Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Theodarzna]

Of course not, if it punches a hole in your argument it is not relevant.

How does it? Historically speaking, the gun essentially made regular peasants basically more useful than a, at that time, trained professional soldier. A metric fuck ton of dudes with rifles is better than a battalion of armored knights. Thus states started giving regular people rights.

The taking of firearms now, is, counter to the belief that it is the beginning of normal people losing their rights and power, but instead is just the formalization of what is already true. The common person has no power.

Your kvetching about gun manufacturers literally has shit all to do with that point. I know reading my posts isn't something people do on MMO-C, but c'mon man you can do better.

[Specialka]

How does it? Historically speaking, the gun essentially made regular peasants basically more useful than a, at that time, trained professional soldier. A metric fuck ton of dudes with rifles is better than a battalion of armored knights. Thus states started giving regular people rights.

The taking of firearms now, is, counter to the belief that it is the beginning of normal people losing their rights and power, but instead is just the formalization of what is already true. The common person has no power.

Your kvetching about gun manufacturers literally has shit all to do with that point. I know reading my posts isn't something people do on MMO-C, but c'mon man you can do better.

Still had no power before. Saying that "states" started to give people rights because they were armed is an over simplification of history.

States started to give right to people when they started to organize as union for instance.

[Theodarzna]

Still had no power before. Saying that "states" started to give people rights because they were armed is an over simplification of history.

States started to give right to people when they started to organize as union for instance.

I didn't say that, I said State's started giving people rights because people COULD be armed. It is the same reason why the Yoeman existed in medieval society. The weekend warrior of the Medieval World so to speak. In the class hierarchy they had a pretty good life, above peasants, below a landed Knight, and living with minimal obligations. Why? because the Yoeman could kill people fairly proficiently, even sometimes a Knight. Their ability to enact violence granted them their special rights. Where as a typical peasant is going to get wasted by a Knight who is literally a dude who does nothing but train to kill people in hand to hand melee combat. Melee combat performance is a tough game and not everyone can do it. But once you introduce a metal tube that can shoot hot led and down this steel plated murder machine, and that pretty much any random person can use, the entire class system breaks down. The basis of the class system before was literally "We need full time murder machines to spend all their time practicing and training to be murder machines." and once that wasn't the case, feudalism crumbled.

[Specialka]

I didn't say that, I said State's started giving people rights because people COULD be armed. It is the same reason why the Yoeman existed in medieval society. The weekend warrior of the Medieval World so to speak. In the class hierarchy they had a pretty good life, above peasants, below a landed Knight, and living with minimal obligations. Why? because the Yoeman could kill people fairly proficiently, even sometimes a Knight. Their ability to enact violence granted them their special rights. Where as a typical peasant is going to get wasted by a Knight who is literally a dude who does nothing but train to kill people in hand to hand melee combat. Melee combat performance is a tough game and not everyone can do it. But once you introduce a metal tube that can shoot hot led and down this steel plated murder machine, and that pretty much any random person can use, the entire class system breaks down. The basis of the class system before was literally "We need full time murder machines to spend all their time practicing and training to be murder machines." and once that wasn't the case, feudalism crumbled.

What do they teach in history class in the US ? Do you have anything to back up that claim ? A quick glance at the wikipedia tells you are wrong, dead wrong.

[Theodarzna]

What do they teach in history class in the US ? Do you have anything to back up that claim ? A quick glance at the wikipedia tells you are wrong, dead wrong.

Wikipedia? Nah. I am just giving my own take on that. Also turning to Wikipedia for history lessons is about as useful as a typical US History textbook.

In US History classes they pretty much credit John Locke, and "The Enlightenment" because America really goes in for Great Man Theory and likes to credit ideas and just moral progress or something because it fits the US' self definition.

I'm more materialistic in that respect. My thinking is simply, Hey, if the basis of a State is at its core the monopoly on violence, and the whole social hierarchy was based on needing to free up for endless practice and training a full time warrior caste; once anyone can be a soldier, the warrior caste support structure becomes useless.

The problem with a typical US History class is that they present feudalism as simply "Oh they were just unenlightened and ignorant!"; when in reality there was a real economic and military underpinning that was the foundation of the class structure of any feudal society. Being a full time melee combat murder machine is taxing, difficult, and exhausting. It also isn't something you can learn on the job.

[Specialka]

Wikipedia? Nah. I am just giving my own take on that. Also turning to Wikipedia for history lessons is about as useful as a typical US History textbook.

In US History classes they pretty much credit John Locke, and "The Enlightenment" because America really goes in for Great Man Theory and likes to credit ideas and just moral progress or something because it fits the US' self definition.

I'm more materialistic in that respect. My thinking is simply, Hey, if the basis of a State is at its core the monopoly on violence, and the whole social hierarchy was based on needing to free up for endless practice and training a full time warrior caste; once anyone can be a soldier, the warrior caste support structure becomes useless.

The problem with a typical US History class is that they present feudalism as simply "Oh they were just unenlightened and ignorant!"; when in reality there was a real economic and military underpinning that was the foundation of the class structure of any feudal society. Being a full time melee combat murder machine is taxing, difficult, and exhausting. It also isn't something you can learn on the job.

At least, they are, maybe, not as wrong as you are about that.

[Svifnymr]

Is this supposed to be a bad thing? Children have died due to toy guns. And perhaps in other countries toy guns can be a toy but for Americans... no...

"but mah toy guns" is that your next fucking rallying cry?

I can understand ultra-realistic toy guns that are made to look like real guns (though there's the orange tip law thing), but do nerf guns and super soakers really offend you on any level? Does it extend to kids making finger-guns too? Maybe a law like the hunter-orange vests, but for toy guns.

[Theodarzna]

At least, they are, maybe, not as wrong as you are about that.

How so? I mean all you've said is snark and a negative claim. Hell you haven't even spelled out what you disagree with? Just "Well this isn't what wikipedia said!" isn't really a strong case. I know on the internet making any sort of positive claim is generally a bad idea; but come on man, you can give a reason beyond "I don't like it" or "Wikipedia says otherwise!"

[Roxinius]

Yeah, so, either you lie to your kids about getting a gun from Santa and piss off your significant other, or you shatter your kids' worldview by telling them a mythical creature doesn't exist. Yeah, it is us that are the bad guys in this scenario.

at least you admit you are

[Specialka]

How so? I mean all you've said is snark and a negative claim. Hell you haven't even spelled out what you disagree with? Just "Well this isn't what wikipedia said!" isn't really a strong case. I know on the internet making any sort of positive claim is generally a bad idea; but come on man, you can give a reason beyond "I don't like it" or "Wikipedia says otherwise!"

I asked you to back up your claim. if you can't or don't, I won't bother.

I talked about Wiki because I said a quick glance on it. Obviously, Wikipedia is not the only source one should base off a history lesson.

Btw, what you describe with guns (the peasants now able to kill knights) already happened before with the crossbow, why did the feudalism did not crumble at that time then ?

[Theodarzna]

I asked you to back up your claim. if you can't or don't, I won't bother.

I talked about Wiki because I said a quick glance on it. Obviously, Wikipedia is not the only source one should base off a history lesson.

Btw, what you describe with guns (the peasants now able to kill knights) already happened before with the crossbow, why did the feudalism did not crumble at that time then ?

Back up? Like I explained my reasoning, are you asking me to provide you some academic paper?

Speaking of Crossbows, Second Council of the Lateran in 1139 was a ban on using missile troops against Christians. Specifically, Canon 29 states that:

We prohibit under anathema that murderous art of crossbowmen and archers, which is hateful to God, to be employed against Christians and Catholics from now on.

Pope Urban II in 1097 had similar condemnation of the Crossbow? Because of the growth of Yoeman and that upsetting the social order. Now granted, you still needed a lot of training to be a good bowman, or maintaining and using a crossbow took some skills. The social order was already disturbed by these weapons being in use, and while some States completely banned them, they didn't ban them for long. One reason being the recognition that they can kill "Christian Warriors" i.e knights. The full time professional soldier.

Firearms are a whole order of magnitude greater as a weapon compared to bows and crossbows. Mainly unlike a longbow which takes about a year of consistent training, Crossbow's while capable as a weapon didn't start having super long range until well after black powder came on the scene; and while similar to a longbow in power and strength, both are outclassed by black powder weapons.

[Specialka]

Back up? Like I explained my reasoning, are you asking me to provide you some academic paper?

Speaking of Crossbows, Second Council of the Lateran in 1139 was a ban on using missile troops against Christians. Specifically, Canon 29 states that:


Pope Urban II in 1097 had similar condemnation of the Crossbow? Because of the growth of Yoeman and that upsetting the social order. Now granted, you still needed a lot of training to be a good bowman, or maintaining and using a crossbow took some skills. The social order was already disturbed by these weapons being in use, and while some States completely banned them, they didn't ban them for long. One reason being the recognition that they can kill "Christian Warriors" i.e knights. The full time professional soldier.

Firearms are a whole order of magnitude greater as a weapon compared to bows and crossbows. Mainly unlike a longbow which takes about a year of consistent training, Crossbow's while capable as a weapon didn't start having super long range until well after black powder came on the scene; and while similar to a longbow in power and strength, both are outclassed by black powder weapons.

Crossbows is also cheaper.

The crossbows was forbidden to use against Christian so the Christian Lords would not fight each other, at least, not quite as often, because training Crossbowmen is fast, and training Knights is not.

So you have nothing to back up your claim apart your reasoning ? So our discussion about that stops here.

[Theodarzna]

Crossbows is also cheaper.

The crossbows was forbidden to use against Christian so the Christian Lords would not fight each other, at least, not quite as often, because training Crossbowmen is fast, and training Knights is not.

So you have nothing to back up your claim apart your reasoning ? So our discussion about that stops here.

So you agree with my point on these weapons?

Thanks, and yes, we can, because your entire position is "Uhhh Wikipedia doesn't say that, so NO" your appeal to credential-ism is useless.

