1. The phrase "everyone is polite in a well-armed society" implies that people are only polite because they are afraid that if they piss off the other guy, he will retaliate with bullets. If you're saying that increased gun ownership does not increase the number of impulsive shootings, then why use this phrase at all as a talking point (I'm using a general 'you' here not philwelch specifically, seeing as he wasn't the one the used the phrase)? [ It kind of irks me that the phrase is a lead in to some discussion of how being pro-gun is good, but "if everyone in NYC was given a gun" is called a straw man. ]
2. Most of the pro-gun advocates that I've encountered (online) have used the "if everyone had a gun" hypothetical in their arguments at one point or another, so how is using that in a counter-argument a straw man?
3. One thing that came to mind is that if 'everyone has a gun' then you could shoot anyone and then try to justify it with self-defense (and probably have great success), "I thought that he had a gun," or, "he was reaching for his pants." It's one angle that I've never seen discussed.
1. I think you misunderstood what cookiecaper meant by this. He immediately clarified with, "If people know you're going to be armed, they're much more cautious about performing potentially threatening or violent behaviors." Which means that he's not counting on armed people to be impulsive at all--simply capable of self-defense.
No sane person would advocate the right to bear arms based upon the idea that people retaliate with bullets against literal impoliteness, and I think it's a bit of a straw man to suggest that's what's going on, especially when cookiecaper explicitly clarified that he meant something completely different.
2. It's a straw man because we're discussing the actual effects of not restricting gun ownership, which in practice result in about 40-60% of the population owning guns, not 100%. If you want to discuss some sort of universal conscription scheme in which every citizen is armed and trained by the state, that's a separate discussion.
"If everyone had a gun" is shorthand, though. In reality you only need maybe 25% of people to be armed before home invasions, for instance, become too dangerous to attempt.
3. This actually does seem to be a problem--not with private gun ownership, but with the police.
> This actually does seem to be a problem--not
> with private gun ownership, but with the police.
It's slightly different w/ the police. While I don't agree with the way they operate most of the time, there are more people gunning for police officers than your average citizen.
2. Most of the pro-gun advocates that I've encountered (online) have used the "if everyone had a gun" hypothetical in their arguments at one point or another, so how is using that in a counter-argument a straw man?
3. One thing that came to mind is that if 'everyone has a gun' then you could shoot anyone and then try to justify it with self-defense (and probably have great success), "I thought that he had a gun," or, "he was reaching for his pants." It's one angle that I've never seen discussed.