Were there laws during the Middle Ages preventing people from owning swords and armor?

Were there laws during the Middle Ages preventing people from owning swords and armor?

in japan there would be sword hunts

Yes.

I don't think your average peasant or serf could even afford to make weapons and armor of any decent quality.

Most of the time the cost of forging a good suit of armor or the steel/quality of iron preferred was prohibitively expensive, though most every peasant worth his salt could expect an old family sword from when his father/grandfather etc was conscripted

Mostly economics and a local ruler who would kill you if he found you hiding weapons. The question is vague so the answer is vague

It varied from region to region, but in general you could own a weapon, you just couldn't walk around town / your village wearing it.

Yes actually. Nobody did sword-siezing laws like Hideyoshi did.

It was too fucking expensive

I recall Matt Easton saying that in most places in Europe during middle ages only the nobility were allowed to CARRY a sword around in towns but that's different from not being able to own one. They after all also needed people to have weapons for war.

This is the most retarded issue. In Australia we banned crimes, and it did not affect the rate of death by guns by much. Most of the people that were killed by guns here were by gangs who had some kind of illegal firearm. Barely anyone died from mass shootings before. We like got rid of guns because a 100 people died in 20 years as result of mass shootings.

*banned guns

It's more that people have gotten tired of the solution being "do literally nohing, not even an alternative solution"

Why are they not tired of drownings? ~7x as many people drown in the US than die in mass shootings.

Not to mention only Tasmania had the gun laws that allowed Bryant to do what he did

Because this is the only country where this happens

Because drownings are usually accidents?

Most deaths by gun are too if you count little Timmy blowing his own head off because Daddy didn't clear the chamber

Depends on where and when but generally yes.

wew lad please don't ever use that again.

Tbf a great deal of annual gun deaths are also accidental. They just hardly make the news as much as mass shootings.

I hear a lot of people are tired of terrorism too but immigration control is an unpopular solution.

Depends on nation and era.

before Napoleon, lords and kings didn’t want their people to have guns because they didn’t want to be overthrown. They had professional armies that they trusted, they didn’t conscript their populace.

Napoleon changed that, of course, by conscripting hundreds of thousands of Frenchman.

Because you can't effectively reglate "being in water somewhere", you can regulate the ownership of a spesific product.

Not as many as you think. I believe the statistic is that 1/3 are suicides, about half is black on black crime, and the remaining amount is miscellaneous.

Nice deflection! We were talking about gun control relating to the US and the fact that we are literally the only country where this happens on the regular

Nearly half the country supports outright banning Muslims from the country. The fuck you on about?

>Napoleon is responsible for the Levee en Masse

Try again.

Is the life of innocent people worth a shooting range? I don't think so, but in the UK if you still want to shoot or hunt you can still get a gun, if the small change in the death rate ended up saving your brother, your mum or your kid, i think you'd change your tune.

Did anyone ever stop and think it's just because Americans are paranoid fucks?

You do know that an overwhelming majority of terrorism on American soil is caused by Americans, right? You really can’t be this stupid can you

Yeah but should overly paranoid people have guns?

Mass shootings have nothing to do with paranoia but instead have to do with mentally ill people being able to get their hands on guns. Also this

If everyone had a gun, mass shootings wouldn’t be possible

>Nearly half the country supports outright banning Muslims from the country. The fuck you on about?
The issue is that's unconstitutional. And I'm not talking about the travel ban bullshit, I mean literally making it so the country has no muslims ever, it goes against the fact that the state is not allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion.

>implying
I was suicidal, if i had acsess to a gun i probably would've killed myself, resorting to less effective methods, they absolutely belong on a liost of violent acts done with guns, and black people shooting other black people doesn't magically make it not crime, gang violence with guns is increased by allowing poorer people to take part in it, because the wide supply of guns lowers their price.

I don't think a country that a not insignificant number of people promotes a culture about "the gubmint is coming to get you!" with chem-trails and other retarded shit is conducive to mental stability among young men quite frankly

All I'm saying is most gun deaths aren't accidents.

It is unconstitutional, you're right. That doesn't mean it's not something that is still widely supported despite relatively small numbers of deaths actually coming from Muslim extremism.

One dude shoots another dude in the hall, in the commotion, a guy with a gun looks for said dude, dude number 3 sees someone prowling around holding a gun, what's guy number 3 going to do if he thinks there's an active shooter? How the fuck can murder investigations even happen if every single citizen owns a gun?

Only weirdo white trash people who listen to Alex Jones believe that stuff.

Why not use that logic and Bann knives. More people are killed by knives than guns.

Yeah but they lack foresight. Once one religion is discriminated against officially by the state, it opens the floodgates to more religions down the line because now there's precedence.

That didn't work out for the Wild West. The 'Armed Polite Society' thing has zero actual basis in statistics or history.

The only nation I know that pulls this off is Switzerland. And the US is most certainly not Switzerland.

