An Armed Society is a Polite Society (?)

[BishopOfBattle]

Criminals assume the innocent is more likely to be armed therefore bring weaponry to make their point.

I have my doubts about the validity of that point. There are plenty of stories where the potential victim brandishes a weapon which in turn causes the assailant to flee. Criminals bring weaponry to intimidate their victim so that they have an easier time achieving whatever their particular ends are.

We're talking figures in the vein of 50 to 1 in comparison with Australia. And I don't know who said it but: "Have you ever heard of a drive-by stabbing?"

Your figure is grossly exaggerated; according to Wikipedia's listing of national homicide rates they are closer to 5 to 1. And other statistic sources list it as being a closer gap (though finding good statistics on national crime rate in general has proven difficult I am finding). That said, I do still agree that America has a higher homicide rate than Australia or the UK, but we also have a higher non-firearm related homicide rate in general, which indicates there are many other factors than just firearms coming into play.

Homicide is also only one example of national crime that reflect the level of "public safety". According to NationMaster.com (the best site I could find online as far as comparing multiple crime statistics across nations) Australia also has over twice as many rapes as the US per 1k people. Both the UK and Australia also have twice the number of assaults as the US. The UK and Australia have 2 and 3 times the burglaries respectively of the US. Unfortunately I was not able to find any statistics on the use of knives in crimes between countries, which I think would be a more valid comparison of violent crime between countries.

My point is that firearms, or any other weapon or object used as such, are not the sources of the problems, they are tools that are used for both legal and illegal ends. You can't cure the problem, nor should you try to, by eliminating the tools.

The common response to terrorism is that, if as a result, you are restricted from your normal activities that the terrorists have scored a victory. Violent criminals share many of the same descriptors as terrorists, but it is far more common of a reaction to put restrictions on everyone in place as a response.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

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

Bad argument.

Criminals assume the innocent is more likely to be armed therefore bring weaponry to make their point.

Breaking in to an empty house in America could result in you pinching a gun. The ease of getting guns in America is the problem and why they are used so much by criminals.

Hardly since not alot of people do not bother with owning one because of the fees. Weapons make it that much easier for criminals to operate.

This is a simple argument like the one over free thought by removing free thought we create a "better" society, thus by removing one more right one more freedom from the individual you may make society some how better. But the trouble is it dose not end until all or most rights are in the hands of authority.

Guns are not the issue human frailty is. Guns are tools the same as any other and like drugs you will further black market power and influence if you try and ban it. So in the end we humans must understand that we can not protect humanity from being human but we can promote responsibility and mitigate insanity with solid rules and laws without banning it and making it far worse than it is.

 

[Ultrajoe]

It's funny, in Australia, our gun laws are very very strict and I've barely heard of a shooting in my time.

I'd say less guns = safer citizens.

I agree Rain, but in america the gun culture is too deeply ingrained. You would have a hard time trying to remove them, the problem has advanced too far and would result in too many shootings or resistances trying to enforce the laws. It would take a 20 year program starting with youth, and no government is in office long enough to attempt that.

Result? More shootings, but no way to stop them without more shootings.

What do you do? I have no idea.

In response to the original OP: An armed society might be a polite society, but it's sure as damn not the best way to get a polite society.

 

[Brett Alex]

Depends on who has the extra guns. More guns in the hands of concealed carry permit holders equals safer citizens; more guns in the hands of criminals equals less safe citizens. Guess which group are affected the most by gun laws?

The only problem is they can be one and the same sometimes. Those groups aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[flatearth]

I might add this, the less handguns you have, the safer the people are from getting shot.

I come from Finland, and we have tons of weapons here in the hands of civilians. Finland is seveth on the list of firearms per capita. The thing is that we have a strong hunting culture, and many people have legal shotguns and hunting rifles. We don't get much gun violence, because we don't allow many handguns.
The only way to get a license to own a handgun is to get a hunting license and get it for to finish the shot animals, or if you are a member of a shooting club. In the latter case, you will normally get a license for .22 pistols and not even for 9mm. Now there are discussions to ban all licenses for handguns because both of Finland's school shootings were done with a legal .22 pistol.
To be more exact on the amounts of gun violence. I live in one of the largest cities in the country, and I have never heard a gunshot in the city (I have heard them in the shooting tracks and such), and can only remember one single case in the papers of shots fired in the city.

