ASD/ AS and firearms...DO THEY MIX??

Post Reply New Topic

The serfs and peons always did a good job with pitchforks and rakes when they were perturbed with the current administration. Swords usually were restricted, yes, but as you said, that was due to status over effectiveness; a spear is a more effective weapon, and anyone can make one of those with simple tools. As far as I'm aware, restrictions on bows have never been in place, even though they're very effective weapons (they were the most effective until firearms). Perhaps restrictions on bows have never made sense insofar how easy they are to make; kinda like the lack of restrictions on tools that start fires.

Interestingly, murders with bows back in the day were relatively few in comparison to daggers, even though bows were required to be owned. Just a tidbit of information there. Probably due to bows being impractical to carry around, barring purpose assassinations/murders.

Switzerland seems to fair well with tonnes of people owning a genuine assault rifle. Strange how that works. Obviously, it's not due to the "guns" that make murders.

I'm not even sure how to reply to this because I'm shocked that you would use the word "sensible" in this sentence. In both pre and post firearm era one thing that has been consistent throughout human history is that the people with weapons oppress the people without weapons. Yes certain classes of people in Japan were allowed to carry swords because swords gave them power over a person armed with a rake. The sensible governments you speak of all exploited the masses because they took away their power to do anything about their situation. Would you have liked to be a serf in Japan where a Samurai could ride through your village and behead you because you didn't bow low enough? Here's a more recent example for you- Do you think slaves would have been picking cotton if they were allowed to own weapons?

+1 zillion to what Rascal77s wrote

OK this probably shows how sheltered I am but what is +1? I've noticed it before but never put much thought into it.

I approve of what you wrote.

I put in the "sensible" government because there were many chaotic states at that time, as there always are, and I don't know what their policies were. I remember vaguely that you could even sit in the Polish-Lithunian parliement armed, but I'm not sure of that -- in any case, Poland-Lithuania was chaotic for many other reasons, arms restrictions or not. I was not trying to say that any government without restrictions would not be sensible, even though that is what I believe.

Actually, I didn't have Japan in mind at all. I was thinking first and foremost about Venice, because it is the state about which I am most knowleadgeable, and where nobles and commoners could only carry weapons in the city with authorisation of the state. There were also restrictions, at least, in the late Roman Empire (probably earlier too), in most Western medieval monarchies, and about the rest, I am not knowledgeable. Yes, they were related to power relations and status (at least in the case of swords), but it didn't "allow" the powerful to be arbitrarily cruel -- swords were costly anyway, so the poor peasants would not have been able to get them no matter what. It was a symbol of their power, not its origin; just like the Roman fasces were a symbol of the authority Roman officials, of their right to use force, though the fasces were not physically used themselves.

Modern handguns are not really similar, anyway. Apart from the fact that they do not have the same symbolism and that they are much more lethal and slightly easier to misuse than bladed weapons, they cannot be pretexted to be of much use as protection against government, since while at the time of bows and swords, or even during the best years of infantry warfare, personnal weapons, even made for hunting, were not at serious disadvantage over military ordinance, today, war is done by supersonic airplanes with BVR capabilities, by infantry moving in APCs, firing weapons with fully automatic capability and protected by somewhat effective body armour (at least against handguns, at a decent range), by main battle tanks, self-propelled artillery, helicopters and missile launchers. Good luck in your rebellion.

As for slaves, yes, they would have been picking cotton anyway, since they would not have been able to procure weapons, not least because they would not have been able to buy them. In any case, in the case of revolts, the legality or illegality of gun ownership is irrelevant. Japanese peasants revolted, didn't they?

@ Dillogic : Bows are actually not that easy to use or make, but they were necessary to many people's survival, so there were many of them. England actually forced its people to train with longbows, with Azincourt to show for it.

Also, yes, the Swiss can (or must? not sure) keep their rifles after military service, but a) they have been given military training with them, and must train from time to time also (can someone confirm that last bit?) b) they are one of the most orderly societies I have seen (been there two months), unlike the United States, or Canada, for that matter* c) I am quite sure they deactivate the automatic mode on the rifle after military service, and they keep relatively little ammo d) handguns are more dangerous than gigantic rifles e) I remember seeing somewhere that in Switzerland, more gun-related death happen with non-military guns than with service rifles f) the Swiss could be said to see this as a form of freedom (well, those who accept mandatory service), but of freedom from the outside, as they have a strong tradition of indepedance which the militia is there to back g) I remember reading somewhere that they also have strict gun laws about handguns and other firearms.

* I forgot my wallet in a restaurant, with about 200 Francs. A few hours later, it was still there -- it had not moved. I also forgot my guitar in a train. I got it back. The Swiss are amazing.

Bows are easy to make and use.

All you need is an axe, and you can make a perfectly acceptable flatbow that can kill anything the world over. Bowstring can be natural product rather than bought. Learning to shoot such at 25 meters is a piece of cake (generally the effective range of a pistol); it's harder the further you move out due to velocity loss (arrow drop). Granted, a pistol has a higher rate of fire and can lead to more kills in a quicker time, but again, mass shootings aren't a common occurrence and they're a statistical outlier in regards to murder. A bow has some advantages if murder is on your mind, but some disadvantages too. Both could be used to kill a person effectively, and both have, do, and will do until humans no longer exist. The same with sticks, stones, hands, and anything else violent people can think of. The key point here is violent people.

