Debunking the myth: “An armed society is a polite society”

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

1. Robert Heinlein’s most powerful insight.
2. The logic of carrying guns in civil society.
3. What about life on the frontier?
4. But the polite Swiss have all those guns!
5. Research tells the tale.
6. An insight from Beyond This Horizon.
7. 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 (1965), Robert Heinlein sketched out appealing yet ludicrously improbable worlds. His stories played a formative role in the rise of the libertarian movement, perhaps more so than the novels of Ayn Rand. Heinlein’s were more widely read, and even more often read in full. Libertarianism might be the first political movement mostly grounded in fiction and false predictions rather than history and experience.

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, where (male) citizens routinely and openly 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; in this book both boys and girls carried guns). These are fun stories. The idea is quite mad.

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 and part two) are based on memoirs of d’Artagnan, Capitaine-Lieutenant des Mousquetaires. He describes an 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.

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). Unfortunately western fiction is no more realistic than science fiction. First, many cities instituted tight regulations to reduce the carnage from an armed open carry society — as in the photo above from Dodge City. More broadly, the real Wild West was a lawless horror show. Predatory gangs (often in the employ of cattle “barons”) dominated vast areas. For example, the wonderful John Wayne film “Chisum” is a prettified version of the Lincoln County War. In reality the bad guys won.  (More details here about gun in the Wild West.)

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…

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.

(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

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.
4. 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…

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.