Why the gun is civilization.
This is a discussion on Why the gun is civilization. within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I try not to post too much from the blogs i read , but this is worth mention and a link imho . Marko hit ...
November 19th, 2007 09:33 PM
Why the gun is civilization.
I try not to post too much from the blogs i read , but this is worth mention and a link imho . Marko hit a home run on this issue with a well reasoned blog post .
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 gangbanger, 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 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 weightlifter. 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.
If you agreed with anything here please visit his blog , this post can be found at http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com...ilization.html and if i am not mistaken clicking on the banner at the top will take you to the home page and latest posts .
Make sure you get full value out of today , Do something worthwhile, because what you do today will cost you one day off the rest of your life .
We only begin to understand folks after we stop and think .
Criminals are looking for victims, not opponents.
November 19th, 2007 09:33 PM
November 19th, 2007 09:42 PM
Can't argue with what he says Bob - it's as we all know (I hope) simple logic.
The anti's of course might take issue - emotion clouds almost all sensible judgement. We see it all the time.
Chris - P95
NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.
"To own a gun and assume that you are armed
is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."
- a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.
November 19th, 2007 10:09 PM
Nice piece, and thanks for posting.
I know, I know, you are smarter than me..just ask you..
November 19th, 2007 10:17 PM
November 19th, 2007 11:21 PM
In short: an armed society is a polite society.
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. 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.
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
How does disarming
the number of victims?
Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos)
NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.
November 19th, 2007 11:44 PM
It's interesting that this has come up again, either I've read this before, or I'm having the biggest case of deja vu that I can imagine. Either way, I think that there could be a third way of 'convincing' someone to be like minded with you. Money. It doesn't always allow you to change someone's mind, but it can definitely help. And I'm not suggesting that we rely on buying off muggers by any means, I just think that to put arguments into the two categories of logic and force is somewhat limited.
November 20th, 2007 12:14 AM
Saw that in a Dillon catalog not too long ago. Good read.
November 20th, 2007 12:48 AM
i agree with the overall message you have. i know what you are getting at, and you are right.
however, just a couple of points of debate...
ethics and morality have been debated since debate was invented...and we really haven't found any universal source of morality that everyone can agree on. also, any definition of
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction,
"civilization" is pretty subjective. it could be argued that a moral and civilized society must contain violence.
also, there are many ways to manipulate and threaten people, without addressing force or reason. i'd go as far to say that these other methods are the most important that we deal with today with the government gaining more and more power.
War is not the ugliest of things. Worse is the decayed state of moral feeling which thinks nothing is worth a war. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which he cares for more than his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free. -J.S. Mill
November 20th, 2007 01:03 AM
Makes perfect sense to me, and I have difficulty with those who cannot except the logic...and there are many who don't...
Thanks for the post!
Stay armed...stay safe!
"That I cannot do."
"Give this to, uh, Clemenza. I want reliable people, people who aren't going to be carried away. After all we're not murderers in spite of what this undertaker thinks."
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member
November 20th, 2007 08:38 AM
Always a good read when it provokes well thought out discourse. Unfortunately, emotion doesn't usually lend itself to thoughtful discourse, and emotion is a big part of the current topic.
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
NRA Life Member
November 20th, 2007 09:03 AM
That is essentially a Libertarian perspective, and IMO hard to refute. In fact, the only reason Governments can force us to do things against our will, things which are not "inherently" illegal, such as murder, for example, is because Goverment has a monopoly on the use of force. By that I mean, if you believe ,again for example, that the government has no legal or moral right to impose certain regulations on business, or to take away your right to own a gun,the government can enforce those regulations because they have a a monopoly on the use of force.
"It does not do to leave a dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him."
J. R. R. Tolkien
November 20th, 2007 10:13 AM
Originally Posted by phaed
November 20th, 2007 10:22 AM
uh, not exactly dichotomous, unless you call Charity, or maybe you call it Love, a force. And this isn't a kissy sort of thing, it's the motivation for a soldier (sailor, airman, marine, coastie, cop, firefighter) to do something for a buddy or "civilian" and the sort of thing we didn't know we had in us when it comes to protecting family. We do what is unreasonable without coercion.
Originally Posted by Redneck Repairs
I offer this as the principal reason many of us carry; we have no reasson to believe we will ever be threatened, and no one makes us wear a weapon anymore, but we feel motivated to defend ourselves and our families.
November 20th, 2007 10:51 AM
I am sworn to protect the Constitution of the U.S.A. from all threats both foreign and domestic.
November 20th, 2007 01:02 PM
That's a good commentary. It calls to mind one of my favorite quotes: "All men are not created equal. Sam Colt made 'em that way."
"We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded!" Dick Winters
By Old School in forum General Firearm Discussion
Last Post: October 22nd, 2010, 10:42 PM
By Night Flight in forum Home (And Away From Home) Defense Discussion
Last Post: September 19th, 2010, 11:51 PM
By mikiec in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: June 11th, 2010, 04:43 PM
By sarg in forum General Firearm Discussion
Last Post: February 8th, 2009, 12:58 AM
By 762 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: August 1st, 2008, 12:14 PM