Armed society- Polite society

[foghornl]

I remember a sort of parallel statement...

"You can carry a gun, or you can carry a temper. You cannot carry both at once." or words to that effect

 

[GEM]

One interesting thing in book was that the hero - Hamilton Felix chose to switch out his ray gun for a 1911. In the crab incident, the aggressor was surprised as were his friends when he got shot and bled rather than being cauterized by a ray.

Felix also had doubts about the dueling aspect and was thinking of taking up the brassard - meaning you couldn't be challenged but was talked out of it.

The society was a pretty awful genetic hierarchy and fairly discriminatory if you had the wrong genes.

The dude from the past got beat up instead of shot - his old reflexes weren't up to those of the genetic supermen of the time.

It ended with a weird foray into reincarnation. Women were fairly subservient and Felix became attracted to a gun carrying genetic experiment female.

This was before Heinlein went off the deep end and had his hero having sex with his cloned sisters and time traveling to **** his mom during WWI.

Eek!

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Some of the clearest and most cogent wisdom I've ever read came from fiction.

You'll seldom find any in real life.

And gosh yes, when applied to real life, we find we are surrounded by those who are nice because they fear the other guy might be carrying and some are nice because they are fearful they will lose their temper while carrying. I see the lack of clarity of real life wisdom to which you refer.

 

[Jim Watson]

Or neither of the above.
I am nice when I wear a gun because in the present P.C. climate, I could find myself prosecuted for shooting in self defense. More afraid of the government than the crooks.

Joe D is of course right. As John W. Campbell once told a fan, an author looked smart and his hero came out on top because he got to write both sides.

 

[another okie]

There is a book by a historian at a California university in which he examines two mining towns, one in Nevada and one in California, in which almost everyone carried a gun. He concludes there was almost no petty crime, but occasionally a dispute would end up with dead folks laying around. The crime rate was much lower than in any American city today.

 

[revjen45]

I'm polite because I AM armed and have nothing to prove other than that I am not stupid enough to intiate violence over some trivial slight (plus I was taught that it's the mark of a civilized human being). In the days of chivalry knights were expected to conduct themelves with restraint and gentleness toward all who didn't demonstrate their own sub-humanity by their actions. I carry to protect my life, not to teach some rude ignoramus a lesson. If their behavior persists someone else can upbraid them and my only sin will be schadenfreude when I read about their demise in the newspaper.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I carry to protect my life and the lives of loved ones. Being polite has nothing to do with being armed. I was just as polite before I was armed as I am now that I am armed.

Sadly, and we have seen numerous examples posted here, being armed does not necessarily make for a polite society. We get all kinds of examples of those who are armed that act in rude or bullying behaviors because they are armed and some of these folks are legal CCW folks and law enforcement (talking about off duty incidents) who display their guns as a sign of power to get their way, be it lover's triangles, road rage, or what have you.

 

[BMacklem]

The whole point of things is that we *should* all have several things in common, which *should* make us polite to each other.... a love of guns, life, and liberty.
We all , if we could gather for a big THR barbeque or somesuch, probably get along quite well, because we all want to take that high road, and be sensible and polite to each other.... not somuch because we'd all theoretically be armed, but because we were all (mostly) of the same mindset.
I could personally see myself being good friends with quite a few of you outside of this board in real life, and if more of you were closer to Wisconsin, I'd surely love to have a get together.

That's what being in an amred and polite society is all about. People who all share the temperment of wishing society to be safer, and free from tyranny.

Heinlein may have written fiction....but it would be a wonderful place to live, and I think with more of us acting politely, and always taking the High Road, we'll make this country better day by day... just by being a part of it.
(how's that for some pop psychology)

 

[Ghost Tracker]

When Confederate Officers were "re-patrioted" as Citizens of the United States after the Civil War, part of the required oath included the condition that they would NEVER AGAIN participate in a duel.

While matters of Personal Honor have now given sway to the cultural anomoly of Political Correctness...I have often thought that it might not be such a bad idea to be able to, without impunity, put my life on the line for an opportunity shoot a scoundrel through the eye.

 

[yesit'sloaded]

THR cookout? I am all for that. We could have it by regions or state.

