Does an "armed society" work?

[Cruentus]

I say that we have an educated and logical discussion on this subject; so please save the cliche's and rants for another time, and lets have a useful dialog regardless of your stance on the issue.

I define an "armed society" as a society in which it is legal for people to be armed, and to carry arms.

First off, I believe in an armed society because I believe that the right to self-defense and defense of the weak is inalienable. As human beings, we have the right to defend ourselves, and others, from potential threats. If self-defense is an inalienable right, then we must be allowed to carry whatever weapons we might need that will equalize the attackers weapons, and stop a threat. So, if criminals have access to firearms (which they do), then we must have access to the same (and legally). Therefore, any government that would hinder the right to own and carry arms is a government that is infringing on the inalienable right to self-defense.

So, regardless of where this conversation goes, I most likely will not be convinced that we shouldn't live in an armed society because of my beliefs regarding self-defense.

However, my beliefs don't prove either way that an armed society is a "better" society then an unarmed one. That is what I would like to discuss.

Practically speaking, does an armed society work better then an unarmed one?

What do you think?

Paul

 

[Jerry]

I believe the answer is "yes". I believe that, among warrior casts throughout the world, behavior and crime has been lower than among the more randomly armes peasent classes.

More specifically, I'm cogniscient of Kennesaw, GA. (http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/crime_rate_plummets.htm)

The introduction of a law *requiring* the head-of-household to keep at least one firearm in their homes resulted in an immdeiate 74% drop in crimes against persons, and the next year in a 45% drop from that.

"You can't argue with the fact that Kennesaw has the lowest crime rate of any city our size in the country," - http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

 

[TonyM.]

It must. when we used to be able to own firearms we used to produce a lot of products here. How that we don't, every thing is made elsewhere. Leaves a lot of time to watch wrestling and NASCAR.

 

[dearnis.com]

Well, while in open-carry-legal Arizona I met some of the nicest people I have encountered in a long while. Very polite too.

 

[Andrew Green]

I believe that trusting people to the point where I feel the need to own and carry a weapon in self-defence works better

But, if it does work then it should be fairly simple to prove, look at the countries where weapons are carried by the general population and compare the violent crime rates to countries where they are not.

 

[KenpoTex]

Well, while in open-carry-legal Arizona I met some of the nicest people I have encountered in a long while. Very polite too.

Was that a subtle Heinlein reference?

 

[Jerry]

But, if it does work then it should be fairly simple to prove, look at the countries where weapons are carried by the general population and compare the violent crime rates to countries where they are not.

I truely believe that juristictions within a given government are a better comparison. The crime rate in Iraq is much higher than the crime rate in Qatar, but it's not because of different gun laws.

Truely telling are areas where gun laws were enacted (either allowing or disallowing), sich as Kennesaw; where you can look at the change.

 

[FearlessFreep]

What's the difference, really, between 'carrying a gun' and 'knowing a martial art'

I men, I know there is a difference between shooting someone or in getting shot, and a hand strike to the throat or foot strike to the knee, as far as damage. What I mean is that when talking about armed citizens versus unarmed citizens, is there much of a difference conceptually between carrying a gun vs carrying a black belt?

 

[Jerry]

Are you asking what the difference between a trained armed opponent and a trained unarmed opponent is? The armed opponent is more powerful; also, the weapon is an equalizer for physical inequitity.

 

[analyst]

I say that we have an educated and logical discussion on this subject; so please save the cliche's and rants for another time, and lets have a useful dialog regardless of your stance on the issue.

I define an "armed society" as a society in which it is legal for people to be armed, and to carry arms.

I used to think that an armed society worked, but was not preferable. For instance, I think a society where only law enforcement has guns is always better, there will be fewer murders because murder takes much more effort and is more personal. But then once a few people (read: criminals) get guns, you have to give them to everybody to prevent inequity in means of causing harm.

But there was something I learned in social psychology that made me rethink that. It's been shown that the mere prescence of weapons in a situation increases the likelihood of violence and aggression (perhaps because weapons can only be used for violence, so awareness of them primes violence as an appropriate situational response).

For instance, studies have been conducted. The subject is responsible for administering electric shock to a confederate (someone working with the experimenter) for as punishment for failure to learn something. Having a gun in the same room as the subject increases both the length of the shock and the voltage used.

