I am not sure why the name of this split off thread is what it is because although the idea of "gun control" falls under the topic of 'firearms' it is not what I am trying to define when I say that "an armed society, is a polite society".

Even though they are not my words originally, they describe what I see around me and what my experience has been. Chicago is my hometown where the gun control is about as tight as they come and now I am on a ranch in Arizona, where you can carry a concealed firearm without a permit.

Just because someone carries a firearm does not mean that they are "out of control" or just looking for a reason to fight. It is actually quite the opposite. Those who carry a firearm in Arizona rarely hide it, it's just part of the culture. Twenty years ago it was gun racks on the back window of the trucks, now it is on their side hip for a guy and pouched in the front of the tummy if it is a woman. Unlike Chicago where you have to be suspicious of others because it is hard to judge the unknown. Arizonan's know straight up who is armed and it would be wise to believe that some are still carrying concealed.

That is what it is really about, being "wise" when it comes to living in a society that is likely armed.

First you have to be wise enough to know if you should ever be carrying a gun to begin with. I do believe that if you have a firearm AND don't know how to use it (which most important is to know when to use a firearm) that it will likely be used against you. This is not just a phrase but something I witnessed as a child being used against my single Mom, who had to protect two young children.

If you decide you are capable of carrying a firearm and legally allowed to do so, then it becomes a part of your level of defenses not another tool to use in dealing with assholes who have an attitude. The people that carry a firearm are very aware of their surroundings and those of us who don't carry are not just more aware of the people who are openly armed but are counting on them to take action, IF action were to become necessary to protect his/her family lives and those lives around them. Whether it is the lady at the next ranch over being armed or two out of six people in line at the gas station, it's all the same. You are more aware, you are more polite, you hold down your ruckus if your drunk and in general you are just more likely to watch how you behave in public.

Hence 'an armed society, is a polite society'.

If an armed society is a polite society then the implication is that if you're impolite you're likely to be shot. Doesn't that strike you as absurd? Do you really think that the type of people who will shoot another for being impolite are the type of people who ought to be allowed guns? These are the very people who shouldn't be allowed them.

Hey I just realized which thread this conversation is in!!!
Nice welcome for the newcomers — Sir2u

Right. Well, we're here, we have queer ways of welcoming people. Get used to it.

It's a little weird with these thread creations. I thought this conversation was one of those fooling around, not taking it too seriously ones.

I have never been in a situation where 'action' was necessary. The whole idea is pretty bizarre to me. I've never had the thought 'I wish someone here was carrying a gun'. My folks had their house burgled a few years ago. My mum came home to find the intruder inside. The intruder grabbed a screwdriver and threatened her from across the room not to do anything, so she ran out of the house. As traumatizing as that was I'm pretty happy that the most dangerous weapon involved was a screwdriver. Also happy that my mum was non armed, the idea of shooting the guy would be completely messed up. I actually felt a bit sorry for him, he got more than an extra year in prison for the assault charges. Just panicking and grabbing a screwdriver will get you that much jail time even if you don't intend to use it.

A gun, especially a hand gun one can carry on one's person--concealed or displayed openly--is IN ITSELF a powerful influence coloring one's view of the world. So is the rifle in the pickup.

Things are messages. Condoms are about sex, precautions, and protection. Running shoes are about fitness (actual or wishful thinking); a phone is about connectedness; a clock is about management (self or otherwise); a car is about freedom and maturity for a teenager.

The way our local culture interprets objects makes a difference. Clearly Rhode Islanders interpret guns differently than people do in Alaska. Gay guys who insist on barebacking (no condom) are interpreting sex, risk, and life much differently than condom users. People who can turn a cell phone off interpret connection differently than people who drive into concrete walls while texting.

I'm pretty happy that people on the forum can't reach through the screen and stab each other with some kind of knife emoticon. There's a small chance it would make us more polite but it would drastically increase the chances of being stabbed.

Tiff: Arizona is in the high side of gun ownership and gun deaths, but not an outlier. Wouldn't you rather live in a state with outlier stats like Hawaii or Rhode Island (rather than Alaska or Louisiana)?

Gun ownership and use against persons is the disease. Death is the symptom.

To judge by how many assholes live around here in spite of open carry. . . ;)

No, I don't think so. I also don't particularly like the implication of said phrase. A polite society that I'd want to live in has nothing to do with violence, but with compassion and respect.

Though I still like firearms. I've been shooting since I was 8, so I just don't have any sort of averse feelings attached to weapons. Weapons are killing machines. I suppose I just don't see the world in a way where I think we are actually beyond killing. It's in that frame that I think of weapons. I much prefer having the reality of our violent lives closer to home -- so that the question of violence is not a bar conversation and an identity to project, but a serious action that we take ownership over, or disavow. As it is state-sponsored violence is a reality that few countries can say they don't participate in. Especially in the United States, for what that's worth. If it is killing and massacres that we are concerned with, I'd start with talking about the military.

Plus, I am a leftist. And I'm not particularly keen on letting just the right-wing crazies own firearms. I'd much prefer reasonable folk who are averse to violence than those who fetishize violence as a means to manhood own weapons.

That is what it is really about, being "wise" when it comes to living in a society that is likely armed. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Which is why loose gun control is bad: people are foolish at times. The tighter the better, in my view. It's not tight enough over there.

The most important factor is what the guns are around for, what their primary function is.

- If in a community the vast majority of gunowners either hunt or have shooting as a hobby/sport, or there are so much possibly dangerous wild animals (bears) that one ought to have a rifle when wandering in the wilderness, gunownership isn't a symptom of societal problems.

- If people have guns in their homes because they belong to the country's militia or are reservists (like in Switzerland), gun ownership isn't a symptom of societal problems.

- If people first and foremost own guns to protect themselves from criminals, it is a sign of deep societal problems. The need to have a gun to defend one's home tells a lot about the community itself, about the social cohesion and economic well being of everybody in the society. And basically how safe the community actually is.

"About a year ago I met an American who was generally on the left. He thought that the U.S. would be better off with gun control and agreed with lots of the reasoning for it. He also maintained that if the police came to his property to confiscate his guns he would fire at them. It was amazing to me, he was self reflective about it and knew it sounded crazy yet insisted that he'd do it anyway. You can't find people like that in Australia, one of the joys of travelling."

The American you met does not stand alone in his attitude that he has a right to keep his firearms and would object if there was a government initiated confiscation. One of the reasons that many American's own firearms is to defend themselves against the very government that would feel entitled to such a confiscation. In a much older thread at another place, I asked whom around the world, would believe an American's plea for help, if our government turned on US, it's citizens AND help. The answer to my question was stunning as the ONLY forum member, in a sea of represented countries, that said would help was from Canada (maybe ssu, I would have to look back) and that was in the form of medical support and maybe refuge for American's wanting to flee the USA.

Scary freakin scenario for sure, when your government has been "helping" other countries the world over and NO one would come over to help the USA citizens fight it's own government.

Scary freakin scenario for sure, when your government has been "helping" other countries the world over and NO one would come over to help the USA citizens fight it's own government. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Your government hasn't helped anyone except itself. You're not spending trillions of dollars in weaponry to help anyone because all that buys you is death.

The Australian government would help. We love helping your government and following it into war. Also it would be our honor to help your government to bring democracy and freedom to its citizens.

One of the reasons that many American's own firearms is to defend themselves against the very government that would feel entitled to such a confiscation. In a much older thread at another place, I asked whom around the world, would believe an American's plea for help, if our government turned on US, it's citizens AND help. The answer to my question was stunning as the ONLY forum member, in a sea of represented countries, that said would help was from Canada (maybe ssu, I would have to look back) and that was in the form of medical support and maybe refuge for American's wanting to flee the USA. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

The lack of support is probably due at least in part to incredulity about the likelihood of any such eventuality. Think of what would have to happen for the stated scenario to transpire: Your leaders would have to cook up an essentially suicidal plan and then convince the entire security apparatus from generals down to soldiers on the ground to accept it and put it into operation. There would have to be an outbreak of simultaneous and sustained mass insanity among the government and its security forces for any such assault to take place. There's just no way it could get off the ground even if someone at the top was crazy enough to suggest it. The fact is that your government and your security forces are made up of real people who are on balance no less irrational than the population as a whole. So, the proposed scenario of an assault by the government on its people is as fanciful as a mass assault by American citizens on the government and its institutions. The only caveat I would add is that if there were some earth shattering event such as a nuclear war, a meteor strike, or some severe climactic disaster, the normal rules wouldn't apply. But that's hardly a basis for opposing policy changes that could save lives now.

