Why The Gun In Civilization

[The Reaper]

Interesting commentary.

An armed society is a polite society.

TR


The Urban Grind
Why The Gun In 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 gay 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, because a firearm makes it easier for a [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 wouldn’t 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.

[cold1]

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 gay 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.

I always like the saying

"God created man, Samuel Colt made them equal"

I know that I am preaching to the choir

[incommin]

Why the gun?????

Seven to eight percent of any population commit 60 to 70 percent of the crimes.....they are the repeat offenders, the career criminals.

Two to three percent of any population are psychopaths and will gladly do bad things to people.....

The police are reactive and not proactive......

My reasons for being an armed citizen....

Jim

[nmap]

The tragedy at Virginia Tech illustrates the principle perfectly.

[Texian]

Originally Posted by incommin

Why the gun?????

Seven to eight percent of any population commit 60 to 70 percent of the crimes.....they are the repeat offenders, the career criminals.

Two to three percent of any population are psychopaths and will gladly do bad things to people.....

The police are reactive and not proactive......

My reasons for being an armed citizen....

Jim

Amen.

[Radar Rider]

A home invader that finds himself on the business end of of my .44 will NEVER invade my home again.

Any questions?

[lksteve]

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,

i would opine that weapons, in general, and guns, in particular, make civilization possible...

just brief digression...life in Mogadishu wasn't all that violent (which is to say it was violent enough) until a decision was made at echelons way above me to disarm the locals...it was dangerous having all these armed folk about, or so the powers that be (not me) thought...so some taxpayers' money was spent and we started buying back guns (along with printing some really spiffy propaganda leaflets)...the folks that had their hearts set on peace came by in numbers sufficient enough to make the grown-ups happy that we had a successful program and that soon one could walk down the streets of Mogoville unthreatened...we had a hold-out in the JPOTF, the guy that did the prayer calls for Radio Rajo...he was did news, weather and was the DJ for what little music was played...he opined that he carried his weapon for protection, but at some length was convinced by our battalion commander to give up his gun...

i was the lucky SOB that got to put what was left of his body in a garbage bag (figuratively speaking) and return his remains to his family...he was killed for the grocery bag of Somali currency he was paid for his gun...

if i'm lyin', i'm dyin...

[NousDefionsDoc]

There's a reason you don't hear a lot of horn honking or see a lot of road rage in Medellin.

[82ndtrooper]

Originally Posted by lksteve

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,

i would opine that weapons, in general, and guns, in particular, make civilization possible...

just brief digression...life in Mogadishu wasn't all that violent (which is to say it was violent enough) until a decision was made at echelons way above me to disarm the locals...it was dangerous having all these armed folk about, or so the powers that be (not me) thought...so some taxpayers' money was spent and we started buying back guns (along with printing some really spiffy propaganda leaflets)...the folks that had their hearts set on peace came by in numbers sufficient enough to make the grown-ups happy that we had a successful program and that soon one could walk down the streets of Mogoville unthreatened...we had a hold-out in the JPOTF, the guy that did the prayer calls for Radio Rajo...he was did news, weather and was the DJ for what little music was played...he opined that he carried his weapon for protection, but at some length was convinced by our battalion commander to give up his gun...

i was the lucky SOB that got to put what was left of his body in a garbage bag (figuratively speaking) and return his remains to his family...he was killed for the grocery bag of Somali currency he was paid for his gun...

if i'm lyin', i'm dyin...

Although I cannot speak for Somalia, I can speak for most "Amnesty" programs that have taken place in the U.S. Put simply..............they are poor programs refreshed over and over by simple minded politicians that lack a true understanding of the nature of the criminals and what our Marine in this article has brought to our attention. Persuasion and Force. While I agree with the article by our Marine I have to take one exception to the writing. It's an ideological writing that will never win a debate with any liberal democrat insistant on taking guns and amending the 2nd Amendment. "Amnesty Programs" have little if any real impact on reducing crime by offering money in exchange for a working firearm and allowing the criminal to walk out the door with a gift certicate to Wal Mar. here in Cincinnati they hailed the "Amnesty Program" as some sort of "Out of the box" thinking by our local mayor. We have yet to hear how many actual working firearms have been turned in during this program. I suspect that it was not worth mentioning since criminals with guns do not want to part with their tool of business.

The Brady Campaign against Violence has yet to provide any quantifiable study using data from any UCR or USDOJ statistics suggesting that mantras or slogans if you like, such as "More guns equal more crime" or "If you have a gun your more likely to use it" have any if little substance to their rantings. Try reading the Brady's front page of their website. You'll find it so dirty that you'll need a bath afterwords just feel like an American again. Much like taking a pill to get your blood pressure back to normal.

I refuse to debate with any liberal anti gun democrat. They will not listen to reason, they ignore any data that is not in line with agenda, and the debate generally ends with an insult that purports to call gun owners crazy "gun nuts" and that we are somehow of a lesser breed and lack intelligence. In fact, I believe that those of us with a carry concealed permit are of a more mature and responisble cross section of the populus. Those permit holders that I personally associate with are men and women that are gainfully employed, they are paying taxes, have family's, and rarely if ever engage in otherwise risky behaviors. I would go so far as to say that those carry concealed permit holders that I have had the privlege of friendship are more conciously aware of the the smaller crimes, such as speeding, a bit more than those that are not concealed carry permit holders. Most the opposite as I find these individuals notof the ilk to find themselves in a seedy bar late at night in a rather unimpressive area of town. Their in bed at night like most responsible adults.

"An armed society is a polite society" You bet it is ! As our Marine writes in the article, their is only two way's for a criminal and me to resolve his business transaction. Persuasion or force. If force is the chosen action, then I will deliver force as well with an equalizer. However, remember that the sheep of the liberal democratic ilk are still under the impression that rolling up in the corner of your own home and complying with the criminals demands is a better alternative to force ond force action. Personally I'm going to choose to stand my ground, as dictated in recent legislation here in Kentucky, and if necessary spill blood all over my tile floors or carpet in defense of my home and or others.

There's one problem with this writing. It too ideological and lacks the requisite data that will leave the anti gun proponent with out a proper response to your facts. I'd rather debate armed with facts from data such UCR's or USDOJ statistics to make points than anything ideological in nature. Winning a debate with someone of the Brady Compaign ilk will not go smooth without asking them to give quantifiable proof that "More guns equal more crime" Ask them to give your quantifiable data from any source to prove this mantra and they will start to squirm in their seats seeking a decent answer that will generally lead to an insult thus getting the debate into an escalated exchange of finger pointing. There useless and they support disarming you and me and allowing the evil to creep into our basements, our bedrooms and our bank accounts.

"On criminals will have guns" if guns are outlawed. This may be true, but the anti gun proponents do not get it ! Their agenda is not in any way, shape, or form to protect the public it is the larger agenda too disarm the public, to continure their agenda, and to have all of us under control.