Steyr Club Forums banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,658 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
I found this to be elegantly simple.

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 gangban*ger [stupid filter], 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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,791 Posts
wow... elegant, eloquent and completely logical based in fact.

i feel this really encapsulates exactly how i feel about it but does so in a completely un-emotional way. sometimes i get wound up and "overly expressive" when i try to persuade an anti-gunner of this rationale.

kudos!

now, if only we could get pelosi to understand that...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
245 Posts
GREAT FIND. It does not matter if pelosi understands this premise, we need to get the rest of the American People to understand. JP
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
Read this before somewhere and loved it. Was this one of Col. Dave Grossmans essays? (The guy who wrote "Psychology Of Killing")

Good Find!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,658 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
No, I've linked to the original writer in the first post.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
Okay then, thanks for publicly making fun of my sight loss, you're a real human being. JK - Thanks Narsil, I honestly didn't notice that...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,658 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
The color of hyperlinks being so close to that of regular bolded text is one of the few things I dislike about the new forum appearance; everything else is shiny! It is a bit difficult to notice the hyperlinks.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,692 Posts
i am always on guard for "ego" centric gun owners, especially CCW types. They are easy to spot and usually dangerous to hang around with (which i dont). They think they are somehow cool or powerful cause they carry. Usually untrained or undertrained, they handle guns carelessly. I saw it a couple of weekends ago at the training class i attended. The worst part is he owned a gun store, couldnt keep his gun in his holster, miserable gun handling skills and dangerous to us. The opposite of the person described by the retired military gentleman this quote is attributed to.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top