Why the Gun is Civilization.
By Marko Kloos



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.

Take our guns away and see how long our society remains civilised.

Listen to Don Henley's song Dirty Laundry. Thats all this Sandy Hook news story has turned into. I pray for the families of the children but there's 300 million of us that havent shot anybody. Its time to stop punishing us and stop punishing us now! The only way to fight evil is to fire back. Take away that ability and we're all sitting ducks. There's gang violence in every major city and its too late when the cops arrive. Thats why I'm against large magazine legislation. I'm all for stricter background checks. Our goverment wants to police the whole world and we cant make our own cities safe.  Taking away law abiding citizens guns isnt gonna do it. All the ink and paper in the world isnt going to keep guns out of criminals hands. I said it in another post, anyone my age and has seen what has happened to this country knows whats going to happen. Six months of political bullshit and they'll tax the hell out of guns and ammo if we're lucky.

bobert_FSO wrote on 02/08/13 at 16:32:02:

With tanks it would be a lot easier to level off the playing fields.

the gun equals force, deadly force, implied deadly force, it does NOT remove force from the equation, it at best, if both people have a gun of equal capability, it can equalize the force making reason the remaining factor to decide the situation but only after the force has been equalized by the gun, it takes the persuasion to the top where force is needed then because neither person has the upper hand, then persuasion is resumed, and then, there's still the threat that the other person still wont' be persuaded and will use the implied force first and then you are still screwed, guns do NOT "civilize" a society

God created man. Samual Colt made them even.

It levels the playing field.


--Steve

LostArtist wrote on 02/08/13 at 18:35:16:


You are correct, a gun does not remove FORCE from the equation, but it does tend to equalize it.  Would you rather be equal or on the weaker side of a FORCE CONFRONTATION ?
Do you think if you are confronted by someone stronger & meaner than you (or a bunch of them) and are intent on hurting you, do you really think they are going to stop after just one punch ?  Don't be foolish dude, if they really want to hurt someone they will stomp you into the ground; near death likely, if not dead.
Do you think you will stop them through persuasion ?
They simply take that as a sign of weakness and will enjoy stomping you all the more.
We have animals in our society, and they ONLY thing they respect and will yield to is POWER.  

You guys are now arguing a different point than the original article was making....
The thesis was that guns make a society civilized... you are arguing the need for guns as an equalizer, precisely because this country is not civilized...

PS... Lancer,... in prison, the guards have guns...  again, this hardly qualifies as civilized... opposite, in fact...