History of pistols - Designed as a DEFENSIVE weapon?

[Keebler750]

I would like someone more knowledgable than me to point me in the right direction for research material.

I need one or more substantial sources to back my belief that pistols were designed as defensive siderarms, and not OFFENSIVE weapons, so that I can address the "handguns are designed only to kill, and no one needs them" argument.

Any help or commentary would be appreciated.

 

[capp325]

I would like someone more knowledgable than me to point me in the right direction for research material.

I need one or more substantial sources to back my belief that pistols were designed as defensive siderarms, and not OFFENSIVE weapons, so that I can address the "handguns are designed only to kill, and no one needs them" argument.

Any help or commentary would be appreciated.

I'm afraid you can't win this argument. Pistols were originally designed as offensive one-handed weapons for the cavalry. Until the invention of the revolver, pistols were rarely carried for defensive purposes (that's what the sword was for). Early pistols were too bulky, too unreliable, too inaccurate, and offered only one shot, which is hardly practical for defensive situations.

 

[phatns2pid]

I have no articles for you, however whether they are designed in a defensive or offensive role, they were still designed only to kill, and no one really does need them (with the exception of military, police, etc.) personnel. I think the better tactic to take is, when someone argues that "it's just designed to kill, yadda yadda, ban them all", to refute it with the fact that studies show no effect of increasingly restrictive gun laws (up to, and including banning) on the number of firearms-related (or unrelated) violent crimes commited in various areas and thus their presence is not conducive to violent crime. Thus their original design intent does not matter, as they are simply a tool that may be used innocuously for purposes such as the hobby of target shooting without need of worrying about criminal issues for the most part.

 

[Stevo]

I have no articles for you, however whether they are designed in a defensive or offensive role, they were still designed only to kill, and no one really does need them (with the exception of military, police, etc.) personnel. I think the better tactic to take is, when someone argues that "it's just designed to kill, yadda yadda, ban them all", to refute it with the fact that studies show no effect of increasingly restrictive gun laws (up to, and including banning) on the number of firearms-related (or unrelated) violent crimes commited in various areas and thus their presence is not conducive to violent crime. Thus their original design intent does not matter, as they are simply a tool that may be used innocuously for purposes such as the hobby of target shooting.

The best purpose for a handgun today is personal defense.

The filler in your post is justification to mollify the sheep in this country who won't accept that people have the right to defend themselves with force, and the best tool to apply that force is a handgun.

 

[Keebler750]

OK...need sources, and I'm having a hard time finding stuff. As I recall, pistols were officer-issued for defense, but if I'm wrong, I just want the ref so I don't go off sounding stupid in a letter to the editor.

Since pistols are so often used to end a crime WITHOUT A SHOT FIRED, I wanted to dig into this topic.

 

[prproulx]

If the argument is, "Only the police should have them," then your argument is, "What do the police need them for?"
The only answer is, "Self defence or the defence of others."
That's why you need them as well.

 

[capp325]

If the argument is, "Only the police should have them," then your argument is, "What do the police need them for?"
The only answer is, "Self defence or the defence of others."
That's why you need them as well.

Exactly.

Whether guns were originally designed for defense or offense is at best an academic argument. They can clearly be used for both purposes. The employment of handguns for offensive purposes does not in any case invalidate their suitability for defensive uses. In other words, there is nothing wrong with allowing civilians to have access to the same types of weapons (and yes, I said weapons, because that's what guns are) that are used by the military.

 

[Keebler750]

I'm well aware of the facets of this argument. I'm just trying to position myself more solidly with evidence. It's easy to have an opinion.

I want to take the wind out of the 'only to kill' angle, and there are several ways to do it. I'm starting at the beginning for now......

 

[Stevo]

I'm well aware of the facets of this argument. I'm just trying to position myself more solidly with evidence. It's easy to have an opinion.

I want to take the wind out of the 'only to kill' angle, and there are several ways to do it. I'm starting at the beginning for now......

Yeah, but some folks DO need killin'. Why sugarcoat it?

 

[prproulx]

I'm well aware of the facets of this argument. I'm just trying to position myself more solidly with evidence. It's easy to have an opinion.

I want to take the wind out of the 'only to kill' angle, and there are several ways to do it. I'm starting at the beginning for now......

Then find a source for the legitimate use of lethal force by the police. Don't be lured into some semantic argument about what a tool was designed for.

Get a hold of the use of force guidelines used by Canadian Police services. It applies to all of us.

 

[Keebler750]

Use of force guideline does not equal intent of pistol design.

As I said, I'm looking to understand the ORIGINAL uses for pistols. I'm well aware of the 20th century developments in defensive protocol.

Humour me here, will ya?

 

[phatns2pid]

The best purpose for a handgun today is personal defense.

The filler in your post is justification to mollify the sheep in this country who won't accept that people have the right to defend themselves with force, and the best tool to apply that force is a handgun.

