posted
Go to an NRA meeting and you'll hear this famous quote from Heinlein (or is it Clarke) whispered around. Its not official policy, but its the belief of many of its members. If everyone has a gun, then everyone will be polite to each other--or risk the consequences.
Iraq is one of the most heavilly armed societies at the moment. Police, insurgeants, private mercenaries, and militias belonging to different cults, mosques, mullahs, chieftains, and political parties fill the streets and the desert with automatic weapons fire.
Still, would you call this a polite society? How polite is it to blow away strangers, children and grandparents? How can brutality in any of its guises be polite? Like the old west, Iraq is not a romantic picture of good cowboys protecting the good people with their gun skills. Its an chaotic place where violence and the will to kill prevails over the rule of law.
Those who have the guns don't stop at the rest being polite. They demand subservience. Those who don't have the guns start building bombs just as soon as thier polite words are out of their mouths.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If everyone has a gun, then everyone will be polite to each other--or risk the consequences.
I think the most obvious flaw here is the latent assumption that people with guns are willing to kill people who are rude to them.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing I worry about, in an armed society, are the idiots who have, excuse the phrase, hair-trigger tempers, who don't bother to think before they act. I know people like that, and I would not be comfortable knowing they were armed. There are also the people, and I know some of them, too, who are completely convinced that "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out later" is a good motto to live by.
But even without them, I don't think an armed society is a more polite society, just a more frightened and nervous one.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really think the Iraq situation is a good analogy. In fact, I think that guns aren't allowed to be held by citizens. If you have a gun, you will be treated like an insurgent.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
Same situation, different dry arid country with a civil war either in progress or on the verge of beginning.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That does not seem to make sense; what, you're going to blow the head off people you cut you off on the highway?
Now, there is something to be said for the code duello as enforcing manners; but not the sort of politeness we lament the loss of today, namely a politeness to strangers. You really can't go challenging complete strangers to duels, because there is no repercussion for them turning you down - no social disgrace. And really, most people are quite polite to their own circle of friends and acquaintances. Besides, the code duello fell out of favour because it was always going to be fought with reasonably modern weapons; not the absolute latest, necessarily, but not something you would need to go to an antique shop to find. And as firearms became better, well, that's just too dangerous. With swords you could reasonably fight to first blood, have honour satisfied, and the loser apologised; not going to happen with guns.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So are these countries uncivil because everyone has guns? Is America more civilized because we don't? Or does the culture have an impact?
I think if Americans had as many guns as it seems these strife-ridden countries had, we'd still not fall into the chaos that rules those lands. I think our cultural standards are just higher than those countries' so it's not an issue here...
Posts: 193 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In principle, every adult male in Norway has a gun, though in practice not everybody serves in the militia. But Switzerland does enforece their similar rule. I don't know about the Swiss, but Norway at any rate is not particularly more polite than the US. Different standards of politeness, though. Nobody would dream of calling anyone 'sir'.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That'd be real nice. I have no qualms with being polite but sometimes it just feels trite using that term.
Posts: 193 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do all citizens have to own guns to be polite to each other? Aren't we, as a modern civilization capable of being polite to each other simply because we should, because it's the right thing to do?
On the one hand, martial training (military, militia, martial arts, self-defense, etc.) do help one learn to control one's temper and gain a better grasp of what's worth fighting for, and what's not.
On the other hand, all gun-owners are, presumably, grown-ups. Shouldn't they already be capable of being polite even if they don't have access to a firearm or other weapon?
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Chicago, when we had the highest murder rate in the country (2-3 years ago?), over 80% of our murders were caused by guns. Here's the thing: concealed carry and most gun ownership is totally illegal. So, for our city, banning guns has little to no effect on the crime and violent crimes
I'm not saying if everyone had guns it would be different because I can't assert that for sure, but I can say that banning gun ownership had no positive effect on the crime rate, considering Chicago is considered far more dangerous than Minneapolis, a large city which allows concealed carry.
Posts: 484 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Washington D.C. has the most stringent anti-gun legislation in the nation. They also have the highest crime and murder rate in the U.S. since 1992 through today. 1992 being when they first enacted the new gun laws.
