Why the Gun is Civilization

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.

RApballa wrote:If we could technically get rid of ALL guns (save military) in the US it would be great but its not possible because the most used ones are unlicensed.

“What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that the people preserve the spirit of resistance?”
Thomas Jefferson, 1787

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government."
Thomas Jefferson

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."
- Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, MN, campaigning
for the 1960 Democratic Presidential Nomination

To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding.
—Jeff Snyder, author American Handgunner, Second Amendment Foundation Off

While he brings up some good points, he is off base as to the totality of the issue. He makes it seem as if a gun WILL protect you from all the bad guys (and it is, after all, what he claims... only bigger and stronger people victimize others, which of course is not close to being true). The truth is that even if you have a gun, it is not always wise or even possible to USE it. Nor is a gun a superman cape, and it should never be used as one... either in action or in the mind of the poor misguided gun owner.

Simply put, a gun is a tool. And like any tool it can help, or hurt... in BOTH directions. And like a tool you have to know how to use it and when/when not to use it, and sadly just owning one or carrying one is NOT knowing how to use it nor give the person the automatic knowledge of when or when not to use it.

So while I am a HUGE supporter of the 2nd Amendment and for people to carry should they want/need to, I am also a realist. And the thing between our ears can protect us from danger far better (and more often) than a gun can. And far too often people seem to ignore that thing between our ears when they HAVE a gun and find themselves in situations where they should not have been in in the first place.

He is, of course, correct though about the gun's roll and potential. He is, of course, correct in how it does not reduce civilization but in fact protect it. But his other assertions are not complete and frankly insulting... as if only the weak need a gun because the strong will always victimize them. I don't know many who would look at me and think I was weak in any way, yet I don't victimize folks, and I certainly will not be victimized by a weaker person who has a "tool" to help them.

Again, the issue is far more complex than he presents. It is not just about the woman who is pushed around by the 220 lb man, nor the elderly being victimized by the young, nor a gay vs straight issue. It is far more than that. And anyone who does not realize that is bound to find themselves in a world of hurt at some point. His article is as dangerous as an "empowerment" movie that makes a small person think they can beat up a much larger person by virtue of taking a couple Karate classes... so they take a couple classes, and get their heads handed to them the very first time they try it.

Remember folks, the gun is a TOOL, but no more important than the tool we have between our ears.

Baby Ollie wrote:then this is for you los

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/weapons/toymaker-turned-weaponmaker[/quote[/url" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">]

FAIL,...no laser.

I mean like this:

[url=http://vimeo.com/8831057]http://vimeo.com/8831057