Reply #109: Do you think victims of criminal aggression owe their assailants a "fair" fight?

[Euromutt]

How else to explain your assertion that "guns are cowardly devices made for people who can't fight"? Speaking for myself, I am not a violent person; I don't pick fights, I don't ask to be assaulted, mugged, burgled or otherwise become the victim of a violent crime. If someone threatens me, or my family, with violence, it will not be because of provocation on my part. From my perspective, that means I have absolutely zero obligation to fight on the aggressor's terms. Indeed, the aggressor will almost certainly proceed with the assault only because he thinks he an advantage over me--in initiative (by catching me unawares), weaponry (e.g. he has a knife and expects me to be unarmed) or skill at hand-to-hand fighting--which is itself hardly indicative of great courage on his part. What is cowardly about seeking to negate through technology the advantage such an opponent possesses?

A major reason firearms became popular was that they allowed a peasant or townsperson with a modicum of combat training to negate the advantage held by a professional thug (like a knight or samurai) with a lifetime of training, and kitted out with expensive weapons, armor and a horse funded by taxing the people who actually had to work for a living (and therefore didn't have the time or money to develop their martial skills). What is cowardly about refusing to fight with one hand tied behind your back when the other guy has no intention of doing so?

At the time, there were no handguns <...>

Handguns had been around for well over 250 years by then. Matchlock pistols were fairly rare, but with the introduction of the wheellock in the early 16th century, handguns started becoming practical, and they really took off with the snaphaunce and the flintlock in the early 17th century. Cavalry whose primary armament was a brace of pistols were standard during the English civil war.