Why isn't a gun considered an elegant weapon?

[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.

 

[kouriichi]

I happen to believe there is no weapon more elegant then a sniper rifle.
Having to take wind, distance, and bullet drop all into account before placing that perfict shot into the back of your targets head or chest.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

They can look nice and fancy, but it doesn't take the discipline and skill you'd need to be effective with a sword or weapon like it.

Unless you're a sniper. Hats off to all the snipers out there, you guys are awesome.

 

[gigastrike]

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

Any weapon "demands" respect when used against someone who is less armed. Sure you can spend your entire life learing how best to use a sword, but if you give any idiot a sword and face them off against someone armed with nothing, who do you think is going to win? Alternatively, if both people are armed with the same weapon (sword vs. sword/ gun vs. gun), they're on equal grounds and it comes down skill either way.

The only difference between guns and swords is how long it takes to learn how to use them best, and I dont think "requiring a lifetime of training" is the definition of "elegance". "Elegence" is in how people view something. Guns could be seen as just as elegent as a sword if elitists would stop belittling them for being easy to use.

 

[HandsomeJack]

Because it is so overt. You can pull a stroke or thrust with a melee weapon, you can vary your pull or even pull a fletching off to chance the arc or add curve to a bow shot, but a bullet only goes one speed and one (mostly) strait trajectory. A mentally handicapped child picking up a sword is likely to only hurt themself unless the people around them are unaware (you can move away or take it from them), a gun needs no skill to be deadly to everyone around them (dont read into that as a flame on gun users please). Case in point: One of my very young cousins picked up a sword (it had no edge) of mine without permission, it took little effort to take it fron her, one of the kids living a few houses away killed a friend staying over at his place with a pistol on a whim during an arguement. If my cousin had picked up a gun there would have been a whole lot more fear and a lot less confidence in me...though I still would have had to take it.
Part of the reason guns replaced bows was because it was easier to teach a dozen men to load and fire a rifle than to teach them archery (again, this isnt a flame on marksmen, think of it as strengths of the gun).
Events like Columbine could not have happened without a weapon other than a gun (or explosives). It is easy power that can be easily given and easily abused or missused.

 

[FURY_007]

Meh I see them both elegant, just depends on who's wielding it. The average soldier isn't elegant with his issued rifle and pistol just as the average grunt back in the day with a Broadsword or claymore isn't elegant, hell that's more bludgeoning then cutting at that point, but ninjas and samurais, and the French Musketeers with their rapiers, those are seen as the high point of swordsmanship. then the Old West cowboys were elegant with their gunslingers wielding their revolvers and lever-actions, then now since WWII onward, Snipers are considered elegant with their rifles. Not to mention the mechanical aspects of guns, each system is elegant as hell

 

[Baneat]

Mass produced, wheras a samurai's sword is his own.

Kinda beats 20 soldiers with the same AR15

And they jam and shit, not very elegant to me.

Though Revolver Ocelot managed to make the use of guns elegant, with silver bullets fancy tricks and such, so it's doable.

A bow and arrow, elegant.

A crossbow, not so much.

 

[Aikayai]

Small, short swords are more elegant than claymores or two handed swords so only a few swords are considered elegant. Guns just are just everything someone would consider not to be elegant. They're loud, have limited ammunition and have recoil more so than any sword. That said, a compact firearm could be considered elegant if used under the right circumstance.

 

[Johann610]

To borrow a line from Michael Stackpole, it's because feeling the enemies breath, sweat, and blood on you makes a primal link between violence and dying. Guns can dispatch from a hygienic distance away.

 

[TheDooD]

After a little bit of Hellsing, I'll allow that guns can be elegant-ish at times. That and Equilibrium's gun-kata.

This

Handguns are elegant everything else not so much.

 

[theultimateend]

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?

I am sure someone has already said this but a weapon is only as elegant as the wielder.

 

[AdeptaSororitas]

No clue, guns take far more skill to fight against and survive then a sword, and just like a sword even an amateur can score a lucky kill. People who say that a gun is not elegant simply don't understand just how much more skill is needed to survive. With a sword your attacker has to expose himself to you therefor you don't need to stay as vigilant. And despite what television and movies would have use believe, the sword is only actually elegant because it was so expensive to purchase. The majority or people fighting in any given battle were using more versatile weapons such as axes and spears or even farm equipment. And also despite myth and folklore, there were very few incredibly skilled swordsmen. They were simply people who killed alot of people without dying, which are very similar to, oh say, the cowboys of the wild west. Where duels of skill and wits also took place. So to wrap things up, guns are elegant, they just don't have as good marketing.

Capthca: Ladies first. How polite ^^

 

[Aurora Firestorm]

It's because they don't require lots of skill and up-close risk to kill. With a gun, you just point and pull the trigger. With a sword or some other dexterity-based melee weapon, you have to get in there, do some technique, and really risk yourself. It also allows for more flagrant and graceful swinging motions than does a gun. So between the risk, the skill, and the appearance, guns just look brutish to many. (Same reason why a club looks brutish, because all you do is heft and swing.)