An Armed Society is a Polite Society (?)

[DiamondJim]

I have a roomie who follows this creedo (and anything similar to it), and normally I tend to accept the fact that he has a one track mind. I saw this on a button and decided I was having difficulty arguing it.

Also, I realize there are probably other gun-rights threads, but I found this particular phrase intriguing.

I hate to leave this too broad, but... thoughts?

 

[Clairaudient]

Personally I'm not against having guns, I think that the control is the major problem. It's far too easy for an unstable person to obtain a gun. Not to mention if a normal, respectable citizen gets caught in a heat of the moment encounter where they might lose their cool over something.

Guns are too much of a iWin button. They're the first thing people seem to go for if they possess one. Using a gun is higher up on most reaction lists than discussing the conflict or hugging it out.

 

[DannyDamage]

Look at the UK. We don't all have guns but we've got some serious knife crime issues.

I agree that guns aren't going to solve the problem but if someone wants to harm another person, they'll find something to arm themselves with.

 

[RetiarySword]

The amount of firepower doesn't show how friendly you are. Its either your comfortable in situations because you know your packing, or the next step is you think you can do anything, because your packing.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Well people who understand guns and safety tend to be a brighter people, note I said safety thats soemthign people donot comprehend.

Another thing people do not understand you can not ban something because of a few crazy people because it will just lead to the ban on other things.

Also criminals will always have weapons so banning it to make innocent people less safe is also silly.

 

[Amnestic]

I have a roomie who follows this creedo (and anything similar to it), and normally I tend to accept the fact that he has a one track mind. I saw this on a button and decided I was having difficulty arguing it.

Also, I realize there are probably other gun-rights threads, but I found this particular phrase intriguing.

I hate to leave this too broad, but... thoughts?

Scroll down to the table at the bottom for quick and concise information [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States].

Do guns make a polite society? No. Do lack of guns make a polite society? No. Is one better than the other? Eh, perhaps, but it's all a matter of perspective.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

It seems to work in Vermont, no one there is required to have a license, register, permit to carry, etc. Lowest police force, surprisingly low crime rate. S***, the bus driver at the summer camp I worked at had a gun on him most of the time.

 

[Scorched_Cascade]

This phrase should work in theory but clearly doesnt judging from knife crime (a knife is a weapon therefore by owning one you are armed) and gun crime (even in places where guns are legalized). The only place I can see where this has held true (so far) is at the international level with nuclear weapons.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

It seems to work in Vermont, no one there is required to have a license, register, permit to carry, etc. Lowest police force, surprisingly low crime rate. S***, the bus driver at the summer camp I worked at had a gun on him most of the time.

Thats the trick it only needs minor regulation by the region it really should be county by county with a more lose fed guideline for to advise the regions..

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

More Polite : England or America?

 

[Grampy_bone]

Crime is primarily a factor of economics. I'm all for an armed society. It's also nice knowing I can walk down the street where I live without packing heat. Not everyone has that luxury.

 

[BishopOfBattle]

The line is perhaps a little bit skewed, but the intent is there. The idea is that if a criminal don't know whether or not you might be carrying a firearm, he's less likely to rob you, assault you, rape you, or whatever other nefarious deeds he might have in mind.

Personally I'm not against having guns, I think that the control is the major problem. It's far too easy for an unstable person to obtain a gun.

No Pro-Gun person is going to tell you that criminals or "unstables" should own firearms, its just a bad idea. The problem with most gun laws, is that they don't affect only people that break the law or will break they law. Unless the person has shown themselves legally too irresponsible to own a firearm, how can you effectively restrict them without putting up laws that make it more difficult for those of us who are responsible firearm owners? Many laws proposed these days for gun control would be akin to banning "performance cars" because some people use them to street race.

 

[Amnestic]

The idea is that if I don't know whether or not you might be carrying a firearm, I'm less likely to rob you, assault you, rape you, or whatever other nefarious deeds I might have in mind.

The problem then being that you can rob, assault, rape and commit the nefarious deeds even if they have a gun if you have a gun as well and you get the jump on them. And suddenly you're not less likely to strike at all and it doesn't matter if you have it in mind, you've got the upper hand because your hand is on your gun and there's are not.

 

[Hawgh]

It fails to take into the significant move of striking someone from hiding, something that relies on the premises of everyone seeing and knowing everything about everyone, is first of all absurd.
Secondly, the first premise for it to function properly already removes every possible reason for conflict amongst peers.

EDIT: eventual nonsensicalness is due me being ill at the moment

 

[Sir_Montague]

Guns protect the innocent as well as arm and influence the dangerous. They're a blessing and a curse lol... So I wouldn't argue that in the hands of someone who plans only to use it as self defense it adds up to a polite society, but in the hands of the dangerous; those who no one wants to have guns; it detracts from our society. I'm sorry for feeling now like I've pointed out the obvious. The post started with good intentions lol

 

[ReepNeep]

Look at the UK. We don't all have guns but we've got some serious knife crime issues.

I agree that guns aren't going to solve the problem but if someone wants to harm another person, they'll find something to arm themselves with.

Career criminals will use whatever weapon is at hand, be it a pistol, a knife, a length of chain, a baseball bat or their bare hands. Banning objects that can potentially be used in an act of violence is futile and deprives law-abiding citizens of the legitimate uses of those objects.

Sounds like a good time to learn some Kung-Fu if you live in the UK, cause if you get mugged you're going to be unarmed while your assailant will surely not be.

 

[BishopOfBattle]

@ Amnestic

True, but the victim not having a firearm does not make it less likely that the assailant will also not be carrying. As its been said before in this thread, the gun is viewed as an "iWin" button, and in history has been regarded as the "Great Equalizer".

Given two equally armed individuals, a criminal will typically target those they perceive as less confident, smaller in stature, less prepared, etc. People who they will have an easier time besting. If neither are armed, it comes down to a question of stature and possibly skill in unarmed combat. Even if both are armed, the tables become a little bit more even in terms of lethality and the question becomes who is willing to use that lethality first.

In either scenario, the victim is never going to have the advantage. That's a real world scenario. The victim NEVER has the advantage at the beginning. If the victim always had the advantage, crime wouldn't really be an issue. ^_~

 

[goodman528]

"'ere, hand us your wallet!"
[pulls out a .50 Desert eagle] "not untill you say 'please'..."