“AMC’s new, post-apocalyptic drama, Into the Badlands, premiered last night, and gave anti-gun liberals the world they’ve been clamoring for: one where all firearms have been outlawed,” newsbusters.org reports. “Only, far from the peaceful utopia gun control advocates always promise, the world has instead devolved back into the barbaric, feudal society that dominated much of human history. In the Badlands, you’re either a baron or a slave; there is very little in between.” Quite how a society can develop internal combustion engines without making the “leap” to firearms is a mystery almost as deep as the plot. Which is to say, plenty damn shallow. Still, worth watching? [h/t JA]

62 Responses to AMC’s Into the Badlands Imagines a World Without Guns, But Plenty of Sharp Objects [VIDEO]

  1. im not real sure what your comment about combustion engines leading to guns means. As they said above, “the guns were outlawed” kinda hard to outlaw something that doesn’t exist.

    • When you mentioned “combustion engines”, It reminds me of what a gunsmith told me when my wife was learning to drive, She came from an Asian country.
      He said ” It’s hard to go from the oxcart to the internal combustion engine in one generation”

    • Haven’t watched, don’t know for sure, but I think the original article wrote that ham-handedly. Newsbusters should revise it to, “gave anti-gun liberals the world they’ve been clamoring for: one without guns.”

  2. I’ve made this point repeatedly. How peacefull was the world pre gunpowder? Anybody ever hear of the longbow? The gladius? The ax? The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. And the human race is soaked in blood. Nothing will ever change that. Banning guns will just make it easier for the strong to murder the weak.

    As for these post apocalyptic shows. It’s just tv. In Mad Max world they could refine gas and keep v8 interceptors road worthy but they couldn’t make a musket or reload ammo for modern guns? Bows and crossbows was the best they could manage just a couple years after the big event?

    • While most of the components of a metallic cartridge are relatively straightforward, the really tricky one, the one that would prove the biggest hurdle, would be primers.

      From my understanding, the common primer recipes all involve heavy metals (lead, mercury) and the chemistry can be extremely touchy (lead styphnate, if processed incorrectly, can explode from the static electricity generated by the human body).

      • Aren’t a majority of ammo plant accidents/explosions caused by someone miss handling either primers or primer components?

      • I quite agree. You’ve mentioned something they could ban that would make our guns useless in a very short time, relatively speaking.

        Let’s not go giving the erstwhile dears any good ideas.

      • You’re certainly right that primers would be the biggest hurdle. However, it’s by no means an insurmountable one. If a civilization has electricity (and in Into the Badlands mankind is clearly still producing electric power) and access to salt water or halite (among the most abundant mineral resources on Earth), then that civilization can produce potassium chlorate. Potassium chlorate, when mixed with sulfur, charcoal and finely ground glass or a number of other easily oxidized fuels, the names of which evade my memory, produce a reliable, pressure-sensitive priming compound. In fact, if you have any surplus ammo with “corrosive primers,” those primers are almost certainly filled with a mixture of potassium perchlorate/chlorate, sulfur, antimony sulfide and a bit of powdered glass for easy ignition. By the way, this composition has existed since the 19th century; it’s hardly high tech, and it certainly doesn’t require raw materials that are particularly difficult to make or find. It is for this reason that the lack of AT LEAST 1870s firearms tech in the world of Mad Max and that of this new show makes me role my eyes and tune out. In fact, you could find YouTube videos of amateur chemists making and testing the aforementioned compound in their garages. Most firearms enthusiasts aren’t chemists, and thus don’t realize that maintaining modern firearms tech IS possible without an industrial infrastructure.

      • You’re certainly right that primers would be the biggest hurdle. However, it’s by no means an insurmountable one. If a civilization has electricity (and in Into the Badlands mankind is still producing electric power) and access to salt water or halite (among the most abundant mineral resources on Earth), then that civilization can produce potassium chlorate. Potassium chlorate, when mixed with sulfur, charcoal and finely ground glass or a number of other easily oxidized fuels, the names of which evade my memory, produces a reliable, pressure-sensitive priming compound. In fact, if you have any surplus ammo with “corrosive primers,” those primers are almost certainly filled with a mixture of potassium perchlorate/chlorate, sulfur, antimony sulfide and a bit of powdered glass for easy ignition. By the way, this composition has existed since the 19th century; it’s hardly high tech, and its manufacture certainly doesn’t require raw materials that are particularly difficult to make or find. It is for this reason that the lack of AT LEAST 1870s firearms tech in the world of Mad Max and that of this new show makes me role my eyes and tune out. In fact, you can find YouTube videos of amateur chemists making and testing the aforementioned compound in their garages (and other ignition compounds, for that matter). Most firearms enthusiasts aren’t chemists, and thus don’t realize that maintaining modern firearms tech IS possible with minimal infrastructure. If you have electricity, and definitely if you have cars, you’d have to be 50 shades of retarded not to have modern guns.

      • I’ve seen videos on YouTube of primer substitutes. I’m pretty sure paper caps were enough to ignite the cartridge. Like you cut out two squares of paper caps and put them under the anvil (I think that’s what it’s called) and it will fire. I’m not sure what they’re made of exactly but online it says something called Armstrong’s mixture.

  3. Recommended reading, from the dark ages of 2001: “A World Without Guns”
    By Dave Kopel, Paul Gallant, and Joanne Eisen of the Independence Institute
    http://www.davekopel.com/NRO/2001/A-World-Without-Guns.htm

    Further recommendation, from 1991: “A NATION OF COWARDS” by Jeffrey R. Snyder
    http://jim.com/cowards.htm

    Welcome to a rule by young, strong men with sharp objects, where women are chattels and the weak are eliminated. Sort of like living under Sharia law in the Islamic Caliphate.

  4. I’m guessing the whole “no guns” thing is just a shallow plot device to justify all the kung fu fighting more than any real statement of substance.

    Between the zombies and karate AMC is resembling the late night B movie blocks of years past. All they need now is a show about pirates.

  5. This is the same issue that has plagued humans forever. Without firearms, the biggest and strongest rule, because anyone who doesn’t bow to the stronger is simply killed outright. The stronger always dominated the weaker. The repeating firearm changed that somewhat, as with a colt hogleg the weakest was an equal to the strongest. No wonder that the powers that be desire to be the only ones with firearms. Bullies LOVE to be in charge.
    Its too bad we allowed that to devolve into ‘whoever can buy the most guns and hire the most mercenaries wins’, as it is today. But probably not forever. I sense that very soon now, humanity will wake up the fact that the only way to peace is being as well armed as the predators are.
    “Talk softly but carry a big stick” – Teddy Roosevelt

  6. I watched it. Diggin’ it, ’cause super kung fu action.

    Did wonder if the “no guns” society was a statement. Decided I don’t care.

    • Exactly. They only referenced the outlaw of guns at the very beginning and then dropped it so i’m going to say it’s just a plot device, not a political stance. Without which every scene would just look like the infamous Indiana Jones “sword fight”.

      • If it’s a political stance it reveals how stupid a stance that is. Eliminating guns doesn’t solve people problems. They whine about taking us back to the “wild west” while actively trying to take us back even further.

  7. I think this same concept was played out (minus the vehicles and electricity) in both pre-industrial Europe and Asia. Didn’t really work out well for most.

  8. There was a network series that went down a similar path a few seasons ago. It seems to me that all these second-rate producers should just suck it up and give S.M. Sterling gobs of money to do a massive “Game of Thrones”-style adaptation of his “Novels of the Change” series, which is where they’re stealing all this crap from anyway. In the initiator, “Dies The Fire,” there’s a big flash and the laws of physics change…gunpowder no longer works, steam won’t build up enough head to drive an engine, internal combustion no longer internally combusts, electricity fizzles out…and…prest-chango! Swords, bows, and SCA-types rule! Throw in a bunch of hot gratuitous sex, burn a few regulars at the stake and this sucker’s good for at least 6 seasons!

    Michael B

  9. I hadn’t even seen the trailer yet. It looks terrible if one wants to see at least semi-realistic fighting.

  10. Terrible.

    Absolutely terrible.

    Apparently guns as well as physics has been banned from this show, not even B rated movie quality.

    The fact that the producers of the walking dead are liberal anti gun nuts is smoothly integrated in the walking dead with people like Morgan who keeps preaching the “all life is precious” bull crap and him and the preacher refuse to use firearms in a world where they are needed the most.

    Into the badlands just blatantly slaps you in the face by removing firearms all together and glorifies the ability for society to live without them.

    Besides that, its just awful, just awful. The actors don’t even try to act like they are from that society.

    just…. no.

    edit:

    Forgot to add that the scene of a dozen guys attacking one guy but only taking him on one at a time or maybe two is classic fictional movie scene that sets the central defender up for amazing one man army fights.
    Might as well be a cartoon.

    • Do you actually watch any of these shows? Morgan is generally not well liked, Rick, Carol, and Daryl are fan favorites and all use guns. When they got to Alexandria the main leader banned carrying guns in the town, and the show made a point of showing how wrong she was. Twice since the show premiered they have gone on about training everyone to use guns, after learning that it wasn’t wise to disarm everyone but a few. Even a twelve year old is seen using a weapon to defend people? How is that anti gun?

      Into the Badlands shows a terrible, brutal, and cruel society, not exactly a Utopia that anti gun folks desire.

  11. So, in order to imagine a world without guns, I am required to imagine a world filed with objects even more restricted in use than guns? Got it.

    Blades are Arms too, damn it!

  12. Science fiction has been guilty of similar things before: create a world where some how fire arms are impractical or otherwise un-needed in favor of edged weapons so you can have dramatic sword battles for plot purposes. Look at works like Star Wars, Dune, etc… where some how a “blade” is the superior fighting weapon to a projectile arm. People love the concept of knights and swashbucklers in space or in futuristic settings, its just that most of those types were wiped out easily when firearms became dominant infantry weapons, see the English Civil War, or the 19th century Japanese power struggles.

    • Well in dune, Herbert doesn’t really discount the notion, he gives a reason why you don’t see projectile weapons , namely the creation of personal energy shields. Even then, there are dart guns which move projectiles at a slow enough to penetration them, and also energy weapons that carry the hazard of setting off a nuclear explosion .

      • Its been years since I read the books, but as I recall the dart weapons were used mainly for assassination, and most of the infantry fighting was done with swords and daggers.

      • A similar argument could be made for Star Wars; nearly everyone uses ranged weapons. The only ones who do not either use the Force (which is, itself, ranged) and (in the last movie made) those who specialize in fighting force users (Gen. Grevious and his Magna Guards). They provide an explanation why their melee weapon is superior for these users: using the Force they can use it to deflect, and even return fire against, the blaster wielders; something they could not do if they were armed with the blasters.

        Both, however, have huge gaping holes in their excuses; in Star Wars if lightsabers are an actual factor, then using projectiles that explode when they are hit with a lightsaber only makes sense, and yet no one does (except in the now ret-conned books). In Dune, if shooting a shield with a laser turns that shield into a nuclear bomb, then no one would ever be dumb enough to try to use shields on anything large (like the house shields); WAY too easy to turn against the user.

        • Ahem.. Dune nerd here. When you use a laser against a shield the feed back kills the laser and the shield. That’s why Muad’Dib(long live the fighters! Duke Paul Muad’Dib!) used atomics against the shield wall after the fury of Shai’Halud(sand storm) shorted the shield to reduce the chance of accidental feedback. The Kwizach Hadirath knows all…

    • In the third Star Wars prequel, the lightsaber-wielding Jedi are systematically mowed down by blaster-wielding stormtroopers for the most part. Sure, a Jedi vs 1 stormtrooper equals a win for the Jedi, but as shown in the prequel, a coordinated attack from all the stormtroopers manages to take down the “elite” Jedi.

      Leaving the good vs evil out of the conversation, in this case, the blaster (firearm) is the great equalizer in the fight vs the skilled lightsaber (sword) wielders of the Jedi.

      Historically, that’s always why the nobility got all bent out of shape when the peasants obtained things like crossbows, and later, gunpowder-based weapons. A sword requires years of skill and some strength to operate, skills (and strength) that your average serf didn’t have the time to develop. He’s too busy tilling the fields to spend time in the exercise yard. Crossbows, and later, guns, changed that. Now, your average serf with little training could wield a weapon which could fell an armored nobleman-knight at a distance. Grievously injured or dead knight, and the serf can get away to fight another day.

      Projectile weapons are truly the great equalizer.

