Hacker News Reader

Comment by squigz | Hacker News Reader

Why would they make bows and spears, but not guns? That seems a fairly arbitrary technological line to draw.

To ensure the natural advantage that strong people have over weak people, of course. Nature has ordained that the strong should subjugate the weak, and the equalizing force of firearms is thus an afront to nature, and is not to be tolerated!

Describing widespread firearms as socially "equalizing" is a new one to me, so thanks for that.

"God made some men tall and some men short. Sam Colt made all men equal."

Firearms grant their owners the right to say "No".

Tyrants hate that.

Before firearms the world was mostly ruled by "nobles" (i.e., those who had extorted enough from the peasants to afford weapons and armor, and had the free time for the required years of training).

Now, it isn't. That didn't happen because the "nobles" suddenly decided to turn into nice guys.

> Now, it isn't

Oh, buddy, do I have some news for you

physical strength, dexterity, skill, and combat training still make a hell of a difference in a gunfight. A gun only makes a physically weak person strong against someone without a gun.

A small child could kill hundreds of people with a single gun (depending on the type). Firearms (including bombs) are force multipliers far beyond any bow or spear.

So basically, small-scale war/death is fine, as long as large-scale war is monopolized by the powerful?

What an odd framing. Large scale war should always be avoided. That's a problem regardless of personal gun ownership. And personal guns won't keep governments any more responsive to the people, because governments need enough arms to defeat country-sized adversaries anyway.

Small scale 'war' should also be avoided. Guns make personal conflicts much more deadly.

The odd framing is thinking Interpol should ensure nobody is making large scale weaponry but still allow small scale weaponry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com