Truth about Gun "Control"

[Crow Hunter]

Prior to the invention of The Gun, the "Leaders" of the world were those who were physically strongest and who were the best the "combat arts" available at the time. Those who could also influence enough like minded individuals to work with them, became kings.

Once these families/groups got into power, they did everything they could to restrict access to weapons and training in the "noble" pursui
t of war. This kept them in control for generations.

All this came crashing down with the invention of firearms. Now anyone, with just a few minutes of training, could stop a knight or samurai with years of training and expensive equipment. To top it off, these weapons were cheap and easy enough to produce that even a measly "peasant" could afford them.

History has since been a continuous attempt by the "Powers That Be" to regain this Feudal power structure on both a micro and a macro scale.

The availability of weapons to "commoners" has always been a gauge of freedom.

On which side of History do you stand?

"Political power grows from the barrel of a gun." - Mao Zedong

 

[sigcurious]

Erm... there's a whole lot skipped history in your premises, which cause them to be flawed.

Leaders were not the physically strongest or best in combat arts, in many cultures(see ancient egypt for example). Firearms were a slow progression to take over traditional melee weapons, not a sudden guns trump all.

By the reasoning of availability of weapons to commoners, being a gauge of freedom, people were often "free". The open encouragement of English people to train with longbows comes to mind...yet I would hardly consider people in England at the time to have freedom.

 

[Tom Servo]

You're working with assumed knowledge here.

Once these families/groups got into power, they did everything they could to restrict access to weapons and training in the "noble" pursui
t of war. This kept them in control for generations.

Could you give examples? For example, prior to the Enlightenment, the art of making decent weapons was expensive. If the nobles had an advantage in armament, it was an economic one, as they were better able to afford quality weapons. We'd have a hard time proving there was an actual agenda on the part of 13th century French nobility to disarm the peasantry.

History has since been a continuous attempt by the "Powers That Be" to regain this Feudal power structure on both a micro and a macro scale.

I would argue that the flowering of democracy in the last 200 years disproves that. While many European democracies have strict controls on arms, it's not a means to regain Feudal power. It's simply misguided social science, often with the consent and support of those being disarmed.

The availability of weapons to "commoners" has always been a gauge of freedom.

Has it? Consider again northern Europe. Some of those countries can be considered to have freedoms we don't (we won't be debating the merits of those), despite the fact that their people are largely disarmed.

While we know better than to allow the government to maintain a monopoly on force (and we have Constitutional safeguards), I'd have a hard time proving that statement with real-world evidence.

We can point to regimes in which disarmament has led to terrible atrocities, but I can't definitively prove that guns in the hands of civilians would have stopped the Armenian genocide or the Holocaust. Someone arguing against me could point out any number of other factors that allowed those things to happen.

 

[Crow Hunter]

Erm... there's a whole lot skipped history in your premises, which cause them to be flawed.It isn't supposed to be a "History of the World" detailed analysis. Just observations.

Leaders were not the physically strongest or best in combat arts, in many cultures(see ancient egypt for example). Firearms were a slow progression to take over traditional melee weapons, not a sudden guns trump all.The ancient Egyptians didn't start out worshipping the Pharohs as gods. Like most of the other cultures of the world, they were military leaders first and as they became more successful, they attracted more people under their banner until they became kings and eventually "god kings". They didn't just wander up out of the desert and be declared gods, nor did their people "elect" them. No it wasn't an instant replacement, but, not coincidentally, as firearms became more prevalent and easier to acquire, more freedoms were "granted".

By the reasoning of availability of weapons to commoners, being a gauge of freedom, people were often "free". The open encouragement of English people to train with longbows comes to mind...yet I would hardly consider people in England at the time to have freedom.The average single longbow man wasn't a threat to a mounted knight. They had to fight from prepared positions in large numbers to be effective on the battlefield against heavy calvary and infantry. You will note, however, that only Yeoman were allowed bows. Lowly peasants were not allowed to train.

You're working with assumed knowledge here.

We all are. No one was actually there and the winners write the history books.

