History of pistols - Designed as a DEFENSIVE weapon?

simar said:
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.
Click to expand...

Don't worry the UK is way ahead of you. They want to ban kitchen knives and then what?
 
Not having much luck, huh Keebler.

I'm afraid I don't have the answer that you're looking for either, but I'd have to agree that I think your premise for your argument is flawed, IMHO. You lose the moral high-ground when you try to argue that "guns aren't bad". Guns are bad. And that's the whole point.

We need to realize that we don't live in a sugar coated liberal fantasy world where if we all just talk nice to each other, the bad guys will leave us alone. Handguns are made for killing, just ask Lynard Skynard. But we can't throw them to bottom of the sea.

The real world can get harsh, and there are people out there that our loved ones need to be protected against. Thank God they are more rare than not. This is a cold, hard reality and I pray that none of us ever find ourselves in a position where we have to choose whether our family's safety is worth the life of another human being. No mater how messed up he might be, life is still sacred.
We practice punching paper so we can put a shot where it counts. We can tell ourselves that it's for fun or for a hobby, and for some that's all it's become. (That's not how handguns and target practice started out though) For some of us, it's sobering. It's to make sure that if (God forbid) the need ever arises, we have the skill to make that shot.
If you are being argued with by an anti that handguns are for killing, you agree with them. Where are they going to go from there when you just agreed with their biggest argument?

The NFA had something on their site about arguing and the moral high-ground, it was really interesting and really opened my eyes to the issue.

Hope this helps you out in preparing your letter, sorry it's not what you were looking for.
-kelly
 
Heinlein argued (was it in Glory Road?) that a sword was a defensive weapon, in that it could be used to stop another sword. Unlike a firearm, which could not stop a bullet, only the shooter, which makes it an offensive weapon.
 
I'm at work so I dont have access to my books but you might want to look into the laws in Britain regarding the obligation to own firearms to protect one self and your neighbours. That would be a defensive use because they would only be used when you or another person was threatened.
 
the flaw in the argument that handguns, as possessed by civilians, should be allowed for self defense is that there is no regulation on the qualification of individuals to operate their firearms in a defensive manner. what i mean, is that for this to be a legitimate argument there needs to be a system in place whereby owners of restricted firearms are required to show a suitable proficiency in defensive tactics and accuracy. basically, everyone who wants to own a handgun needs to be trained like police officers, and made to prove their qualifications on an annual basis, in order to avoid needless casualties in the event of the use of a firearm for self defense.
 
Stevo said:
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?
Click to expand...

It hinges on restriction of freedom. A soccer ball is just a toy but I'll bet a load of people would be pissed if they were banned for no ostensible reason. The same goes for firearms. The facts are that firearms do not increase violent crime.

And yes, using a firearm for self-defense is a violent act. And it would be perceived by antis as vigiliantist to be so... proactive in your own self-defense (no, I'm not defending their perspective, just stating it).
 
Handguns stop crime all the time without firing a shot. That is a fact. That makes it a defensive weapon (in that instance).

The Criminal Code gives ample structure to the framework of self-defense up to and including lethal force when you feel your life is in danger. That makes a handgun a defensive weapon (in that instance).

Precedents in OUR courts exist in which a defender was justified in using a handgun for self-defense.

The Firearms Act allows for carrry permits for self-defense, although they are not issued very often. That ALSO clarifies the defensive use of handguns (in that instance).

Our Police carry sidearms for the defense of self or others - further clarification of defensive use.

Some people use them as offensive weapons. THAT is also a fact.

Presently Mayor Miller is saying handguns are for killing, and no one should own them.

I say, handguns are to STOP killings, and some are misusing them.

You guys are going around in circles.

Why were officers issued pistols in the 19th century? What is the history of pistol use? I'm looking for the original purpose of handguns.

Much of the REST of the puzzle is already in place.
 
Why were officers issued pistols in the 19th century? What is the history of pistol use? I'm looking for the original purpose of handguns.

Much of the REST of the puzzle is already in place.
Click to expand...

Purpose would depend on who was using it and what you mean by "original". The very first hand fired firearms were military, therefore meant to be weapons. Offensive or defensive would be situational.