Switzerland. Every member of the civilian population is required, by law, to keep one assault rifle, one sub-machine gun, and one handgun per person over the age of eighteen in the house. Switzerland is the most heavily armed society in the world. It also has the lowest crime rate in the world.
Read John Lotts book, More Guns, Less Crime. He did a county by county study of every county in the united states. He found, in every county that restricted the carrying of guns, murder and crime rates went up. An armed society is a safe society.
Posts: 242 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think either side of the argument is correct. Those who have guns and low crime would probably be that way with or without them. Those with high crime rate and less guns would probably be that way with or without them.
I have noticed that those places that take away the right to have guns already had major violence issues, and nothing gets solved. What should be learned is that such laws don't make a difference. At the same time, those places that have many guns have not been given any substantial reason to ban them. Weapon issues are emotional and not practical.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone here really think a society where only the police (and I guess military) are allowed to legally bear arms is better than one where everyone is? You have to go through a clearance process to get them there anyway, don't you?
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since no one else has taken issue with it, I would just like to point out that, while I have heard and used that phrase many times, no one I know treats it as an argument... just as a pithy and wryly humorous observation along the lines of "God made man, but Colonel Colt made him equal."
I genuinely think, Dan, that you are mischaracterizing gun rights adovcates by treating this as something they seriously propose.
Aside from that, what you say is very true and I do think it is important to note that humans with violent attitudes or intentions are not going to be satisfied till they start a fight... which is why I think it important to be able to defend yourself against them (and not just with firearms or a little pepper spray on your keychain).
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: But Switzerland does enforece their similar rule. I don't know about the Swiss, but Norway at any rate is not particularly more polite than the US.
Swiss people are extremely polite. In the 18 months I lived there, there was one murder on the French side. It was a shock for the whole countryl
Posts: 862 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swiss people are extremely polite . . . in some ways. They (not all, but by and large, IME) are also among the most bigoted, in ways both open and subtle. Towards blacks, towards Jews -- pretty much anyone non-Aryan.
And it has gotten worse in the past 20 years or so, as these attitudes have become more acceptable in Europe as a whole.
If this is the kind of "politeness" that comes from being armed, I'm against it. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kristen: . . .considering Chicago is considered far more dangerous than Minneapolis, a large city which allows concealed carry.
This is not a fair comparison to make, because Minneapolis has only allowed concealed carry for about two years. Chicago has been considered more dangerous than Minneapolis for far longer than that, and I believe most of the difference is because it is a much larger city.
(There has not, incidentally, been a noticible difference in the crime rate one way or the other since the concealled carry bill passed.)
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
If a man broke into my house while my husband was away, I know I would not be able to stop him from doing whatever he wanted. Robbery (Take what you like, just don't hurt me.) Rape... Murder.... some combination of the three...
If I had a gun, preferably a shotgun (scatter makes it easier to hit if you don't do a lot of shooting or if it's dark. Plus it's less likely to go through the wall and kill a neighbor) I could defend myself.
And that is the biggest reason I'm pro-gun. It makes it so women can defend ourselves against men who aim to do us harm.
The usual counter argument to this is some statistic on how you're more likely to shoot yourself etc etc... But no one collects statistics on how many crimes are prevented with the threat of a gun, when never a shot is fired.
All this being said, I'm scared of guns, despite being Raised By Rednecks, and don't own one. *sigh* (I've got a sword though! And I know how to use it!)
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: But no one collects statistics on how many crimes are prevented with the threat of a gun, when never a shot is fired.
Indeed. I used to go to church with this little old lady whose husband was an invalid. One night after church she was driving home, and some thugs in two cars boxed her in at an intersection and started to get out of their cars. She didn't have to brandish her revolver very long for them to get back in and drive off.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whoa. If it's true that Iraqi citizens are forbidden to own guns, it certainly isn't reasonable to call Iraq a well armed society!
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If everyone has a gun, then everyone will be polite to each other--or risk the consequences.
I think the most obvious flaw here is the latent assumption that people with guns are willing to kill people who are rude to them.
I think that the most obvious flaw here is that killing someone who's been rude to you might be considered polite.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I don't agree with the saying, I don't think that idea is part of the thinking behind the statement.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pix, in close quarters (like indoors) a blade in the hands of someone who knows how to use it is probably much more effective than a firearm.