Could you give examples? For example, prior to the Enlightenment, the art of making decent weapons was expensive. If the nobles had an advantage in armament, it was an economic one, as they were better able to afford quality weapons. We'd have a hard time proving there was an actual agenda on the part of 13th century French nobility to disarm the peasantry.

I agree that weapons were expensive, but how did the nobles get into power to start with? At some point in time, if you go back far enough, everyone was at the same level. People got elevated into power and kept it through force of arms. As technology advanced, from clubs to spears to swords, they did become more expensive.

I can't prove that in 13th century France, but I can prove it in post Civil War era Southern States and African Americans. I don't figure that the motivations between those in power in the 19th century were really any different that those in the 13th century. (If anything, they were even more overt as they didn't have quite the "rule of law" that was common in the US)

Japan in the 19th century is another example I can think of. The Samurai brutally suppressed ownership and use of weapons and even firearms availability to the point of closing their borders to outside access. I hate to use movies as an example, but The Last Samurai is a dramatization of the end of this era. The firearm fundamentally changed warfare in Japan and completely upset the balance of power. Now it was not followed by a flowering of democracy but it also wasn't followed by common ownership of weapons either.

I would argue that the flowering of democracy in the last 200 years disproves that. While many European democracies have strict controls on arms, it's not a means to regain Feudal power. It's simply misguided social science, often with the consent and support of those being disarmed.

I would argue that the availability of arms allowed the flowering of democracy. Why did it not occur earlier in other periods? Other than a single Greek city state, democracy never really existed anywhere prior to the widespread availability of firearms which tipped the balance from the nobility to the commoners and this freedom seemed to be more advanced in countries that have a higher level of weapons ownership.

Has it? Consider again northern Europe. Some of those countries can be considered to have freedoms we don't (we won't be debating the merits of those), despite the fact that their people are largely disarmed.

If you look at just England in the last century you will see a steady decrease in actual freedoms and as well as a direct reduction in availability of arms. I don't know that much about Northern Europe though maybe my theory starts falling apart there. I do know that property rights and other freedoms that we are used to under English Common Law are not as strong over there than in the US. Most of those countries also did not have revolutions did they? Again, my Northern European history isn't that strong other than Vikings. I got the impression that their leaders just started granting "freedoms" to keep the people from having a revolution after many other countries began having them.

While we know better than to allow the government to maintain a monopoly on force (and we have Constitutional safeguards), I'd have a hard time proving that statement with real-world evidence.

We can point to regimes in which disarmament has led to terrible atrocities, but I can't definitively prove that guns in the hands of civilians would have stopped the Armenian genocide or the Holocaust. Someone arguing against me could point out any number of other factors that allowed those things to happen.

I agree with you in principle as it is impossible to prove a negative. But could it be that the presence of arms prevented these atrocities from happening in the first place since those atrocities did happen where arms were not available? I don't know a way to prove something like that. Kind of like the use of concealed weapons, just because they aren't fired doesn't mean their presence didn't prevent a crime.

Interesting discussion though.

Please point me in the right direction if I am wrong.

 

[Tom Servo]

Please point me in the right direction if I am wrong.

You're headed in the right direction. We must be wary, however, of being too vague, as that can be a trap in a debate.

 

[sigcurious]

Skipped history, as in omitting details of history that don't support your premises. Your premises are very broad and don't address the fact that for large portions of recorded history, what you state is not true globally. Or an over simplification of much more complex factors than, at some point in the rulers linage someone in his family was the biggest and baddest so he was the leader. I picked the ancient Egyptians as an example because their relatively well recorded history is full of nepotism and puppet rulers. People who did not rule on the merits of their physical prowess.

I picked the longbow training because its a highly known example. However, attempting to differentiate yeomen from peasants is like differentiating an apple from fruit. Yeomen were peasants...and those peasants that were not freemen and entitled to some form of land rights(what would typically be called yeomen), consisted of the rest of common infantry of the time. Along with the bow, the peasants of certain standing were required to have other arms, such as pole weapons. Remember at the time, there were no standing armies, the peasants were relied upon to be the army in a time of need.

You seem to be confusing the correlation with the rise of firearms and availability of weapons and "democracies"(which are actually republics or other forms of government with democratic bits and pieces) with causation. Unless you can bring out some detailed facts, to support that it would be pretty hard to show a causal relationship.

 

[ScottRiqui]

I picked the ancient Egyptians as an example because their relatively well recorded history is full of nepotism and puppet rulers. People who did not rule on the merits of their physical prowess.

Good point - there have been rulers who have attained/maintained power not via physical strength, but rather through religion. If those in power can convince the governed that they're gods (or at least, the gods' direct emissaries), that can go a long way in preventing uprisings.

 

[Tom Servo]

Good point - there have been rulers who have attained/maintained power not via physical strength, but rather through religion.

Or through guile, money, or family connections. See Rome.

 

[ScottRiqui]

Or through guile, money, or family connections. See Rome.

Those methods (and other forms of political intrigue) work fine for obtaining power, but to hold off revolution, I still think you need some mechanism to keep the governed in their place - either the threat of outright slaughter, or of eternal damnation.

 

[MLeake]

Guile and money certainly count. Add the Borgias and DeMedicis to the mix...

But... at least in Europe, just look at the titles of the high nobility. Counts and Earls were war leaders. "Duke" came from the Latin "Dux Bellorix," or basically leader of war leaders.

A very high percentage of noble families were founded by warriors. Generations later, they may have been maintained by money, but for the most part, the initial family wealth was derived from prowess at arms.

And while it may be a generalization, it is not inaccurate to say that in vast swaths of the globe, there have been traditions of military weapons being denied to commoners who were not serving as soldiers or retainers.

With regard to English longbowmen, they were actually given a separate status from the regular serfs - they fell under the category of "yeomen." Basically, they were kind of like small, independent landowners, but they were expected to serve the king as archers in time of war.

 

[Buzzcook]

There was democracy in Iceland and Switzerland before the firearm.

There are examples of peasant armies destroying fully armed knights.

The largest revolution of the flintlock era was the French revolution. The peasants were almost completely disarmed.

The end of the 20th century saw the largest revolutions in the history of mankind. The citizens of the Warsaw pact were virtually unarmed.

The gun has made a lot of changes possible, but the printing press did more.

 

[MLeake]

Democracy in Iceland? Pre-firearms? Under Danes? The same Danes who had a tradition of the ruling lord giving out rings of gold to his warriors for their feats of bravery in battle? (And the ruling lord typically having his position from being either a fighter of renown, or a sailing captain of great skill...)

And the Swiss Confederation had to break free of Austrian rule, well after firearms were in existence.

Those would be the same Swiss who have compulsory military service for all, and a rifle in every home.

 

[BlueTrain]

I think some of those things are correct, mostly, but I think other things may be just as important together with the fact that under some circumstances, one cannot be entirely free (if in fact that is desireable) if you live in community.

One thing not mentioned, that I noticed, was the horse. The warring class in Europe and Japan were associated with horses. In fact, the words for knight, rider (knightrider?) and gentleman are very similiar in German, and French and the same in Spanish, more or less.

Another thing is land. The basis of a peerage, which only exists with the presence of a monarch, is land ownership. After the conquest in 1066, the existing Anglo-Saxon peerage, such as it was, was replaced by an imported French peerage. That's why many upper class British families have French or French sounding names. In fact, one might even be tempted that the upper class and the lower class (or classes) do not even speak the same language. At least they don't sound the same to me.

Nevertheless, on both sides at Hastings you would have found the lower classes (the villians). The upper classes are supported by the lower classes. But note that all of this was before firearms, which appeared on the scene in time to be used not much more than two hundred years later, something like 700 years ago. It is entirely possible that the influence of firearms upon history may be exaggerated since everyone has them, meaning both sides during wars. A good read on that early period in history is "The Black Arrow." No guns, a girl that looks like a boy, family intrigue, a bungled rescue in the middle of the night, a battle in a war, changing sides during a war, and an interesting man named John Amend-all. It is fiction, however.

Another thing absent until relatively recently, say from my grandfathers' younger days, was nationalism. Guns played a part but merely a supporting role.

One of the basic problems with "keeping the governed in their place" was who were you going to get to do it? A conscript army?

 

[Crow Hunter]

I don't mean to say that weapons are the only thing that influences politics throughout the world. There are lots of other factors, but if you stand way back and look at it on a macro scale, increasing availablility of weapons, of easier and easier to use types, seems to correlate with freedom of the general population. No where that I am aware of had a blossoming of personal freedom and rights with a complete disarmament of the people and a monopoly of force in the hands of those in power.

True democracies were few and far between historically (particularly the modern definition), and interestingly enough, generally also corresponded to ownership of arms (and horses to Bluetrains point). Ancient Athens was a democracy and their army was composed of hoplites who provided their own weapons. The early Republic of Rome the Equestrian class provided the calvary and the average foot soldier was a private citizen that carried his own weapons and armor. But note, that even in this time period, slaves and chattel were not allowed to own weapons of war or train with them.

Generally, those who owned weapons, had more freedom that those that didn't. This freedom might have been affected by cultural norms or other influences (such as religion) but generally those who had no weapons, had the weakest political position and those that had the strongest political positions, also had the most armaments and those who were in power worked to make sure that those in the weaker positions stayed there.

Yes there are many instances of peasant armies overwhelming better armed and equipped nobility. But, had they been equally equipped and trained, far fewer numbers would have been required to overwhelm those in power and most likely the abuses of the peasantry that instigated the rebellion would not have been as flagrant and widespread if the peasantry could respond in kind without needing to assemble in overwhelming numbers.

I didn't want this to be taken as an analysis of historical facts. I wanted this to be something that would make people think about the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment and what it truly stands for and against. It isn't just about hunting or even home defense.

I firmly believe that given the opportunity leaders in power (all parties, in all countries, in all time periods) would very readily migrate back to a feudal power system in which we work for them and they "protect us" while they and their heirs live off the fruits of our labor. We are getting dangerously close to that now with our "political class" and the proclivity for families like the Kennedys and the Bushes and others to get into power generation after generation to the point of it being "expected". Given enough time all societies will revert to this form of government unless people are willing and able to stand up to prevent it.

Gun Control isn't about the guns or safety. It is about Control.

 

[MLeake]

We can substitute swords for guns, in earlier periods. In many places, it was unlawful (pain of amputation of the hand, in Constantinople; pain of death in Japan, for examples) for commoners to carry a sword. The same concept applied.

With regard to horses and land, how did those families in the peerage obtain the horses and land in the first place? Typically, land was awarded by lords for valor in combat, or for other services rendered. However, the other types of services rendered would generally have required wealth, which originally was most likely obtained through an ancestor's skill at arms...

The majority of prominent families in medieval Europe who had money but not land, and arguably not skill at arms, were not noblemen, but Jews. This was because they were not allowed to own land; I'm not sure if Jews were prohibited from carrying arms in the Catholic nations back then (and note that prior to the Reformation, ALL the nations of what we consider Europe were Catholic), but wouldn't be surprised to find that was so. Due to the laws of the time, Jews who were successful would have been so due to skill in investment and/or trade.

Note, however, that success and wealth alone did not guarantee safety for Jews, not in 1492, and not in 1939. True power will always involve the ability to use force.

(Note to mods: this isn't about religion or modern government, just some historical context.)

 

[Double Naught Spy]

You're headed in the right direction. We must be wary, however, of being too vague, as that can be a trap in a debate.

Right. Making up 'facts' to support your pet concerns really undermines your credibility when it comes to garnering support. It is not good entitle something as being the truth and then opening with a statement that you obviously know to not be a fact and then backtracking by saying that nobody was there and the history is written by the winners. If YOU don't have the information and can't even stand up to your own scrutiny, then you can't claim it as truth.

Remember, we hate it when the antis put forth the 'truth' with made up facts. If we don't hold ourselves to the same standard we want to hold them to, then we are no better off with our 'truths' made to support our concerns.

We are supposed to be the good guys.

On which side of History do you stand?

False dichotomies are also flaws in logical arguments and do not actually support your points.

