[quote]The Gun is Civilization – 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 an 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.
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed
and can only be persuaded, never forced.[/quote]
English
-
This guy seems to raise guns above the level where they're at, which is a tool. And he provides no citations or hard evidence of any kind, which is something that should always be a red flag. To be fair, there really isn't much data available on how much protection a gun actually provides. But it is out there. [quote]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.[/quote] So a 19 year old and fit gang member with a gun is "on equal footing" with a 75 year old retiree who also has a gun? Isn't being young and fit still an advantage? The gun "removes the disparity" between one man and four or five men? [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGzeyO3pGzw]The Mythbusters[/url] showed that in the time it takes to draw and fire a weapon, an attacker with a knife could cover the distance (about 15 feet) between themselves and the shooter fairly easily. Now, what if the shooter was old, disabled, or otherwise slower than the attacker? Simply having a gun isn't necessarily going to protect you. Having a gun doesn't protect you, just like having a hammer doesn't make you ready to build a house. There are so many more factors at play.
-
He made reasoned arguments, you don't need any sources for that. What do you expect: [i]66% of survey respondents agree that guns level the playing field[/i]? Not everything is an academic research paper. Get out of the books and come to the real world, bro. Do you really think that a person facing a stronger attacker is, on average, not better off with a tool for defense? Anyone trained in the use of a firearm for self-defense is aware of the findings of the Mythbusters episode. You state the obvious by pointing out that a gun isn't a panacea to the problem of others seeking to use force against you -- but it sure as hell helps. You're right in your analogy. A hammer doesn't let you build a house, but have you ever tried building a house without a hammer? Yes, it's one of many factors -- but it's an absolutely crucial one.
-
A survey asking how many people agree that guns level the playing field would be useless, bro. Seriously though, some sources would give his points legitimacy. It doesn't matter what he or I think, it matters what is actually happening. My problem with the letter Garland posted is that the person writing it seems to be placing the gun on a pedestal based on his feelings and nothing else. Maybe you are more likely to be able to successfully defend yourself with a gun. I wouldn't be surprised. But I suspect that having a gun simply gives you a slightly better fighting chance at defending yourself. Guns aren't made of magic, they don't suddenly make you prepared to defend yourself.
-
john lott's research says that a female with a gun is 2.5 times more likely to be unharmed vs a female without a gun. the male benefit is lower at 1.4 times safer.