Why the gun is civilized.....

[bassman]

Here's an interesting concept for thought, coming to us from Europe no less. 

"Why the Gun is Civilized"

Marko Kloos, German Federal Defence Force, Retired.
March 2007
 

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.

[The Anvil]

"Sam Colt made them equal."

But the gun itself is nothing but metal, wood and plastic. A gun doesn't kill, people kill. A gun is only as civilized as the person on the other end of it and when one side has all of them they tend to not be so civilized.

[wizard -vrccds#125]

Thats why I love TEXAS ! Now whats your comment ? Anvil ?

[Farther]

The last paragraph says it better for me than I have ever heard it said before.

[SANDMAN5]

Read that before but worth reading again. 

[Thulsa Doom]

Thanks for posting that.
That was stated so clearly and concisely. I copied it and am sending it to friends.

[musclehead]

"Sam Colt made them equal."

But the gun itself is nothing but metal, wood and plastic. A gun doesn't kill, people kill. A gun is only as civilized as the person on the other end of it and when one side has all of them they tend to not be so civilized.

remember the good old days when guns weren't plastic? 

here here, well said Mr Anvil

[CajunRider]

Ahhhh... remember those "civilized" days BEFORE guns were invented??? 

Like, the Crusades (there have been several for various reasons)???  The Dark Ages???  The kind, gentle warmth of the Romans with their constant expansion of their "Empire"??

Yeah... the good ol' days...

Guns don't make people violent... Human Nature makes people violent. 

[Wetrudgeon]

This reasoning is consistent with another thesis we heard recently stating the the firearm is the single most important innovation in the making of democratic forms of government.  The thesis goes that prior to the advent of firearms, it was relatively easy for a despot to raise a small force of well trained (at considerable expense), physically strong individuals that could effectively coerce much larger groups of people because the people were not trained in warfare and had no effective way to resist without appalling losses. 

With firearms, "regular" people suddenly had the wherewithal (without prohibitive expense or years of advanced training) to stop the coercion by the well trained but small in number "private army" of the despot.  The people could demand a say in how affairs are run and have a way to insist upon it.

Makes sense.

We trudge on.

[bscrive]

This reasoning is consistent with another thesis we heard recently stating the the firearm is the single most important innovation in the making of democratic forms of government.  The thesis goes that prior to the advent of firearms, it was relatively easy for a despot to raise a small force of well trained (at considerable expense), physically strong individuals that could effectively coerce much larger groups of people because the people were not trained in warfare and had no effective way to resist without appalling losses. 

With firearms, "regular" people suddenly had the wherewithal (without prohibitive expense or years of advanced training) to stop the coercion by the well trained but small in number "private army" of the despot.  The people could demand a say in how affairs are run and have a way to insist upon it.

Makes sense.

We trudge on.

Have you seen Somalia these days.  Ya, great reasoning.

[The Anvil]

This reasoning is consistent with another thesis we heard recently stating the the firearm is the single most important innovation in the making of democratic forms of government.  The thesis goes that prior to the advent of firearms, it was relatively easy for a despot to raise a small force of well trained (at considerable expense), physically strong individuals that could effectively coerce much larger groups of people because the people were not trained in warfare and had no effective way to resist without appalling losses. 

With firearms, "regular" people suddenly had the wherewithal (without prohibitive expense or years of advanced training) to stop the coercion by the well trained but small in number "private army" of the despot.  The people could demand a say in how affairs are run and have a way to insist upon it.

Makes sense.

We trudge on.

Have you seen Somalia these days.  Ya, great reasoning.

Which is what I meant when I said; "A gun is only as civilized as the person on the other end of it and when one side has all of them they tend to not be so civilized."

But even at that, how civilized was the US during the civil war? Both sides had plenty of guns and it was among the bloodiest conflicts in history.

Look, I own guns and I love guns and love shooting. But be under no illusions about their ultimate purpose. The gun itself does nothing to civilize anyone. It's an inert object. You can't tell the anti-gun crowd that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" while in the same breath claim that guns have some magical power to make civility appear from chaos.

Civilized people with guns however can be a stabilizing force. But uncivilized people with guns will be uncivilized either way. 

[sugerbear]

This reasoning is consistent with another thesis we heard recently stating the the firearm is the single most important innovation in the making of democratic forms of government.  The thesis goes that prior to the advent of firearms, it was relatively easy for a despot to raise a small force of well trained (at considerable expense), physically strong individuals that could effectively coerce much larger groups of people because the people were not trained in warfare and had no effective way to resist without appalling losses. 

With firearms, "regular" people suddenly had the wherewithal (without prohibitive expense or years of advanced training) to stop the coercion by the well trained but small in number "private army" of the despot.  The people could demand a say in how affairs are run and have a way to insist upon it.

Makes sense.

We trudge on.

Have you seen Somalia these days.  Ya, great reasoning.

Which is what I meant when I said; "A gun is only as civilized as the person on the other end of it and when one side has all of them they tend to not be so civilized."

But even at that, how civilized was the US during the civil war? Both sides had plenty of guns and it was among the bloodiest conflicts in history.

Look, I own guns and I love guns and love shooting. But be under no illusions about their ultimate purpose. The gun itself does nothing to civilize anyone. It's an inert object. You can't tell the anti-gun crowd that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" while in the same breath claim that guns have some magical power to make civility appear from chaos.

Civilized people with guns however can be a stabilizing force. But uncivilized people with guns will be uncivilized either way. 

that last line says it all. in my book anyway.

[RoadKill]

I bought more (AND BIGGER) guns as, uhhh,,,,'compensation'.  Now I have enough huge weapons that I can drive a smaller more economical truck. Therefore Guns are not only civilized,they are saving the economy and the planet,plus I am less likely to go 'postal' because of my issues with my tiny..uh...nevermind ! I'm going shooting!   

[CajunRider]

Civilized people with guns however can be a stabilizing force. But uncivilized people with guns will be uncivilized either way. 

I couldn't have said it better myself!