Thought of the day: Revisiting Heinlein

[unixronin]

Robert Anson Heinlein said, “An armed society is a polite society.”

This assertion has been widely disputed by many, and perhaps justly so.  Those who disagree raise such examples as Somalia, Zaire, Rwanda, or Ulster during the Troubles, none of which are what Heinlein would have considered “polite societies”.

The validity of this counter-argument cannot be disputed.  Their applicability is another matter; but I have realized that the fault of applicability lies in a failure to adequately specify the terms.

You see, the examples above — or any of many others, such as Cambodia or Kosovo — really are not what Heinlein had in mind.  In all the places we’ve named as counter-examples, a largely or completely unarmed population live, or lived, under the rule or threat of a much smaller minority of violent, heavily-armed, often homicidal thugs. The thugs, possessed of a nearly absolute monopoly on the use of lethal force, used it freely whenever the whim took them ... exactly the situation Heinlein was envisioning would not happen in an armed society.

But Heinlein made an important implicit assumption, which he felt was too obvious to need to be explicitly spelled out.  When one reads his writings, it’s clear that when he said “an armed society”, what he meant was “a uniformly armed society.”  And that one word makes all the difference.

You see, one violent thug — in Somalia, or Zaire, or wherever — with an automatic weapon can intimidate a crowd of forty or fifty unarmed people most of the time, because nobody wants to be among the first ten or a dozen who die before his weapon runs dry or he gets overpowered.  But if twenty, or ten, or five of those people are also armed ... well, that dramatically changed the odds, and not in the thug’s favor.  And the thug knows it.

That same armed thug, in a city full of unarmed people, can mug ten or a dozen people a day with impunity, and get away with it unless caught by the police.  As long as he chooses his times and places, and robs when the police aren’t there, he’s pretty safe.  But if one in ten of those people is armed, then roughly once per day he’s going to try to rob someone who’s armed, and the odds are good that within a few days at most, one of them is going to kill him.  That’s not nearly so enticing a prospect.

This is the crucial factor:  In a uniformly armed society, the violent thugs do not have the effective monopoly on force that makes their way of life sustainable.  And that’s what makes a society polite — when its violent thugs have to realize that they cannot live in it as violent thugs, but are going to have to either play by the rules, die, or find somewhere else to live.

So let’s slightly restate Heinlein:

“A uniformly armed society is a polite society.”

Comments

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

I disagree: I don’t think the uniformity of the armaments is the factor which distinguishes Switzerland from Somalia. I would argue that Heinlein’s Dictum is predicated on the existence of a civil society. If a civil society permits the free citizenry to be armed, it is almost a guarantee that civil society will be a polite society.

Heinlein’s Dictum is not an if–and–only–if relationship. If a society is armed, it will be polite. It says nothing about what disarmed societies, polite societies, or failed societies will be like.

I think Somalia can be discounted as a failed civil society.

Just my own two cents worth, of course. :)

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

And a very valid viewpoint it is, too. Far more than two cents' worth, IMHO.

Incidentally, I wasn't intending to imply an IFF relationship. And I agree, a failed society of pretty much any nature is likely to be hellish until and unless it puts itself back together.

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

This is the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction, write small. And, to be sure, MAD has worked over the last 65 years: since the surrender of Japan, no nation has used an atomic weapon. However, that has not meant the end of war.

If every single person were armed, I think you'd see much the same thing happen with interpersonal relations. Sure, thugs wouldn't threaten you with their guns when they know you might have a gun. But that wouldn't stop them from trying to rough you up or intimidate you with a knife. Thugs, after all, are not known for deep thinking and precise logical analysis. A whole lot of criminal action is the result of poor impulse control.

Even if they are actually thinking things through... What's to stop the thugs if they sense that a person may hesitate before drawing a weapon; if they notice that a woman is wearing a typical light outfit with no pockets and no place to hide a weapon; if they find a bunch of kids swimming; if they're trying to commit suicide by getting someone to shoot them; if they get the drop on you by surprise; if they're psycho spouses or ex-spouses?

