Why isn't a gun considered an elegant weapon?

[AMMO Kid]

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

you may have point but then again how is it to pick up a sword stab somebody to be honset both are sort ah simple
1. Pick sword
2. Swing sword quickly arcoss the neck and chest
3. Person dies.

As guns though
1.Pick up gun
2. Point gun
3. Pull and contuine till person falls over
4. Person dies.

And to be honset how long do you think is takes to properly use gun.

You don't have to be good with a gun to shoot it. If someone I want to shoot is ten feet from me it wouldn't be all that difficult to turn and shoot him or her with decent accuracy. Even if the kick back from the gun was huge the bullet would still kill said person. However, just getting used to the weight of a sword is frustratingly annoying. Have you ever held a real sword? I have, and let me tell you it is heavy!!! Learning to swing one of those things fast enough/skillfully enough to kill a moving target with his/her own sword would be hard!

 

[Ordinaryundone]

A gun is a coward's weapon, a weapon that can kill efficiently in the hands of someone with no discipline. Of course guns beat swords, just as chemical and biological weapons beat guns. Those weapons are looked down on for the same reasons I hate guns: Cowardly, efficient, and brutal not in the wounds they inflict but in their utter indifference in whom they kill. Fire an Agent Orange bomb at the enemy and you don't even need to think about collateral damage. If you're wielding a sword, looking the enemy in the face, you need to think about every person you kill, put a tangible effort into every person you cut down. A gun requires the twitch of a finger to kill someone who isn't even close enough to beg for mercy.

If you call a sword brutish and messy, it's odds on that you haven't seen the damage inflicted by guns in warfare. Bones shattered, flesh pulped, limbs torn off by machinegun fire, entrails blown feet into the air by artillery explosions. It's also likely that you call a sword ineffective because you've never handled a decent one. Armor was developed -because- swords are effective; no weapon would be used in battle if it was worthless.

Swordfighting techniques were developed to fuse the killing potential of man and weapon, not as rules to restrict thuggery. This angers me because you've obviously never trained with a hand weapon, never bothered to use any skills that come with them, and yet you criticize those who do discipline themselves and develop skills to be thugs, and why? You don't provide a reason other than brutal kills, and killing is never elegant. Neither are most fights with swords, but in training one strives for elegance, because in battle, your technique will drop a certain amount. If you are perfect in form, in battle, you will be effective, if your form is lacking, in battle you will be useless.

And a sword isn't a coward's weapon? Not every sword-wielding soldier only fought other guys with swords. In fact, it was RIDICULOUSLY common, especially amongst the nobility, to go around and bully others simply because they had one and others didn't. And besides the fact, one doesn't wield a weapon to make a fight fair. One picks a weapon because he is hoping it will imbalance the fight in his favor. They bring a knife? You bring a sword. They bring a sword? You bring a gun. No one ever stayed alive by fighting fair, so people who spent their lives getting good with swords decided that they were clearly a more "honorable" weapon because they got to stare into their victim's eyes as they butchered them with a glorified cleaver. How, exactly, does proximity to the victim make a weapon more "elegant"? If anything, it makes it more savage, as it puts a priority on the sensation of killing rather than simply getting the job done. Why would I want to take my time fighting someone? Its a life or death struggle. If it must happen, I want it over quickly, efficiently, and with him on the ground. Preferably a very long distance away from me. If thats being a coward, so be it. I'd rather be called a coward than be dead.

I work in an ER. I see gunshot wounds every day. Yes, they are messy. Very nasty, much more than you see on TV. But compared to the kind of cuts that swords make? Its relatively clean. A 9mm bullet might make an exit wound of a couple inches at the very most, and that would be considered an EXTREMELY nasty wound. A sword chops off limbs, causes colossal amounts of tissue, muscle, and nerve damage. And the wounds are NASTY, to boot. Very big, very destructive. Plus, you mention artillery shells blowing people up and machine guns tearing people apart, but you fail to mention people getting their skulls pulped by warhammers, eye gouged out one at a time by knives, entrails forcibly torn out by spears. Every weapon causing physical trauma, thats the entire point. But you are comparing a sword to an artillery shell; thats like comparing a handgun to dropping an anvil one someone. Simply a biased comparison.

Why, exactly, do people say guns require no training? To be effective with one, it requires quite a bit. You have to know how to reload it, how to arm it, how to clean it, aim properly (something many people NEVER get), trigger discipline, ammo types, and all the tertiary bits like how to effectively use cover and flanking. If you don't know how to do all these things, you will die to an experienced gunman. Its no different than swordfighting. The only difference being, in a gunfight, its usually over a lot faster. Before people invented technique, swords were made to more easily kill people who didn't have them, just as guns were made to more easily kill people with swords. Just because they are older doesn't make them somehow "better". You want to know a weapon that perfectly fuses a man and complete killing power? A freaking sniper rifle. If having a sword makes you better than someone else at an arm's reach, certainly then being able to kill from a mile away is akin to being god?

