Summary: As the gun lobby moves from expansion of concealed carry to open carry of guns, it is time to examine the nonsense that so many believe about gun. This is one of the delusions that form the foundation of the New America being built by Republicans using their dominance of State and Federal governments. Built on the ruins of the America-that-once-was. This is an expanded and revised post from the archives.
Contents
- Robert Heinlein’s most powerful insight.
- The logic of carrying guns in civil society.
- What about life on the frontier?
- But the polite Swiss have all those guns!
- Research tells the tale.
- An insight from Beyond This Horizon.
- For More Information.
(1) Heinlein’s powerful insight.
“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.
In books such as The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress
Perhaps Heinlein’s greatest impact came from his deeply held belief that “an armed society is a polite society.” He discusses this often in his correspondence. He explicitly stated it in his 1942 novel Beyond This Horizon
Heinlein’s myths valorize individual autonomy and power, symbolized by open carry of guns. He could as realistically described people sprouting wings. Periods with open carry of weapons often had high levels of violence and rule of the strong over the weak. Open carry often comes from societies with weak or even dysfunctional states. In them organization and structure comes from gangs — not bold free individualists.
Low levels of government authority are often insufficient to maintain order in well-armed societies. The Three Musketeers (see the great film: part one
We see the extreme examples of this in ungoverned areas such as parts of Somalia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (states too weak to regulate). We see this to a lesser extent in the worst of America’s inner cities (the state does not care enough to regulate). We see this in the real history of our Wild West (more on this below).
Heinlein’s stories are great fiction. That people taken them seriously is sad.
“A few anecdotes and a good just-so story outweigh a hundred historical counter-examples.”
— From David Brin’s review of Beyond This Horizon at the Tor/Forge Blog.
(2) Why carry guns in a civil society?
I recommend this analysis: “The Freedom of an Armed Society” by Firmin DeBrabander (Prof Philosophy, Maryland Institute College of Art; website here), an op-ed in the New York Times from 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.”
That was written in the simpler times of 2012, when protests were the street parties of Occupy and the Tea Party. Now we might be in the early stages of accelerating political violence.
(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 (my favorite is The Daybreakers
We provided a cautionary example for Canada, who ensured that the Mounties would maintain order as their frontier developed. For some facts about this lost history, masked by myths, see Myth-busting about gun use in the Wild West.
(4) But the polite Swiss have all those guns!
Most men in Switzerland are in the militia from ages 20 to 30. They keep their rifles at home. But they do not have ammo at home; it is keep in government armories — which the far-right propaganda seldom mentions.
Switzerland has strict gun registration plus tight controls on sales of gun and ammo — all of which are more comprehensive and thoroughly enforced than in the US. Concealed carry permits are rarely issued. Open carry of loaded weapons is illegal, with the obvious exceptions (e.g., hunting). Open carry of unloaded guns must meet strict criteria. See the Wikipedia entry — and its supporting links — for more information.
(5) 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’” by Brad J. Bushman (Prof of Communication & Psychology, Ohio State U) in Psychology Today, 18 January 2013 — “Research shows that the mere presence of weapons increases aggression.” See the references at the end of the article.
Also see “Is an armed society a polite society? Guns and road rage” by David Hemenway et al. in 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…
- made obscene or rude gestures at another motorist,
- aggressively followed another vehicle too closely, and
- 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, with summaries and links, see these posts…
- Guns do not make us safer. Why is this not obvious?
- Do guns make us more safe, or less? Let’s look at the research.
(6) Another insight from Beyond This Horizon.
This Heinlein quote about the future is seldom mentioned by right-wing Heinlein fans.
“Naturally food is free! What kind of people do you take us for?”
(7) For More information.
See these other posts about Robert Heinlein’s work
- 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.
- We live in the crazy years, but can choose a different destiny for ourselves and our children.
- How does The Hunger Games compare to other classic stories of children fighting children? — About Tunnel in the Sky
.
- We are living in the crazy years AND Fahrenheit 451 — About Heinlein’s future history stories, published as The Past through Tomorrow
.
.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…
- Guns do not make us safer. Why is this not obvious?
- Myth-busting about gun use in the Wild West.
- Do guns make us more safe, or less? Let’s look at the research.
- What are the odds of violence from the Right in America?
- The number of children killed by guns in America makes us exceptional, not better.
Pingback: a myth of the right – Fabius Maximus website – SelfHelpEA
An armed society may not be a polite society but it’s a free society – pretty delusional thought huh. Keep up with the insults. This article Is a great example of why we need to remain armed.
Gute,
“but it’s a free society – pretty delusional thought huh”
Yes, it is delusional. Stable free societies are like Japan, Canada, Australia, and western Europe — most of whom have tight gun controls or extremely tight gun controls.
Armed societies: Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, etc.
Quite delusional.
Might want to take another look at Australia mate, from the future. Protip: They’re building concentration camps.
Dundee,
You appear confused about how democracies work. If the people of Australia are unhappy, they have elections.
They don’t need to start shooting people. That would put them on the fast track to hell. It’s a well-worn path by people who put their faith in violence.
Also, quarantine camps for ten thousand (mostly travelers) in a population of over 25 million doesn’t make it an authoritarian hellhole.
Perhaps the 680 thousand dead in the US might wish our response had been stronger. I doubt Australians, with their 1200 dead, wish they had acted like the US.
“This article Is a great example of why we need to remain armed.”
What — so you can violently suppress disagreement?
If I may ask, why is gun ownership so important to you? Obviously it’s not for safety, since your gun is far, far more likely to be used against you than by you, and it’s just as clearly not for the defense of liberty, since the USA’s hundreds of millions of firearms have done zilch to prevent the erosion of our freedoms.
My guns are so important to me for defensive reasons, mainly protecting my family. And I would love to see someone try and use my weapon on me. And the reason our freedoms are eroding is because of spineless people who give there freedoms to these corrupt politicians in exchange for perceived safety or free stuff. Self sufficiency is another vital ingredient that people dont seem to have anymore atleast in the cities.
Christopher,
Try reading the post and replying to its content with facts and logic.
While it is nice of you to share your rant, this isn’t grade school show and tell.
The second protects the first. The 1st can be removed easily without the 2nd.
Your premise that “your gun is far, far more likely to be used against you than by you” is idiotic, absurd and just plain false.
It is the Lies of the Left.
Actual FBI stats plus the times that a gun is displayed and no use is necessary have debunked that lie.
You’re not seeing this from the liberal perspective. Remember, everything to them is about being a victim. Victimhood gives liberals status, it gives them something to unite around, it makes them think their thoughts are superior to others because ‘they know what’s best for us’.
