As usual, after every shooting, a discussion about the regulation of gun control begins. Mikhail Pozharsky took an interesting approach. Generally being a supporter of the liberalization of such control, he points out that both those who demand a ban on weapons in connection with shootings and those who demand their liberalization are based on an illusion of control. Namely, statists are under the illusion that the state can effectively protect against shootings, and liberals are equally convinced that armed citizens can protect themselves effectively; meanwhile, effective protection against shootings does not exist, people are simply afraid to admit that their lives depend on chance. He then provides statistics.
I have already promised to refrain from formulas here, and similarly, I do not want to get bogged down in the analysis of those very statistics. There are a number of grievances regarding them; as an example, I will provide a link to a post by Vladimir Popov; more can be found, but I will not delve into the depths.
The factor that seems most important to me is practically impossible to measure with statistics, because it is psychology. I already mentioned this yesterday in the context of the fact that weapons are a powerful stimulus for the development of mutual politeness; therefore, an increase in the armament of schoolchildren will lead to them having to curb their enthusiasm for bullying and other teenage antics, and this will also affect the frequency of mass shootings. To this, Mikhail replied that he does not understand where the myth about the politeness of armed people came from. Take the States, for example—no particular politeness is observed there, “fuck” every other word.
Yes, let’s take the States. It is clear that referring to the extremely low number of murders in the Wild West is banal; one can always counter that such ancient data is irrelevant. Let’s take modern America, specifically African Americans—who, from the perspective of the average person, are all thugs with guns and complete contempt for the law.
What have these guys contributed to world culture? Rap battles! In Russia, the art of profanity is primarily the art of humiliating a completely powerless subordinate. The boatswain’s tirade, warrant officers, and so on. To a lesser extent, it is an undirected complaint about a hard life. There, however, it is precisely a dialogue between equals, in which the virtuosity of the insult is valued, and victory is awarded for exactly that; and if someone loses their temper and pulls out a gun during a battle, well, that is, excuse me, bad form.
This is simply another example for you that any armed community will inevitably develop its own means of conflict de-escalation, whereas a forcibly disarmed one is more likely to invent sophisticated ways to spite others from the shadows.