 

[Sethran]

Guns require very little training, very little finesse. You point, you shoot. Yes, some training is required to do it effectively but anyone can pick up a gun and shoot and kill even the most well trained person.

Whereas other forms of martial combat, I.E. the sword, require far more training in order to use effectively and not kill yourself, much less to actually injure the opponent. And, only rarely can someone untrained in the sword kill someone well trained - and never in a one on one duel.

Guns, effectively, take the skill out of the fight and as such are inelegant.

 

[Connor Mulhern]

You have to look at it in a historical context. The gun replaced the arrow, which was a skill based weapon, if you missed, it was your fault. But the gun, while powerful, was very inaccurate. At took no skill, and could be used decently by peasants. It also does not easy to kill cleanly, most wounds cause a lot of bleeding. But if you are skilled with a sword or bow, that is not necessarily the case.

 

[TheJulz]

There is no such thing as an "elegant weapon".

 

[A Sad Soul]

They're loud, not exactly easy on the eyes (ugly as f---), require little training to use (terrorists, school shooters, etc.), can fail in a fight ("Cover me bro, my sword jammed!"), and they leave blood and body tissue about after a kill.

That doesn't really happen with swords...wait...they still leave blood and bits all over. Granted, swords leave much bigger bits.

"The frost. Sometimes it makes the blade stick."

- Maximus, Gladiator.

Touche`

But still, a sword doesn't jam up once you've drawn it. It doesn't over-heat, it doesn't spit brass at you, and it doesn't need to be field-stripped and cleaned after a run in with some sand (just gotta wipe it, and sharpen it after a battle).

 

[Seives-Sliver]

I think it's because they haven't earned their elegance, it's something that anyone can pick up and use, it doesn't require any special skill. Not like a sword or axe, sure, swinging it around can be effective, but after a while, you'll meet someone else that is much better than you with that weapon. With a gun it's kind of a who has a better toy, rather who is more skilled.

 

[AquaAscension]

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

What he said.

The problem (as Goldblum said in Jurassic Park as Ian Malcolm) is that guns [that kind of science] don't [doesn't] require any discipline to attain truly lethal capabilities with it.

On the other hand, a very well trained marksman could be considered somewhat elegant, but, again, in order to do what the weapon was intended to do, one need only flex their finger a quarter of an inch and tense their muscles. Whereas with sword or sai, one must learn how to use the weapon over a quite long period AND train his/her body not to become fatigued just by use of it.

Guns, perhaps, are elegant in their simplicity and efficiency but not their mastery.

Traditional weapons are the opposite, although they are usually rather simply designed.

 

[Acting like a FOOL]

something is "elegant" as long as you a your peers can own it and go about bullying those who can't afford to own and train with it.

the gun as the everyman's weapon is the symbol of freedom. in so far as they are accessible to the people any monopoly on force disappears on the grounds of gun to gun combat. and people's rights are secured.

swords are only good if you're working for the daimyo or king and WINNING.

guns are for people who're seeking to blaze out a free and peaceful life.

 

[Balvale]

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

Have you ever seen the kind of care and precision needed to operate a gun effectively? Picking up a gun and firing it is something literally any one can do but to do it without putting your own life or the life of someone else in danger, anyone who's not a target that is, is another matter entirely.

That's the point isn't it? I can pick up a gun, pull the trigger, and the person is dead. There is an element of speed and precision, but it ends there. Swordplay requires technique, efficiency of movement, strength, and cunning on top of speed and precision.

 

[jimahaff]

Guns as elegant weapons is dependent on you'r definition of elegant. I'll get more into my opinion of elegance later but first for this.

Hell you can even add decals or engravements to give them that last touch of finesse.

Most decals fall into the category of kitch art, along with most tattoos, and the flames painted on sports cars, and while engravings are pretty, they are too cluttered to be considered elegant. Also you are not using the word finesse properly.

Now back to gun themselves as elegant weapons. To me elegant means graceful, and sleek, so it has to do more with appearances and design, guns as complicated machines are less sleek than swords, or knives.

Now on to the graceful part of elegance. Shooting a gun isn't graceful, or elegant, if you don't get this, then you don't understand graceful or elegant and there is nothing I can do to help you.

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.

It isn't that the duel becomes unsportsmanlike, it's that guns are the ultimate leveling device, an untrained peasant could kill an highly trained aristocrat. With guns skill plays a much smaller roll, and the duel becomes a crap shot. To a certain line of thinking it isn't fair that someone for who has spent years mastering the art of fencing, to be shot and killed by an untrained plebeian(loser class). So swords became the weapon of choice by people who could afford the training(the upper class) and then swords became associated with the upper class, and their balls, and clothing, and sophistication.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

Touche`

But still, a sword doesn't jam up once you've drawn it. It doesn't over-heat, it doesn't spit brass at you, and it doesn't need to be field-stripped and cleaned after a run in with some sand (just gotta wipe it, and sharpen it after a battle).