To all who wish to disarm us – I say start with places like Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles. After all, there’s your liberal base right there. Go door to door in those cities, and I’m sure the good people there will gladly turn over their weapons – you know ‘For the Children’ (a liberal’s favorite cry – except at a Planned Parenthood rally).
After you’ve gotten out of the hospital and – miracle of miracles – somehow managed to disarm every gang-banger, thug, and other gangster wannabe criminal element in the democrat-controlled cities – then come back and tell us how you intend to disarm the government. THAT’S what the Second Amendment was written for. Because until those things happen, many of us choose NOT to be victims and our right to self-defense is not given to us by our government but by our Maker. The phrase SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED was put there for a reason – and right now, any government who wants me disarmed is the biggest one.
hogwash article.. those who have never been disarmed tby the state but still robbed by armed thugs wouldn’t understand.
doran,
Can you make a rational reply, using fact and logic? This isn’t grade school Show and Tell, where a rant is treated kindly.
There a factual misrepresentation within the article. For example, the article states and implies Swiss citizens have guns but no ammo. That’s false. The Swiss militia (men aged 20-30) are are issued military weapons that they do keep at home and up until the last few years were allowed to keep 50 rounds of ammo at home. They no longer do that. The “no ammo” rule only applies to these government issued weapons and not ones personally owned by the population. They do have magazine capacity requirements and ammo type limits. For example, you can only purchase hollow point or “soft” bullets for hunting. Yes, the article can be dissected further for accuracy, but as the writer also suggested that the “right” withholds information, yet goes on to withhold information themselves. Worse yet, maybe they didn’t research the topic enough to provide a factual argument of their own, and that’s just lazy journalism.
Ed,
Let’s look at the text…
“Most men in Switzerland are in the militia from ages 20 to 30. They keep their rifles at home. But they do not have ammo at home; it is keep in government armories…”
It is clearly talking only about government issued weapons. Belief that it applies to all Swiss weapons is silly.
Nice try.
Al Capone always said, asking polite with a gun in your hand is always better than just asking polite.
One additional factor for how widespread and ubiquitous guns can harm public health: They make suicide easier. Suicidal people are often in a real low place and even modest obstacles can make them turn off that path. Guns, of course, make it easy. Now, in anticipation of a criticism, this won’t make suicide stop – but it will make it harder.
SF,
Thanks for the reminder about that. There are studies suggesting this available, fast, effortless, painless (if done right), and non-revocable method increases the number of completed suicides. There are many ways to do it, but few have all those characteristics.
I won’t even approach this from a pro or con side, as each group knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are the only correct one. I will point out, if we are going to cover history, that the reason all males belonged to the militia and had to provide their own arms was to fight the Indigenous population. In effect, an early draft, by the government, to kill off anyone not wiped out in the first biological agent attacks, which then gave the elite of the day more land and wealth. So, by government decree all must be armed, to the benefit of the ruling class. Now, they want the opposite. Both sides need to see how they are being used by the 1% ( just to use a handy label, don’t tar me with the Tea Party brush ).
What you describe sounds like a logical shift in policies without having to cast it in terms of social engineering or whatever. There was more call in the early USA and precursors to have folks armed to deal with Native American groups (and probably more pertinently, runaway/rebellious slaves in much of the country), while now there is no meaningful risk of anything like that.
SF,
Great point. As see my comment reply to Dakin — he mentions just one use of militia, in one set of lands during a specific period of history. Militia were used in many other lands, in many other periods of time, for many other uses.
James,
“that the reason all males belonged to the militia and had to provide their own arms was to fight the Indigenous population.”
Sometimes, but not — as you imply — always. Very often militia were employed as a method of defense against invasion. The many European militia (e.g., Denmark, Swiss are the obvious modern examples — although the tradition of reliance on militia for defense goes back to the 15th century. Post-revolutionary Cuba is another.
“an early draft, by the government, to kill off anyone not wiped out in the first biological agent attacks”
That is one specific era of history, in one set of lands — those hit by pandemics following first large-scale contact with europeans. Not all were (e.g., India, Africa). Militia were used elsewhere, both before and after than time period.
like it or not, the founders included the second amendment in the constitution to allow citizens to resist government overreach. even liberal luminaries like lawrence tribe concede it embodies an individual right to keep and bear arms. unless an amendment can make it through the constitutional process, a highly improbable event, that’s not going to change. all the yapping on both sides of this issue is simply each tribe talking to itself. instead of this pointless back and forth bandying, why not do something meaningful? violence reduction in the u.s. should focus instead on the seriously at risk population–especially minority youth–who are the most frequent victims of criminal violence. ending concealed carry will not disarm those criminals; a population notably unpersuaded by legal limitations.
Jay,
“the founders included the second amendment in the constitution to allow citizens to resist government overreach.”
Let’s not descend into right-wing propaganda. The references to gun rights in the Founders’ writings — with very few exceptions — refer to the States’ militia. Not paramilitary groups, like Weimar’s Freicorps (whom most of the Founders probably have regarded as a major threat, worthy of immediate suppression), not lone gunmen.
Nor does the history of gun rights in England give credence to this, as it is described as secondary to Parliament’s authority (who is sovereign, and able to legislate with few limits).
And since militias are only active or needed in a time of war the citizenry has the constitutional right the keep and bear arms until that time…..meaning the government ONLY has the regulation ability until such time war is at hand with another country.
Tracy,
Where do you get this stuff?
In 1794 George Washington himself led 13,000 militiamen to crush the Whiskey Rebellion. No state of war. Militia, and their successors, the National Guard, have been used more often in the US to crush domestic disturbances than in time of war.
Editor,
The second amendment specifically lists that there be a regulated militia for the security of a free state, and the right to keep and bear arms, and shall not be infringed.
Second why are you referencing England’s gun rights? The colonies left England, and the thirteen colonies established the bill of rights to protect state and PERSON against government over reach.
I may be misunderstanding this phrase “with very few exceptions — refer to the States’ militia. Not paramilitary groups, like Weimar’s Freicorps (whom most of the Founders probably have regarded as a major threat, worthy of immediate suppression), not lone gunmen.” maybe if you could clarify.
SSD,
(1) “The second amendment specifically lists that there be a regulated militia…”
What’s your point?
(2) “Second why are you referencing England’s gun rights”
To understand the effect of laws, look at the experience of other nations. A wide net is useful, but the experience of nations similar to us is esp useful.
(3) “maybe if you could clarify.”
I said “The references to gun rights in the Founders’ writings — with very few exceptions — refer to the States’ militia.” Some of the references to gun ownership are vague or lack specific context.
