Why The Gun is Civilization

762 · July 31st, 2008, 03:41 PM

the munchkin wrangler.: why the gun is civilization.

Quote:

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.

Captain Crunch · July 31st, 2008, 04:21 PM

The Gun As An Equalizer - From another forum

762 · July 31st, 2008, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Crunch

The Gun As An Equalizer - From another forum

i have brought shame upon myself and sullied my good name

Captain Crunch · July 31st, 2008, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 762

i have brought shame upon myself and sullied my good name

This, too, shall pass.

Bob The Great · August 1st, 2008, 12:46 AM

And yet, as many times as I have read this article, whenever I see it, I end up reading it through again. It's just that good, because it lays out exactly why I carry in clear simple language.

I don't care if it is a repost, thx for posting.

Kerbouchard · August 1st, 2008, 12:49 AM

I had not seen it before, so I appreciate the repost, also. Seems kind of 'Randian' in its terminology, and of course, it's 100% spot-on.

ExactlyMyPoint · August 1st, 2008, 01:12 AM

I don't know. Maybe demote him to 761.

Phillep Harding · August 1st, 2008, 01:25 AM

I've seen this described in sort of D&D terms as well. (I don't play, so this is probably all wrong from the game point of view.)

Say Granny has 5 life points and can do 1 life point damage bare handed, with one in six odds for effectiveness and 3 of 6 for alertness. Thug has 20 life points, can do 10 points damage bare handed, with four in six effectiveness.

Granny is dead meat in a barehanded brawl, and Thug has nothing to worry about, not even a bruise. All unarmed Grannies are a safe source of income for him.

Now, think of a gun as adding 20 damage points and increasing effectiveness by half the difference between what was and six, and give both a gun.

Armed Thug does not really gain anything over Armed Granny, but Armed Granny now has a decent chance to really hurt Thug.

Okay, so he beats this Armed Granny and steals enough for half his drug fix. He now has to tackle another Armed Granny, who has the same chance to beat him, and his effectiveness drops if he has been injured.

And he needs to tackle two more Armed Grannies every time he needs a fix.

How long is he going to survive?

sniper58 · August 1st, 2008, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerbouchard

I had not seen it before, so I appreciate the repost, also. Seems kind of 'Randian' in its terminology, and of course, it's 100% spot-on.

+1! I hadn't seen it either - Thanks!

matiki · August 1st, 2008, 12:49 PM

The only thing I don't like is the last line. It's patently illogical. Guns cannot remove force from the equation. They can balance it, but not remove it. I give it an A-.

July 31st, 2008, 04:21 PM	#2
Captain Crunch Senior Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Montana, The Treasure State Posts: 6,642	The Gun As An Equalizer - From another forum __________________ *"Just be nice...or I'LL SHOOT"!* Terry

August 1st, 2008, 12:46 AM	#5
Bob The Great Distinguished Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Slidell, LA Posts: 1,451	And yet, as many times as I have read this article, whenever I see it, I end up reading it through again. It's just that good, because it lays out exactly why I carry in clear simple language. I don't care if it is a repost, thx for posting. __________________ "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed." Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

August 1st, 2008, 12:49 AM	#6
Kerbouchard VIP Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 2,531	I had not seen it before, so I appreciate the repost, also. Seems kind of 'Randian' in its terminology, and of course, it's 100% spot-on. __________________ Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever. http://miscmusings.townhall.com/ Who is John Galt?

August 1st, 2008, 01:12 AM	#7
ExactlyMyPoint Distinguished Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 1,535	I don't know. Maybe demote him to 761. __________________ - Let me explain. No. There is not time. Let me summarize. - Doing my part to create a huge carbon footprint - Be still, and know that I am God; Psalms 46:10 - You are God and that's just the way it is; You Are God Alone sung by Phillips Craig And Dean

August 1st, 2008, 12:49 PM	#10
matiki Distinguished Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: N.W. Posts: 1,939	The only thing I don't like is the last line. It's patently illogical. Guns cannot remove force from the equation. They can balance it, but not remove it. I give it an A-. __________________ Each of us has a natural right - from God - to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. Frederic Bastiat, The Law

August 1st, 2008, 01:25 AM	#8
Phillep Harding Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Alaska Posts: 221	I've seen this described in sort of D&D terms as well. (I don't play, so this is probably all wrong from the game point of view.) Say Granny has 5 life points and can do 1 life point damage bare handed, with one in six odds for effectiveness and 3 of 6 for alertness. Thug has 20 life points, can do 10 points damage bare handed, with four in six effectiveness. Granny is dead meat in a barehanded brawl, and Thug has nothing to worry about, not even a bruise. All unarmed Grannies are a safe source of income for him. Now, think of a gun as adding 20 damage points and increasing effectiveness by half the difference between what was and six, and give both a gun. Armed Thug does not really gain anything over Armed Granny, but Armed Granny now has a decent chance to really hurt Thug. Okay, so he beats this Armed Granny and steals enough for half his drug fix. He now has to tackle another Armed Granny, who has the same chance to beat him, and his effectiveness drops if he has been injured. And he needs to tackle two more Armed Grannies every time he needs a fix. How long is he going to survive?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode