An Armed Society is A Violent Society

I have often heard the maxim that, "an armed society is a polite society." Most often I have heard this stated within a conversation about "solving the problem of crime" or lamenting the loss of "good, old-fashioned values". The reasoning goes something like this: more people having firearms means that those with ill intent would not feel they could get away with crimes. To me, this is reminiscent of the "Wild West" era in the United States; a time when firearms were readily available, poorly regulated (if at all), and, most importantly, worn openly. The image of the rough-and-ready "cowboy"/gunslinger, leather holster on hip, willing to draw on another man at any provocation is well known through movies and TV shows. Dramatised, certainly, but grounded in a reality of insecurity and competition. At that time people were actually defending their homes and lives from the threats of outlaw bandits, claim jumpers, and the Native peoples (who were still defending their own rights to the land, which is a tale for another time). These were real threats that no one else could defend these homesteaders and settlers from, they had to do it themselves. The conditions of the "Wild West" no longer obtain, however, and even then they were artificially heightened. Further, we now have trained and armed public servants policing our nation, investigating and preventing crimes. Just turn on your television and you're bound to come across a show involving one or more of these agencies. Their job is not as easy or glamorous as it's shown, but it still gets done. Most property battles are waged in courts now and death most often comes from greasy burgers and automobiles. This discussion is aside from the notion of "Justice". There is no claim by this author that the court system in the United States (or elsewhere) actually administers just and objective outcomes to citizens. This argument is oxymoronic (mostly moronic) in that what is being said is that the constant and pervasive threat of citizens carrying firearms and being responsible to use them to good ends is preferable. This is not an either/or, in that "either we have more guns for people or we will have more crime". This is because there is no correlation between prevalence of guns and crime deterrence.

This does, however, speak to the underlying belief as to the cause and motivation of crimes and those who perpetrate. It is a childish fantasy that their are "good people" and "bad people", and further that the "bad" ones can be deterred by something as silly as threat of violent retaliation. Thanks to researchers like Philip Zimbardo, we can understand better what actually instigates asocial behaviours and drives any individual to "criminal" intent. You really want to give every violently jealous lover, every self-righteous religious believer, and every minimally-competent, "freedom-loving" militia-wannabe-member access to firearms? Because I don't hear the N.R.A. placing any restrictions or competencies for ownership and those are the sorts that are most likely to want a gun in a hurry or "just in case". In my opinion, except for handguns being used by women against their abusive partners (the gun owners, most times) to end their cycle of violence, they have no business being in the hands of private citizens. Even then, there should be better solutions; certainly ones where victims need not go to jail.

In closing, if we take this argument to extremes it could go something like this: we decide on what is a punishable offence, and when that happens, all the nukes go off. Instead of having a gun, everyone can get "The Button", allowing them to stop any crime at any time with a simple press of the finger. The threat is so extreme that no one would dare hurt another individual, right? At least, it's true according to the theory expounded by "gun rights activists" that external control over people can alter their behaviour in all circumstances. In reality, more nuclear warheads have not a safer planet made. The threat of destruction by thermonuclear war is not healthy and has not lead to peace, just an ever-increasing level of posturing. Neither could the threat of bystanders holding "The Button" (or a gun) be a real deterrent. No threat of retaliation can bring reason back into an unreasonable situation.