By the way, that was a well-asked question. Most readers get to material they don’t understand, make a wild guess as to the meaning (often quite delusional) and give a rebuttal to that.
IMO, the spread of 3D Printing is going to make Arms Control an impossibility. I think the same way with Genetic Engineering in the wake of CRISPR.
i’m impressed, although not necessarily in a good way. i’ve responded to a few of your posts. twice you have accused me of being a left wing nut. now i’m “descend(ing) into right wing propaganda”. in each case you managed to miss the point completely. if today was an average day, 30 people, most of them minority youth, fell to gun violence. what in the name of all that’s holy does your invocation of the authority of england’s parliament do to reduce the toll? the bandying over the second amendment merely satisfies the political tribe.
Jay,
(1) I comment to specific quotes of your, giving detailed responses. If you disagree, I suggest that you try doing the same.
(2) “what in the name of all that’s holy does your invocation of the authority of england’s parliament do to reduce the toll?”
Let’s replay the tape: “the founders included the second amendment in the constitution to allow citizens to resist government overreach.” You are the one who raised that historical question; I just responded to it. Please explain how your comment “reduces the toll.”
(3) “the bandying over the second amendment merely satisfies the political tribe.”
Wow. So you believe the lack of gun regulation in America has nothing to do with that blood toll? The lightly controlled sale of weapons in gun shows, the ease of getting all sorts of ammo, etc — all quite different than in any of our peers. Each to his own opinion.
So you’ll do whatever it is you are doing to “reduce the toll”. I and others will attempt to roll back the mad profusion of weapons — and now open carry — on America’s streets. History will judge which path was more important.
Jay,
“i’ve responded to a few of your posts. twice you have accused me of being a left wing nut.”
I have skimmed your 26 comments here and my responses to them. Please advise what are the two instances I accused you of being a “left wing nut.” I don’t see anything like that. There are no mentions in the 50,000+ comments here of “left wing nut”, nor is that the kind of language I use.
I have repeatedly asked you to respond to direct quotes, since you so frequently misrepresent what I said. I often have asked you to support your claims, which often appear to be just making stuff up — confidently, boldly.
Look here at the comment policies of other websites, and the perspectives about comments by those running major websites. Most of these people long ago would have banned you (except for those websites that closed their comment sections as a waste of time). I’ve been patient with you. Don’t exhaust it.
Stable free societies are like Japan, Canada, Australia, and western Europe — most of whom have tight gun controls or extremely tight gun controls.
I have to disagree. I am Australian and a registered gun owner. We are no longer a very free society and our level of individual freedom is reducing. It is a criminal act to attempt to defend myself inside my own home – yes, I am perfectly serious. It is a criminal act for a woman to use something like Mace to protect herself from a rapist (Mace etc are all illegal). Yet the number of illegal firearms in criminal hands grows at an exponential rate, as does the level of violence utilised by criminals.
This is a heavily regulated, over-governed, increasingly ‘soft socialist’ state. State power is increasing and the governing elite is increasingly incompetent in the exercise of its power.
A current example of this incompetence is how the state has regulated electricity supplies in the name of global warming of course. The largest coal and gas exporter in the world which 15 years ago had the cheapest electricity on Earth now has the most expensive electricity in the world. And the grid is now in danger of collapse this coming summer.
We are increasingly less free here, we are increasingly unstable here. And both trends are accelerating.
Regards:
Cradock’s.
“I have to disagree. I am Australian and a registered gun owner. We are no longer a very free society and our level of individual freedom is reducing. It”
First world problems. In your search for more freedom and stability, visit nations that are true “armed societies” — like Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
Cradock (aka MBailey),
I see your first comment went into the spam bucket. I left it there, since you successfully reposted it.
I don’t see why it was blocked, but that sometimes happens — which is why I check the bucket several times per day. Akismet works in mysterious ways and makes occasional errors, but is necessary for a comment section to operate. It blocks one or two hundred spam comments per day.
So let me get this straight: you aren’t free to use your firearm however you choose, and you regard this as evidence of the erosion of liberty?
Maybe electricity in Australia was priced too low before, and is now reaching a more realistic price. The price of a good or service should reflect the realities of its use, correct? If the cost of coal and gas usage is rising, than its price should rise too.
I’m sorry your ruling elite is incompetent. As an American, I can certainly sympathize. But how would gun ownership rectify this problem? “Hey, you government officials: be more competent, or I’ll plug you”?
Yes, and in one’s search for the freedom and stability afforded by strict gun control one can also visit the peaceful paradise of old Mexico, where, thanks to very effective legislation the law-abiding villagers are left with rusty shotguns to defend against narcos armed with machine guns and RPGs. Because mass-murdering drug dealers are very scrupulous about making sure they comply with all relevant statues.
This can go back and forth all day (and often does) with examples and counter-examples. E.g. Vermont has almost no state-wide gun control but low crime. Chicago has strict gun control and half the city is a lawless hellhole with Fallujah-level casualties every weekend.
The bottom line, if one examines the literature, is that the presence or absence of guns themselves has almost no power to explain violent crime rates. In countries where significantly stronger gun control measures have been adopted in recent decades, the total effect on crime has been . . . nothing. Great Britain, Australia, Jamaica, etc. The trend lines (increasing or decreasing) just continue past the date of the legislation with no inflection. Even the CDC, who is hardly a friend of gun rights, has been unable to demonstrate the effectiveness of any gun control legislation anywhere on violent crime. Social factors vastly dominate the state of gun laws in determining crime rates.
Where there has been a large and significant effect, however, is on suicide rates. As a public health matter that bears looking into and adopting such policy measures as are appropriate such as increasing access to mental health care and providing a robust social safety net.
As for Western European societies, the jury is till out whether or not they have the cultural pre-conditions necessary to maintain stable democracies, with most of them experiencing totalitarian governments of one flavor or another in recent decades. The current trend toward ever-increasing government surveillance and control of speech and expression is certainly cause for concern. However, the U.S. also is on a similar path, despite the abundance of so-called “freedom-loving rugged individualists” so I don’t think that gun rights have much to do with it one way or the other.
As for your specific talking point about the horrors of private sales at gun shows, you should know that numerous studies have shown that only about 2 % of guns used by criminals were purchased at a gun show. Some are stolen, but the majority come from straw purchases (which are illegal). I’m not sure I would call a 2 % effect a major contributor to our “bloody toll” but good luck in your valiant quest to abolish it.
phagehost,
I worry that we are best off under rule of the 1% because so many (most?) comments from the far-right and far-right are so delusional.
As with comments by gun nuts about the wonderfulness of guns for all. We have had mass produced guns for roughly three centuries. So why are their examples of “armed societies are polite societies” all either fantasy (e.g., Heinlein), fake (e.g., the Swiss), or counterfactuals? Why do they ignore the many (usually horrific) real world examples of armed societies (mostly failed states)?
“search for the freedom and stability afforded by strict gun control one can also visit the peaceful paradise of old Mexico,”
So the counter-example to developed nations — almost all of which have stricter gun control than the US (or prohibit widespreads possession of guns) is a tottering second world nation? Truly bogus. And a counterfactural too boot (going for the bonus delusional points). As if arming the rural Mexicans would give them the upper hand against the billion-dollar international drug cartels. Good luck with that.
Also — I’m not familiar with Mexico. Can you give us some cites showing that the Mexicans are oppressed by the cartels in areas they control? Vs. somewhat more prosperous by the drug money than they would otherwise be. I’ve learned that many of these examples are given by people whose knowledge of such things comes from watching action-adventure shows on TV.
“This can go back and forth all day (and often does) with examples and counter-examples.”
It’s a fool’s game due to weak enforcement of US gun laws and the traffic between US areas with strict laws and those without.
“{Chicago}is a lawless hellhole with Fallujah-level casualties every weekend.”
You are definitely watching too much TV. Chicago has a population of 2.7 million. Fallujah has at most one-tenth of that — and is a war zone. Chicago had a homicide rate of 27 per hundred thousand in 2016. The one month Battle of Fallujah in 2016 had a civilian death rate of 45.
“I’m not sure I would call a 2% effect a major contributor to”
I gave it as an example. I didn’t claim it was a “major contributor.” I reply to direct quotes to avoid such reading FAILs.
phageghost,
I see a duplicate of this comment in the spam folder. As with my comment to Cradock (aka MBailey), Askimet does this occasionally. I pull them out and post them. I see you reposted it successfully, so no action needed.
FM,
I don’t think that guns for all is wonderful, as many right-wing commentators would have it (I didn’t say this, so I’d like to gently remind you of your own advice of responding to direct quotes). Nor do I think it’s the awful scourge that left-wing commentators make it out to be. I view guns as a tool, not much different from a hammer. I don’t think that everyone needs to be carrying hammers around nor do I think it terrible if they want to do so for whatever reason.
My argument, which runs counter to the narrative of both right and left but is IMHO the most consistent one with the quantitative data, is that the mere presence or absence of guns appears to have very little effect on violence either way (and I’m not sure how we can quantify “politeness” so let’s just take it as the converse of “violence” and then we only have to worry about one quantity: violence). Instead, other social and cultural factors are far more important drivers of violence levels. And this comports with our everyday common experience. If I put a gun in your hand, would you suddenly hold up the local 7-11, or shoot your neighbor? Probably not. Likewise a criminal who is willing to murder an innocent victim or a rival criminal, and can’t get their hands on a firearm is probably not going to repent their life of sin and join the neighborhood watch — they’ll just grab a knife or baseball bat (particularly if they can be assured that their victim wouldn’t have access to firearms either).
As for Mexico, I’m only familiar with the struggles of vigilantes against the Knights Templar cartel in Michoacan. I was a bit surprised by this since the Medellin model seems more common, whereby the cartels keep the locals on their side by trickling down some of the profits. But if the cartels get too greedy and the violence gets too intense, I suppose they can and do manage to alienate the locals. No cites but a quick news search turns up relevant press stories.
“It’s a fool’s game due to weak enforcement of US gun laws and the traffic between US areas with strict laws and those without.”
So you’re saying that state and local gun control legislation only burdens the law-abiding and has no effect on criminals who can just get stuff from elsewhere and who aren’t worried about firearms laws when they are already willing to commit murder? Agreed.
The Chicago-Fallujah example was a bit of hyperbole to illustrate how much of an outlier they are by our current acceptable standards, but it’s actually not far off. I was thinking of American deaths during the 2004 battle of Fallujah (we’ve had so many it’s a bit hard to keep track). Numbers from wikipedia: 95 killed over ~45 days = ~63 per month. Chicago in 2017 = 484 so far (source: DNAinfo) over 8.5 months = ~57 per month. Yikes.
“So the counter-example to developed nations — almost all of which have stricter gun control than the US (or prohibit widespreads possession of guns) is a tottering second world nation? Truly bogus. ”
So you’re saying that it’s not valid to compare the violence rates in countries with different demographics, geography and cultural history? Fair enough, I agree, but then we have to throw out the Europe-U.S. comparison as well.
“I gave it as an example. I didn’t claim it was a “major contributor.””
No but you implied that it was worth dedicating time, money or political resources to address. If it’s not a major contributor those resources would be better spent elsewhere.
But putting aside the fun point-by-point sparring and getting back to the core of my argument, I think that the high level of armament of failed states is more of an effect than a cause. If you were to take all the AKs, RPDs, RPKs and RPGs out of Somalia and distribute them throughout Pennsylvania (similar population) I don’t think you would get a warlord-run wasteland, nor would taking away every firearm in Somalia turn it into Pennsylvania. Actually, and this is pretty ironic, there are far MORE firearms in Pennsylvania than in Somalia already. c.f. Pennsylvania firearms ownership 34.7 % (https://www.thoughtco.com/gun-owners-percentage-of-state-populations-3325153) versus < 10 % for Somalia (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/somalia). Granted there are a lot more bolt-action rifles and shotguns in Pennsylvania and far more machine guns in Somalia, but in a way the counterfactual has already been done for us. ;-)
It might amuse you to know that I don’t watch actually watch any action adventure shows, on TV or otherwise, but in my view what s delusional is to argue for legislation based on emotional knee-jerk responses rather than real-world data. In addition to being totally ineffectual (so far as anyone who’s attempted to actually quantify this stuff has been able to show) many of these measures violate both the natural and fundamental human right of self-defense as well as the second of our enumerated constitutional rights (yes, I’ve seen the attempts by historical revisionists and grammatical sophists to show otherwise but I’m not impressed. Scalia’s opinion in Heller remains the most accurate concise discussion of the 2nd amendment to date. And, I would argue, even if the 2nd didn’t grant an individual right, then we should have one that did). In addition to not accomplishing their stated goals and violating rights, most gun control legislation has the further practical effect of alienating a large portion of the electorate. Down in “flyover country” I’ve talked to a large number of people, mostly men, who would never, ever vote for a Democratic politician for this reason alone. Since the two parties became indistinguishable on most issues, about the only thing that people know for sure about the Democrats is that 1. they are mostly rich people who live on the coast and despise them and 2. want to take their guns away. This comment has already gone on too long so I won’t get into the class aspects of this stuff, but this is one way you get Trump in the White House.