 

[Officers'Wife]

While I can't say for certain that an "armed" society is a "polite" society I have observed three different cultures. The first in the city of Chicago where two groups where armed- the police and the gang-bangers. While the majority of the police are polite they seem to have an air of distain to the "civilian" population they "preserve and protect." The gang-bangers are anything but polite.

After my Mom died I ended up in a farming community in Indiana where firearms are quite common. The majority of the farmers I've met are stoically polite.

Then when I married my "society" was that of the military. Some are polite and some are not...

The diff I've seen has not been the firearms but the attitude towards the firearms.

In both groups in Chicago the firearm was a symbol of power and the attitude revolved around that power. On the farm, the firearm was one more dangerous tool among a host of dangerous tools. The attitude was getting the job done and going to the house in one piece. Here on the base the attitude that weapons are the tools of the trade, from the small arm to the real guns. The symbols here are the "bad boys of Bastonge", Col Simons and the Green Berets, the "Screaming Eagle" and the American flag. I've come to the conclusion that "politeness" is cultural. Chicago is ruled by a culture of violence that infects all that violence touches. The farmers have a culture of life built on death (For the customer to eat steak the cow must die.) and continuity of life (the cornstalk dies for the seed that will be next years cornstalk.) And the army is the culture of preventing death and dishonor of our Constitution.

Three cultures, same tool. I submit if strapping on a handgun makes you more polite you are fooling yourself, the politeness is already inside, you just chose to exercise it out of respect for your tools and to reflect the culture you subscribe. Giving a tool some unnatural power to effect our nature is just that, unnatural. As the Bard noted, not in our stars but in ourselves.

Selena

 

[JohnL2]

I remember a sort of parallel statement...

"You can carry a gun, or you can carry a temper. You cannot carry both at once." or words to that effect

Terrific quote. I'm stealing it.

I agree that politeness is in the culture, not because you strap on a gun. Come on.

 

[Geronimo45]

I have often thought that it might not be such a bad idea to be able to, without impunity, put my life on the line for an opportunity shoot a scoundrel through the eye.

Then we'd have no Congress.

 

[easyg]

An armed society is a polite society?

If that were true then Iraq Somolia would be one of the most polite societies in the world.
As would Iraq.

 

[miko]

Study up on feuds and vendetta and see how beautifully it worked out for the families involved and for their societies in general.

It might not have worked well for the few families - but it certainly worked for the societies. While being culled out by each other, the families with wrong culture/genetics served as a good example for others.




As for politeness, we - humans - have instinctual urge to meet any real or imaginary slur or offence with confrontation, even if it's a bluff. Getting confrontational might get you hurt but being perceived as meek was much worse procreating-wise in the days of hunter-gatherers. Evolution hardwired those emotions into us.

Now, when I have a gun with me, when I know that I am equal to anyone, regardless of size or number - I feel safe and confident. I feel much less emotional when someone slights or offends me. I feel less urge to engage in aggerssive confrontation. I also feel no fear and get no surge of adrenaline - which keeps me rational and less swayed by emotions.
While someone acts like an a-hole, I can quietly consider the options, chances, reprecussions, venues of retreat and lines of fire.

So I am polite, yielding and forgiving. My blood pressure is stable, my visage is serene. There is no thought involved, let alone consideration of future legal issues.


miko

 

[Ghost Tracker]

If that were true then Iraq Somolia would be one of the most polite societies in the world.
As would Iraq.

Where is "Iraq Somolia"?

And while the citizens of the places (?) you've mentioned might kill you in a quick second, cut off your head, and draw your body through the streets...they are, for those same reasons, quite polite to persons able to do the same things to them.

 

[Wheeler44]

I grew up in a small bush town. Bears were everywhere half of the year. No police force at all. Almost everyone carried , at least in the summer time. I can't say that crime was lower than it is down here, or that people were more polite. There were several shootings over the years. In every case both people had guns at the time of the shooting. I think that the statement " an armed society is a polite society" is kinda wishful thinking.