My former sister-in-law was carrying a concealed weapon in her purse the day her psycho ex-husband came up from behind while she was getting an armload of groceries out of the back of her car, grabbed her, shoved a gun in her side, and tried to force her into his car. She screamed and resisted but couldn't reach her purse. Neighbors called the cops, there was a stand-off, and the psycho ex shot at Pegi. Psycho Ex was immediately shot in the head and killed, but that didn't save Pegi from being wounded.

My husband was shot in the chest by his psycho ex with his own service revolver while he was lying down, eyes closed, trying to get some sleep. Being armed didn't save him from being wounded, either.

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

When a country first acquires nuclear weapons it does so out of a very accurate perception that possession of nukes fundamentally changes it relationships with other powers. What nuclear weapons buy for a New Nuclear Power (NNP) is the fact that once the country in question has nuclear weapons, it cannot be beaten. It can be defeated, that is it can be prevented from achieving certain goals or stopped from following certain courses of action, but it cannot be beaten. It will never have enemy tanks moving down the streets of its capital, it will never have its national treasures looted and its citizens forced into servitude. The enemy will be destroyed by nuclear attack first. A potential enemy knows that so will not push the situation to the point where our NNP is on the verge of being beaten. In effect, the effect of acquiring nuclear weapons is that the owning country has set limits on any conflict in which it is involved. This is such an immensely attractive option that states find it irresistible.

Only later do they realize the problem. Nuclear weapons are so immensely destructive that they mean a country can be totally destroyed by their use. Although our NNP cannot be beaten by an enemy it can be destroyed by that enemy. Although a beaten country can pick itself up and recover, the chances of a country devastated by nuclear strikes doing the same are virtually non-existent. [This needs some elaboration. Given the likely scale and effects of a nuclear attack, its most unlikely that the everybody will be killed. There will be survivors and they will rebuild a society but it will have nothing in common with what was there before. So, to all intents and purposes, once a society initiates a nuclear exchange its gone forever]. Once this basic factor has been absorbed, the NNP makes a fundamental realization that will influence every move it makes from this point onwards. If it does nothing, its effectively invincible. If, however, it does something, there is a serious risk that it will initiate a chain of events that will eventually lead to a nuclear holocaust. The result of that terrifying realization is strategic paralysis.

Stuart Slade (http://homepage.mac.com/msb/163x/faqs/nuclear_warfare_101.html)

I agree with you wholeheartedly. That’s why I don’t subscribe to the (otherwise reasonable) argument Alaric puts forth. When you look at, say, Rwanda, you must reach an inescapable conclusion that people were absofuckinglutely insane, insane in a way that is totally alien to us in the comfortable West. Alaric’s argument is predicated on sane actors; I think that’s unfounded.

The politics of nuclear annihilation seem far more applicable to me.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

When you're dealing with insane actors, all bets are off. You can't plan for what they may do, and no laws will stop them from doing whatever they want to.

Ultimately, there's only any point in planning for the sane situations. Because you almost certainly cannot plan for the insane ones. Better to have a plan for some contingencies, than for none.

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

Lamentably true.

This is why I think Kim Jong–Il is the greatest threat to world security. There are two options: either the man is batshit insane and in possession of a small number of nukes, or he has successfully convinced the entire world into thinking the man is batshit insane and in possession of a small number of nukes.

Either way, there is no telling what he — or we — will do.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I don't know that I'd definitely put him on top, but he's definitely in the top three. It gets tough to keep track.

I agree, though — he's either totally batshit insane, or very good at faking it. I remain unconvinced that he actually has functioning, usable nukes.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

This is the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction, write small.

Actually, no, it isn't. It's the theory of looking out for your neighbor, and trusting your neighbor to look out for you. And the fact is, at least 999 times out of a thousand, that's a good bet.

If every single person were armed, I think you'd see much the same thing happen with interpersonal relations. Sure, thugs wouldn't threaten you with their guns when they know you might have a gun. But that wouldn't stop them from trying to rough you up or intimidate you with a knife.

