Why isn't a gun considered an elegant weapon?

[Dominic Burchnall]

It's quite likely to do with the more recent devlopement of the gun as an effective weapon. When they were first introduced, guns were cumbersome, noisy, smoky and the kill range was frankly shocking. The only way to reliably kill a target was to have a platoon fire en masse. Swords have had centuries more time to develop. Firearms as a whole are only just beginnning to enter into elegance which incorporates functionality, which was the base practise of firearm manufacture. Handguns in particular, such as the Browning, Baretta and Sig Sauer models, are a lot more elegant than their earlier counterparts, possibly because they're designed to sit more comfortably with the users' grip.

Swords can be employed to lethal effect by any amateur, simply operating under the action of using a large metal club. You are much less likely to survive a sword wound than you are a gunshot, as the heat of the passing projectile can cauterize the wound. Quite apart from that, a sword wound will invariably be larger, and can then be twisted or wrenched inside the body, causing further damage. True, guns are designed from the standpoint that they should be easy to use for the inexperienced, but to be used properly and consistently, they require as much training as a competent swordsman.

 

[Dominic Burchnall]

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

I would contest, have you seen what a sword can do to the human body? As much as anything, a bullet can only be aimed at a target, a sword, once inserted, can be twisted, wrenched, and cause far more spectacular wounds than a gun can. There was even a case of a master swordsman spearing his opponent through the eye, and then stirring the tip of the rapier so that the brain was cut to shreds inside the skull.

 

[TheRundownRabbit]

People don't see it as elegant because they are afraid of its raw power. Ignorant morons will continue to say "hurr guns require no skill hurr durr" because the only thing they know about guns is what they learned in videogames, when in truth, learning to fire it takes no skill, anyone can spray and pray.....but, it takes true elegance to use a gun properly and make full use of its potential.

A firearm is incredibly easy to use. So easy that one receives less than a month of dedicated training during their initial entry in any US military branch. Yes, it is a learned skill, but one that is incredibly easy to master when compared to something more complex like the use of a sword. In a few weeks, most people would easily be taught to use a rifle to hit a man sized target reliably at 150+ meters. In the same span of time, someone might just begin to grasp the most basic technical skills required to use a sword with any degree of effectiveness.

I have no idea where you get your "facts", as for me, my position comes from being friends with 1 retired Marine, 2 active-duty Marines, 1 active-duty Navy SEAL, and being in a family full of people who lead a military career, most involved them being in the line of fire. I was also in a JROTC program run by active duty Marines and if my Staff Sergeant heard you say this, boy oh boy, he'd make you go through PT so hard, you'd be shittin in your pants.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

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

I would contest, have you seen what a sword can do to the human body? As much as anything, a bullet can only be aimed at a target, a sword, once inserted, can be twisted, wrenched, and cause far more spectacular wounds than a gun can. There was even a case of a master swordsman spearing his opponent through the eye, and then stirring the tip of the rapier so that the brain was cut to shreds inside the skull.

Honestly, all of that (including the almost certainly apocryphal story about the rapier - bear in bind that a thrust from such a weapon has no problem penetrating bone as such an attack delivers nearly 2000 pounds of impulse force to a needle point), pales in comparison to the common wounds caused by all types of firearms. An M2HB does not put holes in people; it turns them to hamburger. A rifle round leaves exit wounds large enough to stick a fist in. The wound channels produced by even relatively weak firearms is enormous, easily the equal of anything a sword could manage all while offering the relative safety of accomplishing all of this at a range of greater than a few paces.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I have no idea where you get your "facts", as for me, my position comes from being friends with 1 retired Marine, 2 active-duty Marines, 1 active-duty Navy SEAL, and being in a family full of people who lead a military career, most involved them being in the line of fire.

I got them by being in the US Army where I personally was given 3 weeks (which is less than one month) of training with the M16A2. There was additional training later, which is after my initial entry training (which I noted). Navy Seals represent training received long after initial entry and even in the Marines (or Army Infantry) you are only given 3 - 4 weeks of Basic Rifle Marksmanship training during which you only fire a few hundred live rounds. Yes, you continue using your rifle longer than that in training, but the aim of such things is not teaching you how to shoot and is instead largely relegated to maneuver training.

