Is an armed society a polite society
Growing up in a household of guns and raised to respect them, I am a gun advocate but have conflicting personal views on a society of gun carring civiialins.
Thoughts?:sniper:
Printable View
Is an armed society a polite society
Growing up in a household of guns and raised to respect them, I am a gun advocate but have conflicting personal views on a society of gun carring civiialins.
Thoughts?:sniper:
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.
Well, yea, duh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Howie
(Not enough conflict in your life right now, Howie? ;))
Does your state have concealed carry laws? I'm in one of the few left that doesn't. I think everyone is safer if no one knows who might have a weapon and therefore will be able to protect themselves. It's not fair to deny people who can't physically protect themselves an equalizer.
If guns are outlawed only outlaws will carry guns. Has anyone ever said that before?:P
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alban
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.
Having gone through both, I still feel that having people armed that it may make a border line dangerous situation, into a dangerous one.
On the other hand I see that crime is more prevalent in areas where civilians are not armed.
The intended ideals of a regulated militia to keep the government in check is far outdated. It really does not at all apply in today's military oriented world.
Agreed. We've already completely lost control of our government and have no hope of ever regaining it. So what is the point of owning firearms anymore?Quote:
Originally Posted by Howie
With that in mind, I'm going to entrust the defense of my family, home and businesses to our all-powerful, out of control, Big Brother government. I trust them completely, and will promptly turn all my guns in on one of those deals where they give you free needles and Target coupons in exchange for firearms, no questions asked.
I might keep one very small one just for shooting rats though.
Well living here in England the only time I get to see a gun is when I go to London, or get a plane, and it scares the crap outa me for some reason, like we are under attack lol.
I don't know of any real gun crime here, and my city, people are pretty cool and laid back - I think if guns got into the wrong hands here, then we would be in trouble...
"Is an armed society a polite one?"
No. Not by default.
It entirely depends on the conditions of the society, and the mind-frames of those that inhabit it. I live right outside of Orlando (which has been absolutely notorious for gun crime, for the past few years) and guns, around here, seem to cause a hell of a lot more problems than they solve. In a society of like-minded, benign people, guns would probably cause much less of a problem. Such is not the case in many inner-city areas.
According to Orlando police, (which I feel may be a bit exaggerated, but it's what was said on the news) something like 50 percent of the young men you'd see walking down the street, in the Orlando area are armed. Pine Hills (or, "Crime Hills," as it's called), just outside Orlando is racked with senseless gun crime on a daily basis. It is not an issue of 'the uncertainty of knowing whether or not the other person has a gun deterring gun crime.' It seems to be more an issue of 'the uncertainty of knowing whether or not the other person has a gun causing the assailant to act more hastily, and shoot first.'
In other parts of the country, or the world, this may not be the case, but with young men and women (especially in the more uneducated and impoverished ghettos and trailer parks, etc) being subjected to more and more "thug mentality" via the media and 'entertainment,' that definitely puts a dent in an armed society being a, de facto, polite one.
It's not that I have anything much against guns, when used responsibly, but it seems that criminals are becoming more and more brazen, by the day. The images of being a "die-hard, don't-give-a-fuck hard-ass" are becoming so ingrained in the minds of 20-30year olds (give or take) and becoming so strong that any rationale of "what would happen if I..." doesn't even apply.
Two recent examples, in the Orlando area:
Guy turns around to see that a family member's car is being stolen. Instinctively, seeing that it is still within reach, he runs over to try to confront the car thief. With no warning, the thief shoots the man in the head, in the middle of the street, in broad daylight, with plenty of bystanders watching.
A man driving down the road, on the highway, comes up to a lot of traffic and decides to simply drive on the shoulder, passing the cars that are waiting. Someone else, up ahead, sees the car coming, and decides to block the shoulder, with his car. Since they are both stuck in traffic, the man that had been driving on the shoulder gets out of his car, goes up to the person that blocked him in, and shoots him in the stomach, killing him.
These acts show absolutely no regard for "what if the other guy has a gun?" These are Every Day Acts in the Orlando area, as they are in many other major cities around the U.S.
Anecdotes like this may influence your opinion, but places that allow concealed carry have a decrease in violent crimes rather than an increase.
Politeness and having guns? It has nothing to do with each other. I don't see why it should.
Well it is implying that if you don't know who is armed, people will be less likely to start fights. It doesn't mean that you should shoot someone for forgetting to say please or excuse me or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
That's the thing... while it would probably help "politeness" (well, using TENSION, which is a bad way to enforce politeness), there are too many people who can't take the tension, would snap, and kill a bunch of people. Not a good idea.
Ohh, like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonbeam
-
Hmm, not being polite, and beating someone up, isn't quite the same, if you ask me.
Still, lets say 50% of the people carries guns, then everyone that is likely to start a fight, will certainly carry a gun. Maybe like, less fights, far more deaths, would be the result.
From the article:Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
It's the illegal guns that are the problem. (And drug prohibition, but that's another argument.)Quote:
"Guns are available to anybody," Hayhoe said. "It's a desperate situation. We're drowning in illegal guns."
Law-enforcement officials in Orange County attribute much of last year's violence to street criminals and drug dealers with guns.
"Polite" is probably a bad way to put it. "Safer" would probably be better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
Not if there was someone else with a gun around to prevent them from killing a bunch of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Replicon
It's not like these situations come up every day or anything; hopefully never--but if you do need to defend yourself, or if there is a psycho-killer wanting to shoot a bunch of people, it would help to have a gun of your own.
If you spend a few years living in a situation where you know everyone has a gun, and you can get shot by anyone who's just a tad crazy for doing something slightly wrong, then I believe there will be a LOT of snappage.