 

[TallPine]

Well, I can't exactly see that a disarmed society is polite either

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Since Somalia was brought up, that is an interesting example. Mogadishu was governed by a series of major and minor warlords and there were frequent squabbles between groups. It was far from being the mythical polite society claimed in the fictional quote. Politeness goes right out the window if one of the ways of getting ahead in society is by the death of the leaders in your area. Politeness is a dumb concept when the local law is based on might making right. It is a dumb concept when folks feel that risking their lives to better their position is a worthwhile pursuit.

The notion that an armed society is a polite society only works if everyone lives in fear of being killed by one's fellow society members and if everyone in society values life above all else. Without these values in place, it is just a fairytale.

I don't understand the rallying behind of a fairytale as a justification for gun ownership. It doesn't even make sense.

Guns won't make a society be polite just like a lack of guns won't make it polite either as noted by Tallpine

 

[another okie]

There is a difference between being polite and being nice.

 

[ceetee]

I don't understand the rallying behind of a fairytale as a justification for gun ownership. It doesn't even make sense.

I don't think we use it as a justification for owning guns. I think we own guns for all different kinds of reasons, like sport, self-defense, or hunting. I also think that we use the little allegories and catchphrases as a way to remind ourselves that there are still flaws in the way we live our lives. Our justice systems are flawed, in many cases our own personal values and ethics are flawed, and I think we (as a species) generally recognize that. In using these catchphrases, we remind ourselves that we can always strive to improve ourselves, and our surroundings. If firearms are just one tool (out of a whole toolbox) that we can use, then we choose to do so.

 

[Ghost Tracker]

It's a nice, thought provoking quote from a talented fiction writer, just the kind of thing that a talented writer writes. It's not really intended to be the basis for in-depth sociological or cultural verification. I'm sure "God made man. Sam Colt made them equal." isn't discussed too much at the Theological Seminary.

 

[peacemaker45]

This was before Heinlein went off the deep end and had his hero having sex with his cloned sisters and time traveling to **** his mom during WWI.

Eek!

Yeah, one of the pervading themes of Heinlein's stuff was that sex shouldn't be sinful. In fact, the only sin was hurting other people unnecessarily. He saw the only reasons for the cultural taboo against incest were the possibilities for genetic monsters resulting from inbreeding, or emotional damage resulting from the use of force against a younger person. Both of which cause harm, thereby being wrong in Heinlein's code. However, with those possibilities dealt with in various ways, he saw no problem with it. In that context, I think that when the underlying reasons for the taboo have been dealt with, that the taboo can be safely discarded.

Ben, the worst thing about sex is that we use it to hurt each other. It ought never to hurt; it should bring happiness, or at least pleasure.
"The code says, 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.' The result? Reluctant chastity, bitterness, blows and sometimes murder, broken homes and twisted children — and furtive little passes degrading to woman and man. Is this Commandment ever obeyed? If a man swore on his own Bible that he refrained from coveting his neighbor's wife because the code forbade it, I would suspect either self-deception or subnormal sexuality. Any man virile enough to sire a child has coveted many women, whether he acts or not.

One of his biggest points was the way in which people are ruled by their cultural conditioning, whether those taboos and customs are healthy or not.

As far as armed and polite goes, I subscribe more to Jim Watson's theory than anything else. I'm not consumed by a desire not to kill, but I also don't have any real desire to do so, either. My reasons for conflict avoidance stem from fear of the government officials he mentioned, rather than any life is sacred outlook. My life, and those of my family and friends are sacred to me. Following that, women and children in general. Other than that, I really don't care all that much. Maybe I'm cynical?

~~~Mat

 

[JKimball]

I agree it takes more than guns to make a society polite, but I can certainly see how the added element of arms can bring politeness into an otherwise "impolite" situation.

I am reminded of this phrase whenever I see Rosie O'donnell screaming at somebody. Maybe she knows she can't be polite, and that's why she is afraid of an armed society. For two reasons: 1. She would be afraid of being shot by someone she offended. 2. She projects her own emotional instability onto other people. She fears what she would do in her rage if she had a gun and expects that others would do the same.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I agree it takes more than guns to make a society polite, but I can certainly see how the added element of arms can bring politeness into an otherwise "impolite" situation.

Right, but it does not change the politeness of society.