Why do we believe an armed society is a polite society?

Summary: Led by the 1%, we’re building a New America. Oddly and unlike our forebears, it rests largely on an intellectual foundation of fantasy. Today we look at one pillar of nonsense that millions of Americans take seriously.

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”
— From Robert Heinlein’s Beyond This Horizon (1942).

Contents

1. Robert Heinlein’s most powerful insight.
2. The logic of carrying guns in civil society.
3. What about life on the frontier?
4. Research tells the tale.
5. An insight from Beyond This Horizon.
6. For More Information.

(1)  Robert Heinlein’s most powerful insight.

Robert Heinlein’s stories played a formative role in the rise of the libertarian movement, perhaps even more so than the novels of Ayn Rand (Heinlein’s were more widely read, and even more often read to the end), perhaps the first political movement almost entirely grounded in fiction and false predictions rather than history and research. In books such as The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress (1965), he sketched out appealing yet ludicrously improbable worlds.

Perhaps Heinlein’s greatest impact came from his deeply held belief, shown in both stories and letters, that “an armed society is a polite society.” He explicitly stated this in his 1942 novel Beyond This Horizon, where full citizens must carry guns. In his 1949 novel Red Planet children come of age in their early teens when they pass the tests to earn a license for open carry of a gun. (Heinlein, as usual, was ahead of his time; both boys and girls carried guns). These are fun stories. The concept is quite mad.

Heinlein’s myths valorize individual autonomy and power. This contradicts history; he could as realistically described people with wings. In the absence of a functioning State, organization and structure comes from gangs (like States, a form of collective action) — not bold free individualists. No matter what the level of weaponry they have.

We see this in prisons (the State doesn’t care to regulate). and ungoverned states like Somalia, or parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Also, to a lesser extent, in the worst of America’s inner cities (too much effort for the State to regulate). And in the horror show of our wild west (more on this below).

Low levels of government authority are often insufficient to maintain order in well-armed societies. In the Three Musketeers, based on the memoirs of d’Artagnan, Capitaine-Lieutenant des Mousquetaires, we see early 17thC Paris stained with the blood of frequent and senseless duels. One of the greatest of the Founders, Alexander Hamilton, died in a senseless duel.

“A few anecdotes and a good just-so story outweigh a hundred historical counter-examples.”
— David Brin discussing Karl Marx, science fiction editor John Campbell, and Robert Heinlein in his review of Beyond This Horizon, Tor/Forge Blog, 12 July 2010.

(2)  Why carry guns in a civil society?

I recommend reading this in full: “The Freedom of an Armed Society“, Firmin DeBrabander (Prof Philosophy, Maryland Institute College of Art; website here), op-ed in the New York Times, 16 December 2012 — Excerpt:

This becomes clear if only you pry a little more deeply into the N.R.A.’s logic behind an armed society. An armed society is polite, by their thinking, precisely because guns would compel everyone to tamp down eccentric behavior, and refrain from actions that might seem threatening. The suggestion is that guns liberally interspersed throughout society would cause us all to walk gingerly — not make any sudden, unexpected moves — and watch what we say, how we act, whom we might offend.

As our Constitution provides, however, liberty entails precisely the freedom to be reckless, within limits, also the freedom to insult and offend as the case may be. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld our right to experiment in offensive language and ideas, and in some cases, offensive action and speech. Such experimentation is inherent to our freedom as such. But guns by their nature do not mix with this experiment — they don’t mix with taking offense. They are combustible ingredients in assembly and speech.

I often think of the armed protestor who showed up to one of the famously raucous town hall hearings on Obamacare in the summer of 2009. The media was very worked up over this man, who bore a sign that invoked a famous quote of Thomas Jefferson, accusing the president of tyranny. But no one engaged him at the protest; no one dared approach him even, for discussion or debate — though this was a town hall meeting, intended for just such purposes. Such is the effect of guns on speech — and assembly. Like it or not, they transform the bearer, and end the conversation in some fundamental way. They announce that the conversation is not completely unbounded, unfettered and free; there is or can be a limit to negotiation and debate — definitively.

