Centerfield

But what does it say about a society that the state cannot guarantee order, so it requires an armed citizenry?

It says that human beings are neither insects nor robots, and that hive uniformity is not a feature found in hominid omnivores. "Order" is not programmed into our genes. We're apes, not ants. News flash--the only way a state can "guarantee order" is to so thoroughly oppress its people that they are incapable of being disorderly, too cowed to act up. The old Soviet Union was very orderly. But was it "civilized?"

While that seems to be the libertarian vision, a the risk of sounding liberal, or God forbid, European, it is a sign of an uncivilized society.

Is it? Define "civilized."

Is Israel "uncivilized?" In 1974 the PLO began a campaign of targeting schools and schoolchildren for terrorist attacks in Galilee. The Israeli response was to arm teachers. The attacks stopped. Does that make Israel "uncivilized?"

Is Europe "civilized?" Throughout most of Europe, gun ownership is (legally) difficult to impossible. This doesn't stop riots or terrorist attacks, or crimes against citizens. Europe has, in general, higher rates of crime than the United States. Australia has darn near banned private gun ownership--and has horrendous crime rates. Does "civilization" mean the duty of citizens to be victims in the name of "order?"

You say you don't want to argue the case on the merits. Well, how else can you make any valid argument at all, other than one of existential angst at not having already achieved some utopian ideal?

Israel is a special case, because it does in many repsects resemble a Wild West or frontier situation. Yes, Israelis typically walk around with big guns. But note, they don't carry guns to shoot down other Israelis. They carry guns to shoot non-Israelis who cross an until recently inadequately fenced border. Israel is an enclave of modern civilization within a pre-Renaissance civilization.

Western Europe, at least until recently, had quite low rates of violent crime in the post-War era. There has been a jump, and it may have something to do with immigration.

When we think of civiliztion, we think of societies which can support urban living, such as Europe post-1600 or so, and Greco-Roman and Chinese civilization. I don't think Europe during the feudal era would generally be classified as civilized.

Order is not the same thing as authoritarianism. It's not simply enforced by the state. In Switzerland, people are busybodies, and let you know if you are not following social rules. Having a freewheeling society is the United States is good, but when freedom becomes anarchy that must be remedied by high-tech feudalism, something is sick in our society. I am not saying that is the case now, but if we did find it necessary to arm teachers, that would indeed be evidence of a sick society that is fighting at a micro level what should be fought at a macro level.

When I say I don't want to argue this one on the "merits," it means I don't want to respond to some bogus cost-benefit analysis that "proves" that guns save lives. That's too narrow a focus. A society where everyone is armed, to protect themselves from each other (not border-crossers as in the case of Israel) is a sick society.

The "orderly Swiss" profited greatly from the Third Reich, and aided and abetted them. The "orderly Swiss" are also very well armed. My point is that "orderly" is not at all the same thing as "civilized," as in capable of large-scale urban living. The three "civilized" eras and areas you mention were all known for continual warfare and conquest imperialism and brutal oppression of either/and/or neighbors and the citizenry to maintain order. Is that what civilization is?

I don't have the crime figures for Europe in the 1960's as compared to the US, and I don't know that they were all that low. Just counting the post-war era would seem to be cheating, given the rest of the 20th century in Europe--or ANY preceding century--hardly "civilized." The US has had periods of low crime rates too. Does that mean we're only "civilized" when crime rates are low?

Not all Israelis are Jewish. Nor are only non-Israeli Palestinians involved in terrorist attacks. Terrorism has more than one face. I freely concede that their "neccessity" is moved more by terrorism than random rampaging, but what's the practical difference?

"Perhaps arming teachers can be justified on a public policy basis."

Or something like this might ensue:

Teacher accused of firing airsoft gun at student

i knew it was just a matter of time before someone advocated arming teachers.