And if someone with a gun is around to prevent it from happening, who's to say he won't fumble? Let's say someone loses it in a crowd, say pedestrian traffic in Manhattan. Do you think "someone else having a gun" will help? Sure, eventually, it'll mitigate the problem, but if that slightly crazy person didn't have to bear the awful tension this would create, there would have been zero deaths.
The other thing is, this would require a whole hell of a lot of training to work out... and given the standards for passing a driving test in most states, I don't think it would be enough. Essentially, the criminals we're trying to hinder would have much more training than Joe Bloe, and having every random idiot on the street carry weapons would only contribute to the problem, IMO.
Most states already have concealed carry laws and this hasn't happened. You're acting like it's hypothetical but it's already been tested, and "snappage" isn't happening. Yes, crimes are being committed by criminals, but not by average people who just happen to have a gun.
Also from the article (in the previous paragraph)...Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonbeam
I have a friend who couldn't be happier about his concealed weapons permit. He's constantly showing off his guns, and talking about what will happen when "someone decides to fuck with me." He's also bipolar and prone to snapping on any and everyone who crosses him. He carries at least one gun with him all the time, as is the type that is always cocking it back and checking his clip as if he's riding into war, even if we are going to the club. I don't trust him at all, with the gun, and constantly find myself on alert, when hanging out with him. A person legally carrying a gun is no more, objectively, responsible than a person that gets one illegally. Many people that are just as gung-ho about using a fire arm acquire them legally.Quote:
Arthur C. Hayhoe, executive director of the Florida Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, blames the skyrocketing statistics on the accessibility of guns -- both legally and illegally.
Average people do not commit crimes. Criminals commit crimes. Unfortunately, many societies are filled with criminals, as is evident in the criminal statistics of today. The question is: "Is an armed society a polite one?" not "is a legally armed society a polite one?" Either way, I feel the answer lies in the individuals of that society, not in whether or not the other person has a gun, which is evident in the carelessness of those who commit gun crimes, whether or not they are "strapped" legally. If I understand correctly, the guy that committed the Virginia Tech murders was strapped legally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonbeam
From the article:
That sounds a lot like the "snappage" that Replicon was talking about. No?Quote:
"Criminals out there have an attitude that there is no tomorrow the way they commit crimes," Strobridge said. "We have had several offenders tell us they're going to be dead or in jail by the time they're 22 years old, so what do they have to lose?"
I think this is an oddly american issue. Over here (Canada), we don't really feel the need to protect ourselves from our own countrymen. Many of us have guns (I believe that there are actually more guns per capita in Canada than in the US), I myself have 5, but they are all used for hunting purposes. In fact, pistols and assault weapons are pretty much illegal here outside of the shooting range (and incredibly hard to get your hands on).
So to kind of answer the question, no, I don't think that an armed society is a polite society. The thought of armed civilians walking in the streets does not seem polite to me at all. In fact, it seems fundamentally unpatriotical to feel the need to carry deadly weapons destined for the use against fellow citizens. Talk about a lack of trust in your own society...
Firearms are outlawed in either Japan or China (I forget) and the police are instead trained in the ways of martial arts, martial arts is also something civilians over there are required to learn and they fair pretty well.
Yes it appears so. I can't understand why because I see no more excessive violence in America's history than in any other country's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Where I grew up, (South Africa) the gun culture was just insane when I left in the late 90's. (Have to ask Keeper what it's like now.)
But there were reasons for that.
Not only was a huge proportion of the population kept down by a heavily armed few, but the Communists absolutely flooded the country with AK's hoping to foster a revolution.
The change from Apartheid came fairly "peacefully" in the end, hence negating the argument that arming the oppressed masses would lead to them overthrowing their oppressors.
But the overabundance of assault rifles in the hands of ordinary people led to one of the highest violent crime rates in the world.
My parents believed in absolute non-violence and never had any guns, but many if not most white South Africans did.
Hence my general feeling that guns are bad except in the hands of proffesionals.
I would say beef up the security forces rather than allow civilians to be armed, or at the very least, allow only a few very highly regulated, very responsible civilians to own them.
Though, sometimes, even in the hands of professionals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alban
Hahaha. I Love This Clip.
A ton of good arguments.
In short it seems to me that gun violence will occur regardless of legality. (the saying - When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns) Is true to an extent.
Gun violence leads other members of a society to feel they now need to arm themselves.
I think this leads to accountability. I actually hate the word. So Cliche, so overused. But for lack of a better one, it counts.
A crime committed with an arm should be punishable to an extent where people will fear the repercussions.
Will that help? Actually I have no idea. :P
It is an entire different discussion to me about our government and firearms being legal or not. :listenup:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Don't the statistics show otherwise tho?Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
I would never be talked out of people being able to have guns at home, and I still think that people should have the right to defend themselves. Carrying is a little different, I admit. I see where you're coming from, but do you think the gun laws are what is causing all the violence?
Firstly, Oneironaut, I think you changed my mind:
Americans, arm yourselves because those guys in uniforms sure as hell aren't gonna protect you!
Secondly,
I still find the title of this thread intriguing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Howie
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?
I know Moonbeam explained it to Neuro but surely there's more to the politeness part than simply: "I won't try and shoot you coz you might shoot me back."
If being armed gave a person a sense of self-respect, self-determination and a sense of some control over whether they live or die, I can understand that.
But the other just seems... primitive.
EDIT: came out all wrong the first time
I kind of thought the same thing about what O was saying; if things are that dangerous where you live I'd want a gun too.
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.