A well armed society is a polite one.
POSTED BY: Wulfenstar
UPDATED: Monday, August 10, 2026 15:59
VIEWED: 11512
PAGE 7 of 16
You're not really talking about well-armed = polite. You're talking about scared = polite.
The mere existence of guns does NOT equal the actual use of guns, especially for trivial crap like enforcing "politeness".
I think there is a difference between constant self-policing out of fear and the actual respect that politeness is generally supposed to express. What use is fake politeness? All this does is erase the authenticity of expression. Smile at your face, spit behind your back, is that what you consider an attractive society? A polite one?
I think a fear-based society would be more conducive to acting out repressed aggression against those who are - for whatever reason - weaker. Might makes right... is not polite.
All that assuming you still support the prosecution of people who violently attack others based on nothing but perceived or actual verbal insult.
Which I am not sure you do. The level of acceptance you extend toward punishing rudeness with violence is disturbing, which even further undermines politeness to be a mere fake front, as opposed to an honest expression of respect for human beings and their human rights. Like not dying.
So.. I disagree. I think a fear-based society (no matter how armed or not) is a neurotic, disturbed one. It would, in no way, implement politeness in a meaningful way.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Maybe you're just creating more hell, like the PTSD soldier who starts shooting the moment a car backfires.
I come from hell and bring the best of what I learned there.
Quote:Then look around and gather some facts before you spout off, if you don't want this to be about you. Because right now, this is just about Wulf and his usual deeply personal but uninformed opinion.
Does a well armed society make for a more polite one? Maybe. Id say in about 90% it does.
As people like to point out, guns are tools. Tools for KILLING, admittedly, but tools nonetheless. They can be in the hands of monsters or in the hands of sane people. If you look at societies world-wide, you see some bristling with guns (Switzerland) that are polite and others that are nightmares (Sudan, Somalia and the USA). You see unarmed societies that are EXTREMELY polite (UK) and unarmed societies that are violent (Nigeria).
So what's the difference between the polite ones and the violent ones?
Well... wealth distribution, for one. Polite societies tend to have more even wealth distribution, where everyone can have a reasonable life. Conformity is another: polite nations have strict social rules. And lastly: Polite nations do NOT see violence in general, and guns specifically, as "the answer". In Switzerland, for example, people are required to own guns as part of the national militia, but they don't strap them on every time they step out the door.
Your narrative falls apart in the real-world context, Wulf. Liberals have a far better chance of making a polite world than you do, seeing as the true causes of violence have nothing to do with gun ownership or lack thereof.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
I love being psychoanalyzed here.. its always amusing and usually pretty harsh.
Jeeze.
I put forth a philosophy to the peanut gallery, to see what you all thought of it. This place is a good sounding board as we have MANY different view points, and different ideologies.
So, not to sound arrgoant, but how did this become about me?
Does a well armed society make for a more polite one? Maybe. Id say in about 90% it does.
Again, for the reasons I stated.
"Being called a racist by a Liberal is a badge of honor."
Y'know, Wulfie, the vast majority of China seems to be a VERY polite society, does it not? So it could be said that over-reaching tyranny makes for a polite society, too. I'll bet you'd be more careful about what you said if friends and family started to suddenly disappear.
If you're relying on fear to induce "politeness", you're doing it wrong, whether it be fear of the government's guns, or fear of YOUR guns.
AURaptor's Greatest Hits:
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And round and round and round we go, where we stop, everyone SHOULD know: we get bored and move on...eventually...far too long after we should...
Wulf will not change. He is locked into a mentality that is as unyielding as stone. Frem finally gave up when he realized this; there will be no learning from anything anyone says or from any facts, yet it goes on....?
Must be some fun in back-and-forthing with him, that's all I can figure. There are so much more interesting things to do...
I only popped in to see where this was going 'cuz it's the first thread I opened this morning, so I figured I'd have my say. Now I'LL move on to something more interesting. Just about anything has to be.
Wulf: Your premise has been discussed to death and determined to be false. NOBODY agrees with you, far as I can see. You can't complain about it being about you; you put it up, you've defended it against all reality; you've kept it going. For no reason; people HAVE answered your "question". End of story.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of __________________, code name ‘Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
I put forth a philosophy to the peanut gallery, to see what you all thought of it. This place is a good sounding board as we have MANY different view points, and different ideologies.
I think the peanut gallery has already conveyed that the negatives of this viewpoint outweigh the positive. My main problem with the viewpoint is the underlying belief that it is okay to escalate the violence if a wrong has been done to you. That is, if someone insults you, you are within your rights to shoot them for it. But the problem with escalating the violence is it doesn't end until everyone is dead or one person is the victor because they are the best at being violent. Does that sound like an ideal society? Not to me. An underlying belief that it is okay to escalate the violence is a characteristic of Muslim extremists (that is, I can murder you if you depict a derogatory cartoon image of Muhammed). Do you really support that kind of behavior? Again, is that the peaceful society you are looking for?
You mentioned trying to see all of this in black and white. Most things aren't, but I'll take a stab with this. The closest black and white principle dealing with justice might be "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". This principle for obtaining justice was established in order to prevent people from escalating the violence (such as responding to an accidental murder by killing the murderers family, which would then lead to further blood feuding) and instead put a limitation on what a person could expect from a crime committer as recompense. So, if you want black and white, using this principle, the most you could do to someone who insulted you would be to insult them back. I think this might be a start, anyway... (though, if you are looking for even more of the idealistic society, you'll have to see how Jesus takes the eye for an eye principle and turns it on its head... ETA: Of course, Christians are guilty of not applying Jesus' take on things as well, unfortunately...)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I put forth this philosophy as a way of fleshing it out with multiple opinions. I do that a lot here.
So the concensus is: Violence as a deterrant to impolite behavior is detremental to society as a whole in that:
1. You will have people shot over "meaningless" words.
2. Being polite should be a gift, and not a "forced" one, out of fear.
Good to know.
I agree.
Tho grant me this one small favor.
The societies where politness was harshly dealt with (i.e. the Japanese samurai eras, and the American West) DID have their positives.
"Being called a racist by a Liberal is a badge of honor."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Wulf: Your premise has been discussed to death and determined to be false. NOBODY agrees with you, far as I can see. You can't complain about it being about you; you put it up, you've defended it against all reality; you've kept it going. For no reason; people HAVE answered your "question". End of story.
Right on. You're completely right about that. It *HAS* been discussed to death, and even notable "gun-bunnies" like Frem, Anthony, and myself have pointed out the myriad flaws in Wulfie's logic. Signy probably did it best, by pointing out places that are less armed and more polite, and places that are MORE armed and LESS polite.
I've never even considered whipping out one of my guns to try to get people to be polite. If they aren't threatening the lives of me and my family, there's absolutely no need for guns to enter the equation. And if they ARE threatening us, there's no need for polite talk about it. Guns and politeness go together like fish and bicycles, it seems to me.
AURaptor's Greatest Hits:
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
The societies where politness was harshly dealt with (i.e. the Japanese samurai eras, and the American West) DID have their positives.
I think you mean where impoliteness was harshly dealt with (by force), and those societies had their positives.
Name them. List the positives.
There was a time not all that long ago in this country (and others) where you could challenge someone to a duel if they insulted you or impugned your goodlady wife's honor. I'm still not sure that finding out who's the better shot or swordsman is a valid way of deciding whether or not someone was insulted or dishonored, though. If I insult your wife, and then kill you in a duel, is everything I said about your wife assumed to be true? Or am I still a shit-flinging monkey, just one who's faster on the draw than you are?
AURaptor's Greatest Hits:
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I've never even considered whipping out one of my guns to try to get people to be polite. If they aren't threatening the lives of me and my family, there's absolutely no need for guns to enter the equation. And if they ARE threatening us, there's no need for polite talk about it."
I agree 100%.
So, maybe, the idea behind the phrase "A well armed society is a polite society" has LESS to do with being "polite" (in terms of speech, opening a door for a lady) and more along the lines of "polite" in the sense of violent crime.
Being "polite" = not raping, robbing, hurting, or killing each other.
.... and the shoe drops.
This was my point all along since I read some crash piece against an armed society.
Heh, I love it when a plan comes together.
:)
"Being called a racist by a Liberal is a badge of honor."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Methinks you have odd notions of "politeness", then, if you're willing to lower the bar so far that not raping, robbing, or killing you counts as being "polite". To me, that just counts as barely even being law-abiding.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME