Carrying A Gun Is A Civilized Act . . .

[Christopher]

This was sent to me by David C Today

Carrying a Gun is a Civilized Act . . .

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 Marko Kloos writing as Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

[Schizophretard]

I completely agree.

[ThaHodgehound]

Well Put!!

[FTJoe]

The only flaw is when the car full of drunks or gang bangers have guns as well, I would hardly call that equal footing. I think they are much more experienced and willing to use them and willing to lose the lives of those around them by engaging in a gun fight.

[Jeffb]

The only flaw is when the car full of drunks or gang bangers have guns as well, I would hardly call that equal footing. I think they are much more experienced and willing to use them and willing to lose the lives of those around them by engaging in a gun fight.

If a carload of drunk gang bangers start shooting at me & my family, I pray to God I have a gun on me to try and protect my loved ones.

[FTJoe]

I'd rather hit the gas than take a stance and put my family in jeopardy. I think you guys get my point. Its never as simple a situation as people make it out to be.

I do understand the points, but most people I trust to carry a weapon probably, in spite of all the bravado, won't use it (and that's a good thing). Its the folks who think they are in the right with a hair trigger I worry about.

Kill them all and let god sort it out!! ;-)

Edited August 9, 2010 by FTJoe

[actor92191]

Very good points!

[FTJoe]

I definitely understand the points that amount to "walk softly and carry a big stick". But I'd like to think its more about cops carrying than people. I think last time I looked places like England were no better off or even maybe worse without an armed police force. That would have to suck being a LEO without a weapon and running across someone packing. Here's the statement I hate...

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.

Unfortunately this is very true but the entire assumption is with this truly lethal weapon can and will make reasonable judgments about when and how to use it. That is a giant leap of faith and puts me and mine in jeopardy from the 80 year old who's packing. Anyway, just being a devil's advocate...

[snubber]

I agree with the article completely!! He makes sense of the situation.

Good post

[Kragax]

I completely agree.

As do I. I am licensed to carry concealed in NY Pa and Fla with reciprocity that makes me legal in about 40 states. I shoot competively in IDPA, PPC, and teach the required course you need to take here to get a permit. Im an NRA certified handgun instructor and I carry a gun everywhere except where not legally allowed to. It has been proven that an armed community has a much lower crime rate, as those that would be predators prefer the weaker or unarmed target. As far as the average gang banger having more experience, well dumping a magazine in the dirt while holding your gun sideways don't count. And as far as the willingness goes, Im not a violent man but if you threaten my family I will stop you by and means necessary. An armed society is a polite society.

[FTJoe]

Bottom line is they have much more experience punching holes in people through whatever means are at hand. And again, you are probably the exception to the majority of holders out there, though there are many cops who think they can do it, and either stumble at that moment or regret it ever after. Someone who is sure of it kind of worries me, all this stuff seems like folks trying to talk themselves into it.

Also, not sure about the crime rate stat, the pro and anti groups are really good at spinning the numbers so I pretty much ignore all of them except for the CDC numbers. I think violent deaths from guns is lower in rural areas where ownership is higher though, I forget if that was violent or accidental. But if you look at the rankings by country, US is pretty sad, up there with belarus and other barely livable countries. Maybe its where I live, but I tend not to go places where I think I might need one, after that, I'll take the roll of the dice they don't come to me.

So I didn't want to have to do this...but here is a little clip of what can go wrong when carrying...please pay attention

Edited August 10, 2010 by FTJoe

[BEERCITYVAPRZ]

I'd rather hit the gas than take a stance and put my family in jeopardy. I think you guys get my point. Its never as simple a situation as people make it out to be.

I do understand the points, but most people I trust to carry a weapon probably, in spite of all the bravado, won't use it (and that's a good thing). Its the folks who think they are in the right with a hair trigger I worry about.