 

[JMeganSnow]

Since, technically, you can use just about anything as a weapon there is not likely to be any causal relation between weapons and politeness. There probably is a *correlation*, however, which is where that phrase came from. (People mix up statistical correlations and causal factors ALL THE FREAKIN' TIME.)

Societies where there is widespread LEGAL possession of weapons tend to be societies where individual rights are respected *and* individuals are expected to be responsible for their actions. Societies where individual rights are *not* respected have a vested interest in keeping weapons out of the hands of the plebs, who are all too prone to indulge in armed rebellion when they are starving and oppressed. Societies where individuals are not held *accountable* for their actions tend to degenerate.

So, I would say that the proper wording would be "a responsible society is a polite society". Granted, it doesn't have the ring of the original.

 

[Lord Krunk]

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. - Robert Anson Heinlein

The god of Science Fiction not only coined the phrase, but wrote about it often. In theory it works, but the phrase alone doesn't tell the whole story. In Heinlein's 'verse, men were armed with a single pistol. If you insulted - by action or word - another man or that man's woman, he could challenge you. There is no accepting or not, a challenge against another armed man meant one will be shot (and probably killed). Now a man could relinquish his gun at any point in life, and from then on in he had to take whatever harassment others offered and could not speak up in his defense, but also could not be challenged to a duel.

In that situation, yes an armed society would be a polite society. In reality, without dueling laws in place, and armed society is going to result in countless shootings and not nearly enough cops to investigate. If any punk mother fucker teen could shoot someone, then claim they dueled, we'd be either cowed by the criminals and miscreants, or we'd pre-emtively kill anyone we meet for fear they'll do the same to us.

I wouldn't have worded it like that, but that's what I was going to say.

"An armed society is a polite society." Yeah, when no-one's left as a result, I would agree.

 

[Eyclonus]

It's funny, in Australia, our gun laws are very very strict and I've barely heard of a shooting in my time.

I remember the debate at that time, including the farmer's union screaming about the near-total ban on handguns for some ridiculous reasons.

I'd say less guns = safer citizens.

I sort of agree with that, except the level of knife crime in Britain kind of disproves that. Whilst guns are pretty much restricted, people are still shanking each other with much enthusiasm.

 

[tcolberg]

An armed society != a polite society.

An armed society is a totalitarian society where dissent is quashed by a sufficiently irritated majority.

I'm not against banning guns. I like guns and know a fair bit about them, but I'm staunchly in favor of strict gun control. In the United States, it is far too easy to obtain large caliber, automatic, and assault weapons. As Virginia Tech demonstrated, it's very easy for the emotionally and mentally disturbed to obtain stockpiles of weapons. I believe these problems can be ameliorated without revoking the Second Amendment.

Frankly, I point out to people I meet who are in favor of less gun control that the 2nd Amendment refers to a "well-regulated militia".

 

[Lord Krunk]

It's funny, in Australia, our gun laws are very very strict and I've barely heard of a shooting in my time.

I remember the debate at that time, including the farmer's union screaming about the near-total ban on handguns for some ridiculous reasons.

Yeah, it was because of some massacre in Tasmania that got Lil' Johnny mad.

At least, that's what I think happened. Anyway, it was definitely some guy having a killing spree that caused the ban.

I think it's for the better, though, although one of my friends (who wants an automatic shotgun to kill rabbits at his farm) disapproves.

 

[Copter400]

No, I don't think a society armed to the teeth neccesarily equates to a courteous public. People will generally stay belligerent jerks no matter what kind of situation they are confonted with.

 

[Eyclonus]

It's funny, in Australia, our gun laws are very very strict and I've barely heard of a shooting in my time.

I remember the debate at that time, including the farmer's union screaming about the near-total ban on handguns for some ridiculous reasons.

Yeah, it was because of some massacre in Tasmania that got Lil' Johnny mad.

At least, that's what I think happened. Anyway, it was definitely some guy having a killing spree that caused the ban.

I think it's for the better, though, although one of my friends (who wants an automatic shotgun to kill rabbits at his farm) disapproves.

Actually several episodes of people with guns having "moments" lead to it. Port Arthur was just the messiest.

 

[Amnestic]

automatic shotgun to kill rabbits at his farm

I thought the point of killing rabbits was 1) to stop them munching your crops and 2) to give you rabbit meat to sell/eat. While it might do 1 quite sufficiently, wouldn't it basically 'pulpify' (is that a real word? eh, who cares) the rabbit and make it inedible?

