An Armed Society is a Polite Society (?)

[tsb247]

I'm going to counter that by saying that in many states here in the U.S. the penalty for using a gun in a crime can range from 10 years to life (with or without parole depending on the decision), and of course there is still the death penalty in some states depending on whether or not said criminal harmed anyone. Our laws on gun crime are FAR stricter here, and still, they find a way to happen. The funny part is that a lot of them still happen in areas with the strictest gun control.

Why would someone risk these consequences? It's simple. They don't believe they will get caught, and they certainly have no respect for the law if they are out knocking over convenience stores with a Glock in the first place.

As it has been stated many times before, criminals won't respect any ban that were to be passed, and they all think they are too slick to get caught. A gun ban would only hurt those who do follow the laws. It's not like the gang memebers and thugs are going to turn in their weapons because they suddenly became illegal.

Not every criminal is a smooth operator, or a crazy person. I'm talking from experience here, there are some people in the UK that before such strict laws against owning a firearm would happily consider using a gun rather than a knife for general "protection" on the street a.k.a. for sorting out arguments, drug deals, small scale mugging etc. But now think it's not worth the risk for the extra protection it provides over a knife.

You appear to be making the assumption that 'protection' means commiting a crime, a.k.a. druge deals, small scale mugging, etc.

 

[notmyoldaccount]

I'm going to counter that by saying that in many states here in the U.S. the penalty for using a gun in a crime can range from 10 years to life (with or without parole depending on the decision), and of course there is still the death penalty in some states depending on whether or not said criminal harmed anyone. Our laws on gun crime are FAR stricter here, and still, they find a way to happen. The funny part is that a lot of them still happen in areas with the strictest gun control.

Why would someone risk these consequences? It's simple. They don't believe they will get caught, and they certainly have no respect for the law if they are out knocking over convenience stores with a Glock in the first place.

As it has been stated many times before, criminals won't respect any ban that were to be passed, and they all think they are too slick to get caught. A gun ban would only hurt those who do follow the laws. It's not like the gang memebers and thugs are going to turn in their weapons because they suddenly became illegal.

Not every criminal is a smooth operator, or a crazy person. I'm talking from experience here, there are some people in the UK that before such strict laws against owning a firearm would happily consider using a gun rather than a knife for general "protection" on the street a.k.a. for sorting out arguments, drug deals, small scale mugging etc. But now think it's not worth the risk for the extra protection it provides over a knife.

You appear to be making the assumption that 'protection' means commiting a crime, a.k.a. druge deals, small scale mugging, etc.

Protection for criminals is most definitly going to be when comitting a crime.

 

[kawligia]

An Armed Society is a Polite Society...
so long as everyone agrees with that particular society and all its credences and laws. Basically, this distinctly euro-centric phrase seems to be a variation on, "might makes right" or "speak softly and carry a big stick", only with the logical order switched around (as if having guns makes one sophisticated and intelligent).

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

"Might makes right" means that in absence of some other authority, superior force will decide who is right and who is not.

"Speak softly and carry a big stick" means that you should be calm and reasonable when making a demand, but still have the ability to back yourself up if you are met with resistance. It's like saying "You can get more of what you want with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word." Without a method of enforcement, your demands are just hot air.

"An armed society is a polite society" has nothing to do with an imbalance of power or the making of demands. It means that when people are armed, they are unlikely to disrespect others and are less likely to respond in kind when they ARE disrespected.

Basically, it means that when power IS BALANCED, people are less likely to piss you off, but when they do, you are more likely to just let it go. Otherwise, you know where it might end up and its not worth it. The only time someone bullies or disrespects another is when they think they have the upper hand. In an armed society, that upper hand is MUCH harder to get.

 

[hannahdonno]

No one is going to give shit to someone with a gun.

 

[demonsaber]

I support moderate gun control. In my country (US) it is fairly easy to get a firearm and where I live, it does not even need to be registered. As soon as you turn 18 you can walk into a store and buy a shotgun or rifle (automatics and pistols you have to be 21 but the case is still the same) and then proceed to carry it around fully loaded on the streets without a cop being able to say anything about it. Sure you need to get a license to conceal the weapon, but what's the point when it is a shotgun/rifle which cannot be concealed anyways. Letting people walk around with loaded shotguns just seems like a bad idea.

Then again, I have never been bothered with people that have firearms where I live.

 

[lleihsad]

Well, America is a less polite society then many that have strict gun control. It's a nifty catchphrase, but it's hardly a truism. Besides, guys with guns tend to eschew politeness when they're the only ones in the room that have them (at least on hand).

Speaking of taking away the right to bear arms in America is pretty much moot, though. The American people will, for good or ill, remain armed.