PDA

View Full Version : Great Blog Post on Why Guns are Essential to Civilized Society


Wulf
03-29-2007, 9:47 PM
http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-gun-is-civilization.html

aileron
03-30-2007, 6:13 AM
Great Article. Posting text for everyone.


why the gun is civilization.

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.

3GunFunShooter
03-30-2007, 6:27 AM
+1 Excellent!!!!!

elsolo
03-30-2007, 6:28 AM
Nicely written, I had to save a copy for future distribution to friends.

DrjonesUSA
03-30-2007, 11:04 AM
Excellent writing, and very well said!

Parag
03-30-2007, 10:32 PM
Ok, I'll disagree with his initial premise:

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force."

Emotion is a third way. And it's far easier to use than either of the other two. And far more effective, I think, if judging by the results. Fear, outrage, hate, etc. can and do move masses.

And you can't use reason against emotion - it just doesn't work. Which just leaves either even more emotion, or force.

Oh yeah - fourth method: money. :)


-- Parag

Wulf
03-31-2007, 6:00 PM
Ok, I'll disagree with his initial premise:

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force."

Emotion is a third way. And it's far easier to use than either of the other two. And far more effective, I think, if judging by the results. Fear, outrage, hate, etc. can and do move masses.

And you can't use reason against emotion - it just doesn't work. Which just leaves either even more emotion, or force.

Oh yeah - fourth method: money. :)


-- Parag

Money is clearly reason.

Do this for me and I'll pay you, is a classic rational premise.

Emotion too is reason.

Its just that the quid pro quo is non tangible. I bought my kid a tonka truck, the smile I get is worth the money I paid for the truck.

HowardW56
03-31-2007, 6:24 PM
Ok, I'll disagree with his initial premise:

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force."

Emotion is a third way. And it's far easier to use than either of the other two. And far more effective, I think, if judging by the results. Fear, outrage, hate, etc. can and do move masses.

And you can't use reason against emotion - it just doesn't work. Which just leaves either even more emotion, or force.

Oh yeah - fourth method: money. :)


-- Parag

I will have to disagree with you on this one…..

This statement takes it to very basic terms: “Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.”

Emotion or appealing to someone’s inflamed emotions is a form of reason or persuasion.

Money of financial incentive is another form of reason or persuasion, based upon another human trait, greed…

While it may oversimplify the human psyche, it is an accurate statement.

There will always be those who do not fit into the mold or normal reasonable human behavior, and those are the individuals who we may need to defend ourselves from….

triggerhappy
03-31-2007, 9:09 PM
Ok, I'll disagree with his initial premise:

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force."

Emotion is a third way. And it's far easier to use than either of the other two. And far more effective, I think, if judging by the results. Fear, outrage, hate, etc. can and do move masses.

And you can't use reason against emotion - it just doesn't work. Which just leaves either even more emotion, or force.

Oh yeah - fourth method: money. :)


-- Parag


The fouth method applies to marriage, typically. :)

Wulf
03-31-2007, 9:11 PM
The fouth method applies to marriage, typically. :)

So its "reason" if its about the money, and "force" if she ties you up.

LAK Supply
03-31-2007, 11:59 PM
Excellent article. Too bad much of society can't reason this well.

triggerhappy
04-01-2007, 8:00 AM
Excellent article. Too bad much of society can't reason this well.

That portion of society is why everyone whould carry.