I was also in a JROTC program run by active duty Marines and if my Staff Sergeant heard you say this, boy oh boy, he'd make you go through PT so hard, you'd be shittin in your pants.

He can bluster all he wants as it does not detract from what I am saying. More to the point, thanks to a long series of rules and regulations, even if he wanted to try to do such a thing as work me to the point that I lose bowel control, he is forbidden by law from doing so. Part of the joy of working with minors and having the federal government acting as the parent organization.

The point is simply this: while it takes work to employ a firearm effectively, the amount of work is incredibly minor when compared to using a sword, a spear, or any of a dozen other weapons. The use of a firearm is not a lifelong mastery sort of skill but rather the sort of thing anyone can be taught inside of a few weeks of training.

And, for the record, the vast majority of one's initial entry training into the military has little to do with learning martial skills. One will spend more time doing various physical training, standing in formation, learning basic first aid and survival skills and learning proper drill and ceremony than they will mastering the use of any particular weapon. Even under the new program in the army (where basic training was extended beyond the original 9 weeks), the new "Warrior Task Training" that is included in basic training is largely relegated response to various combat situations rather than weapons mastery of any sort.

 

[Dominic Burchnall]

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

I would contest, have you seen what a sword can do to the human body? As much as anything, a bullet can only be aimed at a target, a sword, once inserted, can be twisted, wrenched, and cause far more spectacular wounds than a gun can. There was even a case of a master swordsman spearing his opponent through the eye, and then stirring the tip of the rapier so that the brain was cut to shreds inside the skull.

Honestly, all of that (including the almost certainly apocryphal story about the rapier - bear in bind that a thrust from such a weapon has no problem penetrating bone as such an attack delivers nearly 2000 pounds of impulse force to a needle point), pales in comparison to the common wounds caused by all types of firearms. An M2HB does not put holes in people; it turns them to hamburger. A rifle round leaves exit wounds large enough to stick a fist in. The wound channels produced by even relatively weak firearms is enormous, easily the equal of anything a sword could manage all while offering the relative safety of accomplishing all of this at a range of greater than a few paces.

True a big enough bullet will put some fairly nasty holes in you, but sword wounds do not "pale in comparison" to firearm wounds. Swords such as greatswords and flambards, and the term IS flambard, not flamberge, can cleave through muscle and bone with appalling ease, and the Oriental two-handed weapons such as the dadao, could reach the solar plexus from the shoulder.While a heavy calibre bullet placed correctly could take a limb off, it takes much less skill to do so with a sword. For the record, could you tell me what you mean by a "weak" firearm, as weapons such as Walthers can have trouble penetrating thick clothing, even at short range.

 

[Acting like a FOOL]

You guys also need to Remember the ART GUNSLINGING!

http://youtu.be/kYc5NXyIaYg

 

[espressojet]

@ShotgunZombie Someone plays a lot of Civ

 

[ShotgunZombie]

@ShotgunZombie Someone plays a lot of Civ

The funny thing is I don't. In fact I've never played Civilization though I did ask a freind once if he would lend me Revolution, he said no...
Would you recommend it? That's a genuine question not sarcasm...

 

[Laser Priest]

They are loud, obnoxious and they just make a mess of the victim's insides.

I prefer to just incinerate anyone I don't feel like resurrecting.

 

[Vishnu Namboodiripad]

have you seen equilibrium? christian bales gun kata is damn elegant!

 

[Wadders]

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 think the op is asking about the use of said weapons not the look of it.
there are pretty rapiers and swords. too.

well I've addressed that as well...

 

[Nickolai77]

The thing is, unlike even other contemporary weapons (with respect to the sword), the sword was difficult to master. It is a weapon that can be used both offensively and defensively (though, depending upon the era and make of the weapon a transition between the two states was often difficult) and is based on the notion of individual combat. The true workhorses of ancient battles, the spear, was a terrible weapon in its own right that was easy enough to master. But the spear has a series of incredible weaknesses that are easily exploited that can only be countered by sufficient weight in manpower. Numbers and discipline were the key to effective use of the spear. The sword on the other hand could be used in a wide variety of circumstances. It offered tremendous advantage in truly close combat (i.e. inside of the attack distance of a pike) and thus swordsmen were often used to break such formations. The weapon's versatility meant that it was effective enough in a wide variety of situations to make it the backup weapon of choice for ages.

I wouldn't knock the spear as a useless weapon. A cohort of well disciplined and trained spear men would have been invaluable in any ancient or medieval battle. They are good defensive weapons as they keep the enemy at a manageable distance, and can really ruin a cavalry man's day. That plus they have a lot of thrusting power, probably more than a sword. That said, a sword's a better weapon overall due to it's versatility.

I can think of a few significant exceptions to the sword being based around individual combat. The Romans and the Germanic and Norse peoples such as the Saxons, Franks and Vikings used swords inside shield walls, a battle tactic where your very much reliant on the skill and bravery of the man next to you. The individual native British swordsman from the warrior caste of Celtic society was probably a lot better than an individual Roman legionary, but the Roman legionaries won because they fought as a tightly drilled and disciplined team.

But beyond that i agree with most of what you say, i'm only nit-picking.


***

Well, according to Google the definition of "elegance" is that which is "pleasingly graceful and stylish in appearance or manner." I wouldn't call guns graceful, they're bloody loud and fucking dangerous. Stylish in appearance and manner though? I think guns are most defiantly stylish and can be every bit aesthetically pleasing as a fine sword.

It's true that it takes much less training to become good at using a firearm than it is a sword, although it's worth pointing out that shooting a sniper rifle accurately does take a lot of practise, like archery. Still, i think the amount of training it takes to fight and survive in a modern warzone is comparable to being a swordsman in a medieval warzone.

With a sword, you mainly need to be good at using it. With guns, it's easier to use but in addition you need the training to fight effectively in a war-zone- how to take out a machine gun nest, how to take out a tank with explosives, how to call down an airstrike, how to flank and manuver, when to attack and when not to attack etc.

After six weeks of training, most people can proficiently wield a sword or know how to fight in a modern warzone. However, put then against someone whom has had years of training and experience, and it's not hard to guess whom will win. Experience and training to still count when it comes to modern combat with guns, it's not just about being good at using your weapon lie with swords, it's about being good at everything else.

 

[Dash-X]

I believe that guns are inherently inelegant because of their status as "equalizers". We consider the flight of birds elegant because we can't do it. We consider dresses elegant because few of us have the curves to pull off a well-designed dress. Granted, few people undergo training for firearms, but the problem is that many more than the trained few possess firearms. The mass-produced gun essentially gave the common idiot a voice, and has dramatically reduced the requirement of good sense in many denizens of society today.

Additionally, I think they're fairly ugly things. Crudely constructed dicks made of metal.

The funny thing is that I'm actually pro-guns. I fully support the rights of others to own and use firearms. However, I refuse to own one myself because I know I have a horrible temper and do not know what lengths I'd go to once angered (If I go to prison, I'd want it to be over something meaningful -- not because I shot some fool for looking at me the wrong way.)

 

[burningdragoon]

Here's a though I had after a bit. It may have been brought up before for I know but I don't feel like reading all of the stuff since last I posted.

Imagine, if you will, it's the future! Soldiers fight with guns that instantly vaporize their opponents. Some people start this argument that goes like this:

Guy: Man, these vaporizer guns, they lack the elegance of the explosive firearms of the past.

Guy 2: What do you mean?

Guy 1: The old guns, were so much more human. When you defeated someone, sure you killed them, but at least they still existed. These new guns it's like wiping the person out of history.

Guy 2: Are you kidding!? Vaporizers remove all the brutality; all the gruesome destruction. They are quick, clean and simple. If that's not elegant, I don't know what is

Guy 1 & 2: rabble rabble rabble. etc, etc.

That's basically what's been going on here. Also, please ignore the overall absurdity of this post and just focus on the point.