It's just many Americans must defend their ambiguous constitutional right

Bolded the important part. The fact that people are still debating it even now calls into question how much of a right it really is. Considering the wide variety of types weapons on sale to the general public, I'd have to say that they've buggered up something along the way.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

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

Bad argument.

Criminals assume the innocent is more likely to be armed therefore bring weaponry to make their point.

Breaking in to an empty house in America could result in you pinching a gun. The ease of getting guns in America is the problem and why they are used so much by criminals.

Hardly since not alot of people do not bother with owning one because of the fees. Weapons make it that much easier for criminals to operate.

This is a simple argument like the one over free thought by removing free thought we create a "better" society, thus by removing one more right one more freedom from the individual you may make society some how better. But the trouble is it dose not end until all or most rights are in the hands of authority.

Guns are not the issue human frailty is. Guns are tools the same as any other and like drugs you will further black market power and influence if you try and ban it. So in the end we humans must understand that we can not protect humanity from being human but we can promote responsibility and mitigate insanity with solid rules and laws without banning it and making it far worse than it is.

I don't buy the black market argument. Some will inevitably slip through the net. Some in the UK are modified. Guns, totally will not disappear. But guns drastically decrease in number. Only place i've even see a Policeman carrying a gun (MP5, no less) was at the Airport in the UK.

And it's 'hardly' easy to break in and steal a gun in America. I absolutely guarantee you it's easier than it is in the UK.

And i would argue, it makes sense for Civilians not to have weaponry. It's just many Americans must defend their constitutional right to have them. Course, lets face it some civvies with weaponry is hardly going to protect you from oppression if the government wanted to.

Ignoring the fact they pretty much have most of America under control through fear and have done for many years.

FYI Gun bans work in the UK because you didn't have millions of guns on the street and a healthy constitution to protect the right to own a weapon. Guns are a healthy part of the black market anywhere you go and like drugs you ban and heavily enforce it the price and demand will go up on them anything that gains the black market a dime equates to dollars to trouble the government with.

If that was not clear enough you have a slightly different setup in the UK you can not simply ban guns in the US, de weaponization works best after hard conflicts when the people are mentally weak and tried from the warring. The US is also despite evidence otherwise is republic of the people and the people would fuss, sue and minorly revolt if the government took guns away through a ban.

Hell look at states that have lax guns laws its mixed bag of crime rates to state its not worth the cost to remove guns from the public. Tragedies happen its part of life and the human experience you can not simply remove one thing because it might be tragic, lets limit vehicles to not go over 40MPH make them heaver more protective and cost 2-4X to use and buy lets burden the people more by trying to effect wishy washy moralisim from the top down.

Ack rant mode is over 9000!
Anyway my point being it would not work for the US but for a society not use to guns and weapons or is in between warring you could easily ban them and control them in a reasonable manner however you will never get rid of them since drugs are literally everywhere.

edited for zippy speak:3/25/09 (yes I know I am late...)

automatic shotgun to kill rabbits at his farm

I thought the point of killing rabbits was 1) to stop them munching your crops and 2) to give you rabbit meat to sell/eat. While it might do 1 quite sufficiently, wouldn't it basically 'pulpify' (is that a real word? eh, who cares) the rabbit and make it inedible?

It's just many Americans must defend their ambiguous constitutional right

Bolded the important part. The fact that people are still debating it even now calls into question how much of a right it really is. Considering the wide variety of types weapons on sale to the general public, I'd have to say that they've buggered up something along the way.

Newest word for SCOTUS is that it is a right to bear arms and frankly there is lil difference in mods and what not the whole thing needs to be overhauled and simplified. Your right to bear arms should be akin to your right to vote(felony=losing those rights) only with mental checks

It's not going to kill someone to wait a week for processing to get their gun.

 

[Uncompetative]

"An Armed Society is a Polite Society"
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?

So, you agree with this do you? Hmmm....

In other words you are saying that the veiled threat of extreme (or terminal) violence guarantees Good Manners. That's sad.

 

[Scolar Visari]

http://www.gleamingedge.com/mirrors/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html
Read please.

 

[DiamondJim]

"An Armed Society is a Polite Society"
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?

So, you agree with this do you? Hmmm....

In other words you are saying that the veiled threat of extreme (or terminal) violence guarantees Good Manners. That's sad.

No. Not at all. I'm merely stating I found the argument intriguing. I'm not an advocate, nor am I against it. I'm quite ambiguous about the whole idea. I wanted to know what other people thought of it. And I find your response to an innocent question very rude.