Also a couple of technical points-- pistol rounds (even big .44 magnum-types) aren't at all likely to penetrate exterior walls so they're just as safe for your neighbors. Even with an 18" barrel, shotgun spread is a couple of inches at 25 yards... not really going to help poor aim very much -- though a 2" diameter area of effect is obviously much larger than a third of an inch (typical bullet).
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If everyone has a gun, then everyone will be polite to each other--or risk the consequences. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TomD: I think the most obvious flaw here is the latent assumption that people with guns are willing to kill people who are rude to them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Rabbit: I think that the most obvious flaw here is that killing someone who's been rude to you might be considered polite.
I think that the most obvious flaw here is in setting fear as an appropriate motivator for good manners.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that the most obvious flaw here is in setting fear as an appropriate motivator for good manner
That's quite close to what I was trying to say. If your neighbors are only polite to you because they are afraid you'll shoot them, then you are not being polite. A society where everyone is afraid that they will be shot for bad manners, is by definition a very impolite society.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hear tell that fear is a great way to train spaniels to behave, but I have a higher standard for the growing of thoughtful, well-mannered people.
Let me put it this way, that line of thinking is a kissing cousin to all of those Christians who are Christians because they want all of the goodies alluded to in the afterlife, or are scared of hell.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Pix, in close quarters (like indoors) a blade in the hands of someone who knows how to use it is probably much more effective than a firearm.
I think you need to define "effective" here and close quarters. Unless the blade is thrown, no one can kill you with a blade if they are further than arms length from you. A thrown blade is a less effective weapon than a firearm. Once the blade is thrown, the attacker is unarmed, which is not true with a firearm. What's more, the level of skill and strength needed to kill with a blade are much greater than the level required to kill with a firearm at close quarters. There is a reason the colt revolver was dubbed, the great equalizer.
And if you think knife wounds are more deadly than gunshot wounds, you need to talk to anyone who's worked in an emergency room. A knife usually leaves clean wounds that can be easily sewn up. A bullet rips through flesh destroying large sections of tissue.
The fatality rate in gun robberies is 3 - 4 times greater than the fatality rate in knife robberies.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dislike all the arguments in this thread. Too bad I can't shoot you all over the internet.
I suppose there would be less flaming if people had a button that could make your keyboard zap you. But then there'd be idiots who would zap you just for fun.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let me put it this way, that line of thinking is a kissing cousin to all of those Christians who are Christians because they want all of the goodies alluded to in the afterlife, or are scared of hell.
I completely agree.
I just don't agree that this is always a bad thing. Well, maybe it is, but it's far preferable to a lot of other things.
I am very glad that in my past I have done some good things for less than perfect reasons.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just don't agree that this is always a bad thing. Well, maybe it is, but it's far preferable to a lot of other things.
I disagree. Living in fear is always a bad thing. I can only think of two circumstances in which one might live in fear. First, one is surrounded by real and constant threats, such as death squads, drive by shooting, bombs, or IEDs. I guess in that kind of existence, fear might improve your chances of survival but that doesn't mean its good. The whole situation is horrid. No one would ever call this a good type of life.
The second situation in which one might live in fear, is one in which a person has an irrational, overblown or paranoid perception of the risks and threats that surround him. That type of fear is totally destructive.
Neither type of fear is something I would associate with a polite society.
The OED offers the following as a definition of polite
quote:marked by an appearance of consideration, tact, deference, or courtesy
If the norm in society is for people to demonstrate consideration for others, why would people live in either kind of fear?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pix, That's my worst fear as well. I am very paranoid when my husband has to be out at night, but I am also paranoid about people coming around during the day thinking there'll be fewer people around to contend with. I own a gun, my hubby owns a whole bunch because he also collects them. He taught me to shoot and I am not the best shot but I would not hesitate to but daylight through anyone trying to do harm to me or my baby. I don't think I'd like carrying a gun around everywhere I go, but I do feel better knowing it's here at home. The hubby has a concealed permit but he doesn't carry on a regular basis, only when we travel. When we leave for vacation Thursday, we'll be packing!
