The Gun is Civilization

[delta22]

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 persuading me, or forcing 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 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.

The greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

[DinarMillionaire]

I've seen this before, but I have to say, this is absolutely a brilliant piece and very true..

[Grandmamine]

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 persuading me, or forcing 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 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.

The greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

I feel sorry for you!!! you need to carry a gun in order to feel great, to feel unafraid!!!! you need a therapy. As much as I want this RV, I am afraid , what people like you would be capable of, when they have the power of money also????????

[ZigsQuote]

Interesting article. The logic is perfect.... except for one thing.

I own a shotgun and a rifle. I've never owned a handgun.

But I've been thinking seriouisly about getting one. Here's

what bothers me about the article though. I just can't help

thinking that if everyone were armed, that means we'd all

have to be constantly on the alert for those one or two out

of a hundred of us that are CRAZY or IGNORANT or ANGRY.

Know what I mean? There's just some people I don't want

to see carrying a gun. Food for thought?

[delta22]

Grandmammi your responce is so out of line with what the article expresses that I wonder if you can comprehend what you read . By the way the same goes for your responce to 3 cheers for obama.

[DinarMillionaire]

Interesting article. The logic is perfect.... except for one thing.

I own a shotgun and a rifle. I've never owned a handgun.

But I've been thinking seriouisly about getting one. Here's

what bothers me about the article though. I just can't help

thinking that if everyone were armed, that means we'd all

have to be constantly on the alert for those one or two out

of a hundred of us that are CRAZY or IGNORANT or ANGRY.

Know what I mean? There's just some people I don't want

to see carrying a gun. Food for thought?

Guess what, that person you don't want to see carry a gun, probably already does. the point is, if you have one, you don't have to be a victum of him.

Grandmammi your responce is so out of line with what the article expresses that I wonder if you can comprehend what you read . By the way the same goes for your responce to 3 cheers for obama.

Can't believe you responded to that idiot. I wanted to, several times, but when a person is that stupid, what's the point.

[Speed57]

Delta,

Thank you very much for the wonderful post!

[mrbadwrench]

Great Post !!! places in the US that have "right to carry laws" have a signifactly lower crime rate than those with excesive hand gun restrictions.

[beefcake]

Love the article!!! What people don't realize is crime's that are comited with guns 90% of the time are with illegal firearms. If it was made illegal to own a gun tomorrow then illegal firearm's from north and south of the border would be more then enough to meet demand just as they do now. No one will ever win the gun debate humans will always come up with new ways to kill one another. So with that said guns are a tool to be used for a specific job that job is to provide and protect you and yours. It seems a lot of people who have never had anything happen to them have the right to judge those that take there lives in there own hands.

[estewart]

Interesting article. The logic is perfect.... except for one thing.

I own a shotgun and a rifle. I've never owned a handgun.

But I've been thinking seriouisly about getting one. Here's

what bothers me about the article though. I just can't help

thinking that if everyone were armed, that means we'd all

have to be constantly on the alert for those one or two out

of a hundred of us that are CRAZY or IGNORANT or ANGRY.

Know what I mean? There's just some people I don't want

to see carrying a gun. Food for thought?

The one or two out of a hundred of us that are CRAZY or IGNORANT or ANGRY exist whether we are armed or not. And sometimes the one or two out of a hundred of us that are CRAZY or IGNORANT or ANGRY are armed, and whether we, personally, are armed or not.

Whether we are personally armed or not makes no difference as to whether the one or two out

of a hundred of us that are CRAZY or IGNORANT or ANGRY are armed or not. But if we, personally, were armed then it could make a difference as to whether we could be armed the next day after a confrontation with the one or two out of a hundred of us that are CRAZY or IGNORANT or ANGRY, and up and walking that next day as well.

=====================================================================

A brilliant man, that retired soldier.

[crnamiss]

Grandmammi your responce is so out of line with what the article expresses that I wonder if you can comprehend what you read . By the way the same goes for your responce to 3 cheers for obama.

Thanks for saying that Delta, saved me the trouble!

[cajunrescuemedic]

I can think of one situation that saved many American lives becuase of our gun laws. Right before the US entered WW II, Japan seriously considered attacking the US Mainland. The reason why they didn't was because many Americans have guns. One Japanese General stated something like this: "If we attack the US mainland, every US citizen will be hiding behind a blade of grass with a gun pointed at us"....which of course I paraphrased...but that was actually very true. I own several weapons and handguns, which are all locked up, except for one hand gun that my wife has access to. We have no children at home and my wife has become a very good shot with that weapon, should anything happen at home when I am away. As much as crime has escalated in the past 10 years, we need to have a way to protect ourselves. Just like the saying says....when guns are oulawed, then only outlaws will have guns.

[Average Bear]

Interesting article. The logic is perfect.... except for one thing.

I own a shotgun and a rifle. I've never owned a handgun.

But I've been thinking seriouisly about getting one. Here's

what bothers me about the article though. I just can't help

thinking that if everyone were armed, that means we'd all

have to be constantly on the alert for those one or two out

of a hundred of us that are CRAZY or IGNORANT or ANGRY.

Know what I mean? There's just some people I don't want

to see carrying a gun. Food for thought?

I may take a bash for this, but here goes. Most any american citizen who is not a felon can legally aquire a firearm. As far as carrying one, I believe in the licensing system, much like a drivers license. That way, only "qualified" folks can legally carry a gun. BTW, I carry and am happy I have never pulled it.

[RSTEFAN]

Great post I have never seen this one, i like it!

Thanks for posting it

Bob

[krome2ez]

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms."

-- Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1840

Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.

-- From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

-- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.

-- Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson's Commonplace book

No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.

-- "Political Disquisitions", a British republican tract of 1774-1775

"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

-- George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788

"The great object is, that every man be armed. [...] Every one who is able may have a gun."

-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 14 1788

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

-- Adolph Hitler, April 11 1942

Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

-- L. Neil Smith

A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject.

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)

[detroitjazzman]

Interesting article. The logic is perfect.... except for one thing.

I own a shotgun and a rifle. I've never owned a handgun.

But I've been thinking seriouisly about getting one. Here's

what bothers me about the article though. I just can't help

thinking that if everyone were armed, that means we'd all

have to be constantly on the alert for those one or two out

of a hundred of us that are CRAZY or IGNORANT or ANGRY.

Know what I mean? There's just some people I don't want

to see carrying a gun. Food for thought?

I have to say that I agree with you in principal. Im licensed to carry conceled....Im law abiding....tax paying.....never on welfare 63 year old. I worked hard for what I have, despite Having received a better head start frolm my parents then a lot get. But the day that they take good citizens right to choose if they want to carry an hand gun, is the day that only criminals will have guns! Every person has their own attitude on this subject, however, what I object to is: mandates....those that limit my individual freedoms. 9/11 changed the world in less than 2 hours...and for those reasons I choose to be "strapped" my attitude is; Its better to have it and not need it......than to need it and not have it" There are those that I don't want to see carry either, but those people regardless of law will have a gun! I taught my 3 daughters proper gun ownership, and encourage them to practice regular. You never know when that one day comes that you......Wish I had my gun" I don't know about others....You invade my home...threaten my family....I am not going to play god....But I will arrange the meeting!

[cottn68]

I have to say that I agree with you in principal. Im licensed to carry conceled....Im law abiding....tax paying.....never on welfare 63 year old. I worked hard for what I have, despite Having received a better head start frolm my parents then a lot get. But the day that they take good citizens right to choose if they want to carry an hand gun, is the day that only criminals will have guns! Every person has their own attitude on this subject, however, what I object to is: mandates....those that limit my individual freedoms. 9/11 changed the world in less than 2 hours...and for those reasons I choose to be "strapped" my attitude is; Its better to have it and not need it......than to need it and not have it" There are those that I don't want to see carry either, but those people regardless of law will have a gun! I taught my 3 daughters proper gun ownership, and encourage them to practice regular. You never know when that one day comes that you......Wish I had my gun" I don't know about others....You invade my home...threaten my family....I am not going to play god....But I will arrange the meeting!

