Why The Gun Is Civilization

[hkennc]

http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/

My first thread... I'm so proud.

I got this blog in an email a few years back and it was originally attributed to someone who wasn't the actual author. In fact, the alledged author didn't even exist, as far as I could learn searching the Net.

IMHO, this is one of the best, and shortest, reads on anti-gun control that I've seen. I'd like to have cut and pasted the article but it is copyrighted and not sure how to go about that.

On another note, those of you from Baton Rouge and listen to talk radio may remember Pat Simon on WJBO back in the 90's. His program came on before Rush Limbaugh. I tracked him down recently, looking for some information, and learned that he is still active in the National Guard and is being deployed to Iraq in the near future. So I'd ask those that are so inclined to keep him in your prayers. The guy was a good, conservative element on local radio.

 

[Hitman]

Just had to

this...

Enjoy for you noobs that have never seen it

 

[Emperor]

Page doesn't exist!

 

[Hitman]

fixed his link

 

[Emperor]

No link needed!

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.

 

[moe24]

Good read

 

[cheese]

I haven't seen that, thanks for posting.

 

[Cochise]

That was extremely well written. Thanks for sharing this.

 

[USMC-Deano]

Out-freaking-STANDING! Very well written, well thought out, well put together. Excellent.

 

[jimdana1942]

That's a great read. But great reading will persuade no one that cannot comprehend. Sometimes, maybe starting back in the 60's, schools lost the art of teaching reading comprehension. Many can read but very few can comprehend reason. Far too many cannot even speak using proper grammar. Proper grammar goes along with reading comprehension. If you cannot speak the proper words in their proper context then how in the world are others supposed to understand you?

In other words, you cannot try to reason with one who does not comprehend reason (common sense).

 

[USMC-Deano]

That's a great read. But great reading will persuade no one that cannot comprehend. Sometimes, maybe starting back in the 60's, schools lost the art of teaching reading comprehension. Many can read but very few can comprehend reason. Far too many cannot even speak using proper grammar. Proper grammar goes along with reading comprehension. If you cannot speak the proper words in their proper context then how in the world are others supposed to understand you?

In other words, you cannot try to reason with one who does not comprehend reason (common sense).

Sooo, what you're saying is someone should translate this into broken English? Would it do any good?

 

[Yrdawg]

I don't think there is a language of reason for liberals..so there could never be translation

I remember reading this article years back but never knew who or what or where it went. I will copy it this time.

 

[Sin-ster]

My mom, of all people, got that in an e-mail a few weeks ago and sent it to me. She agreed that it was very well stated.

Theoretically, it's very sound and true. In practice... well, it's close enough.

 

[edrodhdfb]

Nice Find! If you click on his name you will find another post he has that makes great arguments for the cause. Under "The ethics of going armed." And on a different topic one post of a similar situation as the Trayvon case but in Alabama where public outrage is influencing the court system "Nancy Grace Syndrome."

 

[stormrider54]

Excellent Post!

 

[chad]

Very nice read, surprising no one ever commented when this guy first put it three years ago.

 

[Yrdawg]

On re reading, it says a lot to support the " Armed society is a polite society " bumper sticker

When I started carrying a gun I started to become more polite, 1) B/C I didn't want to get in a fight and have to meet the cops 2) B/C I started to realize the other guy might just be carrying as well.

Amazing how a level playing field makes both teams respectful.

While not always true, it's true more often than not so guns are a step in the right direction.


I DO NOT yet have my philosophy degree...waitin till I can spell it without spell check

 

[Booseman]

That is a very well written and makes complete sense, to people that have sense.

 

[Yrdawg]

Trying to pick a favorite line of thought to send to congress...I like this:

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.