GUN Why the gun is Civilization

Discussion in 'On Topic' started by attomica, Mar 14, 2009.

  1. attomica

    attomica Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2003
    Messages:
    7,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Nashville
    This is a pretty good essay about carrying.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    WHY 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 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.
     
  2. PC Principle

    PC Principle New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Messages:
    64,143
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good read. You should post it in the main forum.
     
  3. Skot281??

    Skot281?? New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Messages:
    7,329
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    All antis should read this. :bigthumb:
     
  4. TATEROTE

    TATEROTE OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 31, 2008
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
  5. idleprocess

    idleprocess Bring a dollar with you baby in the cold cold grou

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,678
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    "world-class" to the brim Dallas
    Seen this a number of times. A very concise essay on the subject that makes its points without insulting those who disagree like so many other pro-2A arguments.
     
  6. HorseDick

    HorseDick Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,586
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    FL
    Good shit A+
     
  7. Paul Revere

    Paul Revere OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 19, 2003
    Messages:
    38,926
    Likes Received:
    166
    Location:
    Cali-NO NFA-fornia
    forwarded to my parents :bigthumb:
     
  8. SnakeEater

    SnakeEater OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    8,371
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Burma
    good shit
     
  9. Calhoun Burns

    Calhoun Burns ...and the gunslinger followed.

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
  10. Paul Revere

    Paul Revere OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 19, 2003
    Messages:
    38,926
    Likes Received:
    166
    Location:
    Cali-NO NFA-fornia
    this is what my mom replied with:

     
  11. purebad

    purebad I don't need your approval, right?

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Messages:
    4,376
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Smyrna, GA
    Solution is simple: if she carried a gun, she wouldn't need to be concerned with his intentions, amirite?
     
  12. Slick26

    Slick26 Gun|Bike|Cigar|PS3|Beer |Whisky|Night Crew

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    47,998
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mini Soda
    She does have a point. To someone that doesn't carry and may not even like guns, someone walking down the street with gun visibly hanging off hip, they don't have the slightest clue as to what their intentions are... they may not even being carrying the gun legally.

    Now of course you could easily counter that argument with solid reason (we all know that): Why would someone openly carry a gun if they are not permitted to do so? Problem solved. If it were illegal for that person to carry that gun, but they wanted to do so anyway, they certainly would not leave it out in the open like that.

    But it does still leave the unsuspecting public wary and nervous... which is why I do not like open carry, legal or not. It's not right to put others into a panic just because you want to be a bad ass. I carry concealed ALL the time because, a.) I don't WANT anyone else to know I have a gun; and b.) I don't want to alarm anyone. That way I can go about my life and everyone else can go about their lives, and no one else needs to be the wiser.
     
  13. Joe_Cool

    Joe_Cool Never trust a woman or a government. Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Messages:
    299,205
    Likes Received:
    516
    Sorry, but it's none of anybody else's business what my intentions are. Your mom doesn't know what my intentions are if I DON'T have a gun, either. And even unarmed, I'm fairly sure I'm much more than a match for her. She's missing the point of the essay. If she had a gun, she wouldn't need to care what my intentions are, because she'd be capable of dealing with them on equal footing.
     
  14. James Hook

    James Hook Never trust a government that doesn't trust its ow

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    15,280
    Likes Received:
    0
    This paragraph is :bowdown:.
     
  15. Paul Revere

    Paul Revere OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 19, 2003
    Messages:
    38,926
    Likes Received:
    166
    Location:
    Cali-NO NFA-fornia
    True. I was planning on replying with something similar to this.
     

Share This Page