      • Even Obi-Wan had to use a blaster to take out General Grievous. The reason the Republic adopted the army of clone stormtroopers was because of the threat of the battle droids overwhelming the Jedi, only to have the stormtroopers to overwhelm them instead.

    • Even in the heyday of the sword, it was never a primary weapon in battle. Through much of history, the sword was a status symbol carried by the nobility which never got much in the way of actual use in shedding blood….pikes, lances, spears, axes and the like were the primary tools of warfare. For soldiers who did have a sword on hand, it occupied the same place a pistol has for a soldier today…a secondary weapon of last resort to be used when you lost your mace or your halberd snapped……a world where a bunch of morons chose swords as their primary weapons would be a world quickly conquered by longbowmen, pike men and cavalry of various types.

      • The sword, specifically the gladius, was a primary battle weapon for the Romans, especially during the late Republic.

        Battles typically went like this: march toward the enemy at a steady pace. When you’re in range, throw javelins. If you’ve got more than one, wait a bit, then do another salvo. Then it’s close, draw swords, and get to stabbing at stomachs (mainly). The gladius was really short, basically machete length, very sharp, with a very pointy tip, and it was really effective at gutting and decent at hacking and slashing. Roman warfare evolved over the centuries, but for a very long time, it was very much infantry focused, and that infantry soldier was primarily a swordsman.

  13. It’d be interesting to see the “Walking Dead” world after a couple of centuries had passed.

    Zombieism as TWD describes it is basically a crude and blunt vampirism, bites turn people and those unfortunate enough to be turned become “the undead”.

    A tradition of stabbing the recently deceased clear through the eye would take hold in the culture, and after a few centuries, people would forget why they do it and think it quaint superstition. (Substitute heart for eye/brain for the vampire scenario)

    • But it’s clear the zombies’ days are numbered: one can see that they’re slowly falling apart from season to season. Eventually the law of diminishing returns will rule the day, and zombies might become as hard to find as Bigfoot.

      • Not only that, but terrible winters would kill the zombies off every year. In certain places such as Alaska and every Northern State such as North Dakota, Washington, Michigan, Ohio and others would be the safest places to be in a zombie apocalypse. Anywhere that is cold would be best.

        Even places down south get hit with cold spells, which should kill more of them off.

  14. I literally fell asleep during this show. I can handle all kinds of degrees of unrealistic; I cannot tolerate any degree of unrealistic coupled with this level of uninteresting.

    • Agreed, it wasn’t because of the lack of guns, it just wasn’t great to me, I found myself reading a book half an hour in.

  15. Like the iFunny poster says [if they get rid of guns] the agenda will be:

    1) Buy a sword
    2) Name the sword “Kindness”
    3) Kill everyone with Kindness

    • Good; but better for the upcoming SHTF “Cowboys and Muslims” war:

      1) Buy an AR
      2) Name the AR “Kindness”
      3) Kill every Muslim Jihadist with “Kindness”

  16. I could care less about the show one way or another. What I want to point out to everyone is that a fit person, with minimal training/practice, using a sword of the likes in that screen capture, can inflict devastating injuries to multiple victims almost as fast as you could with a firearm. I dare say that sword would be more lethal than a handgun.

    A world without firearms means a world filled with edged weapons … a world that is NOT safer than a world with personal protection firearms.

  17. Guns were banned and the world divided up by 7 barons. So….. who gave up their guns first and how did they survive?

  18. To mention all the different ways we could kill each other without guns is pointless. There will NEVER be world without guns! Ain’t gonna ever happen! No matter how tough the laws and penalties eventually get, People will get their hands on gun one way or the other, even if they have to make them their self.

  19. “AMC’s Into the Badlands Imagines a World Without Guns, But Plenty of Sharp Objects”

    Huh, sounds like “Bunraku”…

  20. More brain dead crap from Hollyweird. They make this dreck without realizing their liberal utopian politics is what they are warning about in these dystopian movies about the breakdown of society.

  21. Why does the badlands people have no guns or can’t produce guns while they can run their internal combustion motorcycles around?

    Aliens came in, they banned the use of guns. Simple as that. Anyone caught holding a gun will be shot dead by a laser from an alien ship from outer space. That is the only REALISTIC answer I can come up with to this very unrealistic no guns policy question.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *