Why isn't a gun considered an elegant weapon?

[DMShade]

I think what makes guns 'inelegant' to people is the ease of access to its power.

It takes a bit of skill to do damage with other weapons. With a gun, all it takes is a point and a squeeze (Marksmanship notwithstanding).

Another downpoint for them attached to ease of access to its power is also the potential price for misuse. If someone is foolish with a melee weapon, it's most likely they will hurt themselves. If someone is foolish with a gun, it's most likely someone ELSE will suffer for their lack of respect for the weapon.

 

[Jegsimmons]

As me and every other age of chivalry player can tell you, real men use swords.

clint eastwood
john wayne
clive owen
jason stathom
chuck norris
Sly Stallone
Samuel L Jackson
Sam Elliot
Wyatt Earp
Jesse James
Several US Presidents and Generals
The US Army (and every military man after 1600s)
audie murphy
and so forth.
hey....just saying.....

 

[UNHchabo]

Because it is a weapon that ANYONE can use.

It is the weapon of a coward.

I disagree; throughout history any weapon that is easily used by the people helps protect against tyranny, while weapons that are too expensive or too difficult to be used by anyone but the professional soldier help to protect tyranny. In my mind, the rifle is the ultimate tool of the working class. It can just as easily hunt for food as it can protect against invaders.

 

[Alssadar]

A gun can practically win by picking it up and aiming. My first time on a rifle range with no training: hit 7, miss 3.
A sword, mace, and melee weapons require training to exact a fight, as they are duels of mental concentration and the ability to see weakness in a foe's stance and properly pursue, akin to warfare consisting of formations, rather than relying on the miscalculated aim of the foe. The personal ability of the user is the deciding factor of the result of the conflict.
While arguably, both can constitute different parts in the art of war, the gun seems less animate than the melee, as it is a far distance technique, without any proper honor to look the enemy in the face, while a sword can get your normal eyes to recognize the sweat on an opponent's nose.

 

[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.

 

[ShotgunZombie]

To everyone who is making the "Guns are impersonal" responses. Are we denying that people don't get shot at point blank or engage in short distance shootouts? I'm just saying...
Also I like how this post is going so far, plenty of good points on both sides.

 

[BlueFishie]

I doubt any weapon would be very "elegant" when actually put to use. Human remains tend to have a morbid, repulsive tinge to it.

 

[Dirzzit]

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.

Fine if I give you a simple M4 Carbine and tell you to kill someone with it, would you know how to use it? If I gave you a sword and told you to kill someone, would you know how to use it?

As gun collecter myself it take a long time to clean prepare,check, and recheck firearms before use. As well as ballistics and ammunition types on different materials through size and penetration.
That's not to say a Katana or Rapier require's any less finesse and experience to wield.

This argument is invalid, why?

Everyone get's down to the whole "Bang" "Swish" When really both weapons are deeper then that.

 

[Cap'n Ninja]

A lot of good arguments have been given, but on a personal level, guns tend to be a brutish weapon of force while swords are sleek and precise.

That's not to say a gun can't be elegant, and a sword always is, but the wielding plays a large part.
A soldier doesn't have a whole lot of finesse, but neither does a battle using swords. They both end up being rather brutish and untidy displays, but on the alternate hand, a well trained swordsman can have poise and grace, much the same as a skilled assassin.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

its the demanding of respect. plus, have you ever seen a real gunshot wound? its not a little hole, even a pistol exit wound can blow the back of your head off. they take skill to use professionally, but at the end of the day its something that can take your face off from the other side of a room in less than a second. you cant really have a drawn-out 1-on-1 gun battle IRL. you can with a rapier.

Hold up so respect is garnered by the length of two participants trying to fight one another? Really?

no its gained by the ability to show your opponent your skill without killing them in every usage. getting shot in the shoulder can be fatal. in a duel, rapiers would be replaced with the similar foil, which has a capped end for fencing. wheres the respect in knowing someone can turn around a blow your face off: none, its fear. knowing someone can hold off his opponent, then get a killing blow, but will only do so to protect his country or honour, is. thats what fencing duels were about: respect and honour.

