NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/org/sca/17152

Text File | 1992-12-30 | 7.2 KB | 124 lines

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!destroyer!news.iastate.edu!vincent1.iastate.edu!viking
From: [e-mail] (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Primitive FireArms
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 07:57:54 GMT
Lines: 112

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phyllis Gilmore) writes:

    Good day, Milady.  I shall hope to respond to multiple concerns in
this missive, some not necessarially yours.  My apologies for not being
more succinct, but I have opened a can of worms that needs attention.

>Dear me.  Is it not obvious that the entire purpose of any weapon is to harm
>someone or something?  While I am sure that you, good sir, would only lift a
>weapon in defense of a fair lady, or your purse, or to dispatch an Asp or
>procure dinner, many others are not so well disposed.

    This, my dear Lady, is not an inherent quality of the weapon, but
rather a quality of the person.  To be quite frank (quick question: does
this phrase imply the Franks in any way, and if so how?), there are people
in both mundane and SCA life I wouldn't trust with anything sharper than
a Twinkie.  That being the case, I cannot simply remove any hazardous item
from them for my own sense of personal safety.  Rather, I must allow them
to use the item until they show a disregard for the safety of others.  We
all know a rattan sword, not to mention the gladius I carry for
decoration, are hazardous weapons.  We accept this.  I submit that SCA
members not only know the hazards of their weapons, but also accept the
responsibility of using them in a safe manner.  For those who do not
know how to use their guns, the NRA exists, just as classes in various
martial arts can instill knowledge about the other weapons we carry, and
solvenly behavior certainly dictates a Society-wide ban in the use of
weapons until the Lord or Lady shows competent usage once again.

>  And I have it on good
>authority that early firearms (even 18th century ones, much less Real,
>Authentic Periods (TM) firearms) are, in and of themselves, not necessarily
>safe even for those who use them.  They have, for example, and unfortuante
>tendency to explode.

    This topic needs some addressing, since it is a very likely event
should the Gentle shooting not be knowledgable in the shooting arts.  A
modern rifle or black powder reproduction is quite safe.  My grandfather
has used only smokeless powder in all of his black powder weapons for
quite a few years now.  Modern powders often burn faster than what the
more period black powder weapons could withstand, and hence an explosion
may happen if the proper powder and load is not kept.  With modern weapons,
this is not a common happening, and indeed I would be suprised if one could
not load four times the proper powder charge and escape unscathed.  This
is a comon method of testing a firearm, by the way, and dates from the
mid-1700's or even earlier.  With antique weapons, the shooter needs to be
aware of the risks, dangers, and proper powder type and measure.  I suggest
that this is not a great concern since metal fatigue is not a large factor
in firearm reliability, and a simple test firing in front of the marshall
should show the weapon to be safe or unsafe with a given load.

    My own preference is to use only modern reproductions of period
firearms for the best balance of safety and authenticity, just as we do
with bows and armor.

>I was mightily impressed by a demonstration of assorted weaponry some years
>ago at Castillo San Marcos, in St. Petersburg, FL.
>so gentle to the user as the modern shotguns I have used. I quickly decided
>that I am Too Delicate a Lady for such recreations.

    On the contrary, even a delicate Lady can enjoy the dicipline and
sport of shooting.  In no other sport is only skill such a factor, while
strength and stamina are such minor factors that even a decrepit old man
such as myself might best the most youthful and energetic young man due
only to practice, dicipline, and skill.  For the Ladies, the inherent
disadvantages of size and strength are removed, leaving a level field for
the displaying of true devotion to developing skill in the shooting arts.
Equipment, of course, is a large factor, but with proper time even this
can be overcome without undue expense.  There is no reason to not let the
delicate lady, or the decrepit old man, still aid his Kingdom in the
garnering of glory and honor when a sport exists that ignores Father Time.

>You do have a point about abiding by local law and customs.  Some of these,
>however, are not written out.  I strongly suggest that you think twice about
>carrying firearms in certain parts of Caid, for example.  There be
>highwaymen and warlords in these regions who would take greater exception
>even than the officers of the law.  And I do recall catching traces of a
>recent thread on the Rialto about thugs in parks and just how well one might
>actually be able to defend oneself.  I for one would be disinclined to create
>an "attractive nuisance."

    Anybody who thinks a firearm-carrying person is an "attractive
nuisance" is in serious need of psychiatric evaluation.  However, your
mention of local laws is a vital point.  Currently, there is little by
way of Federal law on firearms.  It mainly restricts firearm ownership,
and period weapons or reproductions are not highly restricted by this law.
However, local laws need to be complied with, and are often much more
restrictive.  Certain cities, for example, restrict all firearms, while
others have none at all.  My suggestion is that this be handled on an
event-by-event basis.  If a site allows firearms, let them be allowed
and provisions be made for their use.  If a site does not, do not allow
them.  Let's take Pensic as an example.  So far as I know, firearms are
allowed in Pennsylvania save for Pittsburgh.  Thus, a single war point
may be given for period firearms or reproductions, with the shooting
to be held in an approved and supervised place.  If an event is being
held in Chicago, no firearms shall be allowed in accordance with
local law.

    Let us not make firearms an attractive nuisance.  They were
period, they do exist, and they are not toys.  If Lord Whoozits is
deathly afraid of guns and they ruin the atmosphere, one wonders why
he is in a group that carries blades as a normal course of events
and furthermore does not recognize period items as part of his Dream.
Likewise, Lady Whatsherface should not be carrying a modern firearm
any more than she should be carrying a modern compound bow.  A
modern reproduction or replica is one thing, but period weapons
are to be used, no matter the time they were actually manufactured.
Above all, safety is the operative word.  Keeping the dream alive is
more than just a play on words.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 [e-mail] [e-mail] >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "Are you *SURE* he's worth a Harley-Davidson?" -- my grandmother  >
< to my girlfriend, about me.  "I'd better not say" -- my girlfriend >