"People 'still willing to torture'"

That link is the BBC's report of a new repetition of the famous Milgram Experiment (circa 1961), in which experimental subjects are tricked into thinking they are giving higher & higher voltage shocks to an unseen subject. This experiment was designed by Milgram to explore how & why such social events as the Holocaust can happen.

The original and the new experiment both show that 70% to 90% of the population will easily collaborate in social activities in which their actions hurt, injure, or even kill an unseen victim, when the harmful actions are encouraged by an 'authority figure' (the scientist managing the experiment), or, more candidly, by peer-pressure and the desire to please/participate.

Here is the the Google News thread for reports on the new experiment (and plenty of review on the original, too).

The public focus of the analysis of the experiment is always the ~80% who are willing to hurt others, under the influence of mere encouragement. However, what has always stood out about this experiment for myself, is that about 20% of the population is relatively impervious to the blandishments of 'authority' in questionable contexts, and remain capable of perceiving the ethical merits of situations, even when their peers promote folly.

In other words, about 20% are actually "independent", and remain capable of setting & adhering to their own coarse & principles, when all around them are 'going crazy'.

There are major implications of this experiment, pertaining to both the nature of contemporary armed citizens, and the reasons why America protected the right of private armament in the first place.

Highly recommended reading ... and reflection.

i have been a gun owner for over 4 years now and have had my permit for close to one. i thankfully have never had to pull or discharge my firearm for any reason except in the range. thank god. i carry my gun with me everywhere i go except work, i'm not allowed to by law i'm a teacher, therefore, i cant have it on school grounds nor in my car. other than that, it's on me, on my side or in a fanny pack. do i feel safer with my gun? you're damn right i do. the way things are nowadays people get robbed for the clothes off your back so why wouldnt i carry it anywhere and everywhere. do i want to shoot someone? hell no, it's something i hope i never have to do, but if me or anyone that i'm with is threatened or in a situation where i have to use it, you can bet your ass i will not hesitate. a gun is for personal use only. i'm not a vigilante, or a guardian angel for anyone. and i'm certainly not going to wait around for someone else to come to my rescue. if you read the laws carefully, law enforcement is not required to protect you as an individual but more as a society in general. would you want to have to wait those 10-20 or more minutes for someone to have to come to your aid or would you rather protect yourself and not risk your life or that of anyone around you. as far as carrying in national parks, i am totally for it. people say that it will be more of a reason to shoot and kill innocent wildlife or to scare hikers and people walking trails. i dont know but as a responsible gun owner, i know the laws and i have never nor will i ever use my handgun to scare or intimidate others, nor will i shoot anyone or anything innocent just for fun. that would make me a murderer and that i am not. my gun is for personal protection. if you look up or talk to park rangers the world over, they'll tell you just how much crimes are committed in national parks. rapes, murders, assaults. why should i have to fall victim to that if i'm a law abiding citizen who responsibly carries his firearm without harming anyone or anything.

While neither the U.S. Forest Service nor the National Park Service keeps precise statistics about crime on federally protected lands, officers and rangers say that crime appears to be on the rise in the backcountry. Between 2002 and 2007, there were 63 homicides in national parks, 240 rapes or attempted rapes, 309 robberies, 37 kidnappings and 1,277 aggravated assaults, according to National Park Service statistics.
The article can be found here:

Statistics of people harmed in national parks by crime or wildlife are not justification for carrying guns, sure. I carry a gun with me every day, everywhere I go. I don’t shoot people, or have any intention of shooting people. Most people wouldn’t guess that I have a gun. I don’t carry it because I’m going somewhere dangerous and I’ll need it, I carry it because I am responsible for my own safety.

If you think our Nat’l Parks are safe havens, free from crime and bastions of peace and harmony with nature, you obviously don’t get out much. Just ask Julianne Williams, Carole Sund, daughter Juli, Silvina Pelosso and Laura Winans. Oh wait, you can’t. They were murdered in a National Park!

carry responsibly

Ed's note: Carole Sund, her daughter Juli, and Juli's Argentian friend Silvina Pelosso were not killed in a national park, as has been incorrectly claimed in this comment and in blogs all over the Internet. The three murder victims had recently visited Yosemite National Park. We do not know of a crime statistics category that consists of "people who have recently visited national parks."

When the fact of the matter is that any object, including a human fist, can be used as a weapon with deadly force, a gun is just another option. The intent of both wild and domesticated animals, humans included, is what harms. Guns are not to be feared, the inhumane nature of some people is, how do you regulate that? Leave our guns and freedome alone.

It is not my desire to debate the sensitive second amendment, but it is important for me personally to communicate how much I would appreciate the choice to carry a weapon in a Federal or National State Park.

I am not a hunter, a NRA member nor ex-military or law enforcement. I am however, one who was raised to respect and use guns for target practice, etc. Respecting the taboo position of much of the country, my family and friends I repressed my desire to own any guns. This changed quickly after being attacked by a bear while camping with my unarmed family and being taunted by a large animal for hours. I have since made it a priority to always be armed while camping or hiking remotely and while at home my weapon is securely locked away. It confuses me however, that in New Mexico, I can legally carry a weapon on my hip - without a permit (aside from within a school or facility selling alcohol) but if I were to go hiking in the surrounding mountains that are known for mountain lion attacks and heavy black bear activity - it is illegal.

Yes, this should be open for debate and while laws should remain in place concerning hunting and or poaching I see little reason why Americans shouldn't have right to bear arms responsibly in this environment.

I live in Montana in the backyard of Glacier National Park. I go into the park 7 to 9 times a month durring hiking season and 2 to 3 times each month in the winter. I have hiked many trails and have seen lots of wildlife. I enjoy my time in the park and on the trails knowing that I am armed and can protect myself. I am a 115 lb woman who hikes alone. I fear that I could run into a bear that can and would disable me in a heartbeat, or a mountian lion that could stalk me and catch me totally off guard. The most fearsome beast in the woods is another hiker who would see me as a victim, easy prey. My desire to be out in the woods is greater than my fear and I have fortunately not had the need to expose my firearm. I will continue to carry it for protection and once the 2010 hiking season comes around not fear that I will get in legal trouble for my preference to support my constitutional right to protect myself. I am aware of my presence in the beautiful park that I love and cherish, the right to protect myself should not been seen as a problem to the environment. I am not in the woods for target practice nor do I intend to expose myself or wildlife to unnecessary and undo harm. If you have never hiked a trail that is frrequented by grizzly bears and sat on a ridge to see the sun splay the most amazing colors across the sky I cannot imagine you have any input on this discussion as you are not making a statement based on the inherent dangers of being in the wild.