There was a discussion in another thread about guns and legality of carrying these. I posted objections, without substantiating them. I think this would be the better place. A long time ago I read the book “On Aggression” by Konrad Lorentz, once a famous animal shrink, renowned for analysing the behaviour of ducks and geese. I’m talking about the mid 1970ties. His contention was that animals, who carry lethal weapons (fangs, tusks, horns, etc) also have build-in mental blocks that prevents them from killing members of their own species. When a wolf is beaten in a fight for the leadership of the packs, he offers his most vulnerable part to his victor, his neck. The winner could easily kill him now, but he won’t, he is mentally blocked to do that. Translated to human behaviour, this would be called chivalry. Other species that are not equipped with lethal weapons, don’t have that mental block. When ever there is a quarrel, the loser would not be in danger. He can simply run. If not, like two doves in a cage, the conqueror will kill the defeated, slowly and mercilessly, because he does not have that mental block and the loser cannot run. Humans are not naturally equipped with lethal weapons hence their mental block to kill fellow species members, is not that well developed. And we all know what some adrenaline and aggressive testosterone can do, when observing the soccer games, So carrying lethal weapons (guns) without the required mental block not to kill seems not to be a good idea. Thoughts? Scientific progress on this subject?