The Gun Is Civilization.

[Guest guest]

 

 

 

"The Gun Is Civilization"

 

Interesting take and one you don't hear much. . . . . .

As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against the Chicago gun ban, I offer this letter (written by a Marine) that places the proper perspective on what the gun means to a civilized society.

 

Please read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph.

 

 

 

RF

 

 

 

 

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. C audill USM C (Ret)

 

So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

[Guest guest]

The Major is correct.

Don't trust myself to comment any more than that.

Just read it and come to your own conclusions. ~B

 

On 4/24/2010 8:10 PM, BSPMerced wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

"The

Gun Is Civilization"

 

Interesting take

and one you don't hear much. . . . . .

As the Supreme

Court hears arguments for and against the Chicago gun ban, I offer this

letter (written by a Marine) that places the proper perspective on

what the gun means to a civilized society.

 

Please read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention

to the last paragraph.

 

 

 

 

RF

 

 

 

 

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. C audill USM C

(Ret)

 

So the greatest

civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only

be persuaded, never forced.