Any handgun carried by anyone can be offensively or defensively employed. You're not going to find something that will state "the first handgun was.......".
 
Stevo said:
Yeah, but some folks DO need killin'. Why sugarcoat it?;)
Click to expand...

Killing is a perfectly legitimate civilian activity. I kill food every chance I get. I kill pests and vermin if necessary. And if killing people is unavoidable and legally justifiable to defend me and mine, that's perfectly legitimate too. So owning tools for killing is perfectly normal and justifiable, and what kind of la la land are people living in when they get bent out of shape over that?
 
What kind of la la land? It's called Canada.

Where the last 40 years has taught the masses that it's better to be a "morally superior" victim, than to be standing over the body of your attacker, unharmed.
 
Don't be like that ,you know guns are evil,I say a good machettie across the back tendion of the leg would put you down!

But a two Iron with great focus would would crush the head of a machettee weilder,then the Mainstream Golf people would be in question!

Bob
 
Keebler750 said:
"handguns are designed only to kill, and no one needs them" argument.
Click to expand...
There are two points here, the first one ..."handguns are designed only to kill", is basically true, (the manufacturers could not survive selling only to target shooters).

The second point, "and no one needs them" is false.
Anyone faced with having to defend themself, could make good use of a handgun.

What if that knock on the door at four AM by the SS lieutenant, in the Jewish Getto had been answered by a well placed 9mm to the brain,
would there have been a Holocaust? Would there ever even have been a Second World War?

Similarly a well placed bullet to the brain could stop a car jacker.

Also the home invader, before he duct tapes you, and rapes your wife, could be shown, "the error of his ways".

I think we should fight for an American style 2nd Ammendment, and emphasize that guns are primarily for self-defense against Government Tyranny.

Can you visualize a Miller as Prime Minister and the Police with Gestapo powers?

Freedom for the individual is a very rare thing in human history, the natural order of society is a Saddam Hussein style Dictatorship. We were lucky to be born under the influence of the American 2nd Ammendment. I fear our grandchildren will be slaves as society returns to it's natural state. The Lieberals will not fight for freedom, it's too much like work.
 
Last edited:
Keebler750 said:
Handguns stop crime all the time without firing a shot. That is a fact. That makes it a defensive weapon (in that instance).

The Criminal Code gives ample structure to the framework of self-defense up to and including lethal force when you feel your life is in danger. That makes a handgun a defensive weapon (in that instance).

Precedents in OUR courts exist in which a defender was justified in using a handgun for self-defense.

The Firearms Act allows for carrry permits for self-defense, although they are not issued very often. That ALSO clarifies the defensive use of handguns (in that instance).

Our Police carry sidearms for the defense of self or others - further clarification of defensive use.

Some people use them as offensive weapons. THAT is also a fact.

Presently Mayor Miller is saying handguns are for killing, and no one should own them.

I say, handguns are to STOP killings, and some are misusing them.

You guys are going around in circles.

Why were officers issued pistols in the 19th century? What is the history of pistol use? I'm looking for the original purpose of handguns.

Much of the REST of the puzzle is already in place.
Click to expand...

If you're looking to go back far enough to the origins of the pistol you are going to be looking at 14th and 15th century European history. The pistol never developed independently, the cannon had been around a long time, and was refined to the various arquebuses, early muskets and early pistols. The reason these firearms were developed, including the pistol was simple. Europe was divided into dozens of regions constantly at war and now that there was technology that could beat the mounted knight for a fraction of the cost of maintaining ones own mounted knights....off they went with the firearm.

The first pistols and other firearms were used as offensive weapons in war because it was easy and cheap to arm a bunch of illiterate serfs with them and actually have them be able to kill the cream of the crop of your neightbors mounted forces. The knights got off their horses and the development of firarms based armies began. The pistol wasn't a defensive weapon for a long time, as they were in the early days, the property of whichever duke or king was arming his serfs. In fact, they were so inaccurate in the beginning they weren't really feasible to use individually anyway, which is why the early style of firearms warfare developed with massed "walls" of men firing volleys together at the enemy. Even long after the firarm was in use and infantry armies were growing again, the primary weapon was still a core of pikemen of some sort. The pistol was just a refined version of these firarms and as someone mentioned, worked perfectly for mobile cavalry. However, still, the cavalry primary weapon was still the sword. The pistol used up close and personal, very close. I guess you could argue that they would be for self defense in that case, however the cavalry was probably already involved in a war to begin with.