[ZigsQuote]

I have to say that I agree with you in principal. Im licensed to carry conceled....Im law abiding....tax paying.....never on welfare 63 year old. I worked hard for what I have, despite Having received a better head start frolm my parents then a lot get. But the day that they take good citizens right to choose if they want to carry an hand gun, is the day that only criminals will have guns! Every person has their own attitude on this subject, however, what I object to is: mandates....those that limit my individual freedoms. 9/11 changed the world in less than 2 hours...and for those reasons I choose to be "strapped" my attitude is; Its better to have it and not need it......than to need it and not have it" There are those that I don't want to see carry either, but those people regardless of law will have a gun! I taught my 3 daughters proper gun ownership, and encourage them to practice regular. You never know when that one day comes that you......Wish I had my gun" I don't know about others....You invade my home...threaten my family....I am not going to play god....But I will arrange the meeting!

detroitjazzman..... I agree with you in principal also. But here's the deal for me --

I'm not talking about the criminal element when I say there are people I don't

want to see carrying guns. I know those types will always have guns if they

choose to regardless of the law. I'm talking about people who have no criminal

history, but have mental disorders or personality disorders or low intelligence

levels or excessive drinking habits... that kind of thing.

The kind of people who would be likely to brandish a weapon if they had one in

a heated moment or an arguement. The kind of people who get obnoxious when

they drink. The kind of people who lack the intelligence to fully understand the

responsibility that comes with the privilege to carry that weapon.

And the more I think about this, it might be a lot more than just one or two

out of a hundred of us that fit into those catagories.

[divemaster5734]

I feel sorry for you!!! you need to carry a gun in order to feel great, to feel unafraid!!!! you need a therapy. As much as I want this RV, I am afraid , what people like you would be capable of, when they have the power of money also????????

I got it, let's all hold hands and sing kum by ya while the the socialists force everyone into full slavery. If that happened all retirees would be terminated as you would no longer provide a service for your masters.

What the hell are you doing living in America?

Go to Europe, they'll love you there.

Do you actually believe the police would stop beating up people?

Do you not realize there are thousands of UN troops already on American soil, just waiting for the signal to start enforcing Martial law, ready to shoot all that disobey?

You need to stop watching the View and Springer show.

[desimo]

To those who think it is barbaric to carry a gun to defend yourself and your family, ask yourself about those who were stuck in the malls, resturants, schools, and churches where some nut case came in to shoot the place up at random. I am from Chicago and know that if you think the world will simply place nice because you want it to you are living in delusion. I would rather carry a gun and not need it than to not carry and wish to God I had one. If you really want to fight crime...SHOOT BACK!

[DinarMillionaire]

I may take a bash for this, but here goes. Most any american citizen who is not a felon can legally aquire a firearm. As far as carrying one, I believe in the licensing system, much like a drivers license. That way, only "qualified" folks can legally carry a gun. BTW, I carry and am happy I have never pulled it.

Don't think you should be bashed at all for your thoughts here and I can partially agree with you, but, I just see one flaw in your thinking. Let me ask a question...Do you think a criminal will say...Oh, I'm not "qualified" to "legally" carry a gun, so I better not. You say, "That way, only "qualified" folks can legally carry a gun". I say, That way, only "criminal" folks will illegally carry a gun. Hope you see my point. Your point is well intentioned, but not fully logical in this instance. Gun laws pretty much only put restrictions on law abiding citizens. Take this same primis and apply it to drivers licenses. Have a good day!

[Average Bear]

Don't think you should be bashed at all for your thoughts here and I can partially agree with you, but, I just see one flaw in your thinking. Let me ask a question...Do you think a criminal will say...Oh, I'm not "qualified" to "legally" carry a gun, so I better not. You say, "That way, only "qualified" folks can legally carry a gun". I say, That way, only "criminal" folks will illegally carry a gun. Hope you see my point. Your point is well intentioned, but not fully logical in this instance. Gun laws pretty much only put restrictions on law abiding citizens. Take this same primis and apply it to drivers licenses. Have a good day!

Hey, nieghbor! Thanks for reading my thoughts and posting yours. The flaw is not in my thinking, only in the way i spelled it out. I don't live in lala land, I carry a gun because of the criminals and nut jobs! Having a good day, thank you because hot as it is, I enjoy living here1 GO RV 77303

[tandy]

Thanks for the post...my wife was home alone with her two brothers "Smith & Wesson" when a nice gentleman with rape and robbery intention tried to break her front door down...while he was so excitedly occupied with that task she slipped out the back door, eased around the house and shot him off the front porch.. He got away but left a blood trail that told the rest of the story. Moral of the story....never try molesting an armed lady that knows how to use her gun and will damn sure use it. (Excuse the emphasis but in this case it is warrented). People that want gun control should be sure and put a sign in their yard .....Criminals we have no guns it's safe for you to break and enter...but watch my neighbors, those wackos will shoot you!!