BF2S Forums Is an armed society really a more polite society?

Firstly, An updated map would help, because there has been some changes i think.

New York and California really cant gague the question you have posed accurately. Because for one, In NYC it is not legal for citizens to own, carry or posses handguns. Its also true in San Fran, And other places i think in Calif. Me being from NY, Know what it takes to get a permit, Getting a permit now to carry a handgun is for the most part impossible. You can get a handgun permit, But you need the gun locked up at all times with ammo in seprate locked storage case. Tell me, what good is that doing you? Why get one? Me, I carry and always will, even if they change that law. They by law cant revoke my permit or downgrade it. Whew!

On to florida, You cant very well compare the rates there fairly neither, mainly because it takes nothing more than a drivers licesens to purchase and obtain a handgun, Theres no trstrictions for for law abideing citizens nor for the criminals. So basically, Its a crapshoot there when you attack someone, but 9 times out of 10 youll find, the victem wasnt carrying a firearm.

  Now the question, would an armed society really be or produce a more polite society? I dont know. I think if the laws made it so law abideing citizens could carry a weapon unrestricted, it truely might make people rethink what they say and do to there neighbor, or the guy in the next car who is going too slow, or the person with more than 10 items at the express checkout. It might make people a bit more polite, make them rething there stance on freedom of speach and the consequences of abuseing it and directin it at others for hurtful means. It could deter crime when the criminal Knows the intended victem could be armed. I think, if people were allowed to carry there personal protection on theres sides, in view, That sure would make people more ploite. Sure does when i walk into a McDonalds during hunting season with a Ruger Super Redhawk .44 Mag strapped to my side and sit down to eat. Funny thing, no meed to hide your Pistol during hunting season. Its amazing how polite people are. If you could do that test yourself, you would see this also.

So dude, i dont know, I think it would, But i dont think we will ever know, because theres really no consistant studies to show us if it would or wouldnt. Gulaws vary too much state bt state, county by county to even begin to try and see if it would.

There are obvious problems with direct comparisons between high population density urban areas and low population density rural areas. Also most gun restriction laws tend to be reactionary, ie. they bring in tougher laws because the gun problem is already there, as opposed to the gun problem arising after the laws are passed where there was no problem before.

One thing that's definitely true is an armed society results in a well armed criminal population, and criminals are statistically more likely to succeed in committing a crime if they are armed.

American criminals already know their victims are reasonably likely to have a gun, it doesn't seem to be stopping them.

As for an armed society being polite? There's a subtle difference between being polite and being scared. Walk into McDonald's holding a severed head and and you can be damned sure everyone will be nice to you, not because they see you as a lovely person and want to be your friend, but because they think you may kill them. When people see you carrying a gun they may be nice to you, but you can be damned sure they want you to go the hell away.

A society based on paranoia and fear simply doesn't work.

As Headstone said, there isn't any way to study or quantify the effects of gun control in any really meaningful way. One thing that can be said is that of the countries that didn't have any particular gun problems, banning guns didn't result in an increase in crime. It certainly resulted in a decrease in gun crimes.

Another wonderful post, thanks for the hard work.  A new map wouldn't help much, this is just to show that historically restrictions on guns does not mean lower crime or even Lower gun crime.

NCPA wrote:

If gun control laws have any effect, it may be to increase crime. For instance:19

    * New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.

    * In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate, then a low 2.4 per 100,000 per year, tripled to 7.2 by 1977.

    * In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.

Defenders of the Washington law say it isn't working because criminals are getting guns in Virginia, where the laws are more relaxed. But just across the Potomac River, Arlington, Va., has a murder rate less than 10 percent of that of Washington (7.0 murders versus 77.8 per 100,000 population). Can the difference be explained by the fact that Washington is a large city? Virginia's largest city, Virginia Beach, has a population of nearly 400,000, allows easy access to firearms - and has had one of the country's lowest murder rates for years (4.1 per 100,000 population in 1991).

An analysis of 19 types of gun control laws [Table I] concluded that not only do they fail to reduce rates of violence, they even fail "to reduce the use of guns or induce people to substitute other weapons in acts of violence."20 For example:21

    * When Morton Grove, Ill., outlawed handgun ownership, fewer than 20 were turned in.

    * After Evanston, Ill., a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982, it experienced no decline in violent crime.

    * Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.

    * 20 percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6 percent of the population - New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. - and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns.