But they do break! And get stuck in bodies. And chipped and notched after using it to stop another blade. Plus all the cleaning and polishing. Swords, like anything expensive, require more maintenance and care than you'd think. One of the biggest advantages of the "modern" gun was that they were built around parts. Barrel is bent, or worn? Just replace it! All the parts could be changed, whereas with a sword everything had to be balanced and maintained, or it lost a lot of its worth. Also, if a gun breaks, its easy to put it back together, or just replace the parts that are broken. If a sword breaks, tough luck. Either reforge it (and risk it getting brittle), or go get a new one.

 

[Takuanuva]

Okay... since my 'short version' was quoted a few times already, here's the long version:
Firearms aren't considered elegant, because:
1. Using a gun is all about pointing it at a target and squeezing a trigger. Skills don't matter as much- as long as bullet hits the target, it will hurt the same, no matter who pulled the trigger. Sure, there's the part with hitting the target, but in case of, for example, a duel, hitting a stationary target few meters away isn't too hard, even for someone who never used a gun. I might be wrong about that one, but whathever.
2. With melee weapons (such as swords), YOU hit the target. Well, not technically, but the weapon is just a pointy or slashy attachment to your arm- the damage you make to your opponent depends mostly on your strenght and skill.
3. There is no easy way to defend yourself against a bullet (bulletproof vests don't count). Sword to the head? You can block it. Bullet to the head? Let's hope your family bought a coffin already.
I wanted to write something more, but I'm about to fall asleep in front of my computer. Again.
there will be a lot of people who will disagree with me, bit it's always like that. Now let me sleep already.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

It isn't that the duel becomes unsportsmanlike, it's that guns are the ultimate leveling device, an untrained peasant could kill an highly trained aristocrat. With guns skill plays a much smaller roll, and the duel becomes a crap shot. To a certain line of thinking it isn't fair that someone for who has spent years mastering the art of fencing, to be shot and killed by an untrained plebeian(loser class). So swords became the weapon of choice by people who could afford the training(the upper class) and then swords became associated with the upper class, and their balls, and clothing, and sophistication.

A peasant could also stab an aristocrat to death with a sword or knife. The manner of death is irrelevant. The notion that "swords=nobility" come from the fact that swords were expensive. Very expensive. Far beyond the means of you average low-income household (which is why weapons were considered family heirlooms. You see a lot of that in fiction. "Son inherits Dad's old sword; its a big deal".) Nobility, on the other hand, could afford them, and regardless of how good they actually were with them, a guy with a sword is going to have a pretty easy time taking on a guy without one. Since nobody could really say to the nobility "Hey, stop wearing your swords and picking fights in public!" without getting stuck, it just became one more way of them rubbing their money and excessive free time in the face of the lower class.

Of course, then guns showed up and gave those silly bourgeoisie what-for! That'll teach them to think that knowing how to use a weapon somehow makes you better than someone else!

 

[Zorak the Mantis]

I would argue that certain guns are elegant, just like certain melee weapons. For example a halberd may not look pretty, is very simply to use, and is hardly elegant in it's function. Same with a lot of guns. However, something like a rapier or a precision sporting rifle are very elegant not only in form, but in their function.

 

[Ledan]

Because you can train a militia in a week on how to use a gun (i remember this from history channel shows). Learning how to use a sword takes loads of training. Also, there is no duel culture with guns. You don't go meet up with other people and attempt to outwit them with your skills. There is no technique beyond point and shoot, not varying styles to counter. It lacks any point of finesse.
Finally, the ranged soldiers have never been respected. Only in england was the longbow respected. The gun falls into the same category as the crossbow and the peasant archer.

Does that answer your question?

 

[jameskillalot]

Any weapon a toddler can wield effectively - is not something that earns respect. It looks pretty and it is an amazing weapon of war, but it would only be elegant if wielded by an extremely talented individual.

 

[Axzarious]

Because they require no foreplay. With a swordfight, there is the exchanging of blows, the respect between adversaries; but with a gun, it's the simple pull of a trigger.

Guns are also extremely phallic and are an overused symbol of male power. They are also used as a form of intimidation and an expression of dominance or power when an individual in a given situation otherwise has none. It's a ridiculous method of overcomepensation and an extension of "male dominance", if you look at it from a feminist perspective.

Though i personally think guns are by their very nature exciting; though that may have more to do with their intimate, fragile relationship between life and death. A man can survive many scrapes from a sword, but one or two shots from a gun are often fatal.

I have never really seen how one can consider a gun or a sword could be considered phallic. Intimidation or dominance, sure? But phallic? The penis is neither bladed, nor does it shoot deadly pellets of lead (Or anything) at lethally high speeds.

To me, they are just tools, and look like tools. Sure, they are tools for ending life, but they seem to be about as efficient as they are shaped for what they were made for when they were made.

As for swords fights? Real ones rarely last very long. The first to make a mistake loses, and the first mistake is often made within the first 3 swings, and can be just as deadly.

 

[Dr. Feelgood]

It's too deadly and hyper-efficient at killing to be considered elegant. It's far more effective than a sword.

 

[Jezzascmezza]

Is there really such thing as an "elegant" weapon?
I don't know what's so elegant about any instrument designed to cause pain and/or death.