An armed society is a violent society so the concept of violence can't stack with politeness by nature I guess. You cannot be Pollitely Violent right ? :)))

Being armed is not the cause of being polite. Appeal to authority isn't logical, but I am not going to start an argument when a gun is to my head. Though, liberty or death is a very real sentiment.

This is an old thread. I'd argue that an armed society is an armed society, a polite, a polite. Courtesy doesn't need guns. Guns belie courtesy.

This thread is a classic. Nothing says politeness like someone pulling a gun on you, am I right?

This is a really stupid assumption. For one, we're technically already in an armed society and clearly it is not a polite one. Secondly, they're not even correlated. Thirdly, if the people aren't polite then having weaponry will simply make things more devastating. It implies a more easy way of execution by people who aren't polite.

'You think that because you have a gun I fear you? Yeah right, check this one out'. You see the point?

Let's not forget that if weapons are illegal it's fair to shoot whoever is carring a gun on sight. It makes targetting the bad guys a hell of a lot easier.

Let's not forget that if weapons are illegal it's fair to shoot whoever is carring a gun on sight. It makes targetting the bad guys a hell of a lot easier. — Emmanuele

So who is going to shoot them if no one else is carrying a gun? And please don't answer the cops, because everyone knows there are hundreds of illegal guns for each cop.

So who is going to shoot them if no one else is carrying a gun? And please don't answer the cops, because everyone knows there are hundreds of illegal guns for each cop. — Sir2u

And how does that prevent the police from targeting people wielding these guns?

I don't understand how arming oneself helps to be be ''polite''. Is it fear of retaliation with deadly force that makes for the ''politeness''. The whole thing is premised on fear and that's not a polite society. It's a scared society. Perhaps fear of death is better than actually dying/killing.

And how does that prevent the police from targeting people wielding these guns? — Echarmion

It does not stop them at all, it just makes them ineffectual.
You must have noticed that they rarely get there before the crime has been committed, that is why the tape they use says "crime scene" instead of "crime prevention scene".

You must have noticed that they rarely get there before the crime has been committed — Sir2u

You seem to be hinting at some sort of ratio being low. What ratio do you have in mind? There is no obvious ratio that makes sense, given the above sentence.

You seem to be hinting at some sort of ratio being low. What ratio do you have in mind? There is no obvious ratio that makes sense, given the above sentence. — andrewk

Keeping it in context helps.

Let's not forget that if weapons are illegal it's fair to shoot whoever is carring a gun on sight. It makes targetting the bad guys a hell of a lot easier. — Emmanuele

So who is going to shoot them if no one else is carrying a gun? And please don't answer the cops, because everyone knows there are hundreds of illegal guns for each cop. — Sir2u

To which Echarmion replied

And how does that prevent the police from targeting people wielding these guns? — Echarmion

And then

It does not stop them at all, it just makes them ineffectual.
You must have noticed that they rarely get there before the crime has been committed, that is why the tape they use says "crime scene" instead of "crime prevention scene". — Sir2u

To answer your question, even if guns were made illegal that does not mean that they would just disappear. There are millions of illegal guns that the cops are not going to find until they are used in a crime. Just shooting anyone with a gun would not work because there are not enough people to do the job. Each cop would have to find and shoot several hundred bad guys. Not going to happen.

That post doesn't answer the question, and provides no new information. I had already read the context.

To what ratio were you referring with your use of 'rarely'?

I don't think the titular assumption here is true, but it might contain some truth.

I would instead say that a dangerous society is a cautious society (and an armed society is a dangerous society).

The samurai of Feudal Japan were well armed, and you could say that their society was "polite" (downright honorable in fact), but that doesn't mean it was a safe or just society.

In other words, arms just raise the stakes.

I think the most relevant example is the case of nuclear weapons. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki no nation has used a nuclear bomb against any other nation. We avoided a hot war with the Soviet Union because both sides were too cautious in the face of the danger. So in that specific case, yes, armed society is more polite society, but it's a bit foolish to use this as a rule-proving-case. The M.A.D doctrine has worked out so far, but if it should fail at any point in the future its strategic utility will seem useless in hindsight.

And the M.A.D doctrine doesn't work unless everyone has the same retaliatory capability. We can envision a world where nobody can transgress upon others because of equal power distribution, but that's not the world we live in. Even if weapons were all evenly distributed, if everyone has access to extremely powerful weapons then society will still be too unstable (imagine everyone having their own nuke).

So, to increase politeness by modifying weapons access, we could either have a gun under every pillow and a tank in every garage (not so stable in the long run), or we could reduce the disparity by reducing the amount of guns out in the wild. If people have a harder time accessing guns, more powerful guns, and bullets, then victims will less frequently be drastically outmatched by the weapons of their transgressors.

Let's not forget that if weapons are illegal it's fair to shoot whoever is carring a gun on sight. It makes targetting the bad guys a hell of a lot easier.
— Emmanuele

So who is going to shoot them if no one else is carrying a gun? And please don't answer the cops, because everyone knows there are hundreds of illegal guns for each cop. — Sir2u

They need to be dealt with by the appropriate authorities using appropriate force. It's unreasonable to jump straight into assuming that they need to be shot. Jesus Christ. Not only is that an unreasonable assumption, it's a harmful assumption.

That kind of answer would surely fail a police exam. Or if not, say, in somewhere insane like Texas, then it should do.

That post doesn't answer the question, and provides no new information. I had already read the context.

To what ratio were you referring with your use of 'rarely'? — andrewk

Indeed, that was a classic case of red herring / missing the point.

I think he means the ratio of "good guys with guns to bad guys with guns".

They need to be dealt with by the appropriate authorities using appropriate force. It's unreasonable to jump straight into assuming that they need to be shot. Jesus Christ. Not only is that an unreasonable assumption, it's a harmful assumption.

That kind of answer would surely fail a police exam. Or if not, say, in somewhere insane like Texas, then it should do. — S

I think you should have addressed you reply to Emmanuele as he is the one that said it would be easier to shoot whoever was carrying a gun.

And in case you did not notice, I have not agreed with him on the idea.

Indeed, that was a classic case of red herring / missing the point. — S

As usual you have no idea what you are talking about.

Just compare societies with low gun control and societies with high gun control - And then compare that to the statistics of best places to live in the world.

Is there a point to discussing when there's data that point to the truth?

To what ratio were you referring with your use of 'rarely'? — andrewk

Let me ask you a couple of simple question, how many people get arrested for carrying a gun before they either try to use it or actually do use it in a crime? Do police where you live actually stop people and search them for weapons without a valid reason?

Rarely means not often, seldom, infrequently, it is rarely used in any other sense so I see no reason to be providing a definition of it.

You must have noticed that they rarely get there before the crime has been committed, — Sir2u

If you are having any trouble understanding the above sentence I don't know how to help you.

The ratio you keep on about I think is maybe something that I did not hint at but is implicit in what I said, lots of guns and very few cops. But I am sure that I had already said that.

If you are still having trouble, maybe S will get his magic dictionary out of the shit house so you can use it.

Just compare societies with low gun control and societies with high gun control - And then compare that to the statistics of best places to live in the world.

Is there a point to discussing when there's data that point to the truth? — Christoffer

That is well known and has been repeated ad vomitus throughout the thread. I don't think that anyone here disagrees with that. But the problem is what to do about it. No one has any ideas about how to solve the problem when there are so many guns and people involved.

It is easy to say "Bring in tougher gun laws" but as I have said since the beginning writing laws and enforcing them are two different things.

I really don't see a problem with finding out what to do. The data is clear that strict gun laws and quality of life/politeness go hand in hand. There's pretty much grad school psychology to understand the mechanics of what guns do in people's hands, especially if a societies culture is "keep enemies out of my parameter or else...".

