Status
Not open for further replies.
I guess what you are saying is that to further improve safety, the USA needs even more guns, then it will be the safest place in the world?
An armed society is a polite society.

A polite society is a safer society.
 
An armed society is a polite society.

A polite society is a safer society.

Said no one ever.....Mexico is a Narco society armed to the teeth. Working out well for them? Or Central / South America? I believe most of their guns come from the USA. More fire power doesn't necessarily mean a polite and safer society. Mexico is one of the most dangerous countries in the world. With El Salvador, home to MS13 Gang, the most dangerous.

In fact, 6 out of the top 15 are Central and South American Countries (Narco Territories) armed to the teeth.


1634615780767.png
 
Last edited:
I know I'm new here and I'm not reading back to see when this $&@* show began, but I think this thread has served it's purpose, kind of... but now needs locking or moderating.

This is how thing go from 0 to 70 for no f'n reason.
 
Last edited:
Said no one ever.....Mexico is a Narco society armed to the teeth. Working out well for them? Or Central / South America? I believe most of their guns come from the USA. More fire power doesn't necessarily mean a polite and safer society. Mexico is one of the most dangerous countries in the world. With El Salvador, home to MS13 Gang, the most dangerous.

In fact, 6 out of the top 15 are Central and South American Countries (Narco Territories) armed to the teeth.


View attachment 58682

Actually, Robert Heinlein said it.

And your make our point for us. Only the criminals and the government in Mexico have guns. The civilian populace is totally disarmed.

"I believe most of their guns come from the USA."

Funny how guys like you and Nigel can work Google to find information to support your position when it suits you, then pull made-up BS out of the air in your very next breath...
 
I know I'm new here and I'm not reading back to see when this $&@* show began, but I think this thread has served it's purpose, kind of... but now needs locking or moderating.

This is how thing go from 0 to 70 for no f'n reason.

So, you've been a member for less than 24 hours, haven't bothered to read through the entire discussion, but you want the thread locked? :rolleyes: Perhaps you should take a little time to become more familiar with the forum before handing out such admonitions? We're stilling cruising along at about 50! :smuggrin:
 
As this thread has gone off-topic and moved into nation bashing, will lock if it continues.
 
Actually, Robert Heinlein said it.

And your make our point for us. Only the criminals and the government in Mexico have guns. The civilian populace is totally disarmed.

"I believe most of their guns come from the USA."

Funny how guys like you and Nigel can work Google to find information to support your position when it suits you, then pull made-up BS out of the air in your very next breath...

This flow of guns into Central America is known as the "iron river," and it is vast in scale; according to the Mexican foreign ministry, an estimated 200,000 guns are trafficked from the US into Mexico each year -- an average of more than 500 per day.


I don't pull facts out of thin air....But your claim that Only Criminals get guns in Mexico is without substantiation or fact. Where's your source? Guns flow into Mexico at an alarming rate from the USA. Feeding the violence in Mexico, Central, and South America. Winding up on the street and in the hands of WHOMEVER wishes to purchase!
 
Last edited:
Said no one ever.....

On the contrary.

quote-an-armed-society-is-a-polite-society-manners-are-good-when-one-may-have-to-back-up-his-robert-a-heinlein-12-88-84_orig.jpg


However, this theory requires everyone to be armed not just a few.
 
On the contrary.

quote-an-armed-society-is-a-polite-society-manners-are-good-when-one-may-have-to-back-up-his-robert-a-heinlein-12-88-84_orig.jpg


However, this theory requires everyone to be armed not just a few.

Robert Heinlein was a science fiction author, sometimes referred to as the "dean of American science fiction writers".

The quote "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." is from Heinlein's novel "Beyond This Horizon" that depicts a world in which genetic selection for increased health, longevity, and intelligence has become so widespread that the unmodified "control naturals" are a carefully managed and protected minority. Duels and the carrying of firearms are socially accepted ways of maintaining civility in public because this provides a method of killing off certain less desirable individuals.

"An armed society is a polite society" is often cited by pro-gun groups in justifying the proposal of universal carrying of firearms, however, the context of this quote is almost always omitted, as we clearly see in your use of the quote, @country_hick.

Hamilton Felix, the story's protagonist states: "Well, in the first place an armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. For me, politeness is a sine qua non of civilization. That’s a personal evaluation only. But gun-fighting has a strong biological use. We do not have enough things that kill off the weak and the stupid these days. But to stay alive as an armed citizen a man has to be either quick with his wits or with his hands, preferably both."

Obviously, if the reason for everyone carrying firearms is to kill off as many of the weak and the stupid as possible, then society is hardly being quite so "polite", is it?

So, the moral of the story here is that if you want to make a point about something in the real world by quoting someone, first educate yourself before quoting a fictional character in a speculative sci-fi novel.
 
Last edited:
On the contrary.

However, this theory requires everyone to be armed not just a few.

Homer Simpson said, "Trying is the first step towards failure"....What's your point in quoting a Science Fiction writer? I can quote random things, too!

iu
 
Well, my point was that he didn't quote the author himself, he quoted a character in the author's novel. There is an important distinction.

