Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1 why the gun is civilization. 
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,301
    I found this view point interesting. I'm including the whole blog post in this message and a link to the blog at the bottom in case anyone wants to view other posts

    March 23, 2007 by Marko Kloos
    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.
    The blog is here

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,269
    Good thoughts.

    The good thing behind the recent tragedy is that is provokes debate and serious thought. At a family gathering - a funeral for a 101 year old aunt - last week end I asked, "If we were all in a gathering, like a theater or restaurant, and a gunman came in and open fire, who among us would you most like to have a gun?"

    The fingers pointed at me and a cousin who is a retired deputy sheriff.
    That says something, and I believe the message is, "Those of us who have clear heads are becoming increasingly responsible for the masses who are potential victims".

    More and more, I am beginning to see it as my duty to be armed. I never saw it as a duty before. Am I wrong?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Resident Grandpa marv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Shell Knob, MO
    Posts
    3,031
    It's been often said that God created man, but Mr. Colt made them equal. Thank you God, for creating Mr. Colt!

    http://members.socket.net/~mcruzan/images/allen-west.jpg

    Four boxes keep us free: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.

    THIS POST WILL BE MONITORED BY THE NSA
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Drive-by Poster ABC in Georgia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    2,778
    From FlaGator's article:

    The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

    Quote Originally Posted by marv View Post
    It's been often said that God created man, but Mr. Colt made them equal. Thank you God, for creating Mr. Colt!
    As a small woman in this big old getting-crazier-by-the-minute world ...

    I too, "Thank you God, for creating Mr. Colt!"

    Good find FG ... and great comment Marv!
    Last edited by ABC in Georgia; 12-18-2012 at 05:06 PM.
    American By Choice ~ 1980
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •