# Does the state have a monopoly on violence? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 21, 2025, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175 "2025-10-21T21:11:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2025, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/101 "2025-10-29T16:08:05Z")
And again, I consider it implausible that muggers could ever find it feasible to routinely resort to murder and thereby risk the penalties thereof. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2025, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/102 "2025-10-29T16:56:15Z")
People are already robbing other people in large numbers now. And people are already shooting people in large numbers now. I don’t see why it’s implausible that these two groups could experience a greater overlap. But this is really a side-issue to the main question. You argue that society has the ability to stop a crime wave by the court system (aided by immediate executions). If that’s the case, why do we need guns for personal defense against crime? ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2025, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/103 "2025-10-29T17:18:12Z")
I was arguing for the utility of personally owned firearms, and against the idea that an armed populace would be self-defeating because criminals would simply escalate to whatever degree necessary to keep on stealing, which I think is specious. Neither pure reliance on the state nor pure anarchist self-reliance are sufficient individually. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2025, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/104 "2025-10-29T17:40:48Z")
Why is the argument specious? Your first argument is that if more people were armed, they would be able to effectively resist criminals. My counter-argument is that if this is true and armed people are able to effectively resist criminals, then criminals would adapt by choosing not to confront armed people. They would instead shoot their victims pre-emptively and then rob dead people who can’t resist. Your second argument was that the court system would address this by enforcing the law and eliminating crime. So why do we need the guns? According to your argument, law enforcement and the court system can eliminate crime. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2025, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/105 "2025-10-29T19:46:29Z")
I simply find the contention that defending oneself against criminal aggression is somehow _counter-productive_ to be contemptible. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2025, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/106 "2025-10-29T19:50:25Z")
I suppose one could argue that it’s an example of a tragedy of the commons. Something individually beneficial that’s collectively harmful, or at least suboptimal. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2025, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/107 "2025-10-29T20:06:25Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > I simply find the contention that defending oneself against criminal aggression is somehow _counter-productive_ to be contemptible. I’m not making a moral judgement on the issue. I’m just pointing out a reason why it wouldn’t be effective. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2025, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/108 "2025-10-29T23:02:43Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > I simply find the contention that defending oneself against criminal aggression is somehow _counter-productive_ to be contemptible. Guns _don’t_ defend you from criminal aggression. They enable and encourage it. They both encourage the criminals to be armed and murderous, and enable those criminals to be better armed once they take _your_ gun. ---
**Author:** ![UDS1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e47774/32.png) [@UDS1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS1)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2025, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/109 "2025-10-30T00:50:55Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > I simply find the contention that defending oneself against criminal aggression is somehow _counter-productive_ to be contemptible. A factual claim like this can be true or false, but I don’t understand how it can be “contemptible”. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2025, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/110 "2025-10-30T02:02:55Z")
“Take” my gun? You mean I’ll be standing there like Barney Fife shaking and sweating and saying “D-d-don’t c-come any c-c-closer, I-I-I’ll shshoot!” as they walk up to me and snatch my gun out of my hand with their John Wick mad disarmament skillz? I don’t buy it. Since I’ve never either been the subject of armed robbery nor responded to same with a gun I can’t say from experience how it goes but if it ever happens I’ll let you know. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2025, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/111 "2025-10-30T02:49:46Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > “Take” my gun? You mean I’ll be standing there like Barney Fife shaking and sweating and saying “D-d-don’t c-come any c-c-closer, I-I-I’ll shshoot!” as they walk up to me and snatch my gun out of my hand with their John Wick mad disarmament skillz? I don’t buy it. Der Trihs described the criminal as “murderous”. So I’m guessing you won’t be saying or doing anything when they take your gun. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2025, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/112 "2025-10-30T10:53:32Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Der Trihs described the criminal as “murderous”. So I’m guessing you won’t be saying or doing anything when they take your gun. This. As has been said, the aggressor almost always wins in a gunfight. So such a murderous criminal would just kill their victim and take it off their corpse. As for non-murderous criminals? They’ll just enter your home while you are asleep or gone and take it then. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2025, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/113 "2025-10-30T15:28:35Z")