Kill them all and let god sort it out!! ;-)

I agree with you on this one. I never bought a gun bcuz I always thought I would do something bad (in all honesty), Now going to the shooters club here in town and bucking off a few is totally different then owning one bcuz there you have a choice, you can kill somebody with it in your hands accidently or purposely outside of a contrlled area.....As far as being in a situation if I needed a gun bcuz someone was threatining the lives of my family and myself, (if I knew that we were going to possibly die, then you bet your but I'd wish that I had my uncle's 40 glock S&W that I shoot at the range with me)without hesitation!!!....I try not to think about negative situations/scenarios that are going to happen to my family and I, so basically as far as getting killed or really messed up by a bunch of gang bangers, trigger happy cops, or any human, The way I think about it is, Don't think it will happen and most likely it won't happen....You do have to think about stuff like this sometimes, whether you live in a ruff area in the city or out in the middle of nowhere, bcuz in this messed up world we live in you don't know whats going to happen.....WTF happen to a good ol butt whoopin...hand to hand combat!

Edited August 10, 2010 by BEERCITYVAPRZ

[BEERCITYVAPRZ]

As do I. I am licensed to carry concealed in NY Pa and Fla with reciprocity that makes me legal in about 40 states. I shoot competively in IDPA, PPC, and teach the required course you need to take here to get a permit. Im an NRA certified handgun instructor and I carry a gun everywhere except where not legally allowed to. It has been proven that an armed community has a much lower crime rate, as those that would be predators prefer the weaker or unarmed target. As far as the average gang banger having more experience, well dumping a magazine in the dirt while holding your gun sideways don't count. And as far as the willingness goes, Im not a violent man but if you threaten my family I will stop you by and means necessary. An armed society is a polite society.

No offense but what about the crime rate in the dirty ol ghetto, those communities are so stock piled with AK's, AR 15's, all types and styles of hand guns, and their crime rates are off the charts.....so in those words, crime rates do not go lower in every community (keyword every community) with people being heavily armed........

[BEERCITYVAPRZ]

Bottom line is they have much more experience punching holes in people through whatever means are at hand. And again, you are probably the exception to the majority of holders out there, though there are many cops who think they can do it, and either stumble at that moment or regret it ever after. Someone who is sure of it kind of worries me, all this stuff seems like folks trying to talk themselves into it.

Also, not sure about the crime rate stat, the pro and anti groups are really good at spinning the numbers so I pretty much ignore all of them except for the CDC numbers. I think violent deaths from guns is lower in rural areas where ownership is higher though, I forget if that was violent or accidental. But if you look at the rankings by country, US is pretty sad, up there with belarus and other barely livable countries. Maybe its where I live, but I tend not to go places where I think I might need one, after that, I'll take the roll of the dice they don't come to me.

So I didn't want to have to do this...but here is a little clip of what can go wrong when carrying...please pay attention

OMG that video has got me laughing so hard....thanx 4 sharing that I needed a laugh! Those YMNT videos are some funny stuff...

Edited August 10, 2010 by BEERCITYVAPRZ

[Kragax]

To illistrate my point,I refer you to both Great Britian as well as Australia. When firearms were taken from law abiding citizens the crime rate skyrocketed in both countries. The CDC stats are skewed, not in thier intent but in the data gathering process. As far as the "dirty ghetto" well, Im talking about law abiding citizens, not all folks in those areas are criminals and a lot are victums, but the violence in those areas are predomintly criminal/criminal with the unarmed citizen in the middle. Just like the violence in the prison system. If and when a thug decides to target someone they look for easy prey not some one able to defend themselves either with a weapon or by other means. For the most part legally armed citizens are a deterrent to crimes of violence, not a cause of same. The process to obtain the required permits are very through. The thugs have no permits. Remember when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

[FTJoe]

Yeah - I saw folks talking about the issues with the CDC as well. You really can slice and dice all these stats almost in any way and both sides do.

In regards to the video, hopefully you've all learned a valuable lesson. I never made it all the way through, but I hope the little bas-ard didn't shoot him in the a--... ;-)

I laugh out loud almost every time I see it.

[Kragax]

It was one of the greatest movies, I love Mel Brooks' work.

[BEERCITYVAPRZ]

Law abiding citizens with their heads screwed on straight I think those are the people that are good for good blue collar cities, Im one myself so is my whole family and almost everyone I know, but you got to protect what you got and everyone has the right to do that, thats why we live in America.......