Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 194

Thread: Why Carrying a Gun is Civilized

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    156

    Default Why Carrying a Gun is Civilized

    A very concise, well constructed stance.


    "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."

  2. #2
    Member tabmarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Just yards from the Big Su
    Posts
    328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ulflyfish View Post
    A very concise, well constructed stance.


    "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."
    Well said and I agree 100%....I would like to see you post more...full of facts and to the point.
    If we all agreed....this would be no fun

  3. #3
    Member 4merguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Alaska
    Posts
    9,750

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ulflyfish View Post
    A very concise, well constructed stance.


    "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."
    Love it...!!!
    Sheep hunting...... the pain goes away, but the stupidity remains...!!!

  4. #4
    Member JOAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Soldotna, ALASKA since '78
    Posts
    3,720

    Default

    An armed society is a polite society.

    This is a good resource on the subject...
    http://www.a-human-right.com/guncontrol.html
    Winter is Coming...

    Go GeocacheAlaska!

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Palmer
    Posts
    267

    Default

    Very well written and argued and I couldn't agree more. Outstanding!

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Veneta, OR
    Posts
    1,156

    Default

    ABSOLUTELY correct and eloquent !!!

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    1,462

    Default

    Excellent work sir...thanks for posting it.

  8. #8
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,602

    Default

    There is a third way called negotiation.When two people meet to handle something they can accept,reject or negotiate.If no agreement can be made then the best shot wins.
    Now left only to be a turd in the forrest and the circle will be complete.Use me as I have used you

  9. #9

    Default Re: Why Carrying a Gun is Civilized

    If you accept the premise that there are only two sorts of interaction, then this argument holds up. I reject the premise and when adding other sorts of variables the conclusion fails to follow. That said I do concur to a point that an armed society is by and large a polite society, if that society trends towards politeness, Switzerland v. Somalia.

  10. #10
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Unhappy A sick society . . .

    To claim that carrying a gun is civilized proves exactly the opposite because it assumes that all human interaction is adversarial, and an adversarial social order is uncivilized, brutish, and savage.


    A civilized social order is marked by its free choice to give the power of coercion to the state in order that human interaction can be conducted in a spirit of cooperation. In a "truly moral and civilized society," people interact in a spirit of trust, cooperation, and good will. Force has a valid function in ordering civilized society, but force is the exclusive option and province of the state.


    An armed society is a fearful, brutish, and savage society marked by distrust and hostility.


    And such we are rapidly becoming. I am old enough to remember when it wasn't always this way, when the local firearms dealer's shelves weren't stocked with an overwhelming majority of weapons designed to kill another human being, when we didn't lock our doors, when we didn't need to disinfect our grocery carts for fear of being contaminated by our neighbors.


    Congratulations . . .


    John

  11. #11
    Member JOAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Soldotna, ALASKA since '78
    Posts
    3,720

    Default

    Wow. This thread will be locked up PDQ. "Reason", "persuasion" and "negotiation" are the exact same thing. Splitting the hairs about how to label the "talk" is not an argument that holds water against the ability of free people to arm themselves.

    Marcus, you really surprise me with just how far off base you are on an "armed society". There is nothing about being armed that proves that all human interaction is adversarial. You can have a gun in your pocket and conduct 99.9% of all your human interaction in a civilized and polite manner. But when a jackal comes out of the darkness wearing a mask and orange hair and intent on killing everyone in the theater for his own pleasure, you can be an unarmed victim or you can even the "interaction" by having your own bit of lethal force readily available.

    Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. While you may walk into the hardware store and see shelves filled with brutal weapons to kill other human beings, I just see hammers and crowbars. The shelves at the gun shop are filled with tools. Tools that are designed to propel a small chunk of metal at high speed and with a high degree of accuracy. Different people use those tools in different ways. Some like to see how accurately they can punch holes in pieces of paper or cardboard at various distances. Some like to knock over metal plates or old bowling pins. Some like to break small clay disks that are flung into the air. Some like to play "dress up" with their tools and admire the aesthetics. Some like to collect these tools as an investment item. Some like to use these tools to put food on their tables. And yes, some like to carry these tools as a force equalizer for the potential of that extremely rare event where the wolves come to their door with no intent on "negotiation".
    Winter is Coming...

    Go GeocacheAlaska!

  12. #12
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Wink Keeping it civil . .

    Quote Originally Posted by JOAT View Post
    . . Splitting the hairs about how to label the "talk" is not an argument that holds water against the ability of free people to arm themselves.

    Marcus, you really surprise me with just how far off base you are on an "armed society". . .

    I said absolutely nothing about "the ability of a "free people to arm themselves."


    What I did say was that a society that feels the need to arm itself against its neighbors is a brutish, savage, and uncivilized society, which is not at all the same thing as the right of a free people to keep and bear arms.





    ( Personal Attacks are Strictly Prohibited! Thank you for keeping the debate civil.)



  13. #13
    Member Tearbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    ...a society that feels the need to arm itself against its neighbors is a brutish, savage, and uncivilized society, which is not at all the same thing as the right of a free people to keep and bear arms.
    I had some