You're right in that it's harder to enforce the laws, but that's dependent on how the fundamental mentality of the people is. The solution will be, in places like the US, to either force people to follow the rules, or accept that the risk of mass shootings, school shootings, high violent crime and individual isolation out of fear of strangers is the norm. You either enforce laws or you don't, it depends on what the people want in a democracy.

Unfortunately, common people don't have the tools to understand this on their own, but you can still not force laws beyond the democratic process. So the only thing that I can see is positive is to educate, to provide the information about this to the people so that they, after a while, stop defending their personal preferences in order to increase the quality of life within their nation. Only at the right time can politicians enforce more strict gun laws without enraging half the country.

I really don't see a problem with finding out what to do. — Christoffer

Please feel free to make a viable suggestion. I am sure that the American society will thank you for it because they have not been able to come up with an acceptable idea.

You're right in that it's harder to enforce the laws, but that's dependent on how the fundamental mentality of the people is. The solution will be, in places like the US, to either force people to follow the rules, or accept that the risk of mass shootings, school shootings, high violent crime and individual isolation out of fear of strangers is the norm. You either enforce laws or you don't, it depends on what the people want in a democracy. — Christoffer

How do you force that many people to give up their guns? Even after all of the mass shootings and bad stuff that has happened the Americans continue to vote to be allowed to keep their guns.

Unfortunately, common people don't have the tools to understand this on their own, but you can still not force laws beyond the democratic process. So the only thing that I can see is positive is to educate, to provide the information about this to the people so that they, after a while, stop defending their personal preferences in order to increase the quality of life within their nation. — Christoffer

Don't put the common people down, a lot of us do understand the information. That is why they still refuse to vote for banning guns.
I stated a long time ago that one way to solve the problem is through education, changing the mentality of the people might change the feelings towards guns. But how long will this take and how successful will the education system be against family and street influences? And the biggest part of the gun problem is not the normal everyday guy in the street, it is the thugs, How do you educate them

Only at the right time can politicians enforce more strict gun laws without enraging half the country. — Christoffer

How long do you estimate until that happens?

I think I gave you the most realistic answer. Educate and turn people in a democracy towards wanting strict gun laws. You can't do much else. One thing to start with would be to force news and media to be objective, so that bought private companies won't spread misinformation that's supportive of a gun lobby agenda.

Don't put the common people down, a lot of us do understand the information. — Sir2u

Common people do not discuss these issues on a philosophy forum or try to figure out the truth about the world and existence. They want to drink Starbucks coffee and enjoy some evening entertainment or sport on TV. I'm not criticizing this (although I think people should care a bit more about truth), I'm only stating the facts of how the world is. Just see how many get excited at a party if you start talking philosophy. This is not what most common people have an interest in. Which also means that they don't have the tools to understand the issues and are easily persuaded by lobbyist and smart political rhetoric.

It's actually us, philosophers and people who've been putting a lot of effort and thought into the issues of this world, who will be the ones educating other people on these issues. Why do you think that philosophers have been gaining popularity as a hired consultant in many workplaces?

How long do you estimate until that happens? — Sir2u

That's a bit of a naive question. It's time when it's time when people want it. Just look at how people have started waking up to the facts because of all the rapports of mass shootings. Or it can go in the other direction. For US, I think the problem is fundamental in US history and culture, so I don't think it's gonna happen anywhere but the most progressive states.

It starts with the people. If you want a solution, figure out how you can convince one single gun owner to give up their guns for the greater good. If you can't convince a single one, you won't be able to push a whole nation.

Common people do not discuss these issues on a philosophy forum or try to figure out the truth about the world and existence. They want to drink Starbucks coffee and enjoy some evening entertainment or sport on TV. I'm not criticizing this (although I think people should care a bit more about truth), I'm only stating the facts of how the world is. — Christoffer

You must have a very wide social circle to be able to make this claim. I know lots of people that probably do not even know of the existence of this and other similar sites, and they have opinions and discuss this topic along with other social problems. Why would anyone need to figure out the truth about the world and existence to be able to discuss gun control? Why do you think that no one ever does it while drinking coffee? And the funny thing is that I doubt that you have figured out the truth about the world and existence but here you are talking about gun control. Without providing a solution.