These days with a few keystrokes someone can find a quote or a meme they can re-post in an attempt to prove a point without any understanding of its history or context.

Personally, I read "Beyond This Horizon" as a teenager so I knew the context of the quote.

Hey, come to think of it, speaking of context, what's your point quoting a cartoon character? :smuggrin:
 
Robert Heinlein was a science fiction author, sometimes referred to as the "dean of American science fiction writers".

The quote "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." is from Heinlein's novel "Beyond This Horizon" that depicts a world in which genetic selection for increased health, longevity, and intelligence has become so widespread that the unmodified "control naturals" are a carefully managed and protected minority. Duels and the carrying of firearms are socially accepted ways of maintaining civility in public because this provides a method of killing off certain less desirable individuals.

"An armed society is a polite society" is often cited by pro-gun groups in justifying the proposal of universal carrying of firearms, however, the context of this quote is almost always omitted, as we clearly see in your use of the quote, @country_hick.

Hamilton Felix, the story's protagonist states: "Well, in the first place an armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. For me, politeness is a sine qua non of civilization. That’s a personal evaluation only. But gun-fighting has a strong biological use. We do not have enough things that kill off the weak and the stupid these days. But to stay alive as an armed citizen a man has to be either quick with his wits or with his hands, preferably both."

Obviously, if the reason for everyone carrying firearms is to kill off as many of the weak and the stupid as possible, then society is hardly being quite so "polite", is it?

So, the moral of the story here is that if you want to make a point about something in the real world by quoting someone, first educate yourself before quoting a fictional character in a speculative sci-fi novel.

Or, as @Dashmellow pointed out, you can use the same words in your own context while properly attributing credit to the author, which is how us pro-firearm citizens use it. Not a thing wrong with that.

As in: When anyone could be armed, bad actors won't be messing about with people they would otherwise feel free to when they know that their potential victims are unarmed.

This summarizes the same principle I referred to in an earlier post, more eloquently stated by the late, great, Colonel Jeff Cooper: "If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police, and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefore what he must be taught to fear is his victim."

And of course, in the quote from Heinlein's character Felix, he's obviously totally ignoring the concept that I'm talking about, the fact that the "weak and stupid" may well themselves be armed so that they won't be preyed upon. The modern-day analog being law-abiding citizens who legally arm themselves for their own protection against those who fear no law.

While Heinlein was a sci-fi writer on his own level, he was also, like many of his contemporaries, a raging anti-gun figure, and would likely be classified as a socialist or liberal today.

His own statement on his politics: In a letter to Judith Merril in 1967 (never sent) he said, "As for libertarian, I've been one all my life, a radical one. You might use the term 'philosophical anarchist' or 'autarchist' about me, but 'libertarian' is easier to define and fits well enough." Note that "libertarian" is also less alarming than "anarchist." No doubt Heinlein knew that...

But I like the way he breaks down labels here, which I find most in line with the average freedom-loving American citizen: “Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”

Personally, the former I would identify as socialists, a political construct with idealism at it's core and which never, ever works in practice. And there's nothing more dangerous than a well-intentioned idealist, just ask anyone who'e even lived under socialist rule. I would also substitute "realist" for "curmudgeon."
 
Last edited:
This flow of guns into Central America is known as the "iron river," and it is vast in scale; according to the Mexican foreign ministry, an estimated 200,000 guns are trafficked from the US into Mexico each year -- an average of more than 500 per day.


I don't pull facts out of thin air....But your claim that Only Criminals get guns in Mexico is without substantiation or fact. Where's your source? Guns flow into Mexico at an alarming rate from the USA. Feeding the violence in Mexico, Central, and South America. Winding up on the street and in the hands of WHOMEVER wishes to purchase!

Well, you'd have a valid point, so long as you're willing to completely ignore the fallacy of blaming the United States for Mexico's inability to control firearm smuggling across it's borders.

Applying that logic, we have only to sue the Mexican government to stop the cross-border flow of illegal drugs and illegal immigrants into the US. Would that it were so easy!

LEGALLY owning a firearm and CARRYING same are all but impossible for the average law-abiding citizen in Mexico. Why are we liable for their inability to maintain law and order in their own country? We're not.

Everything involved outside formal government Foreign Military Sales channels in getting any firearm from the US into Mexico is already an illegal act in the US. Once again, a failure of our own law enforcement and government, mainly our government.

Blaming the average law-abiding American citizen for the failures of both governments is the stinkiest of red herrings.

BTW, practically every source that pops up when you search for the term "iron river" is a horribly biased liberal "news" source. I can give you a pass on that though, as you likely have no way to know that where you are. Quoting any CNN source, Kamala "Heels Up" Harris, or the most corrupt government on the planet (Mexico) does not bolster your position. It does the exact opposite.

My Singaporean friends are always fascinated by the firearm debate in the US, and they always wanna talk about it. For some reason they think that nightly gunfights on every street corner and blood running in the gutters are the norm here, and they're amazed when I pop their CNN-induced lack-of-reality bubble with facts...
 
