One of the things that has been on my mind a lot lately has been the ongoing debate about firearms and the controls thought necessary to be established to mitigate their impact.
In my academic and recreational pursuits in the subject of history, action and motive has remained one of the larger enigmas of the events which proved to be the catalyst for larger actions. I recently wrote on the idea of causality and the start of the First World War, but it was the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and our present discussions on the control of the “scarier” looking weapons like the AR and AK platforms that lead to more contemplation and research into several basic components of a series of larger questions:
What were the types of firearms responsible for major political and national conflict?
Who was the target and what made them vital to a cause or ideal?
Who was the “shooter” and what were their motivations?
Overall, what were the repercussions of these intersections between privately-owned firearms and policy – both foreign and domestic?
As I research and compose this blog, it has become apparent that it will turn into a multi-part post. I ask only that the reader approaches my writing with the usual open mind and actively advocates recommendations or alternative perspectives…
Starting with the 20th century, we have seen firearms shaping conflicts and societal directions far beyond the impulses and intents of those who wielded them. However, many of these “world changing” tools were seemingly insignificant in their aesthetic capacity for evil.
The first example is a small pistol that, when compensated for inflation from 1901, would cost a paltry $124.07 in today’s market – a .32 caliber Iver Johnson Safety Automatic revolver. It was two rounds from this firearm on September 6, 1901, that caused the eventual death of American President William McKinley (1843-1901) over a week later due to gangrenous infection from his injuries. The assassin, anarchist Leon Czolgosz (1873-1091), was immediately tackled by James Parker (1857-?), an African-American waiter, and though the wounded McKinley stalled any immediate violent retribution from the crowd holding Czolgosz, the death of the President lead to federal charges against the assassin and execution on October 29, 1901. Though McKinley’s death was not the passing which preceded global conflict, the establishment of the U.S. Secret Service, the increased protection of future presidents, and the increased pressure on anarchists with the creation of the Alien Immigration Act of 1903 were still significant repercussions from the event.

The most significant of the firearms discussed was simple pistol that was relatively forgotten by history until it was donated to the Vienna Museum of Military History by Austrian Jesuits in 2004. While the caliber is unimposing – .380 has been surpassed by most military and police in favor of larger calibers – the FN Browning Model 1910 was the weapon of opportunity for Gavrilo Princip (1894-1918) on June 28, 1914. Princip, a 19-year-old Bosnian swayed by the growing wave of nationalism sweeping the Balkans at the turn of the century, fired only two rounds from his pistol from close range before being subdued by guards and bystanders. His targets – Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand (1863-1914) and his wife, Sophie (1868-1914) – died relatively quickly, setting the tone for the inevitable and glacial political and military preamble for what became the First World War. Over 20 million deaths and 21 million more casualties resulted from this conflict as a result of the introduction of new weapons, vehicles, and doctrines; more importantly, however, is the fact that the repercussions of those two shots continue to be felt today in the reverberating echoes of the events which they initiated.

The idea arose in our own minds, and we ourselves executed it. (Source: http://www.guns.com/2016/06/29/browning-fn-model-1910-the-first-shots-of-wwi/)
Next: The Kennedy brothers, King and X, and the turbulent decade…
Discover more from milsurpwriter
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Okay, I’ll willingly jump into this feet first.
I appreciate the picture being painted here and the questions above are really interesting. I also believe that I see where you’re headed with this and I do not want to distract from that as I feel like it’s an important discussion.
Having said that, my 10th Grade history teacher, Ray Miller, once taught me that the three causes of war are Nationalism, Imperialism, and Militarism. Princip’s actions were, I agree, the fuse being lit. But could not one argue that the groundwork for the war had already been essentially laid? If Princip had never pulled the trigger, would World War I not have happened anyway?
The effect across Europe of the militarization, arms races, and conflict between the socialist movements and monarchical governments had the continent, if not the world, on a collision course in which any given provocation would have likely set it off.
However, it is an interesting idea to contemplate the questions you have asked as the apply to Princip as an individual, rather than as a member(ish) of a movement. Given his lackluster fervor before his chance meeting after a wrong turn, it’s hard to imagine that he had any idea whatsoever of the ultimate role his actions would have in the conflagration about to consume his world.
Keep writing!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Europe was a mess long before Princip pulled the trigger, I agree… but it was that one crappy little pistol which started it all…
I’ve thought about this series for a bit while driving today, and I still feel that, even with it complete and queued, there is still a bit that I could have gone on about.
There always is….
However, the focus was the tool and not the structure. The other examples should give a more refined idea of my overall point….
Thanks for the input and reading 🙂
LikeLike