quote:

"The society of the late 20th century America is perhaps the first in human history where most grown men do not routinely bear arms on their persons, and boys are not regularly raised from childhood to learn skill in the use of some kind of weapon, either for community or personal defense. Ours also happens to be one of the rudest and crudest societies in history, having jubilantly swept most of the etiquette of speech, table, dress, hospitality, regard for fairness, deference to authority, and the relations of male and female and child and elder under the fraying and filthy carpet of politically convenient illusions. With little fear of physical reprisal, Americans can be as loud, gross, disrespectful, pushy, and negligent as they please. If more people carried rapiers at their belts or revolvers on their hips it is a fair bet that you would be able to go to a movie and enjoy the dialogue from the screen without having to endure the small talk, family gossip, and assorted bodily noises that many theater audiences these days regularly emit."
Gunsite Gossip (Vol 1, No 3, 1 Jul 93)

Amen.



PC

He spoke the truth.

Very astute man.

I've read most issues of "Gunsite Gossip" and whatever the other name of his newsletter was.

Most issues have been on-line, but that was like 20 years ago now.

I agree with a lot of what he says, but not everything.

I about fell out of my chair when he admitted the Glock was a probably a good choice for LEO's. After all, he was a solid 1911 guy.

An armed society is a polite society.
~Robert A. Heinlein

for those interested in reading more from Cooper: http://www.molonlabe.net/Commentaries/

...and that was some years ago when Cooper said that. It’s even MORE true today.

When Cooper was alive, I used to read his musings in the back of one of the gun magazines. More times than not, I would come away thinking, "What the hell was that all about?" I guess it was just too deep for me.

quote:

Originally posted by TMats:

quote:

"...If more people carried rapiers at their belts or revolvers on their hips it is a fair bet that you would be able to go to a movie and enjoy the dialogue from the screen without having to endure the small talk, family gossip, and assorted bodily noises that many theater audiences these days regularly emit."
Gunsite Gossip (Vol 1, No 3, 1 Jul 93)

So is he saying that if we were still at a time where men wore rapiers or revolvers at their belts and someone at the movies (or wherever) disturbed ones ability to enjoy the performance, then the use of the rapier, revolver, etc. is called for?

quote:

Originally posted by mojojojo:
So is he saying that if we were still at a time where men wore rapiers or revolvers at their belts and someone at the movies (or wherever) disturbed ones ability to enjoy the performance, then the use of the rapier, revolver, etc. is called for?

Really?!? No, that’s not what he’s saying.

OK - then what is he saying? If not that, then it must be that because one is carrying a rapier/revolver/obvious weapon then one can be more assured of civility because of the fear/intimidation factor to someone who otherwise might be uncivil. I don't read it any other way than my original question or this.

quote:

An armed society is a polite society.
~Robert A. Heinlein

This is what he's saying.

I'm not trying to be argumentative - really I'm not. But WHY is an armed society a polite society? I completely agree with being armed in order to protect oneself or others, but I don't see that the purpose of being armed is to ensure politeness/civility, nor that being armed would result in people being more polite or civil (unless as a result of fear or intimidation because of the weapon).

The “purpose” of being armed is not to “ensure politeness/civility.” The “purpose” of being armed...well, I assume every member here has an adequate answer. Politeness and civility may be a byproduct of an armed society.

quote:

Originally posted by TMats:
The “purpose” of being armed is not to “ensure politeness/civility.” The “purpose” of being armed...well, I assume every member here has an adequate answer. Politeness and civility may be a byproduct of an armed society.

I agree that people who are armed probably have their own reasons to be. And yes, while everyone being armed may result in people being more civil and polite, being armed doesn't guarantee it.

If I'm obviously armed and someone gets in my face, tells me to fuck off, calls my mother and wife whores, etc. I'm in no way justified in employing my weapon. (but I would certainly be arrested for assault )

I have read some of Jeff Cooper's works and have a couple of his books (The Art of the Rifle being one of my favorites). But I don't understand what he is trying to say with talk of revolvers and rapiers and enjoying a movie because of it. As you said, politeness and civility may be a byproduct of everyone being armed, but for Cooper or Heinlein or someone else to say or imply that it would be so is incorrect IMHO.

quote:

Originally posted by mojojojo:
I'm not trying to be argumentative

You can't be argumentative then claim you're not being argumentative. If you have enough brain power to tie your shoes you know what that saying is implying. Either you are being intentionally obtuse or you are wearing slippers.

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:
"If you need it explained to ya........."

Yeah, yeah. I know. I should just shut up and take as gospel something that I question just because some revered "legend" like Jeff Cooper said it. Gotcha.

Yes. Fear of consequences for idiotic behavior. Fear of being called out if you slander someone. Fear of being known as a liar, a coward and dishonorable if you failed to answer an honorable challenge. Fear. That's what kept society polite. Fear of consequences for your actions. It tended to keep your actions more pure and focused, knowing ahead of time the cost. And that was a good thing. Some seem to think that drawing on someone who intentionally insulted you, knowing the possible penalty, was somehow bad. A challenge didn't necessarily require death to settle the argument, and seldom did, but the threat was always there. Hence, politeness.

TOUCHSTONE: As thus, sir: I did dislike the cut of a certain courtier’s beard. He sent me word if I said his beard was not cut well, he was in the mind it was. This is called “the retort courteous.” If I sent him word again it was not well cut, he would send me word he cut it to please himself. This is called “the quip modest.” If again it was not well cut, he disabled my judgment. This is called “the reply churlish.” If again it was not well cut, he would answer I spake not true. This is called “the reproof valiant.” If again it was not well cut, he would say I lie. This is called “the countercheck quarrelsome,” and so to “the lie circumstantial” and “the lie direct.”

JAQUES: And how oft did you say his beard was not well cut?

TOUCHSTONE: I durst go no further than the lie circumstantial, nor he durst not give me the lie direct, and so we measured swords and parted.

He was also talking about the discipline one learns when training in the martial arts (to include fighting skills with the rapier and the revolver). That discipline becomes a part of one's life.

But yes, he was saying that good manners become more natural when the consequences can be near-instantaneous.