"Why the gun is civilization."

[MCASgt New River 10,036]

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 conversation, 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.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

ASK YOURSELF THIS?? Then ask your friends, family, business associated, ect. Lets see who is REALLY on our side.

 

1. Would you allow me in your home, business, vehicle knowing I was carring a pistol?

 

2. Would you allow me around your children knowing I was carring?

 

3. Would you treat me any different with or without a sidearm?

 

4. Do you value your 2nd Amendment Rights?

 

5. Do you feel weapons/firearms make living safer?

 

6. Would you be willing to use a firearm to protect your life and those that you love should their or your life be threatened by serious bodily harm or death?

[TheHunterOfSkulls 230]

I am going to respectfully disagree on this one. Though the firearm is not the instrument of evil that the antis constantly claim it, it's not the ultimate defense against evil either. Someone having a gun does not prevent them from being dealt with by force, it just means that either their opponent must use force first or they must employ a greater level of force.

 

A firearm is not a force equalizer. A firearm is a force multiplier and nothing more, essentially a technically sophisticated lever. You put a little force in (trigger pull) you get a lot more force out. Firearms are capable of tilting a confrontation in the favor of either victim or perpetrator. Having one doesn't mean you can't be forced, it just changes the factors in a confrontation. Sometimes the bad guys have them too and they don't magically refuse to function because of the holder's ill intent. It may be easier for the attacker if they have a monopoly on force but lacking that monopoly means a shift in tactics not a cessation of violence.

 

A firearm by itself is a mute, lifeless machine and it does not care who uses it or for what purpose it is put to. Good people use them, bad people use them. A civilized society should allow its citizens the option to defend themselves using firearms but the presence of firearms does not guarantee a civilized society.

[chevyman097 2,579]

I dont get the feeling this is trying to imply that it simply makes one invincible, or to imply that one can not try to force you. Somone can still try to force you but it simply levels the playing field. Allows one to not be forced without the option of using force back.

 

 

[Klassy Kalashnikov 1,393]

I dont get the feeling this is trying to imply that it simply makes one invincible, or to imply that one can not try to force you. Somone can still try to force you but it simply levels the playing field. Allows one to not be forced without the option of using force back.

 

No, it specifically states: "When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force." and "The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced"

 

Which is an inherently flawed assumption, because carrying a gun makes one armed, not invincible. Plenty of people who carry guns, such armed civilians, soldiers, police, etc. are dealt with by force. Having a gun means you might not be able to be forced by someone unarmed, or with a screwdriver, or knife, or other improvised weapon as easily as one who is unarmed. But a person with a gun can, indeed, deal with an armed person by force. And even that is not exclusive. It is definitely possible for a person with a gun to be dealt with by someone unarmed, or with a crowbar, etc. just simply not as easily as if they were unarmed. Having a gun just ups the ante.

 

And to reiterate what Hunter said, "A firearm by itself is a mute, lifeless machine" and if one is not trained in the proper use of their machine, it really does not make them very well armed at all. You could give some total bozo a gun, what good is it if he doesn't know how to tell if it's loaded, or take the safety off. Just like how you could give me a shop full of thousands of dollars of tools and I still couldn't fix your car with them. And unfortunately, many recreational shooters are simply not the tactical warriors they might think they are, regardless of how many scary black rifles they own. Paper targets and milk jugs don't shoot back.

 

Of course, the OP is a Marine so it's safe to say he knows what to do with a scary black rifle.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Klassy Kalashnikov

[chevyman097 2,579]

I dont get the feeling this is trying to imply that it simply makes one invincible, or to imply that one can not try to force you. Somone can still try to force you but it simply levels the playing field. Allows one to not be forced without the option of using force back.

 

No, it specifically states: "When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force." and "The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced"

 

Which is an inherently flawed assumption, because carrying a gun makes one armed, not invincible. Plenty of people who carry guns, such armed civilians, soldiers, police, etc. are dealt with by force.

 

If by him being forced to use his weapon then yes you are correct. But he cannot be forced to do anything he does not want to do.

[Klassy Kalashnikov 1,393]

I dont get the feeling this is trying to imply that it simply makes one invincible, or to imply that one can not try to force you. Somone can still try to force you but it simply levels the playing field. Allows one to not be forced without the option of using force back.

 

No, it specifically states: "When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force." and "The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced"

 

Which is an inherently flawed assumption, because carrying a gun makes one armed, not invincible. Plenty of people who carry guns, such armed civilians, soldiers, police, etc. are dealt with by force.

 

If by him being forced to use his weapon then yes you are correct. But he cannot be forced to do anything he does not want to do.

 

So then how are armed criminals, police officers, civilians etc. taken prisoner or hostage or arrested then? How do thousands of soldiers end up in POW camps?

 

Plenty of armed people are forced to do things. If you're armed, and the other person is more armed, or has the jump on you, or a tactical or situational advantage of some sort, an armed individual can certainly be forced to do something, such as to drop their weapon, turn around, and put their hands on their head.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Klassy Kalashnikov

[chevyman097 2,579]

I dont get the feeling this is trying to imply that it simply makes one invincible, or to imply that one can not try to force you. Somone can still try to force you but it simply levels the playing field. Allows one to not be forced without the option of using force back.

 

No, it specifically states: "When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force." and "The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced"

 

Which is an inherently flawed assumption, because carrying a gun makes one armed, not invincible. Plenty of people who carry guns, such armed civilians, soldiers, police, etc. are dealt with by force.

 

If by him being forced to use his weapon then yes you are correct. But he cannot be forced to do anything he does not want to do.

 

So then how are armed criminals, police officers, civilians etc. taken prisoner or hostage or arrested then? How do thousands of soldiers end up in POW camps?

 

Plenty of armed people are forced to do things. If you're armed, and the other person is more armed, or has the jump on you, or a tactical or situational advantage of some sort, an armed individual can certainly be forced to do something.

 

I guess it all just depends on how deep you look into this one. I mean Im just reading this for what it is. Im not picking it apart and comparing it to war or police or some criminal that is going to come up and shoot you in the back of the head. I'm just reading it for what it is and the point he is trying to achieve.

 

But we all have our opinions and thats cool. I liked the read anyways

Edited January 10, 2010 by chevyman097

[volkov 318]

if you take this article literally your going to find flaws.. and lots of them

 

but it also makes some very good points. Good read.

[janusthephoenix 24]

if you take this article literally your going to find flaws.. and lots of them

 

but it also makes some very good points. Good read.

 

Agreed. The premise alone would provide me with nitpicky quibbling material for days if I was inclined, but I am not. I like New River's argument.

[Rockina 60]

if you take this article literally your going to find flaws.. and lots of them

 

but it also makes some very good points. Good read.

 

+1

[TheHunterOfSkulls 230]

I just find this sort of thing to be unrealistic claptrap that anyone with a few minutes' worth of time can shoot gaping holes in. It's like the whole "sheep/sheepdogs/wolves" thing elsewhere on the board; simplistic, cliched and self-congratulatory and while it may make those of us who own guns feel like a better grade of human those who don't (whether we admit it or not) it sure as hell doesn't help us look like anything other than people who see force as the ultimate solution to everything, as far as they're concerned. Is that a true picture? Obviously not. But we're not going to win anyone away from the antis by calling people sheep any more than they're going to make friends out of us by calling us nuts. We should be keeping it simple and logical and not go for the cheap emotional appeal that can be debunked with little effort, that's the antis' game.

 

Guns are tools. Civilized people are capable of using tools properly and responsibly and should be trusted to do so. Not everyone will of course, but not collectively punishing everyone for the misdeeds of a few is also a hallmark of a civilized society. Civilized people should be secure and safe and have the ability to exercise force if need be to remain secure and safe and no one else should be able to make that decision for them or take that decision away from them. Honestly, what better argument do we need? What's to be gained by staking our rights on arguments that only sound good to us? People can and will nitpick stuff like this and the more we get into stuff like speaking in absolutes or waxing nostalgic for times that never really existed, the more fodder it makes for the antis. This is just too damned important to spend all our time preaching to the choir. We get it, otherwise we wouldn't own guns. Other people who don't own guns probably don't get it but they're not going to want to get it if we pigeonhole them all as dumb, passive creatures who don't appreciate or understand their own freedom or are just inherently weaker than we are.

[MCASgt New River 10,036]

It's amazing how different people see different things and of those some of them will shread a simple post. I see why now noobs take sooo long to post...this place has gotten too negative.

 

I did not write this, it was send in an email. I agree with "most" of what is written and that part which I dont wasnt enough to get my panties in a knot and start a $h!t storm over, the rest was for entertainment purposes.

[gtnichols 51]

It raises a good question for me.

 

Would I let an armed dude into my house.

 

If I see a cruiser and a badge, yes I will,

If it is someone I don't know, there has to be some metric of trust I can rely on to determine weather or not this person is allowed in my place, around my family. and I don't trust anyone that is not direct family.

FWIW,..

[chevyman097 2,579]

It's amazing how different people see different things and of those some of them will shread a simple post. I see why now noobs take sooo long to post...this place has gotten too negative.

 

I did not write this, it was send in an email. I agree with "most" of what is written and that part which I dont wasnt enough to get my panties in a knot and start a $h!t storm over, the rest was for entertainment purposes.

 

I agree it seems that everyone is out to pick apart everything somone says in detail and analyze it. wtf are we really here to do that? Sorry but Im on earth. Ground control to moon!

[TheHunterOfSkulls 230]

I'm aware it wasn't yours. Not sure how long ago I first read it, but it still rings just as hollow now as it did then. I'm certainly not trying to make this an adversarial thing, just pointing out that all this stuff is ever going to do is play to those all ready sympathetic and alienate those who might be sympathetic if you gave 'em a decent chance. As far as "shredding" it, I take my rights pretty damn seriously. I'm always going to have a critical eye on anybody (obviously not you in this case but rather the original writer of the piece) who's going to take it upon themselves to speak for me on the issue and if they're going to speak about it in a fashion that's going to play right into the antis' agenda to paint us all as unbalanced bullies with a faulty grip on reality, I'm going to point out the mistakes they're making and how to avoid them. I don't think we need a pat on the head from our fellow gun owners. I don't think we need to convince ourselves that we're better or smarter for being gun owners when others are not. If thinking that way that makes me a noob, then I'm a noob. I think I owe it to every other gun owner out there to not act smug or superior about it when interacting with others who don't own guns. That is the absolute least I can do for my fellow gun owners; the more non-gun-owners who see gun owners as reasonable, rational people who don't have to resort to emotional appeals, scare tactics, pseudo-historical anecdotes or anything else that the antis have had in their playbook for decades, the less traction the antis get in our society and the better it's going to be for all of us in the future.

 

Seriously though, I meant it when I said respectfully disagreeing. I don't think you're a fool for reposting it or anything like that, I'm just trying to offer another perspective folks might want to consider and a criticism that's not on you at all but rather whoever originally wrote this. I'm sure they meant well, but I think they could've done a better job of it.

[chevyman097 2,579]

I'm aware it wasn't yours. Not sure how long ago I first read it, but it still rings just as hollow now as it did then. I'm certainly not trying to make this an adversarial thing, just pointing out that all this stuff is ever going to do is play to those all ready sympathetic and alienate those who might be sympathetic if you gave 'em a decent chance. As far as "shredding" it, I take my rights pretty damn seriously. I'm always going to have a critical eye on anybody (obviously not you in this case but rather the original writer of the piece) who's going to take it upon themselves to speak for me on the issue and if they're going to speak about it in a fashion that's going to play right into the antis' agenda to paint us all as unbalanced bullies with a faulty grip on reality, I'm going to point out the mistakes they're making and how to avoid them. I don't think we need a pat on the head from our fellow gun owners. I don't think we need to convince ourselves that we're better or smarter for being gun owners when others are not. If thinking that way that makes me a noob, then I'm a noob. I think I owe it to every other gun owner out there to not act smug or superior about it when interacting with others who don't own guns. That is the absolute least I can do for my fellow gun owners; the more non-gun-owners who see gun owners as reasonable, rational people who don't have to resort to emotional appeals, scare tactics, pseudo-historical anecdotes or anything else that the antis have had in their playbook for decades, the less traction the antis get in our society and the better it's going to be for all of us in the future.

 

Seriously though, I meant it when I said respectfully disagreeing. I don't think you're a fool for reposting it or anything like that, I'm just trying to offer another perspective folks might want to consider and a criticism that's not on you at all but rather whoever originally wrote this. I'm sure they meant well, but I think they could've done a better job of it.

 

 

With all due respect, if you do not like the way he is speaking up "for us" and you are such an expert on it, then why are you not doing it for "us".

 

It is much easier to be critical of somone else than to stand up and speak like you "want" them to.

Edited January 10, 2010 by chevyman097

[BpS12 512]

Imo, the article has many good points, but so too does Hunter, ie "Force Multiplier" not "Equallizer". Most anyone with a gun, is not going to stop a gang of thugs DETERMINED to do harm. Despite what you see in the movies. So if you(generally speaking) attack me, and I have a gun and you don't then we are not equal, I have the upper hand. However if you pull a gun, then we are equal(relatively speaking). And if you pull two guns or worse yet, your buddy pulls another gun. Then my "Equalizer" aint so equal is it.

 

Civilazation is not the gun itself, but the fact that the society allows its citizens the use of such "Force Multipiers". Today it is the gun, 1000yrs ago, it was the sword/axe/dagger/etc. The odd thing is, that if you look at history, it is usually those societies that consider themselves the "Height of Civilization" and all others "Barberous" that place the harshest strictures on it's citizens use of "FMs". Those considered "Barbarians" usually had the greater right to the use of "FMs". Though often there was some regulation and also a good deal of obligation to be armed.

 

I like the Barbarians better than those that would consider themselves the "Height of Civilization". Usually they're just facist in civilian garb.

 

Just my opinions,

Mikel

[TheHunterOfSkulls 230]

With all due respect, if you do not like the way he is speaking up "for us" and you are such an expert on it, then why are you not doing it for "us".

 

It is much easier to be critical of somone else than to stand up and speak like you "want" them to.

 

I'm not claiming any kind of expertise, but I will tell you that I am doing it all ready. 99% of the people I know are way left-of-center, if they've ever even thought about firearms ownership they've thought about it strictly in terms of firearms ownership being the sole province of reactionary right-wing conservatives, a sign of people insecure in their masculinity, a mark of someone who sits around the house all day waiting for an intruder to shoot or any number of other bullshit stereotypes. These are the people whose votes will be used to put our rights on the chopping block. So, they're the ones I talk to. I take every available opportunity to completely screw with their preconceptions and it probably doesn't hurt that I enjoy it. They can't just tune me out because I don't talk shit that's just going to reinforce the bullshit stereotypes and without those to fall back on, they have to actually think instead of making a snap judgment. A lot of the time, that's all people need is to be nudged out of their comfort zone and have to rely on themselves to form an opinion instead of having one spoon-fed to them. I'm not satisfied with who we've got on our side now. We need more people understanding what we're about, especially people who wouldn't normally listen because some folks on our side would rather piss them off or scare them than try to set them straight. So of course you're not going to see me doing it, you guys aren't the people who need it. You all ready get it, they don't, and they're sure as hell not going to get it from someone who's calling them sheep.

 

I don't want thanks or credit or a pat on the head for it, none of that is important. I'd much rather have people at least think about doing the same thing. Usually all it takes is a trip to the range and the realization that one, nobody there is a foaming-at-the-mouth crazy, two, it's not going to turn them into a foaming-at-the-mouth crazy and three, it's fun. The more of them figure that out, the more the antis are going to find their usual marks turning a deaf ear to them and the less their propaganda is going to able to spread. Just think about talking outside those all ready sympathetic and how to do it, that's all I'm saying. That's going to do a lot more for gun owners than if we behave like a mutual admiration society.

[TheHunterOfSkulls 230]

Civilazation is not the gun itself, but the fact that the society allows its citizens the use of such "Force Multipiers". Today it is the gun, 1000yrs ago, it was the sword/axe/dagger/etc. The odd thing is, that if you look at history, it is usually those societies that consider themselves the "Height of Civilization" and all others "Barberous" that place the harshest strictures on it's citizens use of "FMs". Those considered "Barbarians" usually had the greater right to the use of "FMs". Though often there was some regulation and also a good deal of obligation to be armed.

 

I like the Barbarians better than those that would consider themselves the "Height of Civilization". Usually they're just facist in civilian garb.

 

Just my opinions,

Mikel

 

And that's part of it too. "Civilized" societies like the Roman Empire, feudal Japan, et cetera, usually you find that monopoly on the use of force and a citizenry that's told by their rulers that they're not trustworthy (or just plain not worthy period) to be allowed the use of force in their own defense. It is in that kind of "civilization" you find the greatest abuse of the use of force and a populace that has little to no recourse against it. The gun isn't what makes people equal and it's not what makes them truly civilized, it's the other way around. A civilized and equality-minded society recognizes that its citizens have the right to the use of force in their own defense.

[chevyman097 2,579]

Its early and I havnt got my caffeine yet so I hope this comes out right.

 

I still think you are taking this too srs. I keep seeing these kinds of posts picked apart and criticized. Sure we can point out flaws in every speech. We can make it political what ever you want. Hey dont get me wrong, I agree the write up isnt perfect, am I going to point out the parts of it I disagree with? Nope. I will head to the political section of the forums if I want to have that kind of discussion. I can take out of this what I like comment on it and walk away with making it negative comments on why this guy is incorrect for this or that.

 

No speech/paper will be perfect. I'm sure if you stand up and give a speech or write us a paper on a topic we can all start a thread and pick it apart and tell you whats wrong or what we disagree with. Just throw it in the political section

 

Now back on topic. As for the questions at the end New River. I think if it was my home and I did not know you as a close friend or family member Id have to ask for you to leave your firearm in the vehicle or let me hold it for you. I just dont trust people.

 

 

[G O B 3,516]

if you take this article literally your going to find flaws.. and lots of them

 

but it also makes some very good points. Good read.

 

+1

 

+2

[GerryV 14]

 

Now back on topic. As for the questions at the end New River. I think if it was my home and I did not know you as a close friend or family member Id have to ask for you to leave your firearm in the vehicle or let me hold it for you. I just dont trust people.

 

 

This creates an interesting paradox as how do we convince the millions who don't own guns that it's ok for us to be armed when most of us wouldn't want an unfamiliar individual in our home with a firearm?

Edited January 10, 2010 by GerryV

[chevyman097 2,579]

Now back on topic. As for the questions at the end New River. I think if it was my home and I did not know you as a close friend or family member Id have to ask for you to leave your firearm in the vehicle or let me hold it for you. I just dont trust people.

 

 

This creates an interesting paradox as how do we convince the millions who don't own guns that it's ok for us to be armed when most of us wouldn't want an unfamiliar individual in our home with a firearm? Not nitpicking or trying to be a dick (too early for that yet), just expanding the discussion.

 

Because "I" do not know you, you may be a fine person. Other know you and would let you in their homes I'm sure. But as far as "me" no I dont know you and would not just let a stranger walk in my home armed. Does this mean I should say he cant walk the street armed. Nope that is not for me to decide.

 

Just look over what you said and ask youself how left does that really sound...

[GerryV 14]

Now back on topic. As for the questions at the end New River. I think if it was my home and I did not know you as a close friend or family member Id have to ask for you to leave your firearm in the vehicle or let me hold it for you. I just dont trust people.

 

 

This creates an interesting paradox as how do we convince the millions who don't own guns that it's ok for us to be armed when most of us wouldn't want an unfamiliar individual in our home with a firearm? Not nitpicking or trying to be a dick (too early for that yet), just expanding the discussion.

 

Because "I" do not know you, you may be a fine person. Other know you and would let you in their homes I'm sure. But as far as "me" no I dont know you and would not just let a stranger walk in my home armed. Does this mean I should say he cant walk the street armed. Nope that is not for me to decide.

 

Just look over what you said and ask youself how left does that really sound...

 

 

Since my home is my own private property I completely agree about being able to determine whether or not I allow someone in who is armed, however, you are venturing out on to a slippery slope as one could very easily say, "I don't know you, my kids are playing in that park, thus I don't want you carrying a firearm near them as I don't know you." Remember, the anti-gunners love to hide behind protecting our children.

[chevyman097 2,579]

Now back on topic. As for the questions at the end New River. I think if it was my home and I did not know you as a close friend or family member Id have to ask for you to leave your firearm in the vehicle or let me hold it for you. I just dont trust people.

 

 

This creates an interesting paradox as how do we convince the millions who don't own guns that it's ok for us to be armed when most of us wouldn't want an unfamiliar individual in our home with a firearm? Not nitpicking or trying to be a dick (too early for that yet), just expanding the discussion.

 

Because "I" do not know you, you may be a fine person. Other know you and would let you in their homes I'm sure. But as far as "me" no I dont know you and would not just let a stranger walk in my home armed. Does this mean I should say he cant walk the street armed. Nope that is not for me to decide.

 

Just look over what you said and ask youself how left does that really sound...

 

 

Since my home is my own private property I completely agree about being able to determine whether or not I allow someone in who is armed, however, you are venturing out on to a slippery slope as one could very easily say, "I don't know you, my kids are playing in that park, thus I don't want you carrying a firearm near them as I don't know you." Remember, the anti-gunners love to hide behind protecting our children.

 

 

I did not ventor down that slippery slope, you did. As I never said I would not want somone to carry a gun in a park, you did. I simply said I would not want somone to enter my home with one.