Ironically, in the end I agree with your conclusion that an armed society does not imply a polite society, it’s your premises I take issue with.
Mahalo.
Actually FM, I am with Phageghost on his valid point about Mexico. I know you are familiar with the Small Wars Journal website, you should read some of John Sullivan and Robert Bunker’s pieces on the narco wars that are happening south of our border that are being fueled due to poor US drug policies. Rule of law has broke down in many of the smaller villages all over the country with villagers no longer relying on the government “security” apparatus and have turned to acquiring firearms so that way they can defend their villages from the cartels who use violence indiscriminately. Here’s a link to the section on SWJ that covers this topic:
http://smallwarsjournal.com/elcentro
A personal anecdote; another Marine I work with became an electrician after he discharged from the Marines. One of his former squad-mates went into the petroleum field with one of the very large international oil corporations. He was sent down to southern Mexico to work on a drilling site down there. One day, a bunch of heavily armed members of one of the local cartels rolled into camp and “appropriated” all of their machinery and gear. He subsequently quit and came back to the US, despite the fantastic pay he was getting from the oil company. I guess he figured dead men can’t spend money.
Major McCloud,
You might be right about Mexico. Since early 2009 I have published three dozen articles by experts about the low-level insurgency in Mexico. Many made big scary predictions that have not been validated by time. This by Stratfor in 2009 was typical of their dark tone.
Yet Mexico seems to have weathered the insurgency, the peaking of its oil production in 2004, the global crash in 2008-09, and the subsequent crash in oil prices — all of which were described as a certainly fatal combo.
I know little about Mexico. It seems an unlikely candidate to become like Switzerland. But their record suggests that the doomsters might be proven wrong yet again.
I don’t operate under any delusions that Mexico will become like Switzerland. I was agreeing with PG and his valid point that tough gun laws don’t always translate to reductions in violence no more than tough “drug laws” prevent the spread and use of drugs. I think he makes some very valid points about the variables and how there can be a lot more contributing to violence in certain areas than others. I remember growing up in a community where even high school students came to school with a shotgun or rifle hanging from their gun rack in their truck. The worst violence to break out was a fist-fight in the bathroom or hallway during my 4-years of high school.
Many of these examples coming from Mexico demonstrate a few very important lessons for us as a society; as violence escalates in communities and government becomes so corrupt it can’t even be relied upon to provide the basic services that developed or developing countries need, no amount of laws is going to change the prevalence of firearms and violence. In fact, quite the opposite is happening in Mexico. I’ll see if I can find one of the articles on SWJ that addresses this issue.
Our already fracturing political system into self-reinforcing tribe think escalated by rising violent rhetoric talk and action may take us down a very dark path where a lot of those “moderates” my very well “choose a side” and take up arms (and there’s already a very well financed black market for arms smuggling, but I’m sure you know that) if escalating violence and the government’s legitimacy goes out the window. I believe it was on this website that posted a piece about how most of the western democracies are seeing a dangerous shift in how its citizens few their governments and the turn towards authoritarian forms of government may become more appealing to them. (remember when Obama was elected in 2008 and he along with many of his supporters kept complaining about Congress and their lack of action to get anything done?) One distinct advantage to dictatorships, they can get things done efficiently, but not necessarily for the good of the people.
Major McCloud,
“I don’t operate under any delusions that Mexico will become like Switzerland.”
That was the context for my belief! Didn’t want to seem like Pollyanna, or mean to imply it was about your remarks.
“his valid point that tough gun laws don’t always translate to reductions in violence”
True. But this post was about the exact opposite: belief by far-Right that increasing gun ownership and open carry makes a society safer. He was shifting the debate to ignore the point, without saying so. I find that an annoying tactic, as it almost always shifts the discussion from the new topics I raise onto the tired talked-to-death cliches. Note that’s not what you’re doing here by replying to his comment.
“as violence escalates in communities and government becomes so corrupt it can’t even be relied upon to provide the basic services that developed or developing countries need, no amount of laws is going to change the prevalence of firearms and violence.”
Does anybody disagree? I doubt it. Again, see how PG has shifted the debate onto the old rails.
“Our already fracturing political system into self-reinforcing tribe think escalated by rising violent rhetoric talk and action may take us down a very dark path where a lot of those “moderates” my very well “choose a side” and take up arms”
I guess anything is possible. But levels of violence in the US are low and (on a generational basis) falling — as they are in most developed nations, and (by many metrics) the world. IMO it’s wildly speculative to predict a reversal at this point.
Also, today’s “violent rhetoric” and actual political violence are tiny — microscopic — compared to the levels of 1965-1975. America seems to have developed amnesia about that period. Note that that “moderates didn’t take up arms then.” Why would they now?
Here’s a question. Wherever one comes down on the gun issue, one thing that’s clear is that we’ve come a long way since the late 80’s to early 90’s. Concealed carry is legal in almost every state, and the Clinton era law on repeating rifles has come down. So what happened? How did we get here? Whatever it is that the pro gun control faction has been doing these last thirty years has been less that effective. Is there anything that the gun control side has done or failed to do that has helped put us here?
Hi Man,
That’s a pretty big topic, but I’ll mention some missteps that the gun control community has made that has IMHO helped lead to the steady erosion of public support for gun control since the 1980s (even as rates of gun ownership have declined). At the very least, the things that keep gun owners from considering switching sides.
1. Ignorant legislators. Many gun control bills are written by people who obviously have no idea how firearms even work. If they don’t know how they work how could they be expected to craft effective legislation? Confirmations of this suspicion abound but here are some classics: http://www.gunssavelife.com/doubling-down-on-stupid-low-information-legislator-of-the-day-two-days-running/, http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/216983/californias-dumbest-senate-democrat-warns-ghost-daniel-greenfield,
2. Nonsensical laws. This is closely tied to point 1, above. You mentioned the Clinton AWB that helped him get the 1994 Republican congress. Well, that was a noble sacrifice — certainly having Newt Gingrich as speaker was worth banning those dastardly assault weapons, right? Actually what it banned were cosmetic or ergonomic features that made guns look “scary” and “evil” even though a ban-compliant weapon could be produced that was functionally identical. E.g. they banned bayonet mounts and telescoping stocks. Yes, to prevent the horrible scourge of bayonettings that was causing blood to run in the streets of every American city back in the early 1990s. This convinced most gun owners that gun control proponents 1. didn’t know what the hell they were talking about and 2. enjoyed making gun owners jump through hoops like trained dogs just because they could. Not a good way to win friends on the other side. Another example (this could go on for dats): California requires all kinds of special magazine releases on semi-auto rifles like AR-15s to make them more difficult to operate. This is a giant pain in the ass for law-abiding gun owners, and puts them at a disadvantage if they ever have to use them for self-defense, but it takes about 5 minutes with a screwdriver to convert the magazine release back to normal. So . . . if you’re willing to commit murder, why not take the extra felony count on the off-chance you get caught, briefly convert to “drive-by mode”, then switch it back when you’re down the street? That’s exactly what the San Berdoo shooters did (with the exception of converting back, since they died) and that applies to virtually every feature regulated by the California anti-“assault weapon” laws. So, again, the impact on the law-abiding gun owner is large, but the only effect on criminals will be on those too stupid to operate a screwdriver.
There are those who would cynically argue that the inconvenience to law-abiding gun owners is a feature not a bug, since the inconvenienced class is typically politically right-wing not “enlightened progressives” and, worst of all, many of them work nasty blue-collar jobs that make them dirty and unfit for polite company at gala fund-raisers. I, on the other hand would never stoop to such base speculation about our scrupulous and honorable representatives . . .
3. Negotiating in bad faith. When the Brady Bill was passed, it was sold to pro-gun types as the last major piece of gun control legislation that would be needed — the last big compromise and then they would be left alone. But of course, that’s not what happened since it’s a ratchet strategy that, as internal communications among gun control groups show, only ends with complete civilian disarmament. Of course, such an objective is officially denied by most gun control groups: “we only want a few, ‘common sense’ regulations!” (although I’ve just illustrated what their version of “common sense” is. These are mostly people who’ve never worked a real job a day in their life and who would, I suspect, not be judged to have an overabundance of “common sense” by, say, a lifelong cattle rancher). That soured many otherwise moderate folks and organizations on any further compromise and hardened attitudes into zero-sum, maximalist positions.
Now, the relevant question is: to what degree have these things been picked up on by the general public as opposed to pro-gun types, since the decline in support for gun control appears to be broad-based and not narrowly concentrated among gun owners (a group rather inclined to take a dim view of gun control in the first place and which has been declining numerically over this period)? That I don’t have an answer for but hopefully this helps illustrate some places where the anti-gun folks have unnecessarily “shot themselves in the foot” or “scored an own goal” to use a less on-the-nose idiom.
Phagehost,
“That’s a pretty big topic, but I’ll mention some missteps that the gun control community has made that has IMHO helped lead to the steady erosion of public support for gun control since the 1980s”
Note that the topic addressed in this post is much smaller than in your comment. Heinlein was referring to societies with widespread open carry of weapons. Nobody in the developed world does that today, or has done so for well over a century. That is
You are referring to a much wider subject — about the role of guns and control of guns.
Also — I recommend that you write shorter comments. Your is 761 words. That’s the length of a post. I doubt many — if any — read comments of such length. I don’t.
The United States has more guns per capita than any other country on Earth–by far.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/small-arms-survey-countries-with-the-most-guns-1.3392204
Is the USA the most polite society on Earth (let alone one of the safest)? Hellllll no.
“Libertarianism might be the first political movement mostly grounded in fiction and false predictions rather than history and experience.” — More like Marxism (dialectical materialism)
John,
I disagree. Marx laid out a complex historical and logical foundation for Marxism. Much of it proved to be incorrect (not unusual for theories in the social sciences), but it was hardly fiction. And much of it remains analytically useful and used today, such as class dynamics.
Libertarianism lacks anything remotely like the foundation of Marxism (however flawed) in history and logic. It’s just fiction, top to bottom.
You went to great lengths in your article to disparage and degrade your opponent and you offered several examples based on second and third hand accounts and cherry picked to provide one side of a debate but you never, not once did you in the entire article provide anything like direct testimony or concrete evidence to support your article. Given this I must therefore assume you are one of the asinine left liberal kooks who has absolutely no idea of how to use facts and or demonstration to support your thesis. Typical left leaning communist/socialist/tyrannical tactics. You Sir should look in the mirror and quote this to yourself: “Je suis Part of the Problem”
Scott,
If only calling people names would provide useful information! What a different world it would be.
Also, I suggest you re-read the article without your thick ideological blinders. You don’t appear to have understood it.
If only ignorant liberals like yourself would do us the favor of standing still long enough for the rest of us to get a bead on them and eliminate a large portion of the dementia problem in this country by the squeeze of a trigger.
Ryan,
“If only ignorant liberals like yourself”
This isn’t a 4th grade schoolyard. Please focus on facts, logic, and values – and not silly insults.
“ do us the favor of standing still long enough for the rest of us to get a bead on them and eliminate a large portion of the dementia problem in this country by the squeeze of a trigger.”
Wow. That’s insane. Good-bye.
You got it completely wrong .. word “polite” means “measured, free of excessive, composed” .. and those are behavioral patterns present in people who know they can be killed any time.
Polite does not mean free of violence, it just mean – cautious not to start violence.
Hamilton,
“and those are behavioral patterns present in people who know they can be killed any time.”
You must be kidding. I suggest that you spend some time in America’s most violent inner cities, or in failed states. Not much “politeness.”
“Polite does not mean free of violence, it just mean – cautious not to start violence.”
Which is my point. The high rate of violence in most armed societies means that people with weapons are “starting” violence.
There are law abiding citizens and criminals. Law abiding citizens do not commit crimes. Criminals do not abide by the law. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
Donald,
Yes, that’s what they tell children. Most adults understand that reality is more complex. Civil disobedience has been part of the American tradition since 1773, and used by almost every reform movement.
I suggest that you start by reading “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau (1849).
Next look at the deeds and words of Marin Luther King Jr. From his autobiography:
Then look at the works and deeds of Gandhi.
Weakness makes people twitchy. Small fearful doggies try to act tough and will show agression. When you know you have the final upper hand it’s easy to walk away if your sane. No sane person welcomes the criminal and/or civil actions that can follow even just legitimatly brandishing a firearm for cause. It’s like fire insurance – You hope you never have to use it…but you feel better knowing you have it. Our world is becoming increasingly crowded and with that crowding comes increased criminality and violence. Personal presevation is a god given right. The police have no mandate to protect the individual…That’s the responsibility of the individual alone. When seconds count – the police are minutes away….Please people, don’t be sheep. Accept personal responsibility. A gunless utopia is a lie!
Bill,
“Our world is becoming increasingly crowded and with that crowding comes increased criminality and violence.”
That is quite false. The opposite is happening.
“The police have no mandate to protect the individual. That’s the responsibility of the individual alone. ”
To weird for comment.
