effective use of a sword or a rapier or a staff or even your own body, it was a craft to wield a weapon. I'm sure you've heard a million times about a gun that "it's simple. Just point. And shoot."
A gun can be elegant if you're a great sharpshooter, but to simply use it requires very little skill or finesse. That's why.

 

[Ramzal]

They aren't elegant because you can't create an art with it. You cannot express yourself through a gun. A weapon is only considered elegant when you can do this. And I named my rifle Petunia when I was in service.

 

[TeeBs]

Personally, I think I would enjoy Old West/Samurai flicks more if they all fought with Rocket Launchers

 

[MGlBlaze]

I believe that anyone who call anything designed to kill 'elegant' is kidding themselves, at least on some level. Maybe some can look nice, or be used for fairly wholesome past-times (backyard cutting for edged weapons, target shooting for firearms, bows, crossbows et cetera) but their primary purpose was/is to kill.

It should be respected and they should all be treated with care on multiple levels; none should be celebrated.

That said maybe there's something there about having to train for years to be effective with a sword while most people think guns are easy and require no skill.

 

[Ramzal]

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.

A marine with his rifle is simply a man in the ladies department of the Navy with a rifle.

 

[tunderball]

I heard an interesting fact about this in a Civil War (English) Documentary. Every English man was required by law to practice shooting a bow, in effect when they were used on the battlefield every English Longbowman had trained since his youth in the art of firing a bow and getting the maximum out of his weapon, see the battle of Agincourt for more details. It took about a week however to instruct recruits how to fire the new musket technology....

In short the gun is not an elegant weapon because the user doesn't have to earn the right and skill to use it effectively.

 

[Saltyk]

Because Harrison Ford shoots first:

I love that clip. One of the funniest ever. I love how Harrison just looked annoyed. Awesome fact: Originally, he was supposed to get in a sword fight with that guy, but he thought it was stupid and said he'd just shoot the guy. So, that's what they did.

OT: Swords take a long time to learn to use and longer to master. I have no training with a gun, but I'm pretty accurate with them the few times I have shot them.

Though, to be fair, to use a gun like a expert marksmen (think the Navy Seals that shot the pirates) would take some time and training, too. Still, swords require greater training in general and greater skill to win.