You know the technical term for a mugger who brings a knife to a gun fight?

"Dead."

Even if they are actually thinking things through... What's to stop the thugs if they sense that a person may hesitate before drawing a weapon; if they notice that a woman is wearing a typical light outfit with no pockets and no place to hide a weapon; if they find a bunch of kids swimming;

This is where the looking out for your neighbor comes in. It doesn't need everybody to be armed. All it needs is for one or two people nearby to be armed. Two armed students apprehended and disarmed the shooter at Virginia Law School, for example. Not everybody on campus was armed. They didn't have to be. It only took two.

So you're a mugger. And you've got your eye on the little lady in the skin-hugging yellow dress. She surely doesn't have any place to hide a gun. But what about the big guy in the tropical shirt ten feet away? Is he armed? Will he let you get away with it? What about the guy in leathers who just parked his sportbike across the street? What about the guy in the sport jacket waiting at the bus stop?

This is how it works. Any one of them could be armed. Or all of them. Or none. Your mugger doesn't know. But if he guesses wrong, it may be the last mistake he ever makes.

Not everybody needs to be armed. It really only takes a small proportion. The ones who are armed protect the ones who aren't, just by being armed — because even if none of the people within eyesight of Ms. Yellow Dress is armed, our mugger can't know that. If he knows that any or all of them COULD be, then he also knows that at least one of them MIGHT be. And he can't afford to guess wrong too often.

Sure, there's always going to be the ones who are too strung out on drugs to even think about it. And some of the time, they're going to get lucky. But are they going to get less lucky if nobody's armed? Are the strung-out guys not going to be out there mugging people just because other thugs are out doing it too? Are there going to be less muggers on the street if they know it's safe for them to be out there?

You've told me before about Pegi and your husband. Purely aside from the difficulty of defending oneself under any circumstances while asleep or trying to sleep, what's the common word you used in both cases there?

"Psycho".

Psychos don't care whether it's legal. Even the President, surrounded by his secret service detail, can never be completely safe from one lone psycho. If there's one thing that gives Secret Service protection details the world over cold sweats and sleepless nights, it's the determined lone assassin who doesn't care about dying. Because a competent and determined lone assassin who doesn't care whether or not he survives the attack can ALWAYS get through somehow. ALWAYS. We have lost as few Presidents as we have because only three of our Presidents have ever been targeted by determined lone assassins who didn't care whether they survived, as long as they succeeded. Those three assassins were John Wilkes Booth, Leon Czolgosz, and Lee Harvey Oswald. All three of them got through, and all three of them killed their targets. Ronald Reagan survived his assassination attempt because John Hinckley was a bloody amateur with half a plan.

bah. STUPID 4300-character comment limit.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

What about the suicide-by-cop type? Look at the reports. They don't tend to pick police precincts or gun shops to go die in. They tend to want to take a lot of people with them, and they go places where they expect people to be unarmed. Schools. Churches. Shopping malls that ban weapons. There's been a number of studies lately that have found that "active killers" (the currently-in-vogue term) usually seek out places where they expect to find large numbers of unarmed victims.


I don't want to appear to devalue your personal experiences. But disarming everyone law-abiding won't make it better or make it happen less often. The UK is now, to all practical purposes, totally disarmed except for the police, the military, and some of the aristocracy; and one in four people in the UK becomes a victim of crime in any given year. That's not an improvement.

Being armed won't save everyone. It never will. But having some of the "good guys" armed makes everyone's chances a lot better. Because the "good guys" outnumber the psychos MANY to one.

You have two psycho stories in your life. How many good neighbors have you had in your life?

Re: bah. STUPID 4300-character comment limit.

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

I've had many good neighbors. I've never yet been in a situation where one of them has brandished a gun at a potential bad guy; at least, not that I know of.

It is absolutely true that brandishing a gun can make a somewhat sane, somewhat intelligent would-be mugger change his mind and go away.

It would be an incredible mistake, though, to assume that most criminals are even somewhat sane and/or somewhat intelligent.

