The gun is civilization
Don Fischer
6/29/08 12:40pm
I found this this morning on another hunting site I'm on and thought it was so good I'd post it over here.
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, 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.
By Maj. L.. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Semper Fi=============
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, 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.
By Maj. L.. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Semper Fi=============
1,507
It's a sad thing that it's becoming increasingly more difficult to keep yourself armed and protected. Wikipedia has a color coded map of the U.S. showing the open carry laws, and too many states dont allow open carry of a firearm, and even more allow open carry, but have special regulations. For example my co-worker retired from the California police force and he was telling me that California law says you can carry openly, but you cant have any bullets in the gun, or on your person while carrying. Even if your in a motor vehicle your ammunition must be kept in a place where you cannot quickly access it, or they consider the firearm to be loaded.
Unfortunately, with the liberal media we have, this will never be seen by the majority of the country. I will be applying for my CCW once I figure out where I'll be living in the very near future. I carried open in the military for the last few years and I feel naked without my sidearm now.
I never once had to draw it to convince someone to reason with me as I'm sure just the site of it compelled them that reason was the best road to follow from the get go. When I was carrying my 12ga in Iraq, that not only compelled reason but also awe as most Iraqis had never seen a hand carried weapon with that big of a bore.
The recent Supreme Court decision on the handgun ban in DC is ground breaking as many more suits will follow. Great news IMO but I'm sure the anti's are working overtime now to find another way to attack our 2nd Amendment rights.