 

[Jegsimmons]

Because it is a weapon that ANYONE can use.

It is the weapon of a coward.

I disagree; throughout history any weapon that is easily used by the people helps protect against tyranny, while weapons that are too expensive or too difficult to be used by anyone but the professional soldier help to protect tyranny. In my mind, the rifle is the ultimate tool of the working class. It can just as easily hunt for food as it can protect against invaders.

so much this...this this this.

 

[monkey_man]

It's just not really elegant, walking up to someone and blowing all their limbs off. I mean, a slash with a sword is a worthy death, as you'd been clearly outskilled. Guns are more of the I-hit-I-win category. Not very elegant. Just for butchering as many enemies as you can (Ooh sweet irony, having swords and calling guns a butchering weapon hahaha)

 

[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?

 

[Axelhander]

I assume this is a weeaboo thing, right up there with stuff like believing the katana is a superweapon (and not a chip-prone piece of crap).

 

[Abaddon41]

Elegant Weapons tend to be swords for a lot of people, But elegant swords aren't particularly useful, I for one think many guns are elegant aswell as effective

 

[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!

Guns can rust too. If you know what you're doing breaking a sword is really hard (I've personally managed to break a sword myself, but it was of low quality, and I was using it in an improper manner). Significant bending of a sword is pretty much not going to happen. Steel is way too springy for that. It'll break before you manage to get a permanent bend on it.

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.

If you wish to win a swordfight you need to parry, dodge and riposte.
If you wish to win a gunfight, you need to be the first to aim and pull the trigger.

 

[karloss01]

because they are loud, messy and anyone can use one. even a kid can use one. weapons like swords and bows demand skill to be used.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

?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.

Now while the first may be a bit of taste but it really depends on the gun. A sniper could be considered elegant with the skill required while a shotgun or assault rifle wouldn't. A sword is considered elegant because it is a weapon of the upper class and is harder to use than say an axe or spear. There is not much elegance in an axe or spear just chop or stab and maybe slice.

So no the grunt weapons of any age are not elegant but ones you need special training for are elegant.

The anyone can use it argument does not hold true for this as anyone can use a martial weapon as well as gun first time but it takes training to use most things well. Things that require less training are stuff like Spears and Axes since they were given to the bulk of armies.

 

[Razzigyrl]

As me and every other age of chivalry player can tell you, real men use swords.

Not to be a terrible pest, but what would you call those ranks upon ranks of pikemen, then? (Besides fodder, of course.) Pikepersons? Because back in that much-adored day of chivalry, they'd fill the front ranks with serfs holding pointy sticks, since swords were rather pricey if made properly. Don't get me wrong, I adore swords, but if only the nobility and such got to play with them, that leaves a lot of 'men' out of the running.

Captcha: accidentally on purpose. How fitting.

 

[WanderingFool]

The actual use of the gun is not anywhere as elegant as a sword. Its been said many times already.

However, just because anybody can pick up a gun and use it, its doubtful they know how to use it well. People seem to always talk down to guns, what they tend to think (or atleast what I think they think...) is that guns work just like in videogames. Yes, a person could pick up an AK-47 and fire it, but if they never fired a gun before, they will be more likely to kill themselves than hit a target. Plus, guns are complicated, much more so than any sword. Guns need to be cleaned and have they parts lubricated to run smoothly, and you need to learn this, a person cant just field strip a rifle, clean it, and reassemble it like Forest Gump right off the bat.

Also, I myself dont care for rapiers and katanas, they are more flowery in my opinion. If im getting a sword, I want a good English longsword or a kilij. Or even more so, a pair of Katars. swords can be just as brutal, if not more so, than a gun (this depends on the gun itself, do not want to be on recieving end of .50 sniper round).