Check your facts. The police have a duty to preserve order. There’s no pressure on police to arrive in time to save you. Actually it’s better for them to arrive after the fact. They interview witnessess, make arrests where possible and show their presence as a deterence for future crimes and criminals. Very rarely they arrive in time to have a positive affect on the outcome and that’s a very dicey place for them to be. If they make an incorrect assessment in the “fog of war” they can be held accountable. Better to arrive after. No good deed goes unpunished and they know this!
Bill,
Check your facts: “Our world is becoming increasingly crowded and with that crowding comes increased criminality and violence.”
That’s false on almost every scale.
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html
OK so you choose to ignore my reply. But to reiterate the other point that you seem so eager to engage – “Our world is becoming increasingly crowded and with that crowding comes increased criminality and violence.” Exhibit A No Go Zones in Europe…Sweden is particularly bad as the police themselves will not enter. Apparently the swarming masses yearning to be free (free housing and an allowance) are not benign. Ehibit B – Deviant behavior in high density rat populations. It’s called biology.
But feel free to continue to ignore my reply since you have no choice but to ignore it or stand corrected. Or be a fool. Sorry but at this time my powers do not extend to altering the facts of life in these United States.
Bill,
That’s called “cherry-picking”, choosing individual data points that make you happy.
Crime rates are always rising and falling in individual areas, and over time. But the direction is down – strongly in the US (where I assume you live) – and (with more volatility) in the rest of the world. On all scales, from small scale violence to wars, from decades to centuries.
I’m not going to discuss the effects of gun ownership on the owners, because the data is beyond question and gun nuts ignore it. The links in this post and in the For More Information go to authoritative sources. But I’ll bet that info will run off you like rain off a duck’s back. I’ve played this game before, and it is a waste of time.
Just because you are afraid or uncomfortable around guns please don’t advocate for any more gun regulations that could stop good people from being able to protect themselves, loved ones,strangers,or property…..from Wyoming USA 🔫🤠
Bill,
Unless you are Professor Xavier, with telepathic powers, please avoid psycho-babble. Respond to what people say, not to the dialog in your head.
The claim that the Swiss keep all their ammo at armories is completely false. Theres plenty of other falsehoods in this article, but I’ll respond with some facts: New Hampshire has the loosest gun laws in the US. We have Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground for protecting the rights of self defense in any setting. Machine guns are legal as are silencers. We’ve had shall-issue concealed carry licensing since 1910, and no licensing needed prior to that. Fifteen years ago we forced the State Dept of Safety to train police about NH gun laws and educate members of the public who freak out and call in false reports against people legally carrying. Open Carry without a license is legal. Ownership without a license is legal. Concealed carry without a license is legal. The state prohibits counties, towns, and cities, from restricting gun rights or firearms shooting ranges. The only legal gun-free-zones in the state are courtrooms. Court Bailiffs provide you with gun check services at the door.
I can literally walk around with a loaded machine gun anywhere in the state other than a courtroom, and if someone bitches to the police, the cops will take them aside and educate them about our laws.
Now, if you follow the leftist gun-confiscator logic, New Hampshire should be a bloodbath every day of the week. You shouldn’t be able to attend any public event without a mass shooting. It isn’t. In fact, NH is the LOWEST CRIME state in the Union. It consistently ranks among the bottom three states for crime rates of all sorts, from overall crime, to murder and homicide, to rape and robbery. The two other lowest crime states? Its neighbors, Vermont, and Maine, who also have nearly identical laws.
Now you could claim it is because NH is so white, but that would be racist of you. Lets compare similar demographics. The cities of Nashua, NH and Lowell, MA sit right across the state border from each other. About four miles separation or so. The populations have very similar demographic distributions. People from each city often move from one to the other, they work and play in each others cities. Yet Lowell consistently has crime rates 50% higher than Nashua. Why is that? Could it be because Massachusetts has a “duty to retreat” basis for its self defense laws? That concealed weapons licenses are “may issue” giving police discretion beyond just whether the applicant is a felon or not? That citizens cannot carry openly? That gun free zones are rampant across the state, disarming citizens and making them easy targets for criminals violence? I think so, and the numbers bear this out.
Michael,
“The claim that the Swiss keep all their ammo at armories is completely false. ”
That’s a pretty absurd misread of the text. It refers to the government issued arms and ammo for each male adult. Nice try, however.
a) “An armed society is a polite society” is a (compact) logical argument from incentives, not an argument from statistics. Therefore statistics cannot prove it wrong.
b) To argue against it, is to argue that people don’t care if they get killed or not. Which means that people will not reign in their violent behaviour when the chance of getting killed for it is higher. Why would people be so careless with their lives in this case, but wear seatbelts?
c) Correlation is never causation. Statistics can be used to persuade, but not prove anything as true or false.
d) People tend to not recognize incentives when its inconvenient for their argument, and do when it is convenient. The base argument is that people respond to incentives when it is something the writer likes (gun control), but not to something the writer does not like (armed citizens).
Louis,
“is a (compact) logical argument from incentives, not an argument from statistics.”
Wow. Truly bizarre, even for a gun nut.
I’m sorry that went above your head. You should really not try to make arguments before you understand what argumentation is.
Louis,
You were quite clear. It was absurd, but clear. The statement is one of fact, which can be tested by looking at history.
I won’t bother arguing with you it’s not worth my time, I’ve read through the thread and it shows that you have no interest in listening to logical counter points. You can throw your little insults around all you want but here are the numbers that prove your wrong in this matter and will hopefully put an end to your campaign against an armed and polite society which just so happens to be a right in America. The article shows that you are wrong and lists cites so you can see for yourself and stop speaking down to people with your tone of arrogance and acknowledge your ignorance.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/#14beea34299a
Stagger,
I suggest you read the article you cite. It’s conclusions have been found many other studies, and match what I said several times.
The author ignores findings of research that he dislikes, and gives some obvivoulsy false or misleading statements. Got to admire his love for a single 1993 study when most other studies since have found different results (that’s called the Single Study Syndrome, and it is a logical fallacy).
As has often been shown, coding of gun use is asymmetric – but in the opposite way. Claiming offensive use risks time in jail, so there is an incentive to claim defensive use. Also, a large fraction of “defensive use” are provocative in nature – as when a gun is brandished in an argument but not fired. When called on this, the excuse will given that it was pre-emptive defensive.
Well, that’s the question. How many DGUs, how many injured or killed by accidentally firings, how many incidents of provocative gun use (listen mister, I have a gun here), how many crimes comitted with legallly registered guns. Since Republicans stopped the CDC from doing the necessary research – an agency with the necessary skills and fundings – we don’t know the answer.