So, an armed society is by definition a more aggressive and violent one. That's something to consider.

 

[Gray Phoenix]

The short answer is yes. However, I dont think that it would work as well in our country as some would like to believe. I am the consumate libertarian, and as such I believe you should be able to holster your Ma Deuce and drag it to the Vons of your choosing, where if they dont allow it they have a nice locker for you to "check your iron".

To use an analogy, communism works great in small communities such as the Israel Kibutz:idunno:. I know that aint spelled right, but I dont wanna look it up just now. That particular governmental system fails when imposed on people who believe differently.

An armed society works on large scale, but looses some of its effect as a populace becomes large, with an uneducted (inducted if you choose) people:erg:.

 

[Jerry]

For instance, studies have been conducted. The subject is responsible for administering electric shock to a confederate (someone working with the experimenter) for as punishment for failure to learn something. Having a gun in the same room as the subject increases both the length of the shock and the voltage used.

Have you considered that there is real emperical data out there on hundreds of localities who have changed their weapons laws over time and had changes in crime rates? You are attempting to extrapolate from an isolated experiment what real-world effects would be, when there are actual real-world effects which can be looked at (again, I refer you to Kennesaw GA).

So, an armed society is by definition a more aggressive and violent one. That's something to consider.

As a student of logic, that's not an accurate statement. There is nothing defitional about being armed being violent and aggressive.

 

[Andrew Green]

What's the difference, really, between 'carrying a gun' and 'knowing a martial art'

motivation for doing so is one.

Owning a gun for target shooting or hunting is very different then carrying a pistol on you for "protection"

and second is how dangerous it is. Or do you see no Difference between owning a Tiger and a Siamese Kitten?

How many accidental deaths do you hear about where some one was cleaning their martial arts, or a child was playing with dads martial arts and it just "went off"?

I think its not to hard to say that the more common guns are the more common gun usage will be...

 

[FrontKick-Jab-Punch]

Interesting stuff. Some thoughts:

1) to make the slippery slope argument, the original claim was that (paraphrasing) we have the right to own an equal amount of protection/defense against what the bad guys have, so if they own guns, we get to, also. This is an escalating problem, however: some bad guys own rifles so we should get those, too, right? And some have automatic rifles! So we should have those, too. Now, if we really created a world in which many citizens were highly and openly armed (like, say, Israel or Palestine), the bad guys would want to make sure they had something to their advantage, right? Maybe grenades, or shrapnel bombs? So we should make sure we can counteract those. We'll get kevlar, they'll get kevlar, so we get hollow-point bullets and so do they and maybe someone saves up for Xmas and gets Grandma a bazooka because who knows? A bit of an exaggeration, perhaps, but I ask you this: if no one was allowed to carry a gun, wouldn't that make it much harder to kill one another? How would the school shootings have gone down with a bow and arrow? Or a hunting knife? Or a rock? Hard to murder-suicide with a rock, man. Think about it.

2) The study being referred to DOES seem to indicate that the presence of a gun makes people more aggressive. That's the point of the study. It had a control group (people who delivered shocks WITHOUT the gun present), so we can say with causality that the presence of the gun (and not something else) increased aggression in the case of delivering electric shock (no one picked up the gun and used it instead, please note, however). There are lots of studies that indicate that providing people with an opportunity to be aggressive increases rather than decreases their aggressiveness, and if you don't like to believe in science and research, there's not much I can do for you there. Except to tell you that you're wrong. Science and research may not be explanatory of all human nature, but they represent our best efforts to reach such an explanation, and shouldn't be dismissed in exchange for nothing or for intuition (that is, you can't replace a good hypothesis with your untested personal opinion. Sorry).

3) There is a huge difference between carrying a gun and having a black belt. a) Martial artists spend years mastering their skills. Anyone can pick up a gun and kill someone. b) Many people take martial arts for reasons that have nothing to do with harming others (e.g., fitness, confidence, the beauty of the art, etc). There is nothing you can do with a gun that isn't harm-causing (except, perhaps, shoot targets - but that's certainly not what we're talking about using guns for here). c) not only is a gun harm-causing, but it is ultimately so. What I mean is that you couldn't walk into a University wielding your martial arts and kill 17 people, wound 11 others, and kill yourself before the police got to you. Don't fool yourself - you're no Sho Kosugi. I'd much rather our school shooters were all martial artists instead of gunmen, which leads to d) we teach our martial artists, specifically, their skills are to be used for defense and not aggression. There is a philosophy behind the martial arts that is lacking in someone going to a pawn shop and picking up a gun. One must be deliberate and thoughtful about their art - there is no such requirement for a gun owner. Hence, again, if our school shooters (and criminals) were all martial artists, there's a chance some of them wouldn't choose the aggressive path in the first place. I have an e) and an f), too, but I think you get the picture.

This is a fascinating topic and I'm enjoying reading your comments. I don't necessarily agree with them all (as I'm sure many of you don't agree with me), but I think it's still a worthwhile discussion.

FKJP

 

[arnisador]

Everyone believes in some limits--no guns for felons or the dangerously mentally ill or the very young, for example--so we are talking about where to draw the line. A good question here is what makes us safest--widespread guns, in the hands of the ill-intentioned and the well-intentioned, or trying to control guns to reduce the numbers in both groups.

The whole issue of an "armed society" also simply doesn't take into account that guns are used nearly twice as often in suicides as in homicides in the U.S. That's mostly unrelated to an armed society but definitely related to the presence of arms.

 

[jezr74]

Israelis have something like 12 guns per 100 citizens compared to the U.S being around 89.

Israel is a safe country, of course there are parts in conflict, but not like in America.

You have more chance of being shot in the presence of a firearm, the same way you have more chance of being burnt around fire.

The behavioral slant this post took is interesting, I've heard similar reports. Not sure if there is anything conclusive.

But can be tricky with correlation vs causation.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

 

[Drasken]

The whole issue of an "armed society" also simply doesn't take into account that guns are used nearly twice as often in suicides as in homicides in the U.S. That's mostly unrelated to an armed society but definitely related to the presence of arms.

Still the issue isn't really about guns. I mean, they make it about guns, but it solves none of the core issues.
If you want to kill someone, for any reason, you'll do it or at least attempt it. If you can't use a gun, you'll use something else.

Same with suicide. If you are going to kill yourself you will find a way. My father's friend recently killed himself with a gun. But if he didn't have that available he likely would have found another way.
My father a few years back also committed suicide. He had no access to a gun, so they found him with several prescription drugs in his system and a handle of whiskey used to wash it down.
What is funny is that the cases such as my father's generally don't cause an outrage in government about the danger of prescription drugs and alcohol.
The thing I DO agree with is more education. There are a LOT of accidents involving guns that is the result of stupidity in handling the firearm. The problem I see is lack of education and respect for the weapon itself.

The rest of it, well there are deeper issues here than guns. What in society... In the minds of these citizens that commit horrible acts of violence, what causes them to do these things? THAT is the real issue we should be focusing on. The gun is just a tool. The person has to have the motivation and desire to pull that trigger or that gun is just as dangerous as a kitchen knife sitting on a counter or a lamp on a table

 

[jezr74]

It's about guns though right? People being shot and killed by them. Its the person behind it, shooting the gun as well. That's why "they" make it about guns.

No one seems to be as concerned about baseball bats or knives. Otherwise they would be addressing the core issue your talking about in reference to all weapons right?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

 

[Big Don]

What's the difference, really, between 'carrying a gun' and 'knowing a martial art'

Effective range

 

[arnisador]

Still the issue isn't really about guns. I mean, they make it about guns, but it solves none of the core issues.
If you want to kill someone, for any reason, you'll do it or at least attempt it. If you can't use a gun, you'll use something else.

Same with suicide. If you are going to kill yourself you will find a way. My father's friend recently killed himself with a gun. But if he didn't have that available he likely would have found another way.

No, that's all false. The data is absolutely clear. Many murders are impulse murders. Domestic violence is a good example. No gun, much lower chance of death. It's similar with suicide when a gun is in the house. They may well find another way but the success rate of non-gun suicides is much, much lower, and by far most people who attempt suicide unsuccessfully do not try again. It's true that if you really want to kill yourself you'll find another way, but most other ways will involve a plan that will result in some people not completing the act and then being of a different frame of mind later--but the gun enables an impulsive act. Unequivocally, for many of the same reasons a gun improves the odds for self-defense, it increases the chance of fatalities in suicides. Take a look at the statistics on this.