(As an aside, this debate is a bit one-sided. Anyone else besides Tiff want to put the opposing view?)

I tried to aim for a middle-of-the-road. I generally am not interested in gun control, but I certainly don't think that gun-culture, or the particular phrase, are worth defending.

EDIT: There's also a general problem with the phrasing "Gun Control" -- as if it were something you can increase or decrease -- which is a necessary result of politicizing any issue, but is problematic in finding any sort of real solution to the problem. This is especially so because laws around guns aren't like taxes or something. There's nothing to increase or decrease, in that sense. Rather, the need for good gun control laws needs to be tailored to the situation.

As it is, the frame is largely around an increase or decrease of gun control, followed by an attack on the culture of guns. But that's not really looking at the laws and finding sensible policies which would result in a better society. In the USA, at least, while one may desire a weapons ban or some such, generally speaking you'll probably just alienate yourself and bolster the NRA by proposing measures like that. An unfortunate result, considering how much far-right politics and the NRA are in bed with one another.

One of the reasons that many American's own firearms is to defend themselves against the very government that would feel entitled to such a confiscation. In a much older thread at another place, I asked whom around the world, would believe an American's plea for help, if our government turned on US, it's citizens AND help. The answer to my question was stunning as the ONLY forum member, in a sea of represented countries, that said would help was from Canada (maybe ssu, I would have to look back) and that was in the form of medical support and maybe refuge for American's wanting to flee the USA. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

What exactly are you going to do with your handguns and assault rifles against tanks and planes of the army? I don't think guns will make a difference if the army decides to back the government.

What you need is a country where people feel comfortable ignoring orders. That way your soldiers won't ever turn against you because they're your brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers. Independent and autonomous people require something else than what the army instills in them though.

I don't think that this argument holds up too well against the facts. Though the U.S. might have a very advanced military, it is losing the battle in the middle east to armies largely composed of old assault rifles, and so forth. They don't want to admit that, of course, but it's not hard to see that these wars are being lost in purely military terms.

They're only losing, or at least not winning, their battles in the Middle East and Afghanistan because they're not willing to take the number of casualties it would be required to win them. And they're not willing to take those casualties because they know doing so would lose them the support of the public. Presumably, if they decided to attack the public, those considerations would be out the window,

Huh. The title of the thread first, I think.

An armed society has been a very polite society. In those happy days when the code duello applied and gentlemen carried swords and even for some time afterward, into the early 19th century, politeness reigned, at least among the upper classes. When gentlemen were impolite to one another, they were subject to being called out. Once called out, they very politely arranged through seconds (who were also very polite) an encounter with swords or firearms where they politely sought to kill or wound each other.

The samurai during their heyday were also it seems very polite to one another, and impoliteness could lead to sudden death.

That's not to say, though, that an armed society has always been a polite one. There are various myths regarding the Old West, but it seems to be the case that most everyone was armed. Nonetheless, politeness isn't a characteristic normally ascribed to those of its society.

So it seems simplistic to speak of any causal relationship or even correlation between the prevalence of arms and politeness. A concept of honor was probably essential to the establishment of the code duello and the culture of the samurai.

I know many gun owners, and am one myself (I enjoy shooting clays with a shotgun). Those I know who own guns are extremely careful with them. There is a kind of etiquette involved, at least among shotgun owners and users, the purpose of which is to assure the firearm is unloaded and not pointing at anyone until it is to be used, safely. So I think there are many responsible gun owners.

The fetishistic regard for the Second Amendment we see here bewilders me, though, as does the very dubious, even bizarre, belief that we need guns to protect ourselves from the government which is intent on taking away our guns, which seems to be a part of that regard.

The fact remains, though, that guns are too easily available to those with the intent or the proclivity to use them to do harm to others. Gun control is therefore a necessity. The only issue should be what the extent of that control should be, and that should not be an issue we should allow to be influenced by the gun shills who currently comprise the leadership of the NRA and have the capacity to corrupt our legislators. Their purpose is merely to sell as many guns as they can.

If someone is intent on doing harm they will not stop because of lack of a gun. — Sir2u

I'm not persuaded by the "sufficiently motivated" argument because it posits a somewhat untestable premise. Counterfactuals are pointless and analogies are only as good as the similarity approaches equivalence. It is also foolish to conclude that because there might be sufficiently motivated individuals that we should make it easier for them by allowing access to the efficient tools for harm.

