Civil Society

[Scrappy]

Here's a thought for everyone, I didn't pen it. And I'd like to give credit where credit is due, but I'm not even sure if the author referenced is real. If anyone can help find out, please post. Nonetheless, it is a neat train of thought and arguement for a civilized society.

WHY 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 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 [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.

[cato2]

Your right, I would be curious to see if he exists as well. I am not turning up anything on this person myself except to reference the same article.

[Scrappy]

So, is a more armed society more civil?

[BrianK]

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.

That was the opening declaration. Followed by situations where self defense issues were mostly what supported the statement.

There is a 3rd. option when dealing with another. Walking away. Granted that doesn't work when being mugged but the thought presented didn't exclude civil exercize of a persons options when in other non threatening situations.

But since the piece was about violence lets look at the examples.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger.

That is pre supposing the mugger isn't armed? What happens if the woman pulls out a gun & the mugger is armed? Which of the two is more likely to use the weapon?


A 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger.

Is it really likely a 75 yr old would carry a gun where he would be able to get to it & be positioned to use it? It could happen but the instances of the 75 yr old having the gun taken off of him seem far more likely to me. Since no facts were part of the piece I can use what seems more logical to me.




And a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats.

That presents a totally differant picture. Apparently the gay guy has no way to run, no way to escape what he obviously could perceive as a threat. The gun this gay guy owns has how many shots in it? Is he well trained enough to shoot well enough to eliminate
the total threat? Or would he do as the police did recently in New York city and pump over 50 rounds into a car hoping to stop the driver?

I'm not anti gun just anti making the ownership of a gun seem like an instant answer to the variety of violent situations is our society.

And the 3 option the writer never considered for non violent means of human beings having ways to deal with one another.

[Scrappy]

What's option 3? talking your way out of an unfair fight? or 911?

Yall don't get me wrong, and don't mistake where I stand. I believe in training, constant, consistent, and continuous improvement. This isn't about winning a fight, it is surviving. It is not about picking a fight, but living. And it has nothing to with machismo, it is about existance after you've been asked "hey man what time is it?"

[BrianK]

Originally Posted by Scrappy

What's option 3? talking your way out of an unfair fight? or 911?

Yall don't get me wrong, and don't mistake where I stand. I believe in training, constant, consistent, and continuous improvement. This isn't about winning a fight, it is surviving. It is not about picking a fight, but living. And it has nothing to with machismo, it is about existance after you've been asked "hey man what time is it?"

The writer used only violence as his concept of how life is. Maybe for him it is. But there are situations in life that aren't violent that could escalate to violence if someone didn't have a cooler head and diffuse the situation.

The 3rd. option. would be to use good judgement and leave. I'm fortunate I guess. At 66 I've never been in a situation where defending myself with a gun was needed. Am I likely to now? Possible but not very probable because of the lifestyle we live.

More likely in todays society if we turned each of his examples around this is what would show up in the news.

A 220 lb man is shot & killed by a 100 lb woman. She claims he had bad intentions but since he is dead there is no way for him to defend himself from the accusation. The woman is being held on 2nd degree murder charges. The family of the man is filing a civil lawsuit for wrongful death.


A 75 yr old man shoots a teen. The 75 yr. old claims the teen was about to attack him. The district attorney will have the 75 yr old tested for paranoria and other signs of mental defect. The DA will make a determination after the testing is complete. Lawyers for the 75 yr old say this is a situation where fear of something that "might" happen ended up with one dead their client defending himself in a court for the shooting.

Gay man is arrested for killing several men in a car. The man claims they were carrying baseball bats and he felt threatened. The press has learned the unknown men in the car also gay and returning from a ball game they had just won. They were exuberant and were waving their bats in celebration.


Just as the author of the article can spin his story to suit his view, it's possible to spin it another way.

People read what interests them. As I stated I'm not anti gun just anti accepting gun use as the only way to resolve a situation. Consequences can backfire on the user even when the best intentions are in place.

[cato2]

Originally Posted by Scrappy

So, is a more armed society more civil?

You want to argue that with numbers or conjecture? Data does exist showing various areas, such as crime and violence among reporting nations globally.