If you were looking for some historical root of pistols being created as defensive weapons, there probably isn't any. All historical roots of firearms were as weapons for cheap, easy to train offfensive armies. Those armies were not standing armies either in the early days, it was simply too expensive to maintain any type of force unless you wanted to use it to attack.

As for why officers were armed in the 19th century, once revolvers were invented, it was only good practice to arm the police who were charged with maintaining law and order with them. The reason for those police being armed is the same as it is now, the police are tasked with entering and intervening in any potentially violent situation and unlike the public, dont' really have the option to escape and avoid.
 
Keebler750 said:
As I said, I'm looking to understand the ORIGINAL uses for pistols. ...
Humour me here, will ya? ;)
Click to expand...
Pistols were originally designed for the express purpose of killing other human beings. They are classified as "small arms". Their main advantage is their light weight and therefore rapid deployment capability. There are better "offensive" weapons, ie long rifles, so the pistol is primarly a defensive weapon, "used to fight your way back to your rifle", as they say.
 
"The reason for those police being armed is the same as it is now, the police are tasked with entering and intervening in any potentially violent situation and unlike the public, dont' really have the option to escape and avoid."

And the public ALWAYS has that option, so they don't need a defensive tool.:rolleyes:

It has become clear you and capester have jumped into this debate with one purpose and one purpose only.
I would really like to have you identify yourselves. Suddenly TWO pro-police self defence, anti civilian self defence people plunk themselves down and claim to be legitimate and priviledged shooters.
There is NO doubt in my mind you are here on a mission.
Show yourselves.
 
Slyder73 said:
If you're looking to go back far enough to the origins of the pistol you are going to be looking at 14th and 15th century European history. The pistol never developed independently, the cannon had been around a long time, and was refined to the various arquebuses, early muskets and early pistols. The reason these firearms were developed, including the pistol was simple. Europe was divided into dozens of regions constantly at war and now that there was technology that could beat the mounted knight for a fraction of the cost of maintaining ones own mounted knights....off they went with the firearm.

The first pistols and other firearms were used as offensive weapons in war because it was easy and cheap to arm a bunch of illiterate serfs with them and actually have them be able to kill the cream of the crop of your neightbors mounted forces. The knights got off their horses and the development of firarms based armies began. The pistol wasn't a defensive weapon for a long time, as they were in the early days, the property of whichever duke or king was arming his serfs. In fact, they were so inaccurate in the beginning they weren't really feasible to use individually anyway, which is why the early style of firearms warfare developed with massed "walls" of men firing volleys together at the enemy. Even long after the firarm was in use and infantry armies were growing again, the primary weapon was still a core of pikemen of some sort. The pistol was just a refined version of these firarms and as someone mentioned, worked perfectly for mobile cavalry. However, still, the cavalry primary weapon was still the sword. The pistol used up close and personal, very close. I guess you could argue that they would be for self defense in that case, however the cavalry was probably already involved in a war to begin with.

If you were looking for some historical root of pistols being created as defensive weapons, there probably isn't any. All historical roots of firearms were as weapons for cheap, easy to train offfensive armies. Those armies were not standing armies either in the early days, it was simply too expensive to maintain any type of force unless you wanted to use it to attack.

As for why officers were armed in the 19th century, once revolvers were invented, it was only good practice to arm the police who were charged with maintaining law and order with them. The reason for those police being armed is the same as it is now, the police are tasked with entering and intervening in any potentially violent situation and unlike the public, dont' really have the option to escape and avoid.
Click to expand...


THAT is the type of thing I was looking for. Hey, if I'm wrong, no biggy, but I wanted to understand some history.

Thank you!

Where can I find this kind of historical reference material, in your opinion?

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom