On Being Armed and Polite

An armed society, I hear, is a polite society. The Internet, in its various manifestations, has many Strong Opinions on this Heinlein quote; whether it is true and, if true, desirable, is questionable. (The correlation seems weak, at best, but I am only prodding lightly at this issue with a ten-foot pole, so I will not try to argue for or against.)

I do think it is interesting, though, that we seem to have borrowed other people's arms to enforce certain types of politeness. Even people who shudder at the thought of gun-toting vigilantism being used to prevent rudeness are quite happy to use coercive measures to enforce politeness, as long as it's well-organized. In our workplaces, we are far too civilized to resort to duels to avenge affronts to our honor; instead, when we feel that we've been unfairly or offensively treated, we whip out our lawyers. In countries with less speech protection than the U.S., writers who offend the religious or personal sensibilities of their compatriots may find themselves in front of tribunals designed to protect polite discourse.

I like guns, but I doubt the truth and desirability of gun-enforced politeness. I don't see a huge moral difference between forcing people to be polite using individual guns or by threatening them with coercive legal action, though. Pragmatically, of course, any sort of armed vigilantism is likely to be excessive or misplaced; in the case of politeness, though, shouldn't we question whether rudeness could ever merit armed robbery as a response? And if it couldn't, why should we be comfortable allowing civil suits or tribunals to enforce the same outcome?