As for Switzerland, more murders are committed with weapons other than firearms the last I read, but for firearms it's a mix of both legally and illegally obtained. IIRC, males who go through conscription keep an assault rifle and a box of sealed ammunition in their homes; they aren't allowed to touch the sealed box of ammunition, but they're allowed to use said rifle for training and recreation with their own ammunition purchased.

I'm going to bold this next bit, which is the penultimate point:

Here in Oz, the incidence of murders didn't drop when they implemented firearm licensing (think car license); the incidence of firearm murders did drop, but the incidence of murders via other means rose. So, in effect, it's the perfect example of how the object used isn't the factor.

So, clubbed or shot by a criminal, which one is better? I'd choose neither, with the chance of fighting back and not making it easy for the criminal (with whatever is at hand to use as a weapon, be it bow, stick, knife, shotgun, laser, or fists).

Guns are for people without the skill or cunning to use a melee weapon. I want to see the light go out of the eyes of my victim.

Not every wood is suitable, at least not for a bow of some quality. Shooting accurately with a bow is more difficult than with a handgun, at least for people without training. Bows are almost impossible to hide.


What about accidents? Besides, criminality can be affected by many other factors. But I see the point.

My main concern is not necessarily about cold-blood murder. Of course people who positively want to kill other people always can. The point is not to make too easy. For example, take a passionate and irrational homicide: a kitchen knife can also do the job, but it takes longer and requires a fight -- luckily enough for the passion to wear enough.

Also, about defence against robbers, I don't see how killing a robber (in legitimate defence or whatever) is a better global result than letting him go with whatever he wanted. If just pointing the gun is enough, why menacing him with a kitchen knife isn't? or grabbing a heavy object?

I don't know the statistics for accidents, sorry, but I would bet that the global safety course has reduced the number of incidents here in Oz. I know the news services play every one they happen to hear; I've heard three accidents involving firearms in the past several years due to negligence whilst hunting. I'm actually for global safety courses for firearm ownership, just with anything that can be potentially harmful to others via negligence.

Yeah. I think though, which many stats have also shown, that murders are always going to happen to the same amount within the same demographic no matter what weapons the people have access to. One just has to look at murders per capita across all countries and see what their gun laws are like.

As for self-defense, in the US and Oz (certain parts of the US anyway), one needs to be in immediate danger for his or her life and with no avenue to escape, and the force must be proportionate to the unprovoked attack for it to be ruled legal self-defense. It's really not gung ho at all when you read your state's criminal code (notwithstanding, I know some places in the US are somewhat more gung ho than they should be in regards to intrusions into one's home). The laws usually don't state anything about weapon used, other than "proportionate", which my teacher told me this (Criminal Justice): you wouldn't shoot a small female coming at you with a spoon when you're in your house (replace shoot with hit over the head with a bat and you're a fit 200+ pound male). It's always better to lose some material objects than to take a life (you can't come back from that), of course.

As a former Iaido and Kenjutsu student, and also a former competitor in IDPA (international defensive pistol association), I can tell you accurately that putting lead on target is far harder than swinging a sword around.

If you want to talk about Rome it was sacked for the very same thing I'm trying to explain to you. They disarmed the Visigoths, proceeded to exploit the s**t out of them, Visigoths got tired of trading their children for scraps of dog meat to keep their other children alive, Alaric revolts against the ones who are oppressing his people, Rome is sacked. Disarm ---------- Exploit, see the connection? See what happens when the peasants get weapons?

That is beside the point. Obviously, the government has us outgunned. I am making a correction to the statement regarding what the framers of the constitution intended.



It's a big game of "what ifs," and often times the bad guy is after more than just your TV. That is why I included rape and murder as examples. What if someone was threatening your partner or your family? Would you want to be sitting there with your thumb up your ass while they (and then you) were getting brutally beaten, or worse? Nobody can predict accurately how a potential situation might play out, but it is foolish and dangerous not to be prepared. Criminals do unthinkable things these days.

I keep guns around because I want the CHANCE to defend myself and those I care about, should I have to. Yeah, I might get shot first or caught off guard. But I might also prevent innocent lives from being ruined.

Ya OK kid, you've given your 2 cents, you can go back to playing your warrior in WoW now.

Then how can it be said that it protects free citizens? As I understand it, many people said it was, basically, to enable citizens to create militias if the government were to become tyrannic. What I was saying was that it is a strange opinion. That part of the Constitution is dated and obselete.


Errrrr... No. The Wisigoths sacked Rome because the Romans exploited them, not because they were disarmed. Disarmed but unexploited Wisigoths would have not done anything. The truth is, the Late Roman Empire exploited everyone, so much that everyone revolted.

Last edited by enrico_dandolo on 09 May 2012, 4:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. Armed people aren't exploited and taking away a peoples' ability to resist is a pre-requisite to exploiting them.