PDA

View Full Version : Why The Gun Is Civilization...


8-Ball
02-05-2010, 8:19 PM
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 gangbanger, 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 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 weightlifter. 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.

I did not write it, but I thought I would share it since it is so true.
http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-gun-is-civilization.html

hoffmang
02-05-2010, 8:35 PM
There is a guy around here who's blog is named "reason or force"....

-Gene

dantodd
02-05-2010, 8:39 PM
Or, for the religious amongst us:

God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal

bbguns44
02-05-2010, 8:44 PM
You can extrapolate that argument to countries wanting to have nuclear
bombs. A country with nuclear bombs, especially mounted on missiles,
is much less likely to be attacked.

jdberger
02-05-2010, 10:19 PM
Yes you can.

An armed society is a polite society (as long as everyone is a rational actor).

This has been discussed in a pretty cool little book by Sagan and Waltz (http://www.amazon.com/Spread-Nuclear-Weapons-Debate/dp/0393967166).

hoffmang
02-05-2010, 10:30 PM
Wait... What about treachery, trickery, fraud, deception, and sex? Many more motivators than reason and force.

All those come back to reason or force. Trickery, fraud or deception are a version of force attempting to masquerade as reason. Sex is, even though you might not feel it so, reason unless it's rape. If she's not into you, you're not succeeding...

-Gene

bbguns44
02-05-2010, 11:17 PM
"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."

If you break a law or is suspected of breaking a law ( at the sole discretion
of the LEO), society use force to arrest or punish you. No reasoning is needed.
Laws are passed with & without your approval. So force is used as a method
of interaction and your gun changes nothing because you are out gunned.
Maybe we should all have nukes ?

M. Sage
02-05-2010, 11:27 PM
"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."

If you break a law or is suspected of breaking a law ( at the sole discretion
of the LEO), society use force to arrest or punish you. No reasoning is needed.
Laws are passed with & without your approval. So force is used as a method
of interaction and your gun changes nothing because you are out gunned.
Maybe we should all have nukes ?

The only moral (and I'd say legitimate) laws are the ones based on reason - victimless offenses are by and large not true crimes and therefore should not be illegal. Representatives of the law are supposed to use force in situations where the rights of another person have been violated. The person who initiates force forfeits his/her rights the moment they do so, which is why it is morally just and right to use force to catch and punish criminals.

Roadrunner
02-06-2010, 10:48 AM
You can extrapolate that argument to countries wanting to have nuclear bombs. A country with nuclear bombs, especially mounted on missiles, is much less likely to be attacked.

You can also justify not allowing certain countries to have nuclear bombs when you equate them to violent criminals who are intent on doing harm to their neighbors, like Iran. Speaking of Iran, I recently learned that "Iran" is Farsi for Aryan. Apparently, Persia changed its name to Iran at the suggestion of the Nazi's in the late 30's. Do you think they should have nukes?

B Strong
02-06-2010, 11:38 AM
You can extrapolate that argument to countries wanting to have nuclear
bombs. A country with nuclear bombs, especially mounted on missiles,
is much less likely to be attacked.

That's because the actual dynamics of violence are essentially the same from a street confrontation to conflict between nations - it comes down to the simplest equation - nobody attacks someone they believe has an equal or greater chance of prevailing against themselves.

M. Sage
02-06-2010, 7:34 PM
That's because the actual dynamics of violence are essentially the same from a street confrontation to conflict between nations - it comes down to the simplest equation - nobody attacks someone they believe has an equal or greater chance of prevailing against themselves.

No, that's not an absolute. There are nutcases who will attack against odds. There are plenty of graves filled with people who thought it would be fun to attack a police officer or a Texan, even if they should have known better.

jdberger
02-06-2010, 11:49 PM
But non-rational actors are an anomaly. And they're usually short lived (in the grand scheme of things).

sen24
02-07-2010, 8:50 AM
The problems with nukes is the amount of force it can unleash. but even so, their use can be rationalized. we worry about countries like iran because we know they can rationalize their use.

k1dude
02-07-2010, 10:28 AM
I'm hoping we get to CCW nukes, post incorporation! :nuke::wub:

AJAX22
02-07-2010, 11:30 AM
You can also justify not allowing certain countries to have nuclear bombs when you equate them to violent criminals who are intent on doing harm to their neighbors, like Iran. Speaking of Iran, I recently learned that "Iran" is Farsi for Aryan. Apparently, Persia changed its name to Iran at the suggestion of the Nazi's in the late 30's. Do you think they should have nukes?

The main reason that countries want the bomb is because no one (The US in particular) has EVER screwed with a country which has managed to scrape together the international equivalent of big boy pants.

nuclear armed countries respect each-other (somewhat)...

mostly because bad things would happen if they didn't.

B Strong
02-07-2010, 6:14 PM
No, that's not an absolute. There are nutcases who will attack against odds. There are plenty of graves filled with people who thought it would be fun to attack a police officer or a Texan, even if they should have known better.

Mental illness is a real issue and delusional individuals are out there, but they're the exception, not the rule.

Meplat
02-07-2010, 8:22 PM
That's because the actual dynamics of violence are essentially the same from a street confrontation to conflict between nations - it comes down to the simplest equation - nobody attacks someone they believe has an equal or greater chance of prevailing against themselves.

Iíll go farther than that. Deterrence does not require exhibiting the means to prevail; only exhibiting the means to inflict more injury than your opponent is willing to sustain.:43:

M. Sage
02-07-2010, 8:50 PM
Meplat is correct... in most cases.

Look at our loss in Vietnam. We were slaughtering the communists, but there wasn't the will here at home to keep going.

Mental illness is a real issue and delusional individuals are out there, but they're the exception, not the rule.

True, but there are enough of them out there to bear worrying about, especially since they tend to commit acts of violence all out of proportion to their numbers. I'm far more worried about being attacked by a psychopath or drug addict than a normal person, and it's not because of some irrational fear. It's because I'm informed. :D