You may use whichever argument you want. If you want to go the violent, vigilantist route that anti-gun people will never see eye-to-eye with you on, then that's fine. Just realise that you're arguing on subjective premises. I choose to go the "it does no harm to anyone, therefore you have no recourse in terms of wanting to control my ownership of it" route, where they have to argue with actual facts instead of rhetoric (and the facts are on my side).

 

[prproulx]

You may use whichever argument you want. If you want to go the violent, vigilantist route that anti-gun people will never see eye-to-eye with you on, then that's fine. Just realise that you're arguing on subjective premises. I choose to go the "it does no harm to anyone, therefore you have no recourse in terms of wanting to control my ownership of it" route, where they have to argue with actual facts instead of rhetoric (and the facts are on my side).

At this point they are arguing that the mere fact that you own a handgun means that society is unsafe because someone MIGHT steal it and use it in a crime.
We must use the same argumment the police use to secure their need for a self defence tool.
A recent discussion I had with an anti resulted in the revelation that anti's don't want police to have guns either.
Can you imagine the loss of support if they were to make this public?

 

[phatns2pid]

At this point they are arguing that the mere fact that you own a handgun means that society is unsafe because someone MIGHT steal it and use it in a crime.

And my argument is that banning firearms will not affect the number of crimes committed, nor the number of crimes committed using firearms.

We must use the same argumment the police use to secure their need for a self defence tool.
A recent discussion I had with an anti resulted in the revelation that anti's don't want police to have guns either.
Can you imagine the loss of support if they were to make this public?

Like I said before, I prefer to argue in factual terms, because it gives the opposition much less leeway to come up with a counter-argument if you're arguing on the exact same ideological premises and only disagreeing on the facts behind it.

That probably would result in a huge loss of support, though, and I'd like it if people could make that known somehow (though I don't know how many of the antis actually support police lacking firearms).

 

[Stevo]

You may use whichever argument you want. If you want to go the violent, vigilantist route that anti-gun people will never see eye-to-eye with you on, then that's fine. Just realise that you're arguing on subjective premises. I choose to go the "it does no harm to anyone, therefore you have no recourse in terms of wanting to control my ownership of it" route, where they have to argue with actual facts instead of rhetoric (and the facts are on my side).

But in your argument, there really is no need for handguns. Having a "toy" means nothing.

Your rhetoric is purely left-wing. "Violent, vigilantist"? Gimme a break. What "facts" are on your side that can support the ownership of hobby equipment?

 

[Keebler750]

You may use whichever argument you want. If you want to go the violent, vigilantist route that anti-gun people will never see eye-to-eye with you on, then that's fine. Just realise that you're arguing on subjective premises. I choose to go the "it does no harm to anyone, therefore you have no recourse in terms of wanting to control my ownership of it" route, where they have to argue with actual facts instead of rhetoric (and the facts are on my side).

Well, the angle that I think we are all going for has nothing to do with vigilantism, but instead self defense. Target shooting is alot easier to ban than self-defense, don't you think?

Do you remember what Wendy Cukier said about target shooting and collecting? "Get a new hobby!"

So, since we've drawn the battlelines, I want to fill in some details around the uses of pistols since they were developed as a seperate device from long guns.

 

[Stevo]

Use of force guideline does not equal intent of pistol design.

As I said, I'm looking to understand the ORIGINAL uses for pistols. I'm well aware of the 20th century developments in defensive protocol.

Humour me here, will ya?

The original use for pistols was shooting people, plain and simple. They were not developed for hobby or sporting use.

 

[Keebler750]

The original use for pistols was shooting people, plain and simple. They were not developed for hobby or sporting use.

Geez! I know that, man!!! I'm trying to decipher between offensive and defensive weapon, and I've heard them referred to as a defensive sidearm, therefore I want to track some historical evidence to put into a letter.

Sigh.

 

[prproulx]

Geez! I know that, man!!! I'm trying to decipher between offensive and defensive weapon, and I've heard them referred to as a defensive sidearm, therefore I want to track some historical evidence to put into a letter.

Sigh.

I guess we are trying to say you are not likely to find a reference as to the history of handguns as offensive or defensive weapons.
But in the end, the argument is, "What do you need it for NOW?" What does society view NOW as a legitimate reason to have a handgun?"

Self defence.

 

[simar]

is a bow/crossbow a defensive weapon? is a sword/blade a defensive weapon? for that matter, are kitchen knives a defensive weapon?

to take it further, given specific circumstances, a lot of things could be considered defensive weapons... a few of my thoughts on easy targets. cars, baseball bats, rocks, scissors, pens, pencils, forks, spoons, wires/rope, plastic bags, irons, pots and pans, most things made of metal or other hard substances.

the list is never ending due to scope... maybe we should consider the nature of the argument against guns and compare it to some of the other defensive options... and see how folks would like them to become controlled / registered items.