Truth of Valor and the truth about guns

Jan 04, 2011 15:07

Last night, I finished reading Tanya Huff's (andpuff) latest novel The Truth of Valor
Read more... )

reviews, guns

Leave a comment

Comments 6

galadrion January 4 2011, 15:56:38 UTC
Which is to say that said society could ban them, but unlikely successfully. Y'know, kinda like the modern-day UK...?

Just because a story element has proven unworkable in the real world, doesn't necessarily mean that it's not a valid story element. It doesn't stop politicians; why should it stop writers who write about politicians?

Reply

chris_gerrib January 4 2011, 16:16:34 UTC
Except the story portrays it as a successful ban.

Reply


baron_waste January 4 2011, 18:02:28 UTC

William F. Nolan and George Clayton Johnson's Logan's Run (the original novel) handles that in an interesting way. Guns are not so much banned as simply non-existent; no one makes them or owns one. The only actual firearm that appears is the Sandman's Gun - capitalized - which (though it differs internally) is modeled on the most iconic “gun” imaginable, the Colt Single-Action Army, the “six-gun” of legend.

Instead, these people do everything else: Archery, throwing knives, spear-guns, even the exhaust of jet scooter engines and the 'popsicle,' a supercooled truncheon that flash-freezes whatever it hits - a blow to the chest is instantly lethal.

W Nolan and G Johnson were well aware that human nature cannot be legislated, and that people will still kill each other with any means available. But the Gun was an enshrined, magic weapon - in practice it was the model for the 'Lawmaster' of Judge Dredd. Only the rightful owner could touch it and live, and it was a versatile weapon.

Reply


jordan179 January 4 2011, 20:42:25 UTC
See, in Huff's world, all "projectile weapons" (presumably guns and not, like, arrows) are banned, and only the military can have them. (ETA This is shown as a successful ban - as in "a station full of bad guys don't have guns" successful.) Therefore, this cache of small arms will allow the possessor all kinds of power. Like, overrun and hold civilian space stations power.

Here's the problem - an industrial society sufficiently advanced to support privately-owned interstellar spacecraft can easily support the illicit manufacture of highly lethal guns. Hell, a society that can support private automobiles can make all the guns you'd ever want. Guns are just not that high-tech.This was exactly the point that made my Willing Suspension of Disbelief fail (and hence the Disbelief come crashing down) when I read Gwynneth Jones' "The Fulcrum," (c. 2005), whose plot hinged on a similar point ... a small criminal gang dominated a remote space station because its leader had one (1!) pistol. My review discusses the story in detail ... )

Reply

dqg_neal January 4 2011, 21:52:20 UTC
Aye, it probably wouldn't be too difficult to assemble a reasonably fatal railgun in my backyard. Have access to a shipbuilding facility and oh my... who needs firearms whe you can build projectile weapons like rockets.

Reply

chris_gerrib January 4 2011, 22:22:55 UTC
It made sense why they didn't want large anti-ship weapons. Basically the plan was to seize a station and use civilians as hostages to prevent the military from blowing the station. Also, there was some legal restrictions (logical in the world as presented) about military use in anti-terrorism roles.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up