Just see how many get excited at a party if you start talking philosophy. This is not what most common people have an interest in. Which also means that they don't have the tools to understand the issues and are easily persuaded by lobbyist and smart political rhetoric. — Christoffer

Is gun control a philosophical topic? That sounds really weird to me. I thought it was a social problem that we were discussing possible solutions to. Exactly how does it qualify as a philosophical topic?

If I was at a party and some dork started talking about Plato I would probably want to shoot him, not because of the topic but because of the setting. Just because people do not want to talk about philosophy at a party in no way proves that they don't have the tools to understand the issues. Which are the ever so special tools that you say you have just because you come to visit a philosophy forum?

It's actually us, philosophers and people who've been putting a lot of effort and thought into the issues of this world, — Christoffer

Who is this "us"? I don't and I am reasonably sure that the majority of posters here do not consider themselves to be philosophers. I spend most of my time trying to sort out my own problems and have spent a minimum of time and effort on the issues of the world. What have you done to solve the problems of hunger in Africa, child labor in Indonesia or slave traders in Europe?

who will be the ones educating other people on these issues. Why do you think that philosophers have been gaining popularity as a hired consultant in many workplaces? — Christoffer

Before you can teach, you have to know. Which is the top of the list for jobs available for people with a philosophy degree. I have not been able to find any information about how many philosophers are actually hired as consultants but there does not seem to be much of a need for philosophy graduates in that area.
If you can please post a link to the information about that I would be thankful.

https://www.prospects.ac.uk/careers-advice/what-can-i-do-with-my-degree/philosophy
https://www.lovemoney.com/news/3981/the-best-and-worstpaying-university-degrees

That's a bit of a naive question. — Christoffer

How can a question be naive? The person asking it maybe, although not in this case, but the question cannot be naive.

It's time when it's time when people want it. Just look at how people have started waking up to the facts because of all the rapports of mass shootings. Or it can go in the other direction. For US, I think the problem is fundamental in US history and culture, so I don't think it's gonna happen anywhere but the most progressive states.

It starts with the people. If you want a solution, figure out how you can convince one single gun owner to give up their guns for the greater good. If you can't convince a single one, you won't be able to push a whole nation. — Christoffer

So basically you, a self proclaimed philosopher, has no solution to the problem that has not already been discussed on this thread. All of the tools you say you have are just as useless as the ones the coffee drinking common people have.

But there is probably one thing that the common people have that you don't, a better understanding of how things affect them. Sitting high on a mountain looking at you belly button might make you a better philosopher, but until you get down in the streets you will not understand the problems you are trying to solve.

Do police where you live actually stop people and search them for weapons without a valid reason? — Sir2u

They don't need to. Where I live gun ownership is very rare and the gun crime rate is very low - partly because we have strong gun control laws, that have overwhelming public support.

Rarely means not often, seldom, infrequently, it is rarely used in any other sense so I see no reason to be providing a definition of it. — Sir2u

I know what 'rarely' means, and you know that I know it and that that has nothing to do with what I asked you.

You implied that some ratio is low and that that somehow helps your argument against gun control but, when we take your sentence and try to find a clear, precise proposition in it, we end up with nonsense. I suspect you've already realised this, which is why you keep on dodging the question.

Here's the nonsensical sentence again:

You must have noticed that [the police] rarely get there before the crime has been committed, that is why the tape they use says "crime scene" instead of "crime prevention scene". — Sir2u

Why not just admit you wrote something that made no sense? It's no big deal. We all do it quite frequently, especially me. The admission wouldn't hamper your ability to continue arguing against gun control, should you wish to do so.

I think you should have addressed you reply to Emmanuele as he is the one that said it would be easier to shoot whoever was carrying a gun.