From my experience as a volunteer in the Missouri state prison system, I have come to the conclusion that it is no coincidence that the explosive rise in the state prison population came hard on the heels of the closure of most of the state institutions for the mildly mentally retarded and non-certifiable mentally ill. Most of the guys I worked with were of below-average intelligence. Most of them had very poor impulse control. Most had problems with depression, bipolar disorder, schyzo-affective disorder, and/or severe personality disorders.

I can guarantee you that most of them didn't stop to think much about their risks before committing their crimes!

Re: bah. STUPID 4300-character comment limit.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

It would be an incredible mistake, though, to assume that most criminals are even somewhat sane and/or somewhat intelligent.

I agree it would be a mistake to assume they are highly so. There are many who aren't rocket scientists. There are few, though, who are sufficiently unintelligent not to understand when the balance of force is against them. In either case, though, it appears to me that the argument you are making is that law-abiding people should not be armed because some criminals will not be deterred by it. I have to point out that the criminals who are not deterred by your, or your neighbors', being armed are most certainly not going to be deterred by your being un-armed. It's somewhat like the analogy of insurance: not buying auto insurance will not keep you from getting in an accident. Neither will buying insurance, but at least if you have the insurance, you're covered. Or perhaps a better analogy: Owning a fire extinguisher won't keep you from having a fire, and neither will not owning one. But if you have an extinguisher, then if you have a small kitchen fire you have a good shot at putting it out right away, rather than having to wait for the fire department to arrive and hope it hasn't spread into the structure of the house by then.

Allowing law-abiding citizens to be armed is not a magic wand that will magically end all crime, as the gun control lobby would like everyone to believe gun-control is. It's a force equalizer which removes the monopoly on force from the violent thugs, and that makes it an effective deterrent even if only a small proportion of the population are armed. But neither being armed, nor being disarmed, will magically stop all crime, or even all violent crime; and the numbers say that crime is dramatically lower when at least the criminals bright enough to consider the fact know that some of their potential victims are armed, but don't know which ones.

It won't deter the psychos or the ones who are stoned out of their skulls, no. But if there does happen to be an armed citizen in the vicinity when it goes down, then even those stand a good chance of being at least stopped before they can kill or maim someone.

It's not an iron-clad guarantee. But what is? It is impossible to remove all risk from life, and frankly, even if it were possible, it very probably wouldn't be a good idea.

(Honestly, I sometimes think that even our existing efforts to protect people from every risk and liability under the sun have led to a generation of adult children with no self-reliance and no ability to judge risk or assess danger.)

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

Andrew Jackson was targeted by a schizophrenic who, at point blank range, drew two revolvers and fired into Jackson’s chest. Both rounds misfired. The anarchist turned and ran away; Jackson gave pursuit. Jackson’s security detail had to intervene to save the life of the would–be assassin from the President of the United States, who was beating him to death with a stick. (In a show of remarkable tolerance for the era, the would–be assassin was never prosecuted for his crime; even Jackson himself believed the would–be assassin to not bear responsibility for his actions.)

They don’t make ’em like Andy Jackson any more.

John Hinckley wasn’t just an amateur: he was schizophrenic and thoroughly disconnected from reality. Frankly, I’m surprised and impressed he had as much of a plan as he did. Had he been using a more effective weapon than a .22 revolver, Reagan would likely have died.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Point. I forgot to add that Hinckley was, at best, not in full possession of his faculties.

I've always found it oddly ironic that James Brady survived because the explosive bullet that hit him in the head exploded as it was supposed to, while Reagan survived because the bullet that hit him in the chest didn't.


I'd completely forgotten the Andrew Jackson incident. As someone elsewhere commented a month or so back, "He was a crazy mofo', but he was OUR crazy mofo'."

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

Argh. The mention of "anarchist" should be "schizophrenic." I don't know how that got in there; I was probably in my mind already moving to Hinckley. My sincere apologies to my anarchist friends.

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

only three of our Presidents have ever been targeted by determined lone assassins who didn't care whether they survived, as long as they succeeded.