While Heinlein was a sci-fi writer on his own level, he was also, like many of his contemporaries, a raging anti-gun figure, and would likely be classified as a socialist or liberal today.

Actually, Heinlein was a hard-right conservative from WWII and was not only viewed as defining modern sci-fi, but also as having defined right-wing sci-fi. This is evidenced in many of his novels such as Starship Troopers (and the movie) as but one example.

See: HEINLEIN'S RIGHT-WING UNIVERSE

In today's world everyone is rigidly pigeon-holed into one category or the other and one side of the isle or the other but people's views and politics are far more complex. My liberal friends think I'm some kind of a right wing lunatic because of certain of my political/economic viewpoints and support of gun ownership while my conservative friends think I'm some sort of outright commy due to some of my social/environmental views and concerns about mega-corporate special interests. I figure I must be doing something right! :)
 
Last edited:
Well, you'd have a valid point, so long as you're willing to completely ignore the fallacy of blaming the United States for Mexico's inability to control firearm smuggling across it's borders.

Applying that logic, we have only to sue the Mexican government to stop the cross-border flow of illegal drugs and illegal immigrants into the US. Would that it were so easy!

LEGALLY owning a firearm and CARRYING same are all but impossible for the average law-abiding citizen in Mexico. Why are we liable for their inability to maintain law and order in their own country? We're not.

Everything involved outside formal government Foreign Military Sales channels in getting any firearm from the US into Mexico is already an illegal act in the US. Once again, a failure of our own law enforcement and government, mainly our government.

Blaming the average law-abiding American citizen for the failures of both governments is the stinkiest of red herrings.

BTW, practically every source that pops up when you search for the term "iron river" is a horribly biased liberal "news" source. I can give you a pass on that though, as you likely have no way to know that where you are. Quoting any CNN source, Kamala "Heels Up" Harris, or the most corrupt government on the planet (Mexico) does not bolster your position. It does the exact opposite.

My Singaporean friends are always fascinated by the firearm debate in the US, and they always wanna talk about it. For some reason they think that nightly gunfights on every street corner and blood running in the gutters are the norm here, and they're amazed when I pop their CNN-induced lack-of-reality bubble with facts...

Again hyperbole. Nothing but you're own opinion rooted not in facts, but you're own experiences. This is what we call "anecdotal" and not fact.

CNN? Did you NOT SEE THE LINK from the Congressional Report I cited along with the article?

United States Government Accountability Office
Report to Congressional Requesters


Now here are facts:



DONOHUE: Yes, we were looking at data across all 50 states and the District of Columbia over the period from 1977 through 2014 to evaluate what the impact on violent crime would be when a state adopted a right-to-carry law that allowed citizens to carry concealed weapons outside the home.


SIEGEL: And what did you find?


DONOHUE: The basic finding was that the net effect of allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns was an increase in violent crime, which essentially rose to about a 15 percent increase after 10 years of existence of the right-to-carry law.
 
Actually, Heinlein was a hard-right conservative from WWII and was not only viewed as defining modern sci-fi, but also as having defined right-wing sci-fi. This is evidenced in many of his novels such as Starship Troopers (and the movie) as but one example.

See: HEINLEIN'S RIGHT-WING UNIVERSE

I don't disagree, he was hard-right conservative in his time. However, when you consider that the labels "conservative" and "liberal" have almost completely swapped context in modern times, I think my position makes sense.
 
I don't disagree, he was hard-right conservative in his time. However, when you consider that the labels "conservative" and "liberal" have almost completely swapped context in modern times, I think my position makes sense.

Except nothing you say is rooted in fact. You quote a science fiction writer as a "source"....I mean that in itself loses credibility.
 
Again hyperbole. Nothing but you're own opinion rooted not in facts, but you're own experiences. This is what we call "anecdotal" and not fact.

CNN? Did you NOT SEE THE LINK from the Congressional Report I cited along with the article?

United States Government Accountability Office
Report to Congressional Requesters


Now here are facts:



DONOHUE: Yes, we were looking at data across all 50 states and the District of Columbia over the period from 1977 through 2014 to evaluate what the impact on violent crime would be when a state adopted a right-to-carry law that allowed citizens to carry concealed weapons outside the home.


SIEGEL: And what did you find?


DONOHUE: The basic finding was that the net effect of allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns was an increase in violent crime, which essentially rose to about a 15 percent increase after 10 years of existence of the right-to-carry law.

LOL. Dude. Just stop.

I literally just schooled you on biased new sources and you double down with a GAO report, NPR story, and a Stanford University Law professor?!

Those three sources rank below CNN in rabid anti-firearm bias.

Here, read this:


Educate yourself.
 
Except nothing you say is rooted in fact. You quote a science fiction writer as a "source"....I mean that in itself loses credibility.

???

I used a quote to illustrate my position.

I didn't cite him as a source for anything. If anything, his views are the opposite of mine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top