Why The Gun Is Civilization

[Raith]

http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/20 ... ation.html

why 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 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.

Good article.

[Nil8r]

Great read, thanks for posting it.

[LaserRacer]

That is one of the more concise and clear arguments for the right to bear arms that I have seen in a long time.

[Camx]

To sum it up, "The strong do what they want can, the weak suffer what they must." Thucydides

But I would add that a gun is no different than a shovel or a hammer, in truth its just a tool. It depends on how you use it if its useful or destructive. A gun is not civilization, especially in the way this author describes it to be. To him a gun is anarchy because the world he describes is that of man in his natural state, man vs. man, survival of the fittest, a total breakdown of civilization. Or as Hobbes said, life in this state has become nasty, brutish, and short. The author talks about a world where force seems to be a constant and the only sure fire way to get what you want. But having a gun somehow makes you exempt from all this? He argues that guns level the field by allowing gay men and little old ladies to kill with ease. However whats to stop a hungry grandmother from shooting you then and taking your food? Or putting a bullet in your head and stealing your own gun? Because you have a gun does that somehow make you bulletproof? All a gun does is make sure most of the fights that follow will be fatal. He then says laws that restrict guns make us less safe by giving the monopoly of using force to the rowdy youth. What about the police? They are the ones who are supposed to have the monopoly on force, did they disappear? Without police and therefore law we would be living in an anarchy hell. Clearly the author thinks we live in this state of affairs and the only way for him to survive day to day is by packing heat. How is that civilized?  I could poke more holes in that rant above to make it a fine swiss cheese, but I choose not to and there's nothing you can do about it. Why you ask? Cause I have a gun and you don't, and according to "Marko" that means I can do whatever the hell I want! Civilization be damned!

[-MAD- SARGE]

That's if you choose to...then yes, you have the force to do so. That is the point of his arguement.  

You could do what ever you wanted until the police showed up armed or another armed person decided to intervene.

Let's face it. If someone wants to do harm they will do it.  The only thing that will stop someone like that is some type of force, gun or not.

Yes there is no one solid answer.  You could look at it as being prepared.  I might want to learn how to swim or get a life jacket incase someday I fall into some water.  That skill or tool can give me a better standing in that situation.  Will I need to use it on a everyday basis, probally not, but I know I can deal with it if it ocurs. Main thing to me is that force is always needed in some form at all times until we reach that point where  everyone becomes enlightened and we have world peace.

I also dont like limiting civilians with "slingshots".  But I also know what the flipside of that coin can be as well.  Neither look good to me.

[Camx]

A gun is many things, but wrapping it up in all sorts of heady nonsense  "the gun is the savior of civilization" is BS. Were we uncivilized then before the advent and spread of guns? What about other countries that do put heavy bans on the ownership of weapons and happen to be safer than the US? The very opposite of Mr. Kloos's main argument above and the thing he fears most I assume. Are these people not civilized then? Maybe more? Maybe less? This is not an argument for the justifications of using force in a dog eat dog world, (well it is but its so bad that its not) its just bad NRAish propaganda. I was half expecting this bozo to mention how his gun makes him a greater lover in bed the way he swoons and fawns over his "piece."

Shit, I sound like Michael fricken Moore now. WTF?!

[Ghostsequel]

The author is an idiot.  While I agree with the people's right to bear arms, carrying a gun does not make you invincible.  It doesn't make you immune to coersion.  It doesn't enable you to be unafraid (unless you happen to be a moron).  It doesn't make you a better human being, and it sure as hell isn't civilisation.