All we know is that the US has a level of gun violence that grossly exceeds that of every other developed nation, and few care about it. Meanwhile we wet our pants about the tiny number of mass shootings.
“you have no interest in listening to logical counter points.”
My guess is that applies more to you than me. I’ve provided patient replies to people in this thread, drawing on my several dozen posts which cite a great deal of evidence. I’ve seen almost nothing in reply other than big claims and illogic – most commonly, attacking things I explicitly did not say (that is also a signature tactic of leftists, more evidence that both extremes are cousins under the skin).
The point is that the study done by kleck and the study done by the cdc resulted with nearly identical numbers of defensive gun use incidents, which should tell you something. You can claim its results were miscoded but you don’t know that and for both studies to have such similar results is not just coincidence. Also you said that America has a gun violence problem that far exceeds any other developed nation I’m not sure what qualifies as a developed nation but in the world America places at #20 of countries with highest incidents of violence involving guns
https://www.worldblaze.in/countries-with-the-highest-gun-violence-in-the-world/
Also the cdc last year was approved to do studies of gun violence in all 50 states.
You’re entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Since 2007, the number of concealed handgun permits has soared from 4.6 million to over 12.8 million, and murder rates have fallen from 5.6 killings per 100,000 people to just 4.2, about a 25 percent drop. Nothing is “debunked” because you say it is. This pretty much debunks your entire premise.
Uncle,
That’s one of the worst examples of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy that I’ve seen in a long time.
First, the US homicide rate has been dropping since 1980. Giving credit for the last ten years to a change in handgun rates is silly. There are many contending explanations for this decline, but I’ve seen no serious experts attribute this to the rate of gun ownership.
Second, that increase takes the fraction of those with licenses (not all of who actually carry guns) from 2.0% to only 4.9% of the adult population (now 257 million). Not a big change to produce a large change in homicides.
Third, much of the homicide rate is intramural inner-city violence among gangs and drug dealers. Has the rate of handgun carry changed there much? I doubt they care about licensing laws.
This article is complete nonsense. The writer has obviously never fired a firearm and probably doesn’t have even 1 friend or acquaintance that has. And I wander if he would say the same about Antifa’s intimidation tactics at peaceful events. And I would bet you my favorite gun he doesnt still hold the belief of free unhindered speech.
Christopher,
Guessing is a destructive habit. ESP in your case, as everything you said is wrong.
I am a member of a gun club and shoot a box of 50 every week. I use a variety of guns, most often a 9 mm glock.
My son is a retired Marine, now in the Army Reserve, and does marketing part-time for another gun club. He also runs their FB page.
A Glock 9mm that I assume you own. If not why would you be the only one at the “gun club” rents a gun once a week to shoot 50 rounds?
Tracy,
I like variety, and try lots of small arms (I oversimplified in my comment). My oldest son runs gun training courses and has a large collection – with the necessary security. I use his.
So your oldest son obviously disagrees with you about the 2nd Amendment. I wonder why.
Tracy,
Nope. That’s the second statement you’ve made that is confident and wrong. I suggest you stop and think.
I was reminded of the Heinlein quote when I read this article:
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-02-08/lorena-gonzalez-california-assembly-ab5-profile
“I come from a perspective of conflict is good,” Gonzalez said. “You actually get change out of conflict. A polite society ensures the status quo.”
And the idea that an armed society discourages discussion and debate is exactly what Fabius is saying on this web page. So to generate a syllogism: an armed society ensures the status quo. (Because people are afraid they will get shot if they create controversy,)
Larry, the National Guard and the State guard are organized militias and are compensated by the state or national government. The firearms they use are owned and regulated by the government and are not stored at private residences. All other able bodied men and women are technically considered part of the unorganized militia or reserve militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903.
Tracy,
I was referring to your statement:
“And since militias are only active or needed in a time of war”
As I mentioned, it’s not correct.
Having written scores of articles about the history of militia in the West, some of whom are in the For More Info section, I’m familiar with their nature and legal status.
And since regulated militias like the National Guard whose firearms are under lock and key of the government and can come under the control of the federal government via the Militia Act of 1916 they do NOT qualify in regards “the right of the people to KEEP and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Only unregulated militias in which the citizens have private ownership of firarms satisify this clause.
So your oldest son has a collection of firearms that you use at your gun club but does not keep them at his home but rather at the gun club? Who owns those firearms?
Tracy,
My son owns it them. This is a commonplace.
Why do you ask?
So you do agree that people should be allowed to own and keep in their homes defensive firearms like a Glock 17 9mm pistol and/or an AR-15 5.56mm NATO semi-automatic rifle?
Tracy,
Have you read any of these posts? I suggest you do so. You’ll learn a lot.
Again do agree that people should be allowed to own and keep in their homes defensive firearms like a Glock 17 9mm pistol and/or an AR-15 5.56mm NATO semi-automatic rifle? Or does a place of business like a gun club satisfy your self proclaimed requirements for your son to exercise his 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms? Or does he actually own and retain personal self defense firearms at his home?
I suggest you answer my simple question before asking another You can do it.
Pretty sure all the happenings of 2020 prove the validity of Heinlein’s philosophy on this one. The majority of the random assaults and riotous nonsense going on wouldn’t be happening if our little homegrown revolutionary terrorists ever had to question that their violence might be met with the business end of a 12g shotgun or .45 handgun.
Furious,
“if our little homegrown revolutionary terrorists ever had to question that their violence might be met with the business end of a 12g shotgun or .45 handgun.”
So the violent armed mobs should be met by armed mobs, and they fight it out?
Visit third world nations to see what you want America to become. It is the worst kind of factionalism that the Founders feared above all else.
Your comment is a wonderful demonstration of how the love of the Republic is dead in America. Worse, the love of violence is growing among people. Like you. The most dangerous foes of our civilization.
You cannot claim to support a Republic and argue aginst firearms in the hands of it’s Citizens, those are mutually exclusive. If the majority votes to loot your house, and you must comply, you have a Democracy. If you have the right to refuse, AND the means to resist, you have a Republic. If you have the right to refuse, but no means to resist, you have an impotent, fraudulent, hollow, dead Republic.
Try reading More Guns, Less Crime, The Bias Against Guns, and Freedomnomics all by Dr. John Lott.
For the Republic!
James,
“You cannot claim to support a Republic and argue aginst firearms in the hands of it’s Citizens.”
I assume you are speaking ex cathedra, with the infallibility and authority of the Pope of Aa Things.
People of many republics disagree with you and seem to be doing just fine.