Posts: 601 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: think you need to define "effective" here and close quarters. Unless the blade is thrown, no one can kill you with a blade if they are further than arms length from you. A thrown blade is a less effective weapon than a firearm. Once the blade is thrown, the attacker is unarmed, which is not true with a firearm.
I think the point that was trying to be made is that firearms, while effective are not the only viable means to defend oneself. Furthermore, you as the defender, can stop short of killing your opponent, right down to the last moment. Other than warning shots, the same cannot be said of a firearm, you have to be damn sure you want to pull that trigger, because after that you can't stop it.
quote: What's more, the level of skill and strength needed to kill with a blade are much greater than the level required to kill with a firearm at close quarters. There is a reason the colt revolver was dubbed, the great equalizer
What's wrong with actually taking the time to gain skill of this nature? Am I to assume that killing should be an unskilled, everyday affair? I know that's not what your trying to say, but it's a definite implication of what you've written here.
Personally, I'm very happy that I have the right to bear arms, since it allows me to collect my swords and nunchakus or what have you, and if I want one, I can certainly get a gun. I like that.
But I resent the ideas that 1)guns are the only viable means for self-defence, 2)that all gun control advocates are pacifist and uninformed, and that 3) living in fear of someone else is the only reason you should be polite to them.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I think you need to define "effective" here and close quarters.
Effective - capable of incapacitating the attacker before the attacker does the same to you.
Close quarters - inside a house, here walls and furniture can conceal your location and limit the range from which an assailant might engage you to within 15 feet or so (for the most part).
The reason I say a blade can be more effective is that it comes into play faster, is generally more accurate and harder for the attacker to take away from you (these last two in the hands of a trained user). Even people trained in firearms usage tend to be about 30% accurate in real firefight conditions (taken from an NYPD study in the late 80s.. don't have any links, you'll just have to trust me that I read it). Also, with a firearm, there is preparation time in even bringing a "locked and loaded" one to bear on a target. Also, Pixiest did not specify that the intruder was armed with a firearm. There's a good chance they aren't. She specifically seemed to be worried about being physically overpowered.
quote: Unless the blade is thrown, no one can kill you with a blade if they are further than arms length from you.
But indoors where there are walls, you can contrive to meet your opponent at arm's length or where you can get there quickly. One dive and roll can cross about 12-15 feet, while making yourself a difficult target and only allowing time for one aimed shot... all this assuming that your opponent is armed with a gun and already trying to aim at you. NOTE: I am *not* recommending this as a general response to someone threatening you because they *will* shoot if you make an aggressive move like this... But if the other person's already shooting at you, that particular negative doesn't really come into play.
quote: A thrown blade is a less effective weapon than a firearm. Once the blade is thrown, the attacker is unarmed, which is not true with a firearm.
absolutely... if you have a firearm, engage at range and do not close with someone armed with a blade if at all possible. The whole advantage of a gun is the ability to deal lethal damage at range relatively easily.
quote: What's more, the level of skill and strength needed to kill with a blade are much greater than the level required to kill with a firearm at close quarters. There is a reason the colt revolver was dubbed, the great equalizer.
True about the skill, but it's not that hard and Pixiest claimed to have some skill. I made possession of this skill a caveat to my assertion. If you have a sharp blade less than 18" in length, it really doesn't take much strength at all. A machete is easy to wield, a katana, on the other hand, takes a surprising amount of strength to bring into play.
quote: And if you think knife wounds are more deadly than gunshot wounds, you need to talk to anyone who's worked in an emergency room. A knife usually leaves clean wounds that can be easily sewn up. A bullet rips through flesh destroying large sections of tissue.
I don't disagree, but knife wounds *are* definitely incapacitating and deadly, which is good enough for self defense. You don;t have to make it so the guy can't be saved, just stop him from whatever he's doing.
If his aim is rape, a blade, concealed until he is close enough, will do wonders.
Did you ever do the trick where you hold a dollar bill and the other person puts their hand below yours and tries to catch it when you drop it? It's impossible because the nerves don't physically fire fast enough to react before the dollar falls the first couple of inches. There's a similar effect when a person tries to threaten you with a gun by touching the barrel to you-- you can act before they react. You have to be decisive, committed and it certainly helps to be well trained, but it *is* possible. Again, this is not a recommended tactic because it will, absolutely, drive the other person to shoot at you.
