New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

thoughts on guns in civilized society

freyasman

Senator
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 gang banger, and a single 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 [armed] 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 weight lifter. 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.

So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.



I've had this for awhile and it makes some points I think many people could benefit from. I don't know the original author, otherwise I would give it the proper attribution.
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
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 gang banger, and a single 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 [armed] 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 weight lifter. 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.

So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.



I've had this for awhile and it makes some points I think many people could benefit from. I don't know the original author, otherwise I would give it the proper attribution.
I find the entire essay dichotomous. The early premise of the essay is:When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force...and the entire rest of the essay explains that the gun is the force.
 

freyasman

Senator
I think we have entirely too many people in the world who wish to impose their will on others; coupled with a general lack of civility, this seems to me to be a central point of the "gun control" discussion. I do not insist that others have or carry or even know anything about firearms, I just don't want to be told that my behavior is somehow wrong; I don't hurt, bother, or attempt to tell others what they should or shouldn't do, as long as they're not hurting me; I ask the same of them.
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
I think we have entirely too many people in the world who wish to impose their will on others; coupled with a general lack of civility, this seems to me to be a central point of the "gun control" discussion. I do not insist that others have or carry or even know anything about firearms, I just don't want to be told that my behavior is somehow wrong; I don't hurt, bother, or attempt to tell others what they should or shouldn't do, as long as they're not hurting me; I ask the same of them.
Again, the initial essay is dichotomous. The gun is the force...and the only way to challenge that force is with more force, then, more force...and then, top it off with more force.

Yes...people, leaders especially, want to control the masses. It is one of the charges our government and all governments face. We call it domestic tranquility but the idea is the same as and as old as bread and circus. Happy people don't revolt...
 

freyasman

Senator
I disagree; yes, the gun is force, but I do not attempt to force others to do anything. I simply will not allow myself to BE forced.
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
I disagree; yes, the gun is force, but I do not attempt to force others to do anything. I simply will not allow myself to BE forced.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.


Sorry...this is patent nonsense. Cannot. You have a gun, I have a bigger gun. What now? Do we choose the extremely available force...or do we find another way?
 

freyasman

Senator
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.


Sorry...this is patent nonsense. Cannot. You have a gun, I have a bigger gun. What now? Do we choose the extremely available force...or do we find another way?
Ok, fair point; but nobody has been able to make me do anything I didn't want to do in quite some time.... and a reason for that is that it is very hazardous to try. Again, I don't hurt or bother anyone so the only way lethal force enters the equation is if someone else introduces it... and I have the means to deal with that. Why would I give that up?
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
Ok, fair point; but nobody has been able to make me do anything I didn't want to do in quite some time.... and a reason for that is that it is very hazardous to try. Again, I don't hurt or bother anyone so the only way lethal force enters the equation is if someone else introduces it... and I have the means to deal with that. Why would I give that up?
Who has asked you to give it up?

To my knowledge, there have been a few extremists who have expressed desires to rid the world of all firearms. The vast majority of ideas involve background checks, registration and smaller magazines and clips.

We've outlawed some arms for a long time, so the ability to regulate arms is obviously one that exists.
 

freyasman

Senator
Who has asked you to give it up?

To my knowledge, there have been a few extremists who have expressed desires to rid the world of all firearms. The vast majority of ideas involve background checks, registration and smaller magazines and clips.

We've outlawed some arms for a long time, so the ability to regulate arms is obviously one that exists.
So, we're discussing what regulations are reasonable then? Or maybe "acceptable" would be a better word as the definition of reasonable varies from person to person.
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
So, we're discussing what regulations are reasonable then? Or maybe "acceptable" would be a better word as the definition of reasonable varies from person to person.
Not really sure what is being discussed.

Is it the role of firearms in the shaping of civilization? Is it the fact that to defeat force one requires force? Is it gun regulation? The ability of authorities to make law? The always extreme response that "people are trying to take away my guns and my ability to defend myself"???

I see lots of possibilities...and yes...civilization is in part a discussion of what is reasonable.
 

freyasman

Senator
Not really sure what is being discussed.

Is it the role of firearms in the shaping of civilization? Is it the fact that to defeat force one requires force? Is it gun regulation? The ability of authorities to make law? The always extreme response that "people are trying to take away my guns and my ability to defend myself"???

I see lots of possibilities...and yes...civilization is in part a discussion of what is reasonable.
Ok, so in order for me to consider regulation, it would have to strike an acceptable balance between effectiveness at curbing crime, and the "minimum acceptable" interference with me exercising my rights, yes? I haven't seen any proposals that would be at all effective at reducing violent crime, so why should I allow my rights to be interfered with any more than they already are?
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
Ok, so in order for me to consider regulation, it would have to strike an acceptable balance between effectiveness at curbing crime, and the "minimum acceptable" interference with me exercising my rights, yes? I haven't seen any proposals that would be at all effective at reducing violent crime, so why should I allow my rights to be interfered with any more than they already are?
No...it doesn't matter what you think. It matters what the lawmakers do. You are then free to break the law or not according to your moral code.

I'm unsure why anyone actually believes their rights are being taken away. You can still own an arsenal. Your right to bear arms isn't being infringed. The type of arms available is...
 

freyasman

Senator
No...it doesn't matter what you think. It matters what the lawmakers do. You are then free to break the law or not according to your moral code.

I'm unsure why anyone actually believes their rights are being taken away. You can still own an arsenal. Your right to bear arms isn't being infringed. The type of arms available is...
That would constitute infringement though; I may own whatever type I choose to be the most appropriate, and I get to decide that, not the Government. If, as a consequence of that possession, some harm comes to someone, then maybe they should either charge me with a crime, or sue me in civil court, rather than attempting to curtail the rights of everyone else.
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
That would constitute infringement though; I may own whatever type I choose to be the most appropriate, and I get to decide that, not the Government. If, as a consequence of that possession, some harm comes to someone, then maybe they should either charge me with a crime, or sue me in civil court, rather than attempting to curtail the rights of everyone else.
I disagree. As long as arms are available for you to bear, there is no infringement. Your rights are not being taken away.

No...you don't get to decide. You get to vote. Consent of the governed and all that. Sometimes you lose. Law is another of those aspects that comprise civilization. We come from a long history of working out these ideas. We also include concepts such as greater good and general welfare in our decisions. The decision has been made that for the greater good...you don't get to own certain weapons or need to show cause to own them. Bazookas for example.

You get to decide if you want to follow the law or not.
 

freyasman

Senator
Alright, agreed; when I feel a law infringes on my right to an unacceptable degree I will make that decision. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter Craig.
 
Top