Easy, cctv cameras everywhere

You're right, but you're still not disputing the actual fact that such a ban is supported in the US by a large number of people.

I'm not in support of the idea but the premise of this post is false.

Pretty sure London has that, and London still has unsolved crime

Thinly veiled /pol/ thread but I'll bite

Of gun violence, it's 2/3rds suicides, most of the rest is intergang or accidental/negligent.

Most, if not all states have regulation banning ownership by people who have been hospitalized for mental reasons. Short of requiring a psych eval every couple years for all gun owners, what do you propose would help?

Countries that ban or restrict guns and see a drop in gun-related suicides rarely see a drop in overall suicides because other methods still work just fine. Guns do not impact suicide rates significantly.

Yeah right, if the entire crowd had guns on them it is unlikely any of them could have done anything about the guy firing from his hotel room in the Las Vegas shooting. A few would probably have started shooting at each other in the panic though.

Oh I know they support it, I'm just saying it's a bad idea.

Most mass shooters flirt with conspiracy theories

I'm glad we've come to agreement then.

Nothing ever happens because the people calling for it are too fucking pussy to actually take our guns.

Come and try to take our guns faggots. Every gun owner has a plan for the day the feds try to take away our right to own firearms.

>Most, if not all states have regulation banning ownership by people who have been hospitalized for mental reasons. Short of requiring a psych eval every couple years for all gun owners, what do you propose would help?
Banning guns, unfortunately the supreme court fucked that idea

State mandated google glasses for everyone

If you wanna ban guns so bad come and take them faggot. See what happens.

>what is suppressing fire

This almost never gets brought up, and the reason is because under US law, there is no such thing as a domestic terrorist. I didn't even know this was a fact until I looked it up.

>Let's have the government take guns away from a country with a huge amount of people paranoid the government wants to take their guns away and stick them in FEMA camps
What could possibly go wrong?

We didn't ban guns. Come out to the country some time, badically everyone owns a gun in the rural areas.
Other than that I agree, Australia never had a massacre like Port Arthur and we probably wouldn't have had one after, ot was a statistical improbability. I'd prefer NZ's laws desu.

Not him but do you really want a crowd of people to open up on the side of a crowded hotel?

Come and take our guns pussies. we've been waiting since sandy vagina and none of you pussies have done anything.

Actually the founders of the country did by making it an inalienable right on par with freedom of speech and religious freedom. Still doesn't solve the fact that there are already so many guns on the street that making them all illegal at once would cause many of them to be sold illegally and find their way into criminal hands where they'll be used for violent crime, making the problem even worse.

You could literally just limit what people are able to get. The fact that it takes this country, this many shootings to get the fucking idea in their heads that maybe having this lax of gun laws is too much.

>Firing blindly in the general direction of a hotel

Are you fucking retarded?

that maybe having this lax of guns laws isn't the best is too much*

Why not do a buyback program to try and reduce the amount of guns?

>6 round lever action is totally fine
>7 ROUNDS IS TOO MANY, BAN THIS FILTH
Australian gun laws are fucking retarded

billions of pre schoolers could be genocided by an AR 15 and it would still be constitutionally illegal for the feds to restrict guns

deal with it or stop being a pussy and try to take them from us yourself

Because that worked so great under clinton, right?

I think you mean *my dads guns. No way in hell youre old enough to even drive with that edge

Kek every gun owner has a plan for the day the feds come for us. Just ask /k/.

Just ban public schools

>being an internet tough guy

I already told you faggot. The reason we haven't banned guns in this country is because the people who want to ban them are too pussy to deal with us. other wise they would have been banned after Sandy Vagina.

Shall not be infringed.

>underestimating /k/

Actually it did. Automatic weapons only make up between 1 to 2% of shooting related incidents.

Interestingly Arizona, one of the reddest states, has a buyback program.

picrelated is you

I've heard offhand that peasants were expected to own a bow or spear before a certain point in history when weapon standards became a thing, but I don't know when that ended nor what regions that was applicable in. I would imagine most peasants would probably own a bow at the very least, and a lot of farming equipment could be used as weapons in a pinch.

Of course, medieval weapons were quite different compared to repeating firearms as many required formations and numbers to be truly effective. No peasant alone would bother carrying a 15ft. pike for the same reason a modern man doesn't bother carrying a mortar around -- it's a powerful weapon, for sure, but it's not a useful item on its own and is an extension of the military apparatus. Knives and short swords might be a thing for self protection as lawlessness was more common in older eras, but underlings might as well carry billyclubs and other blunt instruments as they were cheaper and still effective.

Stop feeding the obvious troll.

No, it didn't. Automatic weapons make up more like 1 to 2 shooting incidents a year. "Assault weapons", which is what the bill targeted and what are usually used in mass shootings, make up about 1%.

Pretending for a second any of them knew where there shots were coming from you are suggesting it would be a good idea if the whole crowd was armed and opened up suppressing fire on a hotel?

