silvergoldsmith
04-25-2008, 02:47 PM
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.
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.