[Specialka]

So you agree with my point on these weapons?

Thanks, and yes, we can, because your entire position is "Uhhh Wikipedia doesn't say that, so NO" your appeal to credential-ism is useless.

I agree that it is faster to learn to use those weapons, that is all, and they were seen at the time, crossbow and gun, as weapon of choice for coward.

For the rest, to me, it is the same to discuss with a platter, so it is pointless.

[Theodarzna]

I agree that it is faster to learn to use those weapons, that is all, and they were seen at the time, crossbow and gun, as weapon of choice for coward.

For the rest, to me, it is the same to discuss with a platter, so it is pointless.

Got it, well have fun with your wikipedia articles.

[Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang]

Paradygm shifts in warfare technologies/techniques are a well documented factor in the evolution of the balance of power in ancient societies :

- the transition from scarce bronze weapons to more abundant iron weapons increased accordingly the size of the elite, deconcentrating power in the process.
- classical era greek warfare further distributed power with the development of the hoplite, and even further in the case of Athens when the development of the navy made those citizens that were not rich enough to afford a panoply vital components of the Polis might as galley rowers.
- the massed infantry revolution of the late middle ages led to the downfall of the knight against the likes of english yeomen and swiss pikemen, heralding the rise of many speck of land, City State and peripheral powers.
- the Levée en Masse of the French Revolution and its massive consequences on Europe/World history were in no small part influenced by the progresses in rifles technology and manufacturing as well as the development of the bayonet.
- the culmination of that age of mass conscription was in the World Wars, with its armies of millions of variably hastily trained conscripts, its partisans and resistants, and its legacy of introducing a firearm that made any child a warrior aguably as lethal as any other on the ground (Stgw 44 -> AK 47).

While their have been oscillations between armies of peers vs armies of slaves, a recurring pattern is that while a paradygm shift will tend to deconcentrate power/warfare, the ensuing race to sophistication has shown to reconcentrate power/warfare.

[Theodarzna]

Paradygm shifts in warfare technologies/techniques are a well documented factor in the evolution of the balance of power in ancient societies :

- the transition from scarce bronze weapons to more abundant iron weapons increased accordingly the size of the elite, deconcentrating power in the process.
- classical era greek warfare further distributed power with the development of the hoplite, and even further in the case of Athens when the development of the navy made those citizens that were not rich enough to afford a panoply vital components of the Polis might as galley rowers.
- the massed infantry revolution of the late middle ages led to the downfall of the knight against the likes of english yeomen and swiss pikemen, heralding the rise of many speck of land, City State and peripheral powers.
- the Levée en Masse of the French Revolution and its massive consequences on Europe/World history were in no small part influenced by the progresses in rifles technology and manufacturing as well as the development of the bayonet.
- the culmination of that age of mass conscription was in the World Wars, with its armies of millions of variably hastily trained conscripts, its partisans and resistants, and its legacy of introducing a firearm that made any child a warrior aguably as lethal as any other on the ground (Stgw 44 -> AK 47).

While their have been oscillations between armies of peers vs armies of slaves, a recurring pattern is that while a paradygm shift will tend to deconcentrate power/warfare, the ensuing race to sophistication has shown to reconcentrate power/warfare.

As a slight tangent, I think one reason we see the uptick in genocide in the modern era is change from professional elite class warriors to these mass conscripted armies; no longer are you "At war with the King of France" you are now "At war with France" and really an entire population is not one gigantic constituted army. In the Middle Ages small scale ethnic cleansing did happen, though to my knowledge these were over religion; and in Antiquity among Empires, genocides were fairly common as Empire sought to control territory.

Off of that theory crafting. I think now, with the highly technical field of warfare, with soldiers needing lots of expensive gear, and with nuclear weapons and other mass destruction weapons, armies just don't need that many people. The United States largely loses wars due to disinterest in "total victory"; so really only smaller States need to field big armies as a deterrent to foreign invasion. Mainly this is why I argue that the NRA people have missed the boat, we already have been made subaltern. Taking away peoples guns is just a final act in that process of dis-empowerment.

[Mayhem]

How does it? Historically speaking, the gun essentially made regular peasants basically more useful than a, at that time, trained professional soldier. A metric fuck ton of dudes with rifles is better than a battalion of armored knights. Thus states started giving regular people rights.

uhu could you point to a specific time period where due to the masses having rifles states would give them rights? I mean you should be able to come up with some examples, considering guns are prevalent around the world.

The taking of firearms now, is, counter to the belief that it is the beginning of normal people losing their rights and power, but instead is just the formalization of what is already true. The common person has no power.

aha, how and when did that process start?

Your kvetching about gun manufacturers literally has shit all to do with that point. I know reading my posts isn't something people do on MMO-C, but c'mon man you can do better.

Right now, you don't really have a point, you have fiction.

[postman1782]

at least you admit you are

What does this even mean? Do you understand what sarcasm is, or are you being this dense on purpose?

[Roxinius]

What does this even mean? Do you understand what sarcasm is, or are you being this dense on purpose?

hey man its cool the first step to beating your hoplophobia is admitting to it