# Guns; metal detectors; and the future



## RVM45 (Feb 13, 2008)

.....One of my favorite scenes in SF, is in "Methusaleh's Children", when Lazarus Long pulls off his kilt and reveals his arsenal for the first time- a "Blaster"- whatever in hell that is- and a knife- presumably some sort of double-edged dagger.

.....Lots of old time SF featured armed dudes in space; or armed on a future Earth.

.....One thing the futurist in the '40s and '50s never foresaw was the almost universal use of metal detectors; and a huge groundswell of sentiment for Unilateral Personal Disarment that has the strength and screeching self-righteousness of a Cultish Jihad.

.....Maybe RAH'S "Blasters" didn't contain any metal. With no good way to keep "Blasters" out; why bother scanning for knives or projectile weapons?

.....Heinlein _MIGHT_ have rationalized it that way; but I doubt it. I think that he simply never foresaw how far the state would go to neuter it's citizens- at least not back when he was writing "Methuselah's Children".

.....This seems a crying shame to me. Being able to go armed; like being able to eat meat; go hunting and fishing; study martial arts; ride horseback; have pets- are all things that put us in touch with what we truly are.

.....A future where no one packs heat; seems like such a bland insipid future, that it would hardly be worth visiting- or writing about.

.....Nonethelees, it seems inevitable that when a society reaches a certain level of development; they start the disarment process. The US seems the only partial exception to this- and on a bad day, I fear we're only delaying the inevitable.

.....So y'all tell me- exactly what factors would we have imagine coming to bear on a society- a complex futuristic society; not a back-to-the-old-west homesteader's world- to make it "Gun friendly"?

.....RVM45


----------



## Steve Jordan (Feb 13, 2008)

RVM45 said:


> .....So y'all tell me- exactly what factors would we have imagine coming to bear on a society- a complex futuristic society; not a back-to-the-old-west homesteader's world- to make it "Gun friendly"?



Chaos: A complete reversion to lawlessness, or a complete breakdown of society, requiring citizens to arm themselves out of sheer self-defense.

Or...

A society that embraced a martial lifestyle along with formal fashion and display, to the extent that personal weapons become decoration (but in that case, would probably be rendered inoperable in most situations).

Hmm... chaotic lawlessness or conspicuous decoration... _ehh_.  Pass.


----------



## RVM45 (Feb 13, 2008)

.....But then for an opposing viewpoint- read "The Probability Broach"- Free; online- by L. Neil Smith

Big Head Press - Thoughtful Stories, Graphic Novels Online And In Print - The Probability Broach: The Graphic Novel, by L. Neil Smith and Scott Bieser

.....RVM45


----------



## Steve Jordan (Feb 13, 2008)

I'll pass on libertarianism, too.


----------



## chrispenycate (Feb 14, 2008)

As a european, I've never been part of the firearm culture – I'd never even seen a policeman with a gun before I was nine.
On the other hand, where I live now every male citizen is part of the army, has to do his military revision every couple of years and has his rifle and ten rounds of ammunition at home.
If the Luxembourgois invade, they'll have problems.
Other reasons for arming bears.
A planet whose native lifeforms had but up a valliant resistance at being replaced might maintain a tradition of armed households long after the danger was passed. A multi-ethnic society could lack trust between its branches, and each be armed for self protection (thus, evidently, increasing the tension against which they are supposed to be protecting – but who has accused mankind of being rational)
Heinlein, obviously believed in an armed society across practically his entire oeuvre, particularly in "Beyond this horizon" where he explains the rationale, and more recently Michael Z. Williamson has written in the same vein (Freehold) but I don't know how much of this is hangover from pioneering days (mind you, traditions can continue centuries after their original function is past, proudly dusted down and exhibited, but we have neverthless accepted that swords are inconvenient in the subway)
I personally suspect that personal weaponry in a developed society will be an evolutionary remenant, like the appendix, but that doesn't make it improbable, let alone mpossible,
And I think a blaster is a focussed plasma weapon, short range and capable of burning through unshielded doors, as well as anything living in front of it.
ie., unless you're very skilled with it, very dangerous to all around you (and you, yourself).


----------



## Steve Jordan (Feb 14, 2008)

RVM45 said:


> .....This seems a crying shame to me. Being able to go armed; like being able to eat meat; go hunting and fishing; study martial arts; ride horseback; have pets- are all things that put us in touch with what we truly are.



I can see how proving your physical and mental prowess or getting in touch with animals can put you in touch with what you are.  But shooting a gun doesn't equate to that... it's essentially a tool, a technological extravagance, like owning a car.  

And gun dependence can suggest that someone who uses a gun is somehow diminished once they no longer have that gun.  I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want others to think that, without a gun in my hand, I'm less of a man... anymore than I'd want to think that of myself.

So, as a prerequisite of a future society that espouses guns, I could suggest: Personal insecurities.

The other thing about guns is their unfortunate tendency to be directed at other people, justifiably or otherwise.  A society needs to deal with this, either by strictly limiting the use of guns, or by deciding it will not overly worry about the "accidents" that happen when they are around.  

If the former is in effect, a societal prerequisite to a gun-toting society would be: Severe regulation and control over firearms' use and effectiveness.  If the latter is in effect, the societal prerequisite would be: Callousness.  Since the former attitude would probably preclude the wearing of firearms in public, the latter would be more likely.

I know... all negative points concerning firearms... but all points that deserve to be honestly considered.


----------



## brsrkrkomdy (Feb 14, 2008)

*For me, guns are merely tools to be used for survival, provided one knows how to use it and wouldn't hesitate to do so.  Bluff only works if your opponant believes it.  Total disarmament, in my humble opinion, is suicide.*

*That being said, just keep in mind the types of guns and their limits.  As Dirty Harry would say: Man's got to know his limitations.  When it comes to bullets, it's easy to waste ammo.  When it comes to lasers and other plasma type energy weapons, how much battery power you have left depending on what kind, alkaloid or otherwise?  You fire in short bursts or long sustainable firing?  Laser blasters may look good in Star Wars and Star Trek but let's get serious.  How about the electromagnetic pulse guns?  It's just gotten started at the military right now.*

*And while we're on the subject of self defense, I don't think bladed weapons, long or short, are going out of fashion anytime soon.  Blaster goes dead and guns are out of ammo, what then?*

*A peaceful utopia?  I doubt that seriously.  We're gonna end up getting bored.*


----------



## Steve Jordan (Feb 15, 2008)

brsrkrkomdy said:


> A peaceful utopia?  I doubt that seriously.  We're gonna end up getting bored.



In a recent poll, "bored" beat "dead" in 10 out of 10 living respondents.


----------



## Delvo (Feb 15, 2008)

RVM45 said:


> ...it seems inevitable that when a society reaches a certain level of development; they start the disarment process... exactly what factors would we have imagine coming to bear on a society- a complex futuristic society; not a back-to-the-old-west homesteader's world- to make it "Gun friendly"?


Perceived threat to use them against. That's all.

(The other main justification in the past and present is hunting for food, but the kind of society you propose has no such need.)


----------



## RVM45 (Feb 16, 2008)

.....Not to argue- but no one sees any possibility of a nonviolent future; where nonetheless, people revere the Way of The Warrior; and personal weapons? Unlikely- sure, but inconcievable?

.....If one has to choose, far better to live in a dangerous society, where one may freely go armed; than to live in a safe society where one may not go armed.

.....RVM45


----------



## Sire Of Dragons (Feb 17, 2008)

For every good person in this world, there are a thousand bad ones who will not just sit down and take a day off.

No invention has been untainted from being used for an evil cause.

Unfortunately, nothing we do or whatever faith we live by is going to change, stop or slow down the inevitable.

We cannot even control our own damn country and yet we are expected to make a difference in other ones. Don't even get me started on our governments! 

I actually like these post apocalyptic movies. It would be a hell of a lot easier to find some place out in the middle of nowhere and no one will be around to bother you. Assuming you survive the apocalypse


----------



## dustinzgirl (Feb 17, 2008)

I don't think its just SF/F, I mean throughout history man has been armed. Ever see a caveman without a spear? Its in our nature to protect ourselves against perceived threats. So, I don't really think a future without weapons would occur unless humans suddenly became docile creatures. Like lemurs or something. And to that point, nobody can have my gun or rifles.


----------



## Steve Jordan (Feb 20, 2008)

RVM45 said:


> .....If one has to choose, far better to live in a dangerous society, where one may freely go armed; than to live in a safe society where one may not go armed.



Sorry, I disagree.  If it's a society, it's better if it's a safe one.  The whole point of society is for people to work together, among other reasons, to minimize the danger to individuals and groups.

This is not to say that people can't defend themselves, and in times of war or other violence, can take up arms to defend themselves.  Societies are also organized in order to organize defense against one's enemies, and in the best-developed societies, warriors take that job while unarmed civilians stay home.  

Advanced societies understand that there should be no need for its citizens to be armed, and the most advanced societies have largely gone unarmed, except for soldiers (and excluding hunters).  So, unless you're in the army, or your diet regularly includes venison, you don't need a gun.

The _desire_ for danger is simply a throwback to a primitive psychological desire to prove one's worth through aggression.  Wearing arms as ornamentation is simply an attempt to display your prowess to others.  

Try a Porche.  Or put a sock down your drawers.  Accomplishes the same thing.


----------

