4 ms·

> It would decrease the number of people in a given population who could become effective soldiers Another interpretation is that it would make violence the m

by retrac 4y ago

> It would decrease the number of people in a given population who could become effective soldiers Another interpretation is that it would make violence the monopoly of physically robust young men, again. There are many stories of brave peasants resisting predation by roving gangs of bandits -- banditry is the norm throughout history as far as I can tell and not the exception -- but in reality peasants who resisted usually just all got slaughtered. They faced absolutely no chance against strong young men who had trained with weapons their whole lives. See any of the medieval peasant uprisings. Put down efficiently and brutally, every time. With firearms, other factors like organizational skill becomes more dominant in winning such a fight, rather than pure physical strength.

AtlasBarfed 4y ago
You're regurgitating the pro-gun fantasy of a bunch of pea shooter firearms resisting "the gubberment". If there are firearms, the government has bigger firearms. Artillery, explosives, tanks/cavalry, air power. At least medieval peasantry required raising, transporting an army, and sometimes losing on the battlefield. Modern militaries would just dispatch a cruise missile or worse, 100% success. Modern peasantry doesn't get slaughtered by modern armies in the same manner because modern armies and technology need modern society and values to sustain a large enough civilization to produce those products of war. Modern restraint on slaughter enables guerilla warfare to be effective, not modern technology or some fundamental weakness of modern militaries.
- retrac 4y ago
  You've got me right backwards. My point was that the firearm made the state's absolute monopoly on violence (which you note) far more feasible, by substantially negating physical strength as a factor in deciding who has the monopoly on violence. That's probably a good thing.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

by retrac 4y ago

AtlasBarfed 4y ago

You're regurgitating the pro-gun fantasy of a bunch of pea shooter firearms resisting "the gubberment". If there are firearms, the government has bigger firearms. Artillery, explosives, tanks/cavalry, air power. At least medieval peasantry required raising, transporting an army, and sometimes losing on the battlefield. Modern militaries would just dispatch a cruise missile or worse, 100% success. Modern peasantry doesn't get slaughtered by modern armies in the same manner because modern armies and technology need modern society and values to sustain a large enough civilization to produce those products of war. Modern restraint on slaughter enables guerilla warfare to be effective, not modern technology or some fundamental weakness of modern militaries.

retrac 4y ago
You've got me right backwards. My point was that the firearm made the state's absolute monopoly on violence (which you note) far more feasible, by substantially negating physical strength as a factor in deciding who has the monopoly on violence. That's probably a good thing.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]