"The Gun is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

[Lost Boy]

*"The Gun Is Civilization" By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)*

*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.*

*By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)*

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

[coldharvest]

Most fuckin' excellent.
Possibly the best thing I have read about firearms.

[lsheldon]

Should be required reading for all politicians.

[Kurt]

The Major forgot the third way of dealing with one another...deception.

[Sri Lanky]

That is why Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were so fond of the term "third way"....makes sense now.

How about what's known as "tactical ignoring"? How about <gasp> "love"?

[Lost Boy]

That is why Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were so fond of the term "third way"....makes sense now.

How about what's known as "tactical ignoring"? How about <gasp> "love"?

Love is a form of persuasion.

[kilroy]

guns do level the playing field a lot which is why way back in the day the japanese outlawed them and tried to de-invent them, but it doesn't negate forceful persuasion. you just get use of force by people who have better guns, more guns, more friends with guns, or even just the aggressive who are willing to be that their force can outdo your force. plenty of kidnappings happen in places like colombia or mexico, and to people who have armed security details too. the amount of people with guns in places like somalia certainly doesn't seem to alter the amount of violence happening there.

it always confuses me that people so often only look at gun crime through the lens of gun control, as if its presence or absence is the only factor dictating how much violence will happen due to guns. there are countries that have lots of guns but little gun crime, and there are countries where gun control is extremely strict but you still have gun violence. violent crime is not a factor of gun legislation. there is so much other stuff involved but people just seem to have that tunnel vision. writing laws into the books does not change the reality on the ground.