Why isn't a gun considered an elegant weapon?

[ChadSexington]

God damn I wish I'd gotten to this thread early enough to make a lightsabre joke.

 

[Biosophilogical]

Think of it like this, a properly used bow is like a masterfully wielded sword, wheras a gun is more like someone grabbing a sword and repeatedly bashing someone over the head with it in a brutal, primitive and unskilled manner.

.....and you lost me. Honestly, that analogy was pretty bad. In ways bows were actually used in warfare, there was VERY little skill involved by the people actually using them. There are some exceptions, but even those required no more training than a gun. Now, if you're talking only about which is more aesthetically, than that's purely subjective, but I can see where your coming from.

I was just relating it to swordsmanship. Like a bow and a gun fit on a scale of 'projectile elegance' similar to the way a person uses a sword has a sort of elegance (or lack thereof). So with a gun, you point and click (with exceptions), wheras with a bow, you draw the arrow, set it on the bowstring, pull it back to your ear (or chest, or however you are holding it), look down the length of the arrow and release. So it is a trade of your force (pulling back the arrow) for the arrow's, the bow is like an extension of the person, taking their power and using it for death, whereas a gun has its own power, its own function, and it just wants your permission to kill things.

So I guess what I'm trying to say (and thank you for giving me the opportunity to work through my own thoughts) is that the elegance of a weapon, while having some foundation on aesthetics, is also equally dependent on the harmony/synchronicity of the weapon and the one wielding it. So it is the deadly beauty of the act and the actor.

OT: Though you could consider guns elegant on a mechanical level (having an 'elegant design'), but I assume that the OP is talking about the elegance of weapons as weapons, rather than as objects.

 

[lizards]

because some people for some reason are more concerned with the way killing people looks as opposed to the efficiency of the weapon

 

[CrazyMedic]

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

http://jhs.sagepub.com/content/36/1/70/F1.small.gif

That is from a sword, they're both capable of doing nasty things to the body that is their purpose they are weapons. Not to mention that that is small wound.

notice how it is neat if he had gotten shot his hand would be jiblets the point isn't that swords can't screw up a body the idea is sword wound = a clean cut with a bit of blood spatter gun wound = picking up bits of some guys hand for a hour

 

[Rems]

Also it's because of when the concept origianted- with the invention of the gun itself. Guns originally were very loud, messy to reload and use, cumbersome things. The need for blackpowder made them messy and dangerous and black powder to the common man was akin to magic (this is back when guns were first invented remember).

A sword by comparison could be beutifully crafted and was used in a chivalrous fight man agaisnt man where you tested your mettle against an opponent steel to steel, eye to eye. Guns suddenly changed the rules much like crossbows did earlier. Suddenly any joe with a gun could kill a man who had trained with his weapon for years. Additionally the sword had alwasy been a weapon of the nobility so you have concepts of class and worth tied into the use of firearms and swrods.

 

[Devious Boomer]

I've fenced and shot enough to say that both swordplay and shooting require finesse. If we equate finesse to elegance as a perspective:
Fencing requires tight split-second coordination between footwork and swordplay as well as quick decision making. Against a defensive opponent you must find a good balance between making ground and defending. Against an aggressive opponent you either use his aggression against him or parry quickly and riposte immediately. It's been said that fencing is 'moving chess'. So yes, fencing is elegant. Except when it's sabre, even at high levels.
Long range shooting (especially without telescopic sights) requires good natural position or stance, correct breathing, good knowledge of your projectile's trajectory in relation to your firearm and other affecting conditions as well as a gentle trigger squeeze. Shooting at a hand-sized target moving at an excess of 100 kilometres an hour 40 metres away requires good reflexes, confidence and aim.
Some find how each part of the firearm and how they all work together elegant too. Firearms combat requires just as much finesse as well. Whilst the precision of sharpshooting is well known, close quarters combat requires a different strategy compared to fencing. Positioning and approaching corners, doorways and stairs. Shooting precisely under stress (something many cannot do). Coordination with others in clearing a building. Shooting requires a different skill set and while it's easy to pick up a pistol and drop a guy running at you from 15 metres away, it has skills that take years to master, just as with a sword. So yes, firearms have their own sort of elegance to them too.

 

[brunothepig]

Because gun duels just aren't as sexy as that stuff. I'm not going to be one of those saying "guns don't require training", but even if you know what you're doing, it just isn't as impressive or awesome. After all, with a lot of weapons it almost is akin to dancing. The movements during a sword duel (or any other weapon) is much more elegant.

 

[Devious Boomer]

Because you can give guns to any old bozos and you have an army. Hand out swords to a bunch of people, and you have a big mob of idiots waiting to hurt themselves.

Maybe but you have an army that can't shoot for shit. If guns are so easy to use, why does any army worth its salt spend months training soldiers in their correct use for Christsake?

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

Any moron can kill someone with a sword as well really if they run in hacking and slashing, but it takes skill to use a gun and kill someone from more than a couple hundred yards.

Just sayin'

OT: Guns can be elegant, very much so. See below for example:

I dont understand how swords are any more civilized than guns or any other weapon. They are all tools designed with but one purpose, to kill and/ or injure people. Nothing particularly civilised about that.

Beretta Silver Pigeon? Fuck yeah, awesome shotgun. I shoot with that. Pretty as a pewter piece, that one.

 

[Treblaine]

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

That's like saying Chuck Norris is a transsexual, I can't tell if it is a ridiculously unconvincing insult or if you are just trying to be as nonsensical as possible.

This "ladies department" is the only part that actually comes face to face with the enemy.

And we ALL know the reputation that those men In The Navy [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InBXu-iY7cw] have.

In contrast the reputation of the US Marine Corps is legendary, earning the title "Devil Dogs" from the Germans and instant respect at the first proven link. They make up the United States' Honor Guard and consistently punch way above their weight.

 

[kommunizt kat]

I seriously dont see why people cant see the elegance in using a bolt action, the whole concept of "one shot one kill", bolt action or not, is reminiscent of the samurai's "one slash one kill". Guns are beautiful no matter how you look at them, from the way they kill to the way they're made. The chome lining of the bolt, the rifling of the barrel. Even how the bolt moves and resets the hammer is intrinsically beautiful. I dont get why people can't see that.

 

[Lotet]

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?

You can pimp out your gun, but that doesn't change the fact that any idiot can pick it up and blast a master swordsman, who had trained to perfect his art for decades, to death in seconds.

In other words, you can pull an Indiana Jones on them.

Elegance isn't how cool it looks while it's in the case, but rather how cool it looks in the hands of a trained professional.

At least that's how I see it.

would it still be elegant if a Master Swordman threw the sword into Dr Jones' chest on sight?

also, it could stem from the introduction of Firearms, I mean, an Archer would cause more damage than a Rifleman, reload speed being the main factor but any nation that had the economy and resources to make thousands of rifles would do so. simply put, 1000 Professional Archers would beat 1000 Professional Riflemen but 1000 novice Archers would lose to 1000 Novice Riflemen. keep in mind that early rifles had poor precision.

basically, this resulted in armies of lesser trained troops causing more damage than they ever could have with any other weapon, that sounds pretty inelegant to me.

though I do think a gunfight can use alot of finess, just not when you have 2 people standing 30 metres away in open terrain, blasting each other. no gunfights turn out that way (except duels)

 

[Adrian Neyland]

No weapons can be "elegant". How can the brutal taking of a life, or infliction of injury be considered elegant.

 

[angry_flashlight]

Guns are not subtle, but then again, neither is an axe to the head.

One of ^these puppies.

Speaking of which, why do people overlook the axe as a melee weapon requiring great skill? The cutting area is much smaller than any edged sword requiring both greater precision and greater technique to make sure your blade doesn't get lodged in the enemy after you strike them or at the very least you know how to dislodge the damn thing before someone knocks you one. I'm not saying that axes aren't easy to use (I mean they are a common tool after all), but people really shouldn't gloss over them entirely. I mean just because it isn't a slicing weapon doesn't mean it doesn't require skill to master.

I feel guns are met with the same attitude as the axe. They're use is looked down upon in favour of the 'more elegant' slicing weapons such as swords.

 

[Esotera]

I did not state that a sword is an elegant weapon. In fact, I don't believe a single elegant weapon exists.

I believe a bo staff fits the description actually.
True skill is needed to do serious damage, a real battle of the wits, and no major gore is necessary. It can be a simple practice battle, a duel of honor, or a defense.

I'd agree with that, from what I've read on wikipedia. Also thinking about this, I believe the bokken of jujitsu may also fit; having being hit by one several times, my understanding is that it doesn't do that much damage.

Also, to everyone who quoted me then said, "Have you seen what -insert some weapon here- can do to a human body?", please stop doing it, because it's not a real argument. Whether guns are elegant is NOT related to the damage some other weapon can do.

The vast majority of weapons are not elegant because they have the potential to cause serious damage to the victim, in an uncontrolled, unpredictable way. Anything that does this when non-lethal weapons exist, is in my opinion inelegant.

EDIT:

No weapons can be "elegant". How can the brutal taking of a life, or infliction of injury be considered elegant.

This sums up my point pretty well.

 

[Thatkidnooneknows]

Forgive me if someone has already brought this up, but I'm not going to read all of those posts. The main thing keeping guns from elegance is this; a gun is a controlled explosion sending a specific piece of shrapnel in a specific direction. These weapons kill more efficiently than anything man has created before them, but they are not elegant. A sword, however beneficial it is toward combat, is still an extension of the swordsman's own physical strength. With a gun the elegance stops with the pull of that trigger, when the shooter activates the explosion that does his work for him. The gun must be respected, and it always will be. But it will never be elegant.

 

[Saippua]

I consider some guns to be elegant.

 

[LeafofStone]

I truly believe Terry Pratchett stated it the best. And that is that swords, truncheons, and knives are all weapons in that weapons are supposed to be brandished as a warning and not used (see the dwarvs and their "cultural weapons" (giant axe)), but can be used to harm if the situation calls for it. Gun's only use is for killing, they exist to kill and only kill.

 

[VladG]

If you think decals and engravings = finesse... there's really nothing to be said on the subject.

 

[God's Clown]

Literally anyone can pick up a gun that is loaded, point it at something and pull the trigger. A gun takes considerably less skill and training to be decent with them then most other weapons. The only thing I can currently think that that takes less skill is missles that have sophisticated guidance systems. Sure the Systems take a shit ton of training and skill to make, but once that is done it's as simple as putting in coordinates.

Plus a gun is loud, and nothing loud is aloud to be elegant.

 

[pvaglueman123]

It all depends on the gun. A Blunderbuss or Shotgun is just so messy, as a broadsword can be. But a handgun can be just as elegant as a Rapier or Sabre