 

[Crow Hunter]

Right. Making up 'facts' to support your pet concerns really undermines your credibility when it comes to garnering support. It is not good entitle something as being the truth and then opening with a statement that you obviously know to not be a fact and then backtracking by saying that nobody was there and the history is written by the winners. If YOU don't have the information and can't even stand up to your own scrutiny, then you can't claim it as truth.

Remember, we hate it when the antis put forth the 'truth' with made up facts. If we don't hold ourselves to the same standard we want to hold them to, then we are no better off with our 'truths' made to support our concerns.

We are supposed to be the good guys.


False dichotomies are also flaws in logical arguments and do not actually support your points.

Where have I "made up facts"?

History is "made up".

It is written by the winners, or in the case of America, often "revised" to reflect the cultural mores of the time. Unless you can directly observe something, you have to rely on the person documenting the event and you have to realize that everyone sees through the lens of their personal bias. Do you believe that a 10th century peasant would document things the same way as a cultural elite scribe working for a king?

I know that the views of my parents about the "good ole days" during the '40's and '50s are significantly different than those of the written accounts of the region where I live. No electricity or running water, out houses and only having meat on Sundays, being one bad harvest away from starvation living as sharecroppers moving from land owner to land owner is dramatically different than the experience of the historical "bounty" of the post WWII years of the Baby Boom generation as portrayed in the history books and general media.

So you are saying that the truth about Gun Control (or weapon control) has nothing to do with maintaining control and that the availability of weapons had nothing to do with the advances of freedom throughout the world?

How do you explain the prevalance of democracies in the last 200 years? Which also corresponds with a greater availability of firearms to the general populace. If it is just because of technological advancements, why are there still regions of the world that have little to no freedom an correspondingly little if any firearms ownership?

Why, in the colonial period, were local indigenous police forces intentionally armed with weapons that were inferior to those of the standing armies of the colonial powers, often 2 to 3 generations behind?

I freely admit that there are many other factors involved in the establishment of free societies, especially cultural factors. The freedom we enjoy today could ONLY have come from England because of the Magna Carta, English Common Law and a cultural drive for respect for the individual that isn't prevalent in say traditional Asian cultures or Indian Caste system.

I agreee, it is impossible to prove a causal relationship because that would require an experiment that couldn't realistically be managed. Identical societies in which one was armed and the other was not tracked for several generations to see the results. However, the difference between England and the US is close.

I believe that my premise is sound. What do you disagree with?

 

[MLeake]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought one of the first steps taken in the French Revolution was the storming of the Bastille, and the seizure of firearms by the revolutionaries.

 

[BlueTrain]

I will try to keep this non-political. While many of your points, Mr. Hunter, are valid, I don't follow the others so well.

For instance, it is true that history is written by the winners. More significantly, however, it is usually written by the generals, not by the privates. But even the loser's generals sometimes get their point of view out sometimes.

Policeman's weapons being behind the army (and not just in local forces)? Well, maybe just because they're policemen and not soldiers. They don't do the same thing and in any event, police forces don't go back all that far in history.

I suspect you are try to make a connection between private ownership of firearms and personal freedom. I'm not so sure there is such a connection. When there have been revolutions, they do not succeed because of the participation of citizens taking to the field with their own weapons. Nearly always part of the army goes over to the other side (the people's side). It doesn't follow that the results are what were expected but you have to take your chances. Revolutions seem to be won with the citizens forming themselves into proper armies in order to take on the evil forces of the week. That's the way it happened during the American Revolution, the Civl War, the Russian Revolution, the French Revolution and the revolution in Romania (which I mention because my boss has a Romanian connection). Mind you, it isn't always easy to figure out who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. I guess it depends on your point of view.

Just having a lot of guns around doesn't seem to easily translate into either democracy or more freedom, unless you take anarchy to mean either of those.

 

[MLeake]

But BT, how would the citizens have formed themselves into effective revolutionary armies if they had had no access to weapons?

On an individual level, weapons may not change history. But if there are no weaopns at the individual level, it's hard to have weapons at the aggregate level.