And in case you did not notice, I have not agreed with him on the idea. — Sir2u

I included his quote above yours. I addressed it to both of you, since he said it and you humoured him without addressing the elephant in the room.

As usual you have no idea what you are talking about. — Sir2u

No, you just don't like it when I correctly identify an error in one of your replies, although I was basically beaten to the punch by andrewk when he said that you didn't answer the question. I just narrowed it down to two related informal fallacies and named them. Either you deliberately changed the subject, i.e. a red herring, or you make an irrelevant point without realising it, i.e. missing the point.

It is easy to say "Bring in tougher gun laws" but as I have said since the beginning writing laws and enforcing them are two different things. — Sir2u

Bring in tougher gun laws which can be enforced, and enforce them.

You must have a very wide social circle to be able to make this claim. — Sir2u

No, it's about being observant to the behavior and opinions of common people around you. If you want to know more about how things are being discussed outside of your own small group of friends and relatives you need to act like an anthropologist and really look and listen to how people are.

And the funny thing is that I doubt that you have figured out the truth about the world and existence but here you are talking about gun control. Without providing a solution. — Sir2u

I already told you the realistic route of action. Stop acting naive.

Is gun control a philosophical topic? That sounds really weird to me. I thought it was a social problem that we were discussing possible solutions to. Exactly how does it qualify as a philosophical topic? — Sir2u

Philosophy of ethics and justice.

Just because people do not want to talk about philosophy at a party in no way proves that they don't have the tools to understand the issues. — Sir2u

Have you ever met anyone outside of philosophy who can do a proper dialectic? Most discussions about sensitive topics always end up in brawls with each side always saying their opinion and no one reaching a higher level of understanding. It's exactly because of the lack of dialectic tools. But you don't seem to know much about these things?

Who is this "us"? I don't and I am reasonably sure that the majority of posters here do not consider themselves to be philosophers. I spend most of my time trying to sort out my own problems and have spent a minimum of time and effort on the issues of the world. What have you done to solve the problems of hunger in Africa, child labor in Indonesia or slave traders in Europe? — Sir2u

No, you are certainly not a philosopher, that's for sure. But you can study philosophy on your own in order to handle problems in a better way. Like, not acting as you do with the last sentence of that paragraph. Why do you think philosophers are now being hired, at a higher rate, to companies and businesses who need to make choices that affect people? Entertain the thought and the causality from that.

Before you can teach, you have to know. Which is the top of the list for jobs available for people with a philosophy degree. I have not been able to find any information about how many philosophers are actually hired as consultants but there does not seem to be much of a need for philosophy graduates in that area.
If you can please post a link to the information about that I would be thankful. — Sir2u

It might be more evident in my country, but here are some hints
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/20/mark-cuban-philosophy-degree-will-be-worth-more-than-computer-science.html
https://bigthink.com/experts-corner/why-future-business-leaders-need-philosophy

Philosophy is more about how you think about problems, not direct solutions to problems. What's the point of hiring someone who has the answers to current problems if they cannot solve new ones further down the road?

How can a question be naive? The person asking it maybe, although not in this case, but the question cannot be naive. — Sir2u

Of course a question can be naive, like asking what someone is doing with his philosophy to solve an entire continent of poverty. How is that not naive, blunt and fallacy-ridden?

So basically you, a self proclaimed philosopher, has no solution to the problem that has not already been discussed on this thread. All of the tools you say you have are just as useless as the ones the coffee drinking common people have. — Sir2u

I recommend that you study a bit more philosophy before you demand solutions in the way you do. You're acting like a child right now and it's probably not worth continuing this discussion when you seem incapable of being humble.

But there is probably one thing that the common people have that you don't, a better understanding of how things affect them. Sitting high on a mountain looking at you belly button might make you a better philosopher, but until you get down in the streets you will not understand the problems you are trying to solve. — Sir2u

You know nothing about me, so who's actually sitting on a high horse, judging?