Found this on the Internet, thought you would all like to read it
——————- original thread below ——————-
“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.)
See you all after.
While I don't despite this fellow's intent, I think it's fair to say that the guy with the bigger gun is most likely the guy making the rules.
I would think ability would decide the level of the playing field as much. For example, the 75 year old retiree would very likely lose the gun fight vs the 19 year old gang banger alone on the fact that the 19 year old would more likely bring his gun to bear on target faster.
And that fellow with the gun vs could very well lose. He is likely to get one or two maybe even three...but at least one is gonna smack him around with that bat. And he'll likely be killed - either with his own gun or the bat.
Runs With Scissors
That's one side of the argument. Don't get me wrong - I'm a huge gun rights activist, but my stance has always been one of balanced views.
A gun in the hands of someone who interacts exclusively through force is dangerous. A 100-pound woman intent on stealing the clothes off your back for another hit of heroin can be on equal footing with a 220 pound man with cash on hand.
My belief is that guns by themselves are neither civilized or evil, it truly depends on who holds them. They must be legalized, but placed in the right hands. Restrict ownership, make people jump through meaningful hoops to possess guns, and filter out the ownership of guns based on criminal record. That's what sets apart the US from Canada. We have the right to own firearms, but we also have personal accountability and responsibility keeping us balanced... whereas in the US, there are many people who own guns who shouldn't.
That's one side of the argument. Don't get me wrong - I'm a huge gun rights activist, but my stance has always been one of balanced views.
A gun in the hands of someone who interacts exclusively through force is dangerous. A 100-pound woman intent on stealing the clothes off your back for another hit of heroin can be on equal footing with a 220 pound man with cash on hand.
My belief is that guns by themselves are neither civilized or evil, it truly depends on who holds them. They must be legalized, but placed in the right hands. Restrict ownership, make people jump through meaningful hoops to possess guns, and filter out the ownership of guns based on criminal record. That's what sets apart the US from Canada. We have the right to own firearms, but we also have personal accountability and responsibility keeping us balanced... whereas in the US, there are many people who own guns who shouldn't.
Agreed...Am a responsible gun owner, and had no issues crossing off a couple lines to legally...In end I have peace of mind from law and situations..well as legally as possible I suppose.
I agree. An untrained person who legally owns fire arms but is not adequately proficient in their use is as much of a liability to themselves and their loved ones as a person who would attack them with illegal arms. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone who was LEGALLY and MEDICALLY capable of owning a fire arm had one, and was proficient with them? Might make the criminals second guess their superiority and even out the playing field for the victims.
The 3 states with the strictest fire arms legislation: New York, Illinois, and California
The 3 states with the highest gun crime per capita: you guessed it, New York, Illinois, and california
Hey, I can dream can't I?
See you all after.
Persuasion in a civilized society is nothing more than organized violence. That applies not only to the military and government but to private property and the law.
The claim that a civilized society is also run by the many is also wrong. Actually, it's the other way round.
Carrying a gun is not a civilized act but an act of survival needed when civilization breaks down.
And what should concern those who see guns as a security blanket isn't just the fact that guns can be used both ways or that guns don't work against powerful armaments such as artillery, ground-attack aircraft, or even armored vehicles, but that ammo supply in a JIT system won't last.
Given that, it is very likely that given major crises the military and police will not bother to control the populace but will instead control supply depots containing not just ammo but also food, fuel, and medicine. With only two weeks' worth of food, fuel, ammo, and medicine in various towns and cities, citizens will likely turn on each other.