Weapon ownership around the world circa 1776

Only about 3% of the American population had guns but they were enough to beat the British Army.

>>31805364
Only the 3% in a land full on indians, wild animals and with most of the people living in rural areas?
I don't think so.
Also i was talking about weapons, not only guns, this includes any other tool deviced to harm.

>>31805334
They were common in the Americas outside of cities, ubiquitous in the rural portions of the thirteen colonies. I'm Europe firearms were almost exclusively used for hunting by the upper classes/nobility along with the odd bit of duelling (Germans preferred swords.for this). Read American Rifle: A Biography by Alexander Rose.

>>31805462
In Switzerland they were very common, even in the cities. But they really took off in the early 19th century.

>>31805409
>this includes any other tool deviced to harm
that would be potentially 100% since a person can pick up a tree limb and injure another person with it...

File: DSC_0698.jpg (3MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3840x2160px

>>31805334
Weapons laws generally did not show up until the late 19th century, and it was largely the fault of Government Centralization in Europe of damn near fucking everything. Most importantly the appearance of the first organized modern police forces in Europe.

Prior to that, nobody gave a shit. Especially in Germany, where some states actually required you to own a firearm in case the Prince/Elector Count/Duke/Marquis/City State needs to scramble a militia for war ASAP. They even form "shooting societies" of gun hobbyists that often were raised in a military fashion during emergencies.

Outside the western world, the only premodern state with strict weapons laws at the time was Japan. Largely because of the Samurai class and the Shogunate wanting total centralization of the use of force in country. They were unique in this in Asia considering that in the nearby Chinese empire, the government very much wanted you to have a fucking weapon- a whole armory, if you can- to assist the agents of the empire in policing the bigass country. As the army could not afford to be spread out from their main garrisons in the cities, the Chinese simply sent judge-dredd style officers in rural areas to act as judge-jury-executioner (and sometimes detective & cia lab) over a posse of armed peasants.

>>31805364
No. Only about 3% fought against the British Army, you fucktard.

There is no way to know how many people had guns. I would say next to no women had guns and probably like 20% of men. Probably all men would have had one if they weren't so fucking expensive.

File: horsman_pick.png (437KB, 320x711px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 320x711px

>>31805334
>Polish Commonwealth
I don't know much of specifics,but as a fun fact I remember there was ban on horsman's picks for civilians (it was pretty old at that time).

Background of this ban was that Szlachta (polish nobles) loved to use it as canes. They also loved to use it in various feuds (of political and other nature).

>>31807633
I do recall there was a ban on swords in the HRE, leading to the rise of the Kriegsmesser as a civilian weapon... am I mistaken?

File: DSC_0187.jpg (3MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3840x2160px

>>31807844
It's probably just one state.

Germany by-and-large was liberal in it's weapons laws prior the German Empire. Especially in the Medieval Ages, where you had the likes of city states and small principalities who have no recourse but to use a militia system to defend themselves.

City States in the Medieval Ages were the best places to be a private weapons owner since largely- unless your town is a civic fief- you're ruled by a council of your leading citizens and since you dont have meme knights, you guys are responsible for your own defense and defended your fellow citizens by forming militias, which are usually organized around guild affiliation, district, or social class. Basically you guys pooled in money to buy weapons and armor, and set up periods of a year for military drills. When you need to defend yourselves (or the King asks for extra troops outside of his feudal retains), citizens basically troop out in their own equipment for battle.

And these people weren't Pitchfork & torch tier meme militia: their equipment was serious business, to the point that you can't tell the difference between them, and professional soldiers & mercenaries. Hell there were battles where they routed such soldiers.

File: facas.jpg (38KB, 420x664px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 420x664px

>>31805334
As this article says, in the colonial era of what is now Argentina, firearms were not common among the Creoles.

>http://interdefensa.argentinaforo.net/t10101-armas-de-fuego-durante-el-periodo-virreinal-en-el-rio-de-la-plata-y-su-posterior-evolucion

Never came in large numbers, there was never great wars and therefore need sophisticated weaponry. The "Indian wars" for 1770s were already rather skirmishes in response to an attack.

It is also known that the Spaniards used for centuries as Rapier knives, daggers and pikes for their armies and also considers that the local population as the Indians only used knives and self invention weapons such as "Boleadoras".

Only until the British Invasions to the Rio dela Plata is when the Creoles take over modern weapons and firearms.
And then for the independence wars of 1810 is when the guns begin to enter, but especially for regional armies of the provinces.

>>31807633
This. The 1689 bill of rights in England gave the right to bear arms to all protestants.

File: pelea 1912.jpg (654KB, 1707x1089px) Image search: [Google]

654KB, 1707x1089px

>>31808093
This photo of 1912 illustrates how the Creole and gauchos were equipped with weapons for centuries here.

>>31807572
Fair enough. I'd primarily read about Germany, France, and the UK. That's what I get for then generalising about a whole continent.

>>31807633
>19th century
I'm going to need to call shenanigans and ask for a source. From what I've read European monarchs began to clamp down on private arms ownership in the late 1600s as they moved to more boutique professional armies.

>>31807967
Can only support that. Switzerland, or the confederacy to be propper, was a conglomerate of several free cities and valleys, and they armed themselfs like crazy.

>>31808658
>I'm going to need to call shenanigans and ask for a source.
Read history books on the matter, after acquainting yourself with the 1689 English Bill of Rights.

>From what I've read European monarchs began to clamp down on private arms ownership in the late 1600s as they moved to more boutique professional armies.
You´ve read wrong. European monarchs had neither the manpower, monteary resources or political backing required for widespread civil disarmament. "Gun laws" as we know them are a 20th-century invention, made possible by, amongst other things: the rapid spread of subversive, revolutionary political movements (mainly communism); advancements in surveillance technology (photography, filming, wiretapping and so forth), and the emergence of well-organized, centralized bureaus tasked with enforcing the law and "protecting the public".

>>31807967
>feudal Europe
>ywn be part of a tight knit society/guild and forge top tier armor and weapons
>ywn train with your battle brothers to defendend your people and her territories
>ywn feel the feels of properly defending said territory
>mfw I have no face