h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Some of us have been discussing, over on Courtesy's forum, the possible benefits of bringing back the Victorian Age (http://www.h2g2.com/forumframe.cgi?forum=27200&thread=32521). As a spinoff, perhaps we should consider bringing back the wild west as well.

Many libertarians, provoked (as far as I know) by the society portrayed in Robert A. Heinlein's _Revolt in 2100_ (where legalized duelling helps keep a code of public manners in place), have adopted the slogan "an armed society is a polite society". The meaning of this, I think, is that if you know attacks on other people are likely to be met by a bullet, you're less likely to indulge in such attacks.

Of course there appear to be counterexamples to this in areas where near-universal armament leads people to be anything but polite. I wonder, though, whether the lack of any code duello plays a part in this reaction? That is to say, perhaps universal armament isn't enough in the absence of a social structure that specifies when and why the use of such armament is acceptable, and allows backing down and apology as an alternative (a part of Heinlein's view often missed by the gunslinger-wannabes).

I have no fixed point of view on this particular question. I do believe that an armed society is more likely to be a free society, and that the second amendment helps preserve one of our more important freedoms. But let's not turn this into another gun-control thrash if we can help it.

Okay, sorry for taking so long to get here.

I agree that an armed society is a polite society, as long as there are social moors against rampant violence. If we look at instances within the american culture where armament became pronounced, or even the threat of pronounce armament, we Sometimes see a change.

I am thinking of Southern California freeways when there was a rash of shootings for such things as improper lane changes, etc. I drove with more courtesy than usual and I believe that most people adjusted their driving styles to incur the least amount of hostility.

Of course this is a derivation of an armed society because only a few had the guns and it was an unknown who was armed.

Regardless, if there is to be an armed society, then I agree that there must be a code of conduct, and rules of engagement that will allow people a back door if they need it. Honor should never get in the way of good judgement.

Courtesy

We might apply "armed society = polite society" theory to the freeway shootings another way. Suppose that 95% of all drivers were armed, and that everyone knew this. Would people have been as quick to pull out a gun and start shooting when they were upset by someone else's driving, knowing that their target (and surrounding drivers who were inconvenienced by the battle) might well shoot back? I think not.

One of the problems with these schemes is how you enforce courteous behavior, armed or not? The typical liberal fear is that if you arm everyone, too many innocent souls will get bushwhacked by those without scruples. The libertarian response is that people with that sort of nasty habit will be eliminated by the community before they breed.

Then you can wonder if vigilante justice inevitably leads to lynch mobs...

A lot of thorny questions here.

Ahhhh ... but I do love thorny questions.

I would agree that if all drivers were armed, then other people would be less likely to start something, for fear of the repercussions. Which in a way would enforce courtesy and politeness, because it really isn't polite to take a gun and fire at someone. Of course the opposite would be that people might start driving with major attitude because they had a weapon.

I think the only way to enforce courteous behavior is to have some major social moors in favor of courteous behavior. If society rewards the good, and really punishes the bad then people would see the benefits of being good. Of course, at that point are they being courteous out of fear or because they want to. Fear based courtesy would just smolder and break out in some other way.

With an armed society I believe that people with a propensity towards violence will do violence no matter what. If regular people have the option to carry weapons, it might give the evil doers a second thought. We would have to ensure that there were basic regulations towards getting a weapon, such as taking a course and learning about the laws, nothing to steep but enough to make someone aware of what is correct and wrong.

I would try to avoid vigilante justice. Maybe we could actually regain a Justice system instead of our current Legal system.