Thread: Is an armed society a polite one?

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?

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.

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 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The intended ideals of a regulated militia to keep the government in check is far outdated.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.

Originally Posted by Howie

The intended ideals of a regulated militia to keep the government in check is far outdated.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?

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.

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 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.

Originally Posted by Howie

Is an armed society a polite society

Well, yea, duh.

(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?

Politeness and having guns? It has nothing to do with each other. I don't see why it should.

Originally Posted by Neruo

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.

Florida Sees Spike in Gun Violence

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

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.

Ohh, like that.

-

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.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Florida Sees Spike in Gun Violence

From the article:

"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.

It's the illegal guns that are the problem. (And drug prohibition, but that's another argument.)

Originally Posted by Neruo

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.

"Polite" is probably a bad way to put it. "Safer" would probably be better.

Originally Posted by Replicon

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.

Not if there was someone else with a gun around to prevent them from killing a bunch of people.

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.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

It's the illegal guns that are the problem.

Also from the article (in the previous paragraph)...

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

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.

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.

From the article:

"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?"

That sounds a lot like the "snappage" that Replicon was talking about. No?