I think a key point is that many people mistakenly think of a gun as something defensive. But it’s not. A gun is not a bulletproof vest or a suit of armor or even an umbrella. A gun does not by its existence protect you from anything. A gun’s purpose is offensive. A gun is designed to let its user attack other people more effectively. A gun will not protect you from getting shot. A gun will allow you to shoot other people. But as I noted, some people just don’t see this. They feel that if they’re carrying a gun, that the gun is somehow defending them. Which can lead to tragic results when they get into a situation that reveals the difference between their belief and reality. The criminal understands what a gun is for. He’s looking to attack somebody and the gun will enable him to attack his victim more effectively. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2025, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/114 "2025-10-30T15:37:27Z")
By that logic nuclear weapons are completely useless for national defense because they don’t protect us from nuclear attack, they only let us attack someone else more effectively. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2025, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/115 "2025-10-30T16:06:51Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > By that logic nuclear weapons are completely useless for national defense because they don’t protect us from nuclear attack, they only let us attack someone else more effectively Basically, yes. A nuclear arsenal doesn’t defend you from a nuclear attack. It only lets you launch a nuclear counter-attack. But that doesn’t apply on the level of individuals carrying guns. Two guys are both carrying guns. The first guy walks up behind the second guy and shoots him in the back of the head. Does the second guy counter-attack by shooting the first guy? No, obviously not, he’s dead. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2025, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/116 "2025-10-30T16:09:24Z")
This is why a state monopoly on force works better than individuals trying to defend themselves. A criminal can’t kill the state the way he can kill an individual. The state will always be around after the crime and be able to act against the criminal. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2025, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/117 "2025-10-31T17:24:16Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I think a key point is that many people mistakenly think of a gun as something defensive. But it’s not. A gun is not a bulletproof vest or a suit of armor or even an umbrella. A gun does not by its existence protect you from anything. You’re using a very narrow definition of defense. A defense is anything designed to resist an attack. It can be a passive defense, like armor, or it can be an active defense, like punching someone in the face. In many states, the law is that an individual is permitted to use force, sometimes deadly force, in their own defense or in defense of a third party under particular circumstances. i.e. You can use a firearm defensively. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2025, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/118 "2025-10-31T23:01:34Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > You’re using a very narrow definition of defense. A defense is anything designed to resist an attack. It can be a passive defense, like armor, or it can be an active defense, like punching someone in the face. In many states, the law is that an individual is permitted to use force, sometimes deadly force, in their own defense or in defense of a third party under particular circumstances. i.e. You can use a firearm defensively. You skipped half of what I wrote. The whole idea of threatening to use a counter-attack as a defense is that your threat has to be credible. As I pointed out, this works for nations but it doesn’t generally work for individuals. If somebody does even a half-assed job of shooting you, then you won’t be in a position to shoot them back. Basing your defense on a policy of “If anybody kills me, I’ll kill them right back” is not a credible threat of counter-attack. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2025, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/119 "2025-11-01T01:01:46Z")
In mil-speak, having a bunch of armed citizens is generic deterrence, not specific deterrence. Any given bad guy, armed or not, has to consider the possibility his intended target is armed. Once battle is joined, the good guy’s arms, if any, aren’t a magic deflector shield. But if they cause the bad guy to not engage at all, they did something useful. Even if this particular good guy isn’t actually armed, but might’ve been. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2025, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/120 "2025-11-01T01:32:43Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > Any given bad guy, armed or not, has to consider the possibility his intended target is armed. > > Once battle is joined, the good guy’s arms, if any, aren’t a magic deflector shield. But if they cause the bad guy to not engage at all, they did something useful. > > Even if this particular good guy isn’t actually armed, but might’ve been. Do you feel the situation has changed since the last time we discussed this issue? Here’s what I pointed out: > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > My counter-argument is that if this is true and armed people are able to effectively resist criminals, then criminals would adapt by choosing not to confront armed people. They would instead shoot their victims pre-emptively and then rob dead people who can’t resist. I know you read this because you responded to it. So why are you bringing it up again as if it’s a new argument? Nothing’s changed. The basic point is that carrying a gun does not prevent you from getting shot. And getting shot generally prevents you from making any counter-attack. So the deterrent value of a gun is very low because it’s so easily overcome. You are not going to “join battle” with a criminal. Real life is not a movie or a tv show. A criminal is not going to conveniently put himself into a position where you can shoot him because it’s more dramatic that way. Criminals are not interested in fair play. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175.md?page=7)