On page 147 of the Sci-fi novel, Beyond This Horizon, lies this quote, written over 60 years ago,

“… 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 gunfighting has a strong biological use. We do not have enough things to 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.”

I spotlight this quote because it has become the justification for many of gun rights activists across America and there is a certain amount of validity to it.

After all, why would I do harm to anyone if they could potentially cause me greater harm?

Fear of repercussions would make any rational person panic over the consequences of their actions, but this “armed society” rule does not apply to irrationals who aren’t worried about their wellbeing or the safety of others. Because of these outliers, the rule is invalid and does nothing but intensify anxiety felt by the average rational person. Their actions, despite the intent behind them, have the potential to be judged swiftly by another with violent means when everyone in the situation armed.

Anyone who has studied the works of Socrates or Plato know that the debate for what a “polite society” is would take an unreasonable amount of time, but I will spare you this lecture and say merely that a “polite society”, in this instance, is a society of mutually assured destruction. The citizenry are allowed a tentative peace, but while this peace is physical it is not mental. One could make the argument that we live in that anxiety-ridden society today and need the protection of firearms to fend off those who want to cause us harm. But this ignores the realities of social, economic, and racial inequality that continue to divide Americans morally. Muslims, LGBTQ peoples, Hispanics, Blacks, and women are all still being actively discriminated against and are disproportionately more susceptible to gun violence then any other demographic. So the question is who gets to be a part of this “polite society” and who sets the rules?

As a democratic society, we should all have a voice in what the “polite society” should constitute, but gun rights groups like the OCT (Open Carry Texas) have bullied their way into deciding that open carrying of firearms in the public sphere is necessary for personal safety. And who I am, a young unarmed woman, to tell them otherwise at the risk of my own personal safety? Does their right to be armed override my inherent right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Perhaps the polite society is unattainable, but if we achieve it through violent means it is not a peace that is sure to stay polite forever.