Don't forget Charles Guiteau, the crazed assassin of President Garfield. Although Guiteau did care about survival -- he insisted that he planned to run for president himself -- he was completely and utterly psychotic. He shot Garfield apparently because he thought that this would improve his chances of becoming president, or at least ambassador to France. (Really.) His attempts to represent himself at his trial consisted of reciting long epic poems that he had written. Guiteau was hanged but really should have been found not guilty by reason of insanity instead.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

OK, I also forgot Guiteau. :)

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

Heh. Most people forget Guiteau. There's a good case to be made for saying that Guiteau didn't kill Garfield, his doctors did. Garfield's injuries were not as severe as Reagan's. What really killed him was the infection he contracted after several attempts to remove the bullet using bare fingers and unsterile instruments.

I want to live in a civil society

[dakiwiboid.livejournal.com]

not an armed one, thanks.

Re: I want to live in a civil society

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Why are you so certain they're mutually exclusive? In all the places I've lived, the ones where anyone without a criminal record could be armed were a damned sight more civil than the places where ONLY the people with criminal records were armed.

Re: I want to live in a civil society

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure the grandparent poster is arguing they are mutually exclusive; only the poster's preference for a civil and disarmed society as opposed to a civil and armed one.

In which case, I heartily recommend London. It's a very pleasant place and I've enjoyed myself each time I've been there. I have also always been glad each time to return to the States afterwards.

[lizzibabe.livejournal.com]

I agree with your argument.

[rob-thompson.livejournal.com]

A really good example, and I believe RAH had this in mind when he made the comment, was the Western USA post-Civil War and pre-WW1. That was a society that was generally armed and more or less, polite and civil. Stripping out the romanticism of the time, which can be difficult, the types of crime committed were either minor or major - there didn't seem to be much of an in between. I believe it was Louis L'Amour who made the point that small Western towns were not regularly overrun by gun-toting thugs because the populace themselves were armed and not afraid to take action. As for it being MAD writ small, I would respectfully disagree. MAD implies an equal standoff - equal capabilities, whereas the "polite" society didn't assume that. Quite the opposite. Being a good shot, maybe even the best shot, didn't absolve you from participating correctly. You were polite because, if nothing else, there's always going to be someone who's better than you. Unless of course you'll shoot an opponent wearing a brassard; which is a quick trip to the gallows. I think Alaric nailed it with the addition of uniformly armed society...then again, when RAH made the comments - the weapons restrictions currently in place in Canada and the US were unthinkable except in places like the USSR.

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

the Western USA post-Civil War and pre-WW1. That was a society that was generally armed and more or less, polite and civil.

I haven't found a good online source for hard data about 19th century crime rates, but sources such as this one (http://books.google.com/books?id=stByuqF51GsC&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=post+civil+war+crime+rate&source=bl&ots=AtAZKCb_Xu&sig=S6uKQkhXiKTNGkoVTtRGs-HbkV4&hl=en&ei=U8HeSbbUIM_fnQfvmqWvCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#PPA81,M1) speak of a sharp rise in violent crime following the Civil War.

Data kept by the US Bureau of Justice Statistics suggests that a dip in the crime rate at the turn of the last century was followed by an astounding rise in the years leading up to WWI. The homicide rate in 1916 was higher than it is today. (Graphically illustrated here (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm), numbers here (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/hmrttab.htm).)

Remember, not many Americans actually lived in those small Western towns. America was becoming increasingly urban. Gangs formed, such as the infamously violent Irish gangs of New York. In rural areas there were sheet-wearing gangs. Railroads gave thieves and con-men mobility.

I suspect that if we were able to cross-reference the numbers properly, violent crime rates would show much more of a correlation with demographics and economic indexes than anything else.

The majority of criminals are, and always have been, males roughly between the ages of 15 and 30. When there are many of them in comparison to the general population, and they don't have plenty of work to keep them busy, the crime rates go up.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Yup. Can't dispute any of that. I've heard a lot of the post-Civil War spike attributed to soldiers with nothing left to go home to.

