Why The Gun In Civilization

[Kruz]

Why The Gun In Civilization
By The Munchkin Wrangler

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.

This is exactly the way I feel, and couldn't express in words before.

 

[UndeadExploder]

I love that article. It's so frustrating how so many assume that because I'm interested in guns, I must be only a frayed nerve away from "snapping", or I'm some kind of nut. If that were true, there would already be hundreds of thousands of nuts out there everyday carrying guns waiting to snap...except we usually call them "cops".

 

[Professur]

"God made all men, Sam Colt made 'em equal."

 

[Luis G]

Give nukes to every country in the world, that way, there'd be no war!!!

 

[Gonz]

The sentiment will be disproven almost immediately. Many of our world leaders have a death wish.

Guns kill one or a few. Nukes kill everything.

 

[spike]

The sentiment will be disproven almost immediately. Many of our world leaders have a death wish.

As do many gun owners.

If they all have nukes they can't be forced, only reasoned with.

 

[Gonz]

Not all who bear guns can be reasoned with. Same goes for nukes. However, with nukes, it's not a limited kill ratio.

 

[spike]

So the argument for weapons as promoting civilization depends on the number of people you can conveniently kill? Does that mean a semi-auto handgun is less civilized than a revolver and a single shot pistol the most civilized?

This reasoning seems to be falling apart. Not to mention there's quite a few other ways to deal with people besides reason and force. Bribery, trickery/deception, peer pressure, seduction, blackmail, religion, etc.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

Bribery, you say?



What'd it cost us to make you go away?

 

[spike]

Bribery is overrated. Tricking you into thinking you were funny was free.

Shit, just noticed you complaining about bickering in the other thread and then starting it here. Take your own advice and go on a beer run.

 

[Gonz]

So the argument for weapons as promoting civilization depends on the number of people you can conveniently kill?

Damn straight.

Even more importantly, allowing certain others to have nukes is never an option.

 

[spike]

That would make the wet noodle the most civilized. Edging out the Trout.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

Bribery is overrated. Tricking you into thinking you were funny was free.

Who's trying to be funny? I'm serious. I'll start the hat around, shouldn't take long.

 

[Kruz]

Who's trying to be funny? I'm serious. I'll start the hat around, shouldn't take long.

will paypal work?

 

[spike]

It's pretty pathetic if you have to pay not to have to lose debates. Grow up already and take it like a man.

 

[Gonz]

When have you debated? You just reword the other poster.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Free speech, Gonz. Free speech.


BTW...has anyone noticed that the Right to Free Speech is not being treated as badly as the Right to Keep and Bear Arms? The same arguments used for removing the second amendment can be used for all 10 you know...

 

[catocom]

yep, it seems more and more the number of gov officials, would like
nothing more than to run The Constitution though a shredder.

Gotta take the good 'with' the bad.
Can't have it both ways.


I personally am beyond words of appreciation for the sacrifice All the
service members put forth to insure that our rights, and privileges stay intact.
(aside from the butchering of legislators)

 

[Gonz]

BTW...has anyone noticed that the Right to Free Speech is not being treated as badly as the Right to Keep and Bear Arms?

No? Hate Speech? Political Correctness?

We live in a time where free speech isn't. Instead of debating the merits of your argument & gaining victory by persuasion, it's easier to belittle the contestant & show what mean spiritedness they hold.

 

[Gato_Solo]

No? Hate Speech? Political Correctness?

Constructs of little minds. I pay them no heed.

We live in a time where free speech isn't. Instead of debating the merits of your argument & gaining victory by persuasion, it's easier to belittle the contestant & show what mean spiritedness they hold.

Back when the Constitution was first written, there was no media except newspapers and voice in the public square. Today we have sattelites in orbit broadcasting news and information 24/7. Free Speech is anachronistic and obsolete based on todays technology.