Look, I can't speak to crime rates and such, but it seems to me there was a time in this country when crime was relatively low without people needing to be armed. Certainly in the 50s. I''m sure that Tully or someone else will come back with stats showing that crime was really higher than we think. But the point is people didn't feel like they had to be armed to be safe. I agree with Rick--it's pretty sad in the 21st century to say that the only way to be secure is for everyone to walk around with a piece. Regardless of how utopian it might be (and I don't think it is),I would prefer if we didn't have to do that. Most people in the US and western Europe don't walk around with guns and, for the most part, aren't afraid to go out on the streets.

The sadness is not in the actual stats, Marc--it's in the perceptions, which are not very related to the realities. Violence in schools (including shootings such as the Minnesota incident) has been steadily declining since the early '90's--and has always been with us. But media stories on school violence increased over the same period. Rick spoke of the "necessity" of arming teachers. It's something that is less "needed" today than a decade ago--it's the perception of need that has grown because of fear-mongering and agenda-pushing. (Yes, I'm saying that Lott's suggestion is somewhat moronic. It would probably work to some extent, but it's not really needed.)

Violent crime overall has also decreased in that period. Part of the reason is demographic (a fading "bulge" of young males) and part of it is the increased and enforced long-term sentencing of violent criminals. Part of it is better police techniques and technology. And part of it is the increased incidence of legal concealed carry. (The CC people want ALL the credit, of course.)

The perception of increased personal danger is both media-driven and politically issue-driven. Any objective look at the numbers would show that we're safer now than a decade ago, and that Europe has its own major crime problems. But the truth doesn't buy votes unless you can claim the credit. So we have both sides of the gun & culture debate poking our emotions to win converts. One side demonizes the guns, one lionizes them, and both condemn various parts of the culture. But both are playing on fear, not fact. Both push a romanticized past or romanticized "other culture" present. Both are somewhat full of what make pastures green.

What really annoyed me was the contention that Europe is somehow more "civilized" than America, simply because of a false view of public firearm dangers in America--and a false view of safety and order in "civilized" Europe. The same Europe that has killed many tens of millions in peremptory wars of conquest over the last century. Or that governments "guaranteeing order" was somehow a hallmark of "civilization." Benito Mussolini made the trains run on time. Stalin and Hitler insisted on orderly societies--and got them. I hear that North Korea and Mainland China have been pretty orderly for most of the last few decades. Castro says Cuba's a wonderfully orderly place.

For quick check on how wonderful European "civilization" is by the perceptions of those who live there, check out the suicide rates in Europe.

If that's "civilization," I'll pass.

Tully,

You are right; order isn't necessarily the end all and be all. Obviously, order at the expense of freedom isn't good. However, we generally expect governments to have the capability of maintaining some degree of order and stability; democracy is essentially impossible without it at least in the long run.

You are also right that it's the perception more than the reality that often drives policies. By almost all measures, American society today is much better than it was during the 50s yet people (and I include myself)perceive the 50s as some sort of idyll.

Tully beat me to the point of it being VERY important to make a distinction between perception and reality.

Suppose in 1975 you asked a catholic to assess the danger of their child being molested by a priest?

Contrast that with today. Arguably less danger now, but more fear.

I bet this is a fairly common phenomenon, of increasing fear despite decreasing threat. It's related to some extent to increased awareness both helping to mitigate and increasing worry.

And let not leave out mMedia fear-mongering. Scaring people to get ratings is good business. What's the worry of the week? Radon? Fatty breakfast sandwiches? Electric wires? Unqualified plastic surgeons?

Rick,

You might want to double-check your analogy. Although laws varied from place to place and from time to time... in Europe during the feudal era "knaves" (i.e. commoners) were NOT generaly allowed to legaly bear (most) arms (unless they were currently under levy). It was only the nobility and thier retainers that held the right to bear arms. This did not prevent, feudal european society from being rather violent.

It was incidently, this tradition that, in part, feuled the Founding Fathers attitudes about the bearing of arms being a fundemental right of citizens (i.e. bearing arms being the mark of a "free man".)