Thread: The Gun Is Civilization

"The Gun Is Civilization"

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and
force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of
either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under
threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two
categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.


In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact
through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social
interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the
personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.


When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use
reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your
threat or employment of force.


The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal
footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing
with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a
carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity
in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and
a defender.


There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad
force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more
civilized if all guns were removed from society. But, a firearm makes it
easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true
if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice
or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's
potential marks are armed.


People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the
young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a
civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a
successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force
monopoly .


Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that
otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in
several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the
physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.


People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute
lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out
of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal
force easier, works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the
stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.


The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an
octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply would
not work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and
easily employable.


When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but
because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I
cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid,
but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions
of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of
those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...And
that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act !!



By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)


how about that peeps?

I agree

Discuss

yup, that's pretty much my argument for having guns legal. And that bad people always get guns no matter what the law says, good people however only get them if it's allowed. So banning guns does in effect only empower the criminals as the text says. And if you want to know more about what I think about the subject, of course you do, I think that only people with a clean record should be able to buy them, obvisous maybe. And that certain types of weapons, like assault rifles, are superflous. Unless some one can give some good arguments for that.

Maybe instead of coming up with elaborate theories to support your opinions Americans should start to actually look at what works in other countries? Most of you are far too insular.

The fact is that your current approach is not working, and there are tried and tested ones that do.

Originally Posted by Mr. Swedish Guy

yup, that's pretty much my argument for having guns legal. And that bad people always get guns no matter what the law says, good people however only get them if it's allowed. So banning guns does in effect only empower the criminals as the text says. And if you want to know more about what I think about the subject, of course you do, I think that only people with a clean record should be able to buy them, obvisous maybe. And that certain types of weapons, like assault rifles, are superflous. Unless some one can give some good arguments for that.

I don't carry a gun, but I agree with some of the sentiment of the OP. Banning guns is not the answer- reasonable restrictions- no ex-felons, no people with dangerous mental conditions, are just that reasonable restrictions.

Originally Posted by RedRepublic

Maybe instead of coming up with elaborate theories to support your opinions Americans should start to actually look at what works in other countries? Most of you are far too insular.

The fact is that your current approach is not working, and there are tried and tested ones that do.

There are guns in the hands of criminals in every country regardless of it being legal or not, legalising gun ownership simply evens it out between criminals and good people. What is your preferred alternative by the way?

Originally Posted by RedRepublic

Maybe instead of coming up with elaborate theories to support your opinions Americans should start to actually look at what works in other countries? Most of you are far too insular.

The fact is that your current approach is not working, and there are tried and tested ones that do.

Yes, yes. ^^^ Red Repub, what are the tested and true ideas that will stop the violence and killing in dangerous parts of the world, like democrat contolled urban hellholes in Detroit, Newark, and Stockton, as well as Mexico, South Africa and a host of others? Are you, like so many other liberals here, so ashamed of your lenient ideas on punishing violent felons who use guns that you won't share them?

Originally Posted by Kokomojojo

"The Gun Is Civilization"

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and
force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of
either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under
threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two
categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.


In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact
through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social
interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the
personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.


When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use
reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your
threat or employment of force.


The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal
footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing
with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a
carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity
in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and
a defender.


There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad
force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more
civilized if all guns were removed from society. But, a firearm makes it
easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true
if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice
or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's
potential marks are armed.


People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the
young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a
civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a
successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force
monopoly .


Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that
otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in
several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the
physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.


People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute
lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out
of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal
force easier, works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the
stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.


The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an
octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply would
not work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and
easily employable.


When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but
because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I
cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid,
but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions
of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of
those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...And
that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act !!



By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)


how about that peeps?

I agree

Discuss

I agree, but to an extent. If everyone carried guns, it wouldn't actually get rid of attacks amongst people, it would probably just make them fewer and far bloodier.