WHY THE GUN IS CIVILIZATION.. =A0
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
=A0=A0 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.
=A0=A0In 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.
=A0=A0When 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=A0=A0puts
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.
=A0=A0There 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.
=A0=A0Then 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.
=A0=A0When 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.
SWAMPQUEEN~REINE DES BAYOUS La VIE C'EST BON! You have to dance like
nobody's watchin'
And Love like it's never gonn'a hurt. You! yoU Live All Your Life, All
Your Life Long!
AND "The will of God will never take you where the Grace of God will not
protect you"
|