The very power and possibility of free speech and assembly rests on their non-violence. The power of the Occupy Wall Street movement, as well as the Arab Spring protests, stemmed precisely from their non-violent nature. This power was made evident by the ferocity of government response to the Occupy movement. Occupy protestors across the country were increasingly confronted by police in military style garb and affect.

Imagine what this would have looked like had the protestors been armed: in the face of the New York Police Department assault on Zuccotti Park, there might have been armed insurrection in the streets. The non-violent nature of protest in this country ensures that it can occur.

To see this working in real time, subscribe to the twitter feed of David Waldman @KagroX, reporting daily carnage of accidental gun shootings. The NRA reports the rare instances of gun owners defending themselves. Waldman reports the far more frequent “other” shootings, often of or by children.

(3) What about life on the frontier?

The wild west sounds great, as told in John Wayne’s films and Louis L’Amour’s stories.

Unfortunately western fiction is no more realistic than science fiction. Our wild west was a lawless horror show, where predatory gangs (often in the employ of cattle “barons”) dominated vast areas (The film “Chisum” is a prettified version of the Lincoln County War; in fact the bad guys won — aided by the Cavalry).  It served mainly as a cautionary example for Canada, who ensured that the Mounties would maintain order as their frontier developed.

For the facts, see Myth-busting about gun use in the Wild West.

(4)  Research tells the tale.

There is a large body of research showing that an armed society is a violent society.  For example:

“The ‘weapons effect’“, Brad J. Bushman (Prof of Communication & Psychology, Ohio State U), Psychology Today, 18 January 20113 — “Research shows that the mere presence of weapons increases aggression.” See references at the end.

“Is an armed society a polite society? Guns and road rage“, David Hemenway et al, Accident Analysis & Prevention, July 2006 — Abstract:

While concerns about road rage have grown over the past decade, states have made it easier for motorists to carry firearms in their vehicles. Are motorists with guns in the car more or less likely to engage in hostile and aggressive behavior? Data come from a 2004 national random digit dial survey of over 2400 licensed drivers. Respondents were asked whether, in the past year, they…

1. made obscene or rude gestures at another motorist,
2. aggressively followed another vehicle too closely, and
3. were victims of such hostile behaviors.

17% admitted making obscene or rude gestures, and 9% had aggressively followed too closely. 46% reported victimization by each of these behaviors in the past year. Males, young adults, binge drinkers, those who do not believe most people can be trusted, those ever arrested for a non-traffic violation, and motorists who had been in a vehicle in which there was a gun were more likely to engage in such forms of road rage.  Similar to a survey of Arizona motorists, in our survey, riding with a firearm in the vehicle was a marker for aggressive and dangerous driver behavior.

For surveys of the research see..

1. Guns do not make us safer. Why is this not obvious?
2. Do guns make us more safe, or less? Let’s look at the research.

(5)  Another insight from Beyond This Horizon.

This is seldom mentioned by right-wing Heinlein fans:

“Naturally food is free! What kind of people do you take us for?”

(6)  For More information.

See these other posts about Robert Heinlein’s work

1. How the Soviet Menace was over-hyped, and what we can learn from this — Heinlein saw the USSR’s weakness 3 decades before the CIA.
2. We live in the crazy years, but can choose a different destiny for ourselves and our children.
3. How does The Hunger Games compare to other classic stories of children fighting children? — About Tunnel in the Sky.

If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about gun violence and regulation, and especially these about gun violence…

1. Guns do not make us safer. Why is this not obvious?
2. Myth-busting about gun use in the Wild West.
3. Do guns make us more safe, or less? Let’s look at the research.
4. What are the odds of violence from the Right in America?
5. The number of children killed by guns in America makes us exceptional, not better.