01-25-2013, 02:35 PM
Some time ago I was criticized for carrying a gun while fishing. Today I came across the article that summarizes my feelings about carrying guns fairly well. I'm not trying to stir things up, just thought this was worth sharing.
[font "Times New Roman"][size 3][/size][/font]
[size 3]The Gun IsCivilization"
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. Ifyou want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing mevia argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every humaninteraction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reasonor force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact throughpersuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and theonly thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, asparadoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reasonand try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat oremployment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equalfooting with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload ofdrunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physicalstrength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad forceequations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if allguns were removed from society. But, a firearm makes it easier for an armedmugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potentialvictims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has novalidity 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 societywhere the state has granted him a force monopoly .
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal thatotherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in severalways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superiorparty inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethalforce, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with abloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier, workssolely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both arearmed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian asit is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply would not work as well as aforce 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 becauseI'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 meto be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact withme through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. Itremoves force from the equation...And that's why carrying a gun is a civilizedact !!
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)[/size]
[font "Times New Roman"][size 3][/size][/font]
[signature]
[font "Times New Roman"][size 3][/size][/font]
[size 3]The Gun IsCivilization"
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. Ifyou want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing mevia argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every humaninteraction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reasonor force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact throughpersuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and theonly thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, asparadoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reasonand try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat oremployment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equalfooting with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload ofdrunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physicalstrength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad forceequations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if allguns were removed from society. But, a firearm makes it easier for an armedmugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potentialvictims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has novalidity 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 societywhere the state has granted him a force monopoly .
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal thatotherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in severalways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superiorparty inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethalforce, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with abloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier, workssolely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both arearmed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian asit is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply would not work as well as aforce 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 becauseI'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 meto be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact withme through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. Itremoves force from the equation...And that's why carrying a gun is a civilizedact !!
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)[/size]
[font "Times New Roman"][size 3][/size][/font]
[signature]