And, frankly, I'm not going to be in the least surprised if crime rates start going up as this recession/depression deepens — which pretty much all the people who actually understand the problem say it's going to continue to do for a while yet before it gets better. Commercial real estate is as overleveraged as residential, and it hasn't even started to crash ... yet. But that domino is going to start going over any time now, as leases come due from businesses and companies that have gone under.

[rob-thompson.livejournal.com]

Thank you for posting the sources. Unfortunately, if you examine them, they're not quite what we need for this discussion. The statistics provided by the Department of Justice aren't broken out...there's no way of telling just where the incidents are happening. As for Dr. Markonnen's book - well, that too is rather suspect. He writes in the book that the spike in crime is due to the ex-Civil War soldiers returning to their homes, morally deranged by the military, unable to hold jobs, unable to operate outside the morally/ethically corrupt military. But...he then goes on to write a book saying that returning soldiers were salt of the earth, well-disciplined and looking only to resume their interrupted lives and move on - which is why they weren't criminals. Like many academics, he's trying to suck and blow at the same time. Doesn't work. I'm a Canadian, so our frontier experience is slightly different than yours and my study of the frontier has been more on the interaction between Canada/UK/US during time of American Revolution. I was offering an opinion, which I still stand by, that the armed Western frontier was generally a safer place for law abiding citizens than a place like New York or Boston of the time. Can I truly prove it...doubtful. I suspect there's a middle ground between my opinion and that of the people who want a disarmed citizenry - I just don't know how to find it.

[ttocs.livejournal.com]

two more words, "and trained".

It isn't just having arms, but knowing how to use them, and the results thereof.

There is a reason that people who grew up around weapons (of any sort) respect them, and don't have irrational fears or lack thereof...

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

A very sound point. In this regard, I think that raising people to be terrified of the very idea of weapons, and making training as unavailable and inaccessible as possible, is not a productive step.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

There is a further assumption being made, that the populace understands arms. Those who have seldom, or never, used a firearm have an irrational fear of what they can do. They envision everyone that posses such a device as an expert marksman capable of killing at distances usually far beyond the effective range of the weapon. As ignorance of firearms increases, the fear of them becomes overwhelming. As more and more restrictions are placed on possession, ignorance increases drastically. The ignorant do not want their ignorance cured.

Most criminals do not understand the weapons they use to commit crimes. They often lack the foresight and funds to practice with their weapon. (I exclude psychotics and killers, they are unpredictable and impossible to stop.)

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

There is a further assumption being made, that the populace understands arms. Those who have seldom, or never, used a firearm have an irrational fear of what they can do. They envision everyone that posses such a device as an expert marksman capable of killing at distances usually far beyond the effective range of the weapon. As ignorance of firearms increases, the fear of them becomes overwhelming. As more and more restrictions are placed on possession, ignorance increases drastically. The ignorant do not want their ignorance cured.

This is indeed true. Unfortunately, most of the information that most people get on the subject comes from mainstream media that, frankly, for the most part has a clear agenda to further their ignorance and to propagandize them against arms. This does not serve the public good; but the media is allowed to get away with it anyway.

Most criminals do not understand the weapons they use to commit crimes. They often lack the foresight and funds to practice with their weapon.

Indeed. Which is why most of them can't hit anything beyond a few yards' range anyway.

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

… most of them can’t hit anything beyond a few yards’ range anyway.

Very few people can, really. Look at the Amadou Diallo shooting, where he was engaged at point–blank range by very highly trained members of an elite firearms unit. 19 of 41 rounds fired hit. The literature is full of instances of well–trained people doing very poorly under real combat conditions. Regrettably, many shooters believe that engaging a target at sixteen meters is the same as engaging a target at two meters. The two skill sets are pretty different.

I rarely train (with pistols, at least) beyond seven yards. I believe that outside of seven yards, the best thing I can do is find cover and/or seek a way to disengage. Inside of seven yards, you’re effectively in a CQB situation and my number one priority is to kill the other poor bastard as quickly and efficiently as possible.

That said, I shoot at eight– and sixteen–meter targets — but for fun, not to train.