# A debate on ONE SPECIFIC aspect of the gun issue (I hope) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 13, 2008, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-one-specific-aspect-of-the-gun-issue-i-hope/476973 "2008-12-13T02:11:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-one-specific-aspect-of-the-gun-issue-i-hope/476973/101 "2008-12-17T10:22:57Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > During the time period we mention, pistols existed, and, in fact, were supplied to the military. They were especially handy for the cavalry. > > At the time, while repeating pistols were unknown, the pepperbox pistol _was_ extant. > [Pepper-box - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper-box) > And easily concealed under a jacket. (The two-barrel turnover mentioned was reasonably popular during the period.) Kind of my point, they had handguns, and they had a few repeating guns. But none of them were all that effective (I’d rather face a trained marksman trying to kill me with a revolutionary era pistol, than a half-crazed crack head with a modern handgun), and there certainly weren’t repeating. As with alot of technologies its the combination of all three factors that makes a modern handgun so deadly. > [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Do you think our founding fathers saw no need for an assassin’s gun? They did ? Had there been any examples of major figures (tyrants or otherwise) being assassinated by handgun in the 1700s ? I thought stilletos and poisons (or sword wielding mob) were the favored method of assassination in those days. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-one-specific-aspect-of-the-gun-issue-i-hope/476973/102 "2008-12-17T10:28:02Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > the pepperbox pistol _was_ extant. > [Pepper-box - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper-box) According to that link they were only invented in 1830. It does mention precursors, but my reading of it is they were multi-barrel muskets, not easily concealable handguns. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-one-specific-aspect-of-the-gun-issue-i-hope/476973/103 "2008-12-17T14:42:53Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > They did ? Had there been any examples of major figures (tyrants or otherwise) being assassinated by handgun in the 1700s ? I thought stilletos and poisons (or sword wielding mob) were the favored method of assassination in those days. Attempted on Jackson, first gun failed, second gun pulled out, also failed, ca 1835. Lib might say it was a shame, but even more modern assassination attempts fail. (Hinkley used exploding bullets when he tried to kill Reagan. They didn’t explode.) Successful on Lincoln only half a century later, and the gun wasn’t all that much more advanced in nature. The shot heard round the world was from a pistol, one notes. The first assassination with a pistol that I can find is, sadly, _before_ the 1700s. 1584. William of Orange. Very famous, led to a number of weapons bans. > **[William the Silent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Silent)** > > William the Silent or William the Taciturn (Dutch: Willem de Zwijger; 24 April 1533 – 10 July 1584), more commonly known in the Netherlands as William of Orange (Dutch: Willem van Oranje), was the leader of the Dutch revolt against the Spanish Habsburgs that set off the Eighty Years' War (1568–1648) and resulted in the formal independence of the United Provinces in 1648. Born into the House of Nassau, he became Prince of Orange in 1544 and is thereby the founder of the Orange-Nassau b A wealth... I can’t search much more, the work filters look oddly on guns. I don’t think you can call a mob an assassination technique, though. However, it does seem historically, “so he was left alone with a bunch of people who didn’t like him and then he woke up dead” was very common among the russians. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-one-specific-aspect-of-the-gun-issue-i-hope/476973/104 "2008-12-17T14:46:17Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > According to that link they were only invented in 1830. It does mention precursors, but my reading of it is they were multi-barrel muskets, not easily concealable handguns. > [@Wiki](#): > > This type of weapon was popular in North America from 1830 until the American Civil War, but the concept was introduced much earlier, in the fifteenth century when several single shot barrels were attached to a stock, being fired individually by means of a match. > > Around 1790 pepperboxes were built on the basis of flintlock systems, notably by Nock in England and “Segallas” in Belgium. These weapons, building on the success of the earlier two-barrel turnover pistols, were fitted with three, four or seven barrels. These early pepperboxes were hand-rotated. Popular ca 1830. Extant up to three hundred years earlier. The two-barrel turnover, a primitive flintlock version of the 1790 flintlock version, predates 1790. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-one-specific-aspect-of-the-gun-issue-i-hope/476973/105 "2008-12-17T15:02:41Z")
The Nock Gun wasn’t really a “pepperbox”, it was more a Flintlock Pistol version of a Claymore Mine, designed to be used on board ships as a “deck sweeper” to repel boarders and so on; the Puckle Gun was similarly designed for Naval use, FWIW. Lots of early repeating weapons seemed to have been designed with an eye to Naval use, unsurprisingly. Having said that, I think it’s been well and truly established that the concept of repeating or multi-shot weapons was already well-known in the late 18th Century. FWIW, I agree with **YogSosoth** about the simple fact that what the US Founding Fathers intended is irrelevant nowadays. The world’s a different place, they’re long dead, and we (or you guys, rather) are the ones who should be deciding what sort of country you want to live in now. Basically, I don’t see why the intentions of people living 200 years ago should take precedence over people living now, or who are yet to be born, even. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-one-specific-aspect-of-the-gun-issue-i-hope/476973/106 "2008-12-17T15:10:54Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Popular ca 1830. Extant up to three hundred years earlier. The two-barrel turnover, a primitive flintlock version of the 1790 flintlock version, predates 1790. Why the focus on the Pepperbox? Are people seriously suggesting that such a thing should have informed the FF’s of how firearms would evolve and foresee semi-automatic pistols (not to mention machine guns and so on)? If I am reading that right the Pepperbox had to have the barrel manually rotated and, I would presume, at least have another percussion cap fitted before being ready to fire again (or worse for older models perhaps priming the pan again). While still a speed increase over also having to reload the barrel it is still a FAR cry from what you can manage with a revolver. Anyone you are shooting at with a Pepperbox will almost certainly have time to respond in some fashion assuming you didn’t stop them with the first shot. They could shoot back or run away or run up to you and pound you or whatever while you attempt to pull off another shot. Not so with a revolver. To my mind seems a rather stellar difference in lethality. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-one-specific-aspect-of-the-gun-issue-i-hope/476973/107 "2008-12-17T15:24:10Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > …since there really is no need for such things in the hands of private citizens… I’m not so sure that you get to just throw that out there as though it is fact. I don’t want to get into the pissing match of “what does one really _NEED_” but just because you don’t think someone needs something, does not make it automatically so. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-one-specific-aspect-of-the-gun-issue-i-hope/476973/108 "2008-12-17T15:28:00Z")
Could we eschew the use of the term [“Saturday Night Special”](http://www.saturdaynightspecial.org/2008/04/19/the-racist-origins-of-the-term-saturday-night-special/) please? It has its origins in racism. ---
**Author:** ![1010011010](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/ea666f/32.png) [@1010011010](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1010011010)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-one-specific-aspect-of-the-gun-issue-i-hope/476973/109 "2008-12-17T15:42:25Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > FWIW, I agree with **YogSosoth** about the simple fact that what the US Founding Fathers intended is irrelevant nowadays. The world’s a different place, they’re long dead, and we (or you guys, rather) are the ones who should be deciding what sort of country you want to live in now. Basically, I don’t see why the intentions of people living 200 years ago should take precedence over people living now, or who are yet to be born, even. You’re assuming that discussing the intentions of the USFF is an appeal to authority. That these things were said by this or that person was irrelevant in 1808 just as surely as 2008. The idea must stand on its own merits. Presumably we agree the idea of the People as the final system of checks and balances on government is a good one… the argument is whether the idea still works in its original implementation and, if it needs to be updated, how to make it work. ---
**Author:** ![1010011010](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/ea666f/32.png) [@1010011010](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1010011010)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-one-specific-aspect-of-the-gun-issue-i-hope/476973/110 "2008-12-17T15:59:35Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > Could we eschew the use of the term [“Saturday Night Special”](http://www.saturdaynightspecial.org/2008/04/19/the-racist-origins-of-the-term-saturday-night-special/) please? It has its origins in racism. Does it bother you that gun control was and continues to be a primarily racist policy? ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-one-specific-aspect-of-the-gun-issue-i-hope/476973/111 "2008-12-17T16:04:13Z")
> [@1010011010](#): > > Does it bother you that gun control was and continues to be a primarily racist policy? It does. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-one-specific-aspect-of-the-gun-issue-i-hope/476973/112 "2008-12-17T16:12:27Z")
> [@1010011010](#): > > You’re assuming that discussing the intentions of the USFF is an appeal to authority. That these things were said by this or that person was irrelevant in 1808 just as surely as 2008. The idea must stand on its own merits. > > Presumably we agree the idea of the People as the final system of checks and balances on government is a good one… the argument is whether the idea still works in its original implementation and, if it needs to be updated, how to make it work. But it does make a difference since the SCOTUS often bases its decisions on “original intent” or a “textualist” basis. From the recent Heller decision: > [@](#): > > The individual right interpretation, the Court said, “is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment,” going back to 17th Century England, as well as by gun rights laws in the states before and immediately after the Amendment was put into the U.S. Constitution. > > SOURCE: [Court: A constitutional right to a gun - SCOTUSblog](http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-a-constitutional-right-to-a-gun/) Right there you can see the court DID grant weight to what people were thinking as far back as 17th century in making its decision yet perversely deems it ok to ignore what people think about it _today_. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-one-specific-aspect-of-the-gun-issue-i-hope/476973/113 "2008-12-17T16:40:16Z")
> [@1010011010](#): > > Does it bother you that gun control was and continues to be a primarily racist policy? Yep, and it bothers me that those who push for more control have no idea of this fact. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-one-specific-aspect-of-the-gun-issue-i-hope/476973/114 "2008-12-17T16:59:16Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > Could we eschew the use of the term [“Saturday Night Special”](http://www.saturdaynightspecial.org/2008/04/19/the-racist-origins-of-the-term-saturday-night-special/) please? It has its origins in racism. Err as far as I could see that link presented no evidence of that. That made the point that early attempts at US guns laws were racist (they clearly were), it showed no evidence that current laws are, or even if they are, that the term “Saturday Night Special” is. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-one-specific-aspect-of-the-gun-issue-i-hope/476973/115 "2008-12-17T17:04:47Z")
The full term is originally “Dark/niggertown Saturday Night Special.” ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-one-specific-aspect-of-the-gun-issue-i-hope/476973/116 "2008-12-17T17:12:29Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > The full term is originally “Dark/niggertown Saturday Night Special.” Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-one-specific-aspect-of-the-gun-issue-i-hope/476973/117 "2008-12-17T17:18:10Z")
Here’s [one](http://www.onpedia.com/encyclopedia/saturday-night-special). I originally learned the history of the term in an essay by[Don Kates](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Kates). ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-one-specific-aspect-of-the-gun-issue-i-hope/476973/118 "2008-12-17T17:54:44Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > But it does make a difference since the SCOTUS often bases its decisions on “original intent” or a “textualist” basis. From the recent Heller decision:\ Right there you can see the court DID grant weight to what people were thinking as far back as 17th century in making its decision yet perversely deems it ok to ignore what people think about it _today_. The Constitution doesn’t make the living the slaves of the dead, even if you believe in a texualist or original intent view. There’s this thing called amendment. When enough people decided there shouldn’t be slavery anymore and that blacks should have equal rights, they amended the Constitution. When enough people decided the Federal government should be able to fund itself through income taxes, they amended the Constitution. If enough people decide that the cost of allowing guns outweighs the benefits to society and want the government to have the explicit authority to ban guns, then they should prove they have the mandate by formally amending the Constitution. If society has changed so much that something that was once revered as a fundamental right of freedom is now regarded as a barbaric archaism, then such a radical change needs to be incorporatated into the Constitution, because the Constitution is basically the rules of the game: what’s permitted to be on the table for debate and what isn’t. What we should NOT do is take the position that the Constitution is just this silly old piece of foolscap, and why should we let it get in the way of what we’re trying to accomplish? Sadly, that attitude began during the New Deal and has been getting more widespread ever since. For example, the idea that Congress should pass a formal declaration of war has given way to a virtually imperial Presidency. ---
**Author:** ![YamatoTwinkie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/cc9497/32.png) [@YamatoTwinkie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YamatoTwinkie)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-one-specific-aspect-of-the-gun-issue-i-hope/476973/119 "2008-12-17T17:58:18Z")
> [@Lizard](#): > > Point Two: I’m getting really tired of seeing guns compared to small nuclear weapons. I believe the fancy debate term for this is either red herring or a false dichotomy. It is neither of those two logical fallacies. It is an exaggeration to prove a point: that there needs to be _some_ sort of restriction on personal ownership of weapons, based on their “scariness” potential. Nuclear weapons, anti-air missiles, etc. are on the extreme end of that scale. Single-shot pistols and muskets are on the other. Modern semi-automatic pistols and rifles are somewhere in between. As technology improves the “scariness” of weapons, it only makes sense that more and more restrictions result. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-one-specific-aspect-of-the-gun-issue-i-hope/476973/120 "2008-12-17T18:16:46Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > The Constitution doesn’t make the living the slaves of the dead, even if you believe in a texualist or original intent view. There’s this thing called amendment. When enough people decided there shouldn’t be slavery anymore and that blacks should have equal rights, they amended the Constitution. A “correct” outcome is clearly not always agreed to by most of the people. Only took a freaking Civil War and 200,000+ dead to get the 13th Amendment done. I would expect no less an effort to get a 2nd Amendment tossed out of the Constitution. Personally I do not think we _needed_ a 13th Amendment to stop slavery. I think the Constitution already spoke against it but people preferred to read the constitution in self serving ways so someone had to explicitly spell it out. Looking back on it all it is amazing to wonder how our country could ever have been cool with slavery and how our laws were perverted to allow it at all. I have seen numerous times of gun owners saying, “You will get my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers.” The chances of an Amendment clarifying the 2nd are nil short of another Civil War. > [@](#): > > What we should NOT do is take the position that the Constitution is just this silly old piece of foolscap, and why should we let it get in the way of what we’re trying to accomplish? Sadly, that attitude began during the New Deal and has been getting more widespread ever since. For example, the idea that Congress should pass a formal declaration of war has given way to a virtually imperial Presidency. Sadly? Why shouldn’t the constitution be a living document? Why would anyone apply the laws as written 200 years ago to have the same implications they do today? That does not mean you toss it all and just make it up. You definitely try to adhere to the spirit of what the FF’s were after but do so in light of today’s realities. For instance, I think a strict reading of the 2nd should allow civilian ownership of things like Stinger missiles. Do you think that would be a good idea or should we read the 2nd a little differently today when such weapons exist? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-one-specific-aspect-of-the-gun-issue-i-hope/476973.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-one-specific-aspect-of-the-gun-issue-i-hope/476973.md?page=7)