Guns are very effective weapons... after all, every military in the world uses them for a reason, and, as The Rabbit said, the Colt peacemaker *was* a great equalizer. They do not make you invulnerable, nor do they make your opponent so. Like any other tool, there are times and places where they are at their best and times and places where they aren't.
I hope my advocacy of a knife or even sword makes more sense now.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The reason I say a blade can be more effective is that it comes into play faster, is generally more accurate and harder for the attacker to take away from you (these last two in the hands of a trained user)
Is a knife really more accurate? I know that the majority of bullets miss their target, but you are comparing apples and oranges if you look at it that way. In order to strike with a knife you must be within arms length. I suspect that guns fired at that range are extremely accurate as well.
What's more, size and strength are an issue in a knife fight. In order to stab someone with a knife, I have to be very close to them. If they are much larger and stronger than I am, they stand a very good chance of being able to take the weapon and use it against me.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Size and strength are much less of an issue than you might think... the cutting edge is also a great equalizer... and once you get at close range, it is far easier to keep someone from shooting you while taking their gun than it is to take their knife without getting badly cut.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a reason why guns replaced knives and swords as the best way to kill other humans -- it's easier to do it with a gun than with a knife or a sword.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
because you can do itat range and they require less training to be effectively used.
Recap-ing here: 1)Being indoors takes away the advantage of range. If you have a weapon trained on me, you have a fair chance of shooting me before I can get to you across a room. If you are not already aiming at me, your chances go way down. Since you are on my turf, there are many things I can do to take the initiative and control the range at which the engagement takes place.
2)A knife or sword, once you are close enough, can be brought to bear much faster than even a readied gun, which, at minimum has to be properly aimed.
3)A blade *is* more accurate in the sense of hitting something (sorry for not addressing this earlier, Rabbit) because you are drawing a blade through a zone rather than trying to point at a spot with an aligned barrel. This is also one of the reasons the blade is faster than a gun
4)there is no guarantee that someone breaking into your house is even armed, much less armed with a gun, and, again, The Pixiest's specific concern was being overpowered. She said she was trained to use her sword. If she is, some big guy might physically overpower her by rushing her, but she should be able to eviscerate him in the process.
My son and I swordfight with practice 18" blade swords on a regular basis and my strength and size (about 3 times his) are an advantage to be sure. But he still gets me from time to time, and I wouldn't dream of going at him unarmed... it's just asking for punishment, even with a padded "blade".
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:1)Being indoors takes away the advantage of range.
It takes away some advantage. I'd still rather incapacitate somebody before they get within arm's reach. That's possible with a firearm, but not with a knife.
quote:3)A blade *is* more accurate in the sense of hitting something (sorry for not addressing this earlier, Rabbit) because you are drawing a blade through a zone rather than trying to point at a spot with an aligned barrel.
Slashes from a knight are far less likely to stop/kill somebodoy than a stab. Once you are start stabbing, the knife is traveling through a straight (or curved) line, just like a bullet is.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a dill developed by a man named Tueller that proves a knife is just as, if not more deadly than a gun at seven yards or closer.
The average human, even old, sick, overweight, etc can traverse seven yards and his you with a knife before you can draw your pistol from a holster.
I'v done this drill with a group of thirty people or so ranging from age 16-57 all of them beat the gun draw.
Posts: 242 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: There's a reason why guns replaced knives and swords as the best way to kill other humans -- it's easier to do it with a gun than with a knife or a sword.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: There's a reason why guns replaced knives and swords as the best way to kill other humans -- it's easier to do it with a gun than with a knife or a sword.
This is not obvious. Especially early firearms sucked pretty badly. But you could use them with two weeks' training, versus the lifetime required of a knight, or even a good cavalryman. For personal, close-range combat, I do not think it completely obvious that a rifle or handgun is superior to a sword - they are notoriously inaccurate.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thats just arguing for sport. Obviously guns are more effective as weapons today because they can be used to kill people from really really far away, and there are guns that can kill many people all at once, operated by only a few or even one person. In a personal struggle between one person with any gun, and one person with any other weapon, the result will depend on alot of factors. But in a large scale battle, its clear that the side with guns is at an advantage in almost every possible set of circumstances.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
