"An armed society is a polite society" most closely articulates which of the following doctrines:

[WheelWalker]

This principle was advanced by the chief deputy DA as we met in the parking lot this morning. I've been captured by the implication of such a principle as a predicate for social policy. I'd like your opinion, if you don't mind. Thank you.

[WheelWalker]

1. Your reflections in forming an opinion would, of course, also be appreciated.

[leeloo]

2. Well i voted other because i have no idea what your poll is about.

Vietnamization,Buddhist Causation no clue what you mean..

[WheelWalker]

6. Vietnamization was Nixon's plan

to encourage the South Vietnamese to take more responsibility for fighting the war. It was hoped that this policy would eventually enable the United States to withdraw gradually all their soldiers from Vietnam.

Buddhist causation implies that none of us is an island unto himself or herself. It is an ethical teaching against selfishness and irresponsibility. We are all part of a complex tapestry of relations, and no one can pride himself or herself on true independence from the rest of us. We should be grateful to each other and lovingly help each other. To put it very idealistically: everyone is an indispensable part of myself.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rrneck]

3. Other

Common courtesy is an expression of generosity. It is a gift offered with the assumption that a kindness will, hopefully, be returned.

Courtesy compelled is subservience.

[WheelWalker]

7. Perhaps better to frame it as "non-bellicose" rather than "polite," then....say,

a "restrained" society?

[rrneck]

15. It's about the

Golden Rule. You know, do unto others...

Civilized behavior depends on reciprocity and will not function under the threat of force. So, restraint would indeed be the result of "an armed society" because we would all feel "restrained". Restraint presumes the exercise of power of one over another against his or her wishes. Is that any way to run a culture?

[WheelWalker]

20. I was relating to self restraint, which is a way to run society. At least one way, in part -

rational self-interest and self-restraint being but two factors in the calculus of strategic sufficiency.

[rrneck]

23. Self restraint,

or prior restraint? Of course the legal term refers to censorship, but I think it's analogous. If one is compelled to adjust one's actions either from fear of government or fear of another person, the result is the same - the stifling of free expression.

Self control is discipline. Control accepted via the social contract is accepted freely by free people, which is an act of generosity. Control imposed through threat of force is oppression.

[WheelWalker]

24. There is a distinction,

I'll grant that. Good point.

[Callisto32]

26. I'm not sure self restraint is appropriate, either; depending upon about whom we are talking.

For those that go armed about their daily business, there is little need for self restraint. Self restraint implies that there is something I would really like to do, that I keep myself from doing because I perceive the negative consequences to be greater than the rewards. It implies a near-pure hedonic calculus. When I carry, I don't have to restrain myself from anything that I want to do, I just do the same things as if I were not carrying.

For those that would seek to aggress against others, it may create a situation of self restraint, where they would really like to rob/assault/rape/pillage; but do not because they perceive the possibility of getting shot at as a negative consequence greater than any reward.

[WheelWalker]

30. I think your second paragraph is where the DA was going with his statement.

To me, that suggests he was favoring a doctrine of strategic sufficiency as a social policy.

[WheelWalker]

8. Perhaps, instead, a "fearful" society?

[rrneck]

16. I think

fearful would be even worse than restrained.

[WheelWalker]

35. But the issue is, the DA clearly expects the arming of society would

moderate aggressive behavior. What is the doctrinal basis for his expectation? Such an expectation implies what about how social behavior is shaped or controlled. Was it a statement about how efficacious a police force(armed or otherwise) can be in shaping and or controlling social behavior as opposed to the deterrent (or enforcement) capability of universal armament? Was he implying his job might be easier in an armed society, at least with respect to crimes against persons?

[rrneck]

36. I can't speak for

the DA's motivations, but it's interesting that a district attorney is making an argument of force. How very authoritarian of him.

Our personal sensibilities are very subjective, and supporting such a subjective standard with the threat of coercion, especially the potential of lethal force, is culturally regressive. Sam Colt didn't really make all men equal, he just made them less unequal. "A polite society is an armed society" makes those with the greatest martial skill the arbiters of right personal behavior. Or worse, it makes those with the greatest willingness to do violence the most powerful arbiters of right behavior. It certainly would not moderate aggressive behavior, but rather promote it by making it an evaluative tool rather than a departure from civil behavior.

I'm sure his job would be easier, since he has much more coercive power than most people. If people would just shoot each other to settle matters of personal honor, then his people could just show up and he would get to decide whether or not the survivors would go to jail. That's a huge exercise in societal negative reinforcement. In that scenario, he's not a district attorney but a feudal lord. The DA prosecutes crimes that are not just a violation of one person's rights against another, but with the understanding that those violations are crimes against the body politic. That body politic is assumed to be representative of the people who have, through trust and generosity, have conferred upon it the power to adjudicate such matters. I expect that's why court cases read "The state of X vs. John Doe".

[defendandprotect]

4. Wasn't it Wyatt Earp who said that?

"An armed society is a polite society"

Oops! Earp was for gun control!

[rrneck]

5. I don't think so.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/robertahe100989.html

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

Robert A. Heinlein

[WheelWalker]

10. I'm a forty five year fan of Heinlein. But my memory is damaged...what book? Perhaps

Farnham's Freehold?

[X_Digger]

11. Or maybe 'The Man Who Sold the Moon'.. ahh

Nope.. 'Beyond this Horizon' (1942).

[rrneck]

12. I really can't say for sure.

I got the quote from a quote site (at the link). It may not be accurate.

[spin]

14. Beyond This Horizon ...

Beyond This Horizon is a science fiction novel by Robert A. Heinlein. It was originally published as a two-part serial in Astounding Science Fiction (April, May 1942, as by Anson MacDonald) and then eventually as a single volume by Fantasy Press in 1948.

The novel depicts a world where genetic selection for increased health, longevity, and intelligence has become so widespread that the unmodified 'control naturals' are a carefully managed (and protected) minority. Dueling and the carrying of arms is a socially accepted way of maintaining civility in public - a man can wear distinctive clothing to show his unwillingness to duel, but this results in a lower social status. The world has become an economic utopia; the "economic dividend" is so high that work has become optional. The chief economic problem is in fact using up the economic surplus: many high-quality goods actually cost less than those of lower quality. But as many use the lower quality goods anyway as status symbols, much goes into scientific research, but this has the side-effect of further increasing productivity a decade or three later, so long-term projects with no (expected) possible economic return are favored above all but medical research (longer lifespans will consume more surplus).

***snip***

One sub-theme of the book is the carrying and use of firearms. In the novel being armed is part of being a man; otherwise he wears a brassard and is considered weak and inferior. Women are allowed but not expected to be armed. Duels, either deadly or survivable, may easily occur when someone feels that they have been wronged or insulted, a custom that keeps order and politeness. A defining quote from the book which is repeated throughout Heinlein's work is, "An armed society is a polite society", is very popular with those who support the personal right to keep and bear arms.
emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_This_Horizon

[WheelWalker]

18. The title is familiar, but the synopsis isn't ringing the bell. Heinlein tackled many

controversial themes. His was a genius often misappreciated. Thank you for the research. Good work.

[spin]

19. Heinlein is one of my favorite writers ...

but I too am unfamiliar with the book.

Perhaps I can download it free from the internet. I doubt if I can find it in a library.

It looks like a good read.

[rrneck]

21. Here's a movie suggestion.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075968/plotsummary

The Duellists
Set during the grand, sweeping Napoleonic age, an officer in the French army insults another officer and sets off a life-long enmity. The two officers, D'Hubert and Feraud, cross swords time and time again in an attempt to achieve justice and preserve their honor.

The Heinlein looks interesting as well. Amazon, here I come.

[WheelWalker]

22. Not to be confused

with the 1995 western,The Quick & The Dead. Hackman is a great actor IMO. Heinlein is worth reading. His work is classic.

[defendandprotect]

40. Ah, but Wyatt Earp pushed to ban guns from town --

Some gun control is as American as Wyatt Earp. In both Wichita and Dodge City, Wyatt Earp set boundaries for areas into which no guns were to be carried.

“In the 10 months before Earp became town marshal for Dodge City, 25 people had been shot and killed in the town and twice as many wounded in saloon brawls and street battles. In the eight months following the establishment of no guns north of the railroad tracks for Dodge City, only two men had been shot and killed in brawls and no one killed by a police officer.” And this was during the time the cattle drives and celebrating cowboys arrived. (Stewart H. Holbrook, “Wyatt Earp U.S. Marshal,”

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/sep/09/even-wyatt-earp-used-gun-control/



I was kidding about the quote -- the clue was "Oops!" --


:evilgrin:

[rrneck]

41. Heh. Whatever. nt

[spin]

13. I became a much more polite individual when I got my first CCW...

Before I started carrying a firearm concealed I was more likely to give another driver the bird when he cut me off in traffic. I would react with more anger if someone insulted me. Obviously, I am not a violent person or I would have failed the background check required for a license. But my attitude changed considerably after.

I have mentioned this to other people that I know have carry permits and they all agreed. As my son in law said, "I value my permit and I would never do anything stupid that might result in its loss."

We don't go looking for trouble or an opportunity to "prove" ourselves in some foolish fight. Perhaps that's why those with carry permits have such a low record of violent crime.

I find it humorous that many people feel that a person gets a carry permit because of fear. It's true that we avoid situations that might lead to confrontation. I remember a wise man once told me in my youth that if you go looking for trouble, it will find you. Still, if trouble does find us, we are prepared to use lethal force if absolutely necessary in order to prevent serious injury or death. Most CCW holders I've known practice enough with their weapon to be proficient.