 

[CarlMin]

Probably because it is so young compared to the sword. And likewise, learning to use a gun accurately and correctly take comparatively less time than mastering the katana per say. I'd say a military grunt learns how to properly use and clean a firearm in less than six months, but that's only a guess on my part. To use a sword properly, takes more time and years to "master". And even than, that is not true for a master of the sword is never truly as such as long as other ways to use it exist. How many variations of technique and learning are there when learning to use a sword versus a handgun. Probably a lot, another guess on my part though. Though yes it takes skill and a steady hand to properly use a gun, I am not denying that.

It takes a whole lot of freaking skill to use a gun. A sword is not a complex device. Anyone could use it, much like anyone can use a knife, whereas most people probably wouldn't even figure out how to switch the safety on a USP, let alone how to fire accurately.

If anything, "guns" are more elegant than the glorified sword. (In my opinion)

I said it takes skill to use a gun to the best that it is capable of, no need to quote me to restate that. I also responded to another view in rebuttal that a rock is old and could take years to master. There is also the view society has on such weapons as a whole while the sword came into it's own. Only the wealthy could afford them, and have access to proper teachers to learn to use them. In a stark contrast it can be said that any thug nowadays could get a hold of a 9mm pistol off the street if they knew the right people. The sword is a status weapon most of all, more than likely why many still equate to "elegance". I'm really digging this forum so far, lots of good points all around.

Yeah, I still don't quite see what distinguishes the sword from guns when it comes to the skill required. Only because the sword is so terribly useless and inapt in virtually any combat situation today doesn't mean that actually being good with the weapon is an admirable skill.


Are swords harder to get a hold on the weapons? Not really. I would say it's pretty much the opposite. And this Hollywood-enforced myth that any idiot who picks up a gun can kill anyone with ease is just as stupid as it sounds. Knowing how to fire a weapon, "mastering it" and becoming good at it is if anything harder than handling a sword. There are so many different guns and cartridges, and so many different techniques, that the contrast between a good and a bad shooter is even greater than that between a good and a bad swordsman.

 

[zero14777]

Swords are considered to be more elegant because they are older. BAM, Problem solved.

You could say because a gun is so much easier to use, but I wouldn't buy that. Sure pulling the trigger on a gun isn't rocket science. But neither is swinging a sword, weight is one thing but that has to do with the individuals strength not skill for the most part, but if you equal shooting a gun to swinging a sword that part wasn't that hard. Both take skill to use properly its just skill with a gun involves taking cover and aiming and stuff. Also if you equal the foot movements of the sword fighter then what about the movements of the gunner.

PS: I always looked at guns as being more elegant cause swords involve strength training and exercises while guns involve skillful handling and precision

 

[A Shadows Age]

I'm sorry but if you consider any weapon elegant, then your either full of shit and/or a idiot. They may be beautiful, but any weapon in the right hands is most definitely not elegant. Efficient, asymmetrical, quick and brutal but not elegant... Unless you consider rending a persons life from whatever is left of their body elegant, in which case I would suggest a dull piece of rebar properly inserted, gravity and several days of free time to watch the show.

 

[ShotgunZombie]

I'm sorry but if you consider any weapon elegant, then your either full of shit and/or a idiot. They may be beautiful, but any weapon in the right hands is most definitely not elegant. Efficient, asymmetrical, quick and brutal but not elegant... Unless you consider rending a persons life from whatever is left of their body elegant, in which case I would suggest a dull piece of rebar properly inserted, gravity and several days of free time to watch the show.

A little harsh don't you think? Plus that little example you put at the end seems, sadistic. Yes, weapons are meant to take the life of another there's no denying that but you seem to be under the impression that anyone who has ever held a weapon will use it exclusively for murder... That is not the case and I would hate to live in a world where it is.

 

[Retal19]

I always saw Elegance as being the aesthetics of something. I see it as delicacy, beauty, all that jazz, so I'd say that they way I see it, any weapon could be Elegant if you wish it to be. But that's just me. I see everyone else going on about Skill and Preparation, but that's not what Elegance is to me.