In "Shooting an Elephant," why would the Burmese have no weapons?

There are three general reasons why the Burmese might not have weapons, reasons that each might apply but that are very different from one another.

The first reason is there is a history of nonviolence in Burma. The Burmese might not have weapons due to their philosophical orientation.

The second reason is the Burmese might well have had weapons, but no guns (and Orwell is simply generalizing too broadly). You could have a staff or...

There are three general reasons why the Burmese might not have weapons, reasons that each might apply but that are very different from one another.

The first reason is there is a history of nonviolence in Burma. The Burmese might not have weapons due to their philosophical orientation.

The second reason is the Burmese might well have had weapons, but no guns (and Orwell is simply generalizing too broadly). You could have a staff or knife and not be able to stop an elephant.

The third reason is political. Decades earlier, the British had passed laws limiting gun ownership among their colonies. For example, in 1878 the British passed a law allowing Europeans to carry guns freely, but markedly limiting Indian access to guns. It was hard for colonial subjects to get the licenses required to own guns.