    * New York has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation - and 20 percent of the armed robberies. Even more troublesome is the fact that the places where gun control laws are toughest tend to be the places where the most crime is committed with illegal weapons:22

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-11-10 10:47:53)

Parker wrote:

but i will say this; knowing my responsabilities as a gun owner and having a ccw license, I STAY away from situations that i would have normally walked right into. what i mean is that now that i carry a gun, i cant go and get in a fist fight with someone, do drunken arguments at the bar, etc etc.
my wife also carries a handgun and i feel much more comfortable knowing that she can protect herself if need be. i know, someone will spout off with the old "someone will take the gun from her" bullshit, and yes theoretically you are correct, but thats what she has mace and one of my switchblades that i made for. besides that, she shoots better than 90% of the people ive seen handle a gun, and shes shot more full autos than most people see in their lifetime.



so in closing im not sure that being polite is the issue for me as much as saving my families ass......
Parker

Listen up lefties, this is the majority view from gun owners.  Time to calm down with your silly business Pelosi, Conyers, Feinsteinn, Boxer, Kennedy, et al.

Masques wrote:

ATG wrote:

I think so.
If a meathead knows you have a gun, or thinks you have a gun, it creates a buffer zone.

It would be safe to say that a criminal would assume that a given person would not own a gun even with the most non-restrictive policies available given that as it is in states with concealed carry permits most individuals choose not to carry guns.

If it was mandatory to carry a weapon you'd have a point, but as Harmor posted, two of the highest crime rate states also have very loose gun laws.

Agreed, I would however disagree with a mandatory law, some people are not intelligent or adept enough to carry a weapon.  Addendum to this issue: I think we need more stringent background checks (not longer ones) but more specific,etc.  Waiting periods...are...interesting, but with a CPL they don't exist so I don't care.  It is true in all those states only 2-7% max of the population have a CPL.  So the case against it doesn't make much sense.  Good post Masques.

Masques wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Agreed, I would however disagree with a mandatory law, some people are not intelligent or adept enough to carry a weapon.  Addendum to this issue: I think we need more stringent background checks (not longer ones) but more specific,etc.  Waiting periods...are...interesting, but with a CPL they don't exist so I don't care.  It is true in all those states only 2-7% max of the population have a CPL.  So the case against it doesn't make much sense.  Good post Masques.

I definitely wouldn't favor mandatory ownership (it's on the opposite end of the spectrum of a complete ban with respect to rights).

Generally I think states (and by extension individuals) should be free to legislate on this issue as they want. I spent several years in an extremely high crime area with no effective policing (often the police forces were involved in criminal activity themselves) so I know how it is to be at the mercy of both criminals and "the law", which is why I'm not so sanguine about gun laws.

Good point on the mandatory, I agree.

It should be a state issue, but what happens when cities like San Francisco try to pass ridicolous inclusive handgun bans that take the guns away only from people in the city (people that reside out of the city, who have a business in the city and travel there can still have one, interesting) and also it would've stripped museums of their historical handguns, did not have any exceptions for retired or active police/military.  Glad it was stopped by a wonderful lawsuit.

I know what you mean about being disillusioned about police and criminals, that stinks, but don't give up hope, most of us gun owners, and I do mean most, are careful, polite, stay away from situations we normally would not if we weren't gun owners, and in general are more kind to people.  When I have my gun on me, I am more inclined to not get angry, to not be rude, and to not stick my nose anywhere where it shouldn't be( not like I would anyway).  But my main point is, having my gun on me, having this huge responsibliity to protect myself and third parties requires training, education of legality, and discretion.  That what makes us gun owners unique, not the deafening propaganda from the left and most of europe that we are "addicted" to guns or are afraid of people and therefore need guns, or are crazy gun toting criminals..... That kinda talk is ignorant.  I say kudos to you Masques on being intelligent and respectful on this subject, if I could give the rest of my karma points, I would.  Glad to talk to ya, gotta run. 

You know, looking through the various categories of numbers, and having a normal habit of browsing the fbi uniform crime report, I'd say the OP original assertion may be false as you suspected.  I don't belive that states with handgun concealment/carry permits reduces crime.  Sure there are criminals who know local and state laws who will be more careful if they know their town is packing and vice versa for towns like SF where you can't OWN a handgun, let alone conceal one on your person. 

Speaking of, that bastard Daly who wrote and passed the law in SF banning handguns needs to be assraped.  To me, that's a greater crime than mayor Neusome just blatantly marrying gays against state and local law.

This has been debated before (http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=46808&p=1), but here's my opinion: to own a gun you always should be required to have a permit, a clean criminal record, show you can safely handle a gun, and you should be 18+. You go to the police, receive the permit and buy the gun. Your gun gets registered by the police. If you want to carry the gun outside your home or fire-range, a special license is needed, with more conditions (reason why, etc.).

Banning guns completely will have no effect at all.

To answer the question: an armed society is never a polite one, coz if you have to go around armed to feel safe, you already live in a dangerous and impolite society.

Parker wrote:

now first let me say that a polite society has gone out the fucking window. humanity as a whole has given up on being polite, at least thats what ive seen everywhere ive been(49 out of the 50 states)

I bless myself that I live in Europe, and still in a more or less friendly environment. I have no clue why the US society is that dangerous as compared e.g. to Canada.

Let me tell you a funny story to show the difference between societies:  years ago ('90 I think) I was with a client who is in the security business, and we went to have dinner (Saturday evening) with the CEO of a US security company, with whom my client wanted to do the security of the US embassy in Brussels. As we left the parking garage in the center of Brussels, the CEO asked me 'if it was safe to walk here', and I replied 'sure, but you have to look left and right before you cross the street' thinking that he meant the traffic. The look in his eyes was just indescribable. It took a few seconds to realize the guy really thought we could get robbed or shot any minute.

Last edited by Pierre (2006-11-10 12:00:28)

Pierre wrote:

This has been debated before (http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=46808&p=1), but here's my opinion: to own a gun you always should be required to have a permit, a clean criminal record, show you can safely handle a gun, and you should be 18+. You go to the police, receive the permit and buy the gun. Your gun gets registered by the police. If you want to carry the gun outside your home or fire-range, a special license is needed, with more conditions (reason why, etc.). more conditions???

Banning guns completely will have no effect at all.

To answer the question: an armed society is never a polite one, coz if you have to go around armed to feel safe, you already live in a dangerous and impolite society.Incorrect though process here, sorry, just following the Euro thought process

Parker wrote:

now first let me say that a polite society has gone out the fucking window. humanity as a whole has given up on being polite, at least thats what ive seen everywhere ive been(49 out of the 50 states)

I bless myself that I live in Europe, and still in a more or less friendly environment. I have no clue why the US society is that dangerous as compared e.g. to Canada.

Let me tell you a funny story to show the difference between societies:  years ago ('90 I think) I was with a client who is in the security business, and we went to have dinner (Saturday evening) with the CEO of a US security company, with whom my client wanted to do the security of the US embassy in Brussels. As we left the parking garage in the center of Brussels, the CEO asked me 'if it was safe to walk here', and I replied 'sure, but you have to look left and right before you cross the street' thinking that he meant the traffic. The look in his eyes was just indescribable. It took a few seconds to realize the guy really thought we could get robbed or shot any minute.

Good for you you're in Euro, we just have a different culture over here.  Its not actually as bad as the media makes it out to be here in America, its not really THAT bad.  Try visting some of our more friendlier places than L.A., St. Louis, Tacoma, Compton.

NY is great, Seattle is beautiful.  Don't isolate yourself too much because the only fear that there really seems to be is from Euro's who claim they're better (not that I'm saying you said this).  Thanks for the response though.

Now to your point, listen up Pierre......We can't be polite we have to "carry a gun just to feel safe" What a wrong approach, listen, I carry a gun, why? Not because I'm afraid, because I'm PREPARED.  I don't walk out the door going, yup I WANT TO KILL SOMEONE, I don't walk out the door trembling at every noise when its dark, sorry thats not the way it works.  Its better to have it, and not need it, than to need it, and not have it.

kr@cker wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

for towns like SF where you can't OWN a handgun, let alone conceal one on your person. 

Speaking of, that bastard Daly who wrote and passed the law in SF banning handguns needs to be assraped.  To me, that's a greater crime than mayor Neusome just blatantly marrying gays against state and local law.

how the hell can bullshit like this pass in direct conflict with one of the most basic amendments of the constitution?

The same way warrantless wiretapping and many of the patriot act provisions can..and torture, and habeas corpus...etc.

We are a complacent people.  We absolutely suck.  Voter turnout proves our complacency.  Unconstitutional laws like the gun ban in SF shows proves our apathy for the constitution.  And judging by the way we care about people we kill in far away lands..i have no words to describe that level of citizenry here.

Oh,and by the way, before you write off San Francisco as a total waste of space...many, many citizens of the city are openly boycotting it and retaining their fire arms.  Some even assembled at city hall with their concealed firearms (having permits, of course) and declaring their right to keep their weapons.  They were arrested, but it was a very moving protest.  And a very odd protest..usually you picture protestors being the ones wanting guns taken away...this was the opposite..no tye die and birkenstock wearing hippies..just good ole fashioned americans living in the wrong city carrying signs and peacefully resisting.

If gun ownership is mandatory and everyone is granted as well as takes advantage of concealed carry, yes, the society may see a drop in crime.

But if not this extreme scenario, then no, guns only create crime.

twiistaaa wrote:

umm... so like the question is should we supply guns (from the gun manufacturers) or not? how about shut down anyone who makes firearms. and eventually all guns will become old and rusty... and no one will own guns.. hence no need to own a firearm to defend against firearms...

Exactly. Ban guns, and no one will have them.