Before and after, mind you. The bill and the types of control most people would like to enact did virtually nothing.

How is it a troll why do you think anyone would willingly give up their guns

What are you on? Conscription and levies have been a thing throughout history, usually supplemented by mercenaries for more wealthy provinces. It's true the concept of levy en mass was really practiced around Nappy's time, but that was less to do with mass conscription and more to do with the early ideals of nationalism and esprit de corps.

...

>Prior to the sword hunt called by Oda Nobunaga towards the end of the 16th century, civilians were free to carry swords for defense or simply for decoration. Nobunaga sought an end to this, and ordered the seizure of swords and a variety of other weapons from civilians, in particular the Ikkō-ikki peasant-monk leagues which sought to overthrow samurai rule.
>In 1588, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, having become kampaku or "imperial regent", ordered a new sword hunt; Hideyoshi, like Nobunaga, sought to solidify separations in the class structure, denying commoners weapons while allowing them to the nobility, the samurai class. In addition, Toyotomi's sword hunt, like Nobunaga's, was intended to prevent peasant uprisings and to deny weapons to his adversaries. This hunt may have been inspired by a peasant uprising in Higo the year prior, but also served to disarm the sōhei of Mount Kōya and Tōnomine. Toyotomi claimed that the confiscated weapons would be melted down and used to create a giant image of the Buddha for the Asuka-dera monastery in Nara.
>"Taikō's Sword Hunt", as it came to be called, was accompanied by a number of other edicts, including the Expulsion Edict of 1590, by which Toyotomi sought to establish a census and expel from villages any newcomers who arrived in or after 1590. The chief goal of this was to place a check on the threat posed by rōnin, masterless wandering samurai who had the potential not only for crime and violence in general, but for banding together to overthrow Toyotomi rule. Hideyoshi, like most of this period, believed in rule by edict, paying little or no attention to legal principles.
>While the Sword Hunt ostensibly succeeded in denying weapons to potential rebels, it also created discontent throughout the nation, increasing the number and passion of potential rebels.

Ironically, the Samurai class themselves lost the right to carry swords in 1876 and it was a contributing factor to the Satsuma Rebellion

I like guns, I like collecting them and shooting them, I enjoy going to gun shows but man, I try to talk to the gun people on anything other than guns and it is deer in the headlights mode.

Like I was at a restaurant with some, and one of them says, "you know if someone tried to rob the register, it's the last mistake he'd ever make!" and the others are nodding. And all I could say was, "you're talking about blowing someone away for stealing some petty cash. This shit is why liberals want to take away our guns you dumb motherfucker".

>Examining 1.4 million guns involved in crime, "in the five-year period before enactment of the Federal Assault Weapons Act (1990–1994), assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of the crime gun traces ATF conducted nationwide. Since the law's enactment, however, these assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime. Page 10 of the Brady report, however, adds that "an evaluation of copycat weapons is necessary". Including "copycat weapons", the report concluded that "in the post-ban period, the same group of guns has constituted 3.1% of ATF traces, a decline of 45%."

Sounds successful to me desu

Yeah they say that, but the reality is they didn't want to give up the right to chop off the heads of peasants whenever they felt like it.

this. just come chat with us on /k/. Every gun owner has a plan for when the feds come for us, we the people have stopped them from taking our guns and it's glorious.

I don't. I have never stayed as such and the "dem feds are gonna come take our guns" is a straw man brought up by the one poster who wants to fight their own argument.

The defense against that (From their point of view) is to simply integrate your own religion with the government. If they're one and the same, the government won't be able to do anything with it.

>The defense against that (From their point of view) is to simply integrate your own religion with the government.
Which is literally unconstitutional.

That's what Pence and the hard liners believe. It's worrying.

Hasn't stopped them from pushing that agenda however.

>a strawman comic
woah.....my mind is blown.....

You're comparing the early 90s, the height of gang activity, to the years following. Look at any overall summary of the bill's effects and you'll find no evidence to support that it did anything significant.

>And all I could say was, "you're talking about blowing someone away for stealing some petty cash.
Fuck off, cuck. If you don't want to get shot, don't rob.
>This shit is why liberals want to take away our guns you dumb motherfucker".
No, it isn't, you braindead retard.

Why should only the racist police under the Drumpf administration have guns? So they can recreate the Holocaust and killl all "niggers" like Drumpf and his cronies always wanted

>Fuck off, cuck. If you don't want to get shot, don't rob.

Stealing petty cash does not deserve the death penalty. We're not the barbarians in the middle east that chop off your hand for stealing a piece of fruit, we're supposed to be better than them.

>No, it isn't, you braindead retard.

Yes, it is. I know plenty of liberals and most of them think that gun owners are people who are just waiting for an opportunity that lets them shoot someone and get away with it. Which is why they think they're dangerous.

What are you gonna do? Shoot me if I try and take your guns?
What are you? Some sort of gun cuck who's too afraid kill me with your bare hands?