Thread: Is an armed society a polite one?

Originally Posted by Alban

Firstly, Oneironaut, I think you changed my mind:
Americans, arm yourselves because those guys in uniforms sure as hell aren't gonna protect you!

Sadly enough I have to agree with you. More so police than our armed forces. I suspect maybe that's what you meant?

Originally Posted by Alban

I still find the title of this thread intriguing.
I thought we were talking about the legality of guns to some extent but I think I may have missed something.

Not being pointed here Howie, but could you clarify for me what you mean when you ask if an armed society would be a more polite one?

No problem Alban. The Title could be misleading.
By having a society that can arm themselves, will this in effect create an sustain a society that is polite - One that is not as prone to act criminally when the perpetrators know that one could be armed to defend themselves.



EDIT: came out all wrong the first time

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Being a libertarian, and also always (rightly) sensing that there are lots of people who want to take our guns away, I admit I have a knee-jerk reaction when it comes to gun laws. There are some libertarians who think that guns shouldn't even be licensed; I know there are some libertarians in my state who won't support concealed carry because the law will be that people have to be registered, and they don't want any limitations. I don't guess I'd go that far; you have to license cars and dogs, why not guns? I am thinking about what you are saying; but the fact is that the guns are here now, they won't be going away anytime soon. Wow your friend is scary (I don't think I'd hang around with someone like that; not in public anyway, be careful!) It doesn't seem like he would mind breaking the law to carry a gun if he had to (which he probably is, having a psychiatric diagnosis.) So again, the law-breakers are going to have guns, and only people who don't want to break the law will avoid carrying them, if there are not laws allowing it.

Don't get me wrong, Moonbeam. I have nothing against guns, in general. I am not down for taking away the rights of any responsible citizen to own guns. In fact, when I get the extra money, I will be getting my concealed carry permit and my first piece. My posts on this thread only reflect my thoughts on an armed society being more polite. I just don't think that it is, objectively, true - given which society is being talked about.

My friend is actually moving out of state, soon. So, (not to seem callous about it) his affinity for guns is not something that I have to be on alert for, for much longer, as we won't be hanging out like we used to.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

True but I can't get past the fact that they will still have guns no matter what the laws are--so why can't I carry one?

I don't believe there is any reason why you should not be able to carry one. In fact, I think the large presense of illegal guns is a very big reason why law-abiding citizens should be able to carry guns. As it pertains to this topic, though: I just think that we should all be aware of the liabilities and possible consequences inherent in guns being available to everyone. If anything, I think it makes any given society more volitale(sp). But, as you mention, when criminals are arming themselves to the teeth, what other options to law-abiding citizens have? I'm not in disagreement with you, on this.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Don't the statistics show otherwise tho?

In many places, they might. But in certain areas (such as much of Florida, at this point in time) the statistics have most definitely backed the theory that more guns available to the public, en masse, is no guarantee of increased security. In areas where so many people feel they have less to lose than they do to gain, by taking what they want and exacting their own revenge, the presence of guns is both the ultimate edge (for the criminals) and the ultimate equalizer (for law-abiding citizens). To the logic of the types of people committing those crimes, the 'battlefield' is simply getting hotter, and many of them are a lot quicker to blast, it seems.

What state do you live in, if you don't mind my asking?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

O, I think the Virginia shooter got the guns legally, but I don't think he was supposed to have them on campus. Because of that rule, no one else had a gun, so no one could stop him.

That's a good point.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

so why can't I carry one?

Why would you want to? That's what I don't get...

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

My friend is actually moving out of state, soon. So, (not to seem callous about it) his affinity for guns is not something that I have to be on alert for, for much longer, as we won't be hanging out like we used to.

Well that's good! He sounded like he could get you in trouble.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

As it pertains to this topic, though: I just think that we should all be aware of the liabilities and possible consequences inherent in guns being available to everyone. If anything, I think it makes any given society more volitale(sp).

1) Yes, and 2) I don't know for sure; I just tend to think if I was drivinig around and someone tried to jack my car or something I'd be safer with one. I wasn't really thinking of the circumstance where everyone would actually be carrying a gun, most illegally.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

In many places, they might. But in certain areas (such as much of Florida, at this point in time) the statistics have most definitely backed the theory that more guns available to the public, en masse, is no guarantee of increased security.

Concealed carry wouldn't make more or less guns available, I don't think. But I guess you are really arguing that arming every one doesn't make everyone safer; it seems not to be the case necessarily where you live. I get now that you are discussin Howie's intial question, not whether or not concealed carry should be allowed. We need more examples of places where most people carry guns, to compare.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

What state do you live in, if you don't mind my asking?