(As an aside, this debate is a bit one-sided. Anyone else besides Tiff want to put the opposing view?) — Baden

I contemplated the opposing view but everything I wrote came out indefensible or abhorrent. One view I am sympathetic to is that there are a plurality of reasons for gun ownership ranging from malicious intent to hobby and collection. We want to restrict one end of the spectrum while allowing the other end. Guns as self-defense lead to absurdities and an arms race.

Having a gun is good because it increases your power over medium-sized and large creatures in your environment.

Having a gun is good because it increases your power over medium-sized and large creatures in your environment. — bert1

No, having a gun at hand, and having sufficient skill, and some degree of good luck, would do so. Otherwise you could be easily overpowered or at least fail to overpower the other creature/s.

And, like the Australian comedian in the video said, there's a significant probability that one will use that gun on oneself. So, I can go out and buy a gun, and become skilled in how to use it effectively, and be self-satisfied that I'm more powerful than others, and then get depressed and shoot myself in the head. Happy ending.

I'd say that's too simplistic. The reasons why are complicated. Regardless, though, these and other similar occupations should be sufficient to show that an organized military need not be as advanced as their enemies in order to stand a fighting chance -- that the "tanks and planes" of the U.S. military do not necessitate victory against any other organized force.

Now, do I think Americans would win? At present, I do not. I don't think they have a reason to fight their own military. They're very pro-military and pro-USA. You wouldn't have popular resistance in most cases, today. But that's still different from the argument @Benkei is stating.

Yes, I was just trying to say something in favour of having a gun. I think there are many more bad things about having a gun than good things. But that doesn't alter the good thing about having a gun, although I accept the point that some skill and luck is needed. It's important to be able to separate goods from bads. Taking herion has lots of bads, but it has a clear good as well because of the feeling it gives.

The Aussie comedian makes some very good points.

I agree: We aren't willing to fight the kind of war that might make a difference in the Middle East. Having said what we are not willing to do, let me add that I personally have no idea exactly what kind of war that would be. We fielded a very large army in Vietnam, dropped a hell of a lot of munitions, spent a fortune, lost 50,000 soldiers with many more wounded, and still bombed. Needless to say, the Viet Cong were not fielding especially advanced weaponry.

Handguns, hunting rifles, assault rifles, molotov cocktails, and whatever else might be cooked up, would probably be sufficient for the overthrow of a government, provided that the populace has withdrawn it's consent to be governed (a psychological step, not a legal step, of course.)

I see a lot of people saying that where there are a lot of guns there are a lot of deaths by lead poisoning.
I work in what is supposed to be the most dangerous city in a non war zone. People are getting killed all the time. But I doubt that the cause of the deaths is guns. They used to kill them with machetes before guns became easily available.

People get killed because someone wants to kill them, if there were no guns they would just find another way to do it.

Politeness often falls under the behaviour modifying category of etiquette. Etiquette is distinct from legal obligation and moral obligation where legal obligation is legislated and enforced by a recognized authority, moral obligation is legislated and enforced internally, and etiquette is legislated and enforced as social norms. In other words, etiquette is how one's peers expect one should act. Whereas moral obligation is maintained by a moral motivation (i.e., because it is good) legal obligation and etiquette are maintained through coercion (i.e., deter behaviour by fear of punishment).

Etiquette may align with morality, but it is not necessary for a rule of etiquette to be considered morally required. Politeness can govern amoral behaviour such as the arrangement of utensils on a place setting. Since etiquette is not synonymous with moral obligation, it will not suffice to appeal to an intrinsic or self-evident goodness of etiquette. Etiquette requires some degree of force to ensure that agents abide. The use of firearms is a tool of coercion within a culture to enforce social norms. The social norms vary between cultures, such that gang culture can use firearms to enforce etiquette suitable for the culture's needs.

You need actual presence to hold land. The US doesn't commit enough personnel for that.

Just because we have a right to carry firearms does not mean that anyone can legally carry a firearm. There are a host of people that are prevented from legally owning a firearm, from anyone convicted of a crime, anyone who is addicted to drugs, under the legal age of 18 ect. Responsible, legal firearm owners and carriers are not the kind of people that would use a firearm against their wife over an argument or over a parking space. Responsible armed citizens are aware that despite a desire for a Utopian society, that is not the reality we are living in BUT that does not make gun owners reckless as you suggest.