gator
10-09-2007, 02:57 PM
i did not write this but wished i had i feel this way and thought i would pass it on.
gator
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, you have the choice of either convincing me via discussion
or argument, or to try to 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 with one another
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 possession
of personal arms, as paradoxical as that may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason to 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 single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken
homophobes with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength,
size, and/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 all be more civilized if every
gun was removed from society, because firearms make it easier for a [armed] mugger
to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are
disarmed, either by choice or by legislative fiat. It has no validity when most of
mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for
the automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's exactly the
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 guns make
confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result only in injury. This argument
is fallacious in several ways. Without guns, the confrontation is won by a
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 leveled. The
gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as 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 out 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 my carrying a gun is a civilized act.
gator
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, you have the choice of either convincing me via discussion
or argument, or to try to 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 with one another
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 possession
of personal arms, as paradoxical as that may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason to 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 single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken
homophobes with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength,
size, and/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 all be more civilized if every
gun was removed from society, because firearms make it easier for a [armed] mugger
to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are
disarmed, either by choice or by legislative fiat. It has no validity when most of
mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for
the automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's exactly the
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 guns make
confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result only in injury. This argument
is fallacious in several ways. Without guns, the confrontation is won by a
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 leveled. The
gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as 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 out 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 my carrying a gun is a civilized act.