I'm in Wisconsin, which I think along with Illinois are the last two states not to have some sort of concealed carry law (not 100% sure about that). Where I live now the most reason you might want to have a gun on you is to put a deer out of its misery if you hit it. But when I go back to St. Louis, or sometimes if I go to Milwaukee or Chicago or KC, I always wonder if I should take one (illegally of course) or not just for driving around there. If I'm by myself, yes; if not, usually no.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Why would you want to? That's what I don't get...

Well, for self-protection, what else? (Not for shooting rude people, is that what you thought?). As I've described previously on DV (another gun discussion) I saved myself with one once (knife vs. shotgun) in my home. That was in Memphis, not where I am now.

It really doesn't matter how good the police are if you get attacked in your home or on the street the chances of a cop getting there in time to help you is slim. They can't be every where and you can be dead within minutes. So you just can't count on them saving you if someone pulls a weapon on you.

You know, it's occurring to me... peace caused by "everyone has a weapon and can blow the hell out of anyone else" feels so wrong because it's frighteningly similar to the Cold War.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Well, for self-protection, what else? (Not for shooting rude people, is that what you thought?). As I've described previously on DV (another gun discussion) I saved myself with one once (knife vs. shotgun) in my home. That was in Memphis, not where I am now.

Hmm, that's slightly better than what I was thinking (I thought we were talking about concealed weapons or pistols/assault weapons). As I have stated earlier, I have a number of hunting shotguns/rifles in my home, and I probably wouldn't hesitate to use them if threatened (probably more as a scare tactic though). Nonetheless, I have absolutely no need whatsoever for any self-protection, bar the odd nut, people just don't go around killing people here. If they did however, then I probably wouldn't mind keeping a gun (in the house only) for self-defense.

Originally Posted by Alban

Please correct me if I've missed the point of the right to bear arms, but I somehow think that the odds of a civilian misusing a firearm are far higher these days than the odds of Americans having to take up arms against tyrannical rulers.

I disagree. It is hard to tell when exactly we will have to protect ourselves from tyrannical rulers until they take all the guns away and its too late.

Keep in mind, I own no guns and am (mostly) a pascifist. Personally I believe I would be more comfortable if it were the people who didn't necessarily want a gun who were trained in their use and carried them.

Originally Posted by Replicon

You know, it's occurring to me... peace caused by "everyone has a weapon and can blow the hell out of anyone else" feels so wrong because it's frighteningly similar to the Cold War.

In a 'perfect world,' there would be no need to ever protect ourselves or our loved ones against man nor beast.

In a 'perfect world,' collectivism would be a normal way of life for those who choose it rather than just another political system for tyrants to use in enslaving the masses.

In a perfect world, people would make their own choices and not complain about the results or demand that others take responsibility for the consequences.

Why don't we live in a perfect world? Because we are imperfect humans. Human nature is itself the biggest reason we need to fight to keep the rights to life, liberty and choosing our own paths to self fulfillment. It is human nature to take those things away from us. It is human nature to corrupt the power of government to make slaves of the governed. It is human nature for some men to believe they have the 'right' to take what you own or take your life. It is human nature to exploit our natural tendency to share and help one another and twist it into the Marxist and Communist realities that have murdered over a hundred million of us.

When we humans choose to transcend our own nature, I'll give up my guns. I won't need them anymore.

Originally Posted by Replicon

You know, it's occurring to me... peace caused by "everyone has a weapon and can blow the hell out of anyone else" feels so wrong because it's frighteningly similar to the Cold War.

The difference is there is no threating. 90% of the people with the guns are just going about their normal life, minding their own business. 90% probably wouldn't attack you even if you did not own a gun. You just have the gun on the off chance you meet one of the 10% who are having a bad day and trying to cause everyone else trouble.

Now the numbers are just made up but the majority of people are nice. Guns or no guns, they are exactly the same. The idea that guns may deter crime, only applies to people who are thinking of commiting a crime to start with. Everyone else reacts the same towards each other no matter what weapons either are carrying. Your not trying to force anyone to be peaceful your just living your life, and if anyone tries to kill you, you are able to protect yourself.

Originally Posted by Alban

Please correct me if I've missed the point of the right to bear arms, but I somehow think that the odds of a civilian misusing a firearm are far higher these days than the odds of Americans having to take up arms against tyrannical rulers.

That may be true but that is designed to protect us in case that ever dose happen and if our right to protect ourselves is abolished then that would likely happen. Besides, even if there isn't a tyrannical ruler, I still want to protect myself from rapists, serial killers, home invaders and muggers.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Hmm, that's slightly better than what I was thinking (I thought we were talking about concealed weapons or pistols/assault weapons).

Well we were, but I changed the subject a little.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I disagree. It is hard to tell when exactly we will have to protect ourselves from tyrannical rulers until they take all the guns away and its too late.

That's why we shouldn't let them take them.

Originally Posted by Lamneth-25

... I still want to protect myself from rapists, serial killers, home invaders and muggers.

Yes, that is the more immediate concern.

Originally Posted by Howie

Sadly enough I have to agree with you. More so police than our armed forces. I suspect maybe that's what you meant?

I meant the police, and at that, somewhat flippantly. I'm sure the vast majority are doing the best they can in difficult circumstances.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I disagree. It is hard to tell when exactly we will have to protect ourselves from tyrannical rulers until they take all the guns away and its too late.

Originally Posted by Lamneth-25

That may be true but that is designed to protect us in case that ever dose happen and if our right to protect ourselves is abolished then that would likely happen.

I agree that that's a worry, but as Howie indicated I'm not sure how much a militia could do against an advanced modern military.
As for rapists and muggers, I can understand that point better now.

Well, I've got to thank those who understood this thread right from the beginning for being patient with me taking a little while to get what the issue was.
In the UK and most of Europe I'm sure the concept of guns as preventative wouldn't even come up, because the criminals using guns in violent crime are still a pretty small hardcore minority, limited to the roughest inner cities.
(Altho this may be changing.)

South Africa was the other end of the scale where carrying a gun wouldn't change anything. A criminal would use his anyway whether you were armed or not, unless you took him down first. (But, legally, not shure I'd want to be the one to shoot without being shot at.)
A lot of Africa tho, like some other parts, is on the edge of anarchy, extreme poverty, extreme social problems, extremely raw criminals. Very different from the U.S.

I'm getting the impression that even though the U.S. seems to have pretty large population of hardcore gun-toting criminals, these guys still have the sense to hold back if the victim is armed. They might say they don't give a f**K but it's not Africa, I'm guessing the average American criminal is wealthy and educated enough to understand they don't have to die for a cash or a car or whatever.
In which case, I'm sure there are parts of the U.S. where armed civilians do indeed decrease the crime rate, like Moonbeam said.

As I said there's parts of the world which are a free-for-all gun-wise but in the long run I still find it hard to see how a multiplicity of weapons can lead to a more respectful society.

But that may be 20th century thinking.
Maybe we are indeed moving into a brave new age of gun-backed stand-off, if that's the way it's gonna go, then that's the way it's gonna go, I suppose.

Disclaimer: I did not read at least 90% of this thread. I'm just going to throw in my two cents.

I agree.
I agree if they allow people to be armed without an extensive background check and equally extensive training on firearm use & safety.
Training that should be followed up by annually recertifications.

I am hardly anti-guns if the weapon is obtained through legal means. Two years from now I will probably get a concealed permit. I think it should be much harder to be able to purchase a firearm (especially handguns) than it is. The problem is not with the law process though. The problem is that we do not have law abiding citizens in possesion of firearms. What's worse yet is that these unlawful citizens (many of them) have clean records, so they are eligible to purchase firearms.

That's not the problem. The problem is when guns reach (i'll be honest here) poor BLACK communities. Ignorant, punkass and idiotic kids who are too afraid to get their ass beat in a fight pull guns on people. This also ties in with my problem with drug dealing in those communities. Territories. Then everyone in the community gets a gun and thinks they're the shit.

In Washington, DC (where I used to live, before you argue) the infamous (rapidly growing) gang, MS-13 shoot people for virtually no reason. As "right-of-passage" tests, or "gang induction tests", kids will drive around at night without their headlights on, and chase, and shoot down anyone who flashes their headlights telling them their lights are off. Is that not bullshit? The same thing happens (more frequently) in Chicago where I live now.

Again, while this view is common, I would like to reiterate to you that I am pro-gun ownership via legal process. But guns violence is at an ENORMOUS rate. My cousin just got shot and killed in March for asking two men to stop cursing in front of his date. He asked in a very polite, overly respectful manner. Shot in the back, no less. Bunch of pussy ass kids. This outrages me.


How do I tie these things together? Well obviously poor black kids living in violent, shitty neighborhoods won't be able to legally purchase a firearm unless they can show legal and financial responsibility among other things. But to make a quick buck, people who are legally clean and financially responsible among other things, who may be out to make a quick buck, sell weapons to these kids. And those people should be "tarred and feathered" for perpetuating a horrifying state that many inner-city areas of major cities (and even minor cities) are in right now.

So I'm all for the legal owning of weapons, but lets face it. More people illegally own weapons than those who don't. I would never go as far as to say "get rid of all guns" but it's a HUGE problem. Many of you will not be able to relate, because you may not have lived in bad areas. Me- born in north Philadelphia. Grew up in Lansing (good city in general, but still there are areas that are bad). Lived in northeast DC (Colombia Heights) for 1 year. Southeast DC (Anacostia) for 1 year. Baltimore for 1 year. Chicago currently. I've seen it all. It's real, not just perceptions or stories. So I guess I'm bias, but hey.

Doesn't DC have very strict gun laws? I am fairly sure its one of the examples people always give of gun control gone bad. Where after passing laws it only makes things worse.