But we don't believe that we are invincible just because we carry a firearm. A handgun is a good defensive weapon, but nowhere near as deadly as portrayed in the movies or TV. You can shoot an attacker and still get hurt or killed.

Many of the people I know who carry also have fire extinguishers and a first aid kit in their home. They often have a small tool kit in their car. Many carry a quality folding knife which they use often as a tool not a weapon.

We tend to be polite people who like to be prepared for any eventuality.

[WheelWalker]

17. Glad to know you. Me too.

That might superficially appear incongruous. But there is no inevitability that the tool I carry will express its utility. I find I have a balanced mindfulness I did not previously hold.

[jazzhound]

42. Again on the subject of fear...........

As my son in law said, "I value my permit and I would never do anything stupid that might result in its loss."

Given the fact that the pro-control crew loves to characterize gun owners as "paranoid that their guns will be taken away" you'd think they could grasp this simple equation.

Either CC license holders are irresponsible and prone to brandishing their firearms, or they are not. Can't have it both ways, controllers.

[Euromutt]

25. I opted for "Other" because I'm not sure "Rational Self-Interest" entirely covered it

As other posters have commented or alluded, when you carry a firearm, you need to exercise self-restraint; you cannot, for example, allow yourself to escalate a verbal confrontation into a physical one (e.g. a shoving match or even a fistfight) lest the altercation escalate further to the point that you find yourself compelled to use lethal force, and you wind up killing the other guy over something that should have remained fairly trivial, thereby saddling yourself with both the psychological and legal repercussions of such an act.

I've had a moment like that myself, with an argument in a strip mall parking lot. I was sorely tempted to tell the other guy to go fuck himself, but conscious of the concealed pistol on my hip, I found myself avoiding profanity or "fighting words," lest my words precipitate a fight; the strongest language I uttered was "I'll thank you to mind your own business."

[WheelWalker]

31. Ah, perhaps there's a little "All of the Above" implied by the principle...

This discussion does seem to suggest that in a society where everyone is armed, for both bad guys and good guys, there would exist a "Mutual Recognition" of a "Consequence Probability" that would factor into everyone's behavioral calculus. I think the DA definitely advanced the principle on the premise that the effect of a fully armed society would be to moderate peoples' behaviors, generally, and shape a less aggressive society. That premise, however, might not globally hold, depending on cultural values, social history and economic imperatives.

[Callisto32]

27. MAD seems to be the favorite, and I am not sure why.

MAD implies that one will not aggress because he KNOWS that his own injuries will be just as, if not more, severe than the person he attacked. That's why "assured" is in there.

MAD worked because the Russians KNEW the Americans had nukes and vice versa. In an armed society, at least in the iteration we have today, it is impossible to know, with certainty, who is armed and who is not. It is also possible to attack in such a way as to eliminate any possibility of response on the part of the attacked. Both of these break down the comparison to MAD.

[WheelWalker]

32. I thought the principle as stated by the DA implied a universally armed society....

however, as we see in the literary context of the principle's source, Heinlein assumed not all persons would be. I must ask the DA whether he was quoting Heinlein and advancing a society on that model, or if he was stating a general principle advancing a wholly armed society.

[WheelWalker]

33. You're right about MAD. The doctrine is one thought to effect deterrence of agressive behavior.

Perhaps many who have voted MAD are expressing a belief that an armed society would resultin mutually assured destruction. The premise of MAD, however, was that the threatof the certain destruction of both confrontational actors would prevent use of each sides tools of aggression. As a policy, clearly MAD incorporated the presumption that actors would apply rational self-interest in some sort of behavioral calculus.

[Callisto32]

38. I think the same thing.

That is the problem with using a term of art. People not familiar with it will presume it means what the words seem to mean.

It's like "malice aforethought."

[GreenStormCloud]

28. We can learn a lesson from evolution here.

In the animale world some animals are heavily armed (cats) and some animals are unarmed. The heavily armed animals are hesitant to fight each other and have display rituals that usually substitute for actual combant. That is needed because when two tigers fight, one dies and the other is crippled. Unarmed animals that can do little damage to each other will fight with little provocation.

Humans tend to follow the same rules. In a heavily armed society, people tend to avoid giving offense. In an unarmed society, they will fight over small matters, or even over nothing. Example would be the UK's happy-slapping. Notice that the same fad hasn't caught on here.

[WheelWalker]

34. Good observations. I think you're suggesting nature displays a respect for the probability of MAD,

and that this does appear to affect how intra-specie and inter-species behavior is shaped in a state of nature. I tend to agree, I think.

[slackmaster]

29. Other - True liberty, which scares the crap out of authoritarians of all stripes

:nuke:

[Warren Stupidity]

37. heinleinism - it was a joke, not serious, full of the stupid.

an armed to the teeth society most closely resembles Baghdad circa 2006, or Sarajevo circa 1994.

[WheelWalker]

39. res ipsa loquitur - ding, ding, ding....I think we have a winner:

the thing speaks for itself. Good one !