Twisted Titan
4th December 2010, 10:48 PM
http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/
Oldie but Goodie ........
The Gun is Civilization
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one
another: reason or 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 grandmother 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 an 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. (As in Florida
and Texas where many citizens legally are.)
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 monopoly of force by outlawing honest
citizens from carrying them as in Chicago and New
York .
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 and get up and walk away. Most
beatings result in at least a minimal stay in a hospital.
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.
Oldie but Goodie ........
The Gun is Civilization
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one
another: reason or 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 grandmother 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 an 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. (As in Florida
and Texas where many citizens legally are.)
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 monopoly of force by outlawing honest
citizens from carrying them as in Chicago and New
York .
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 and get up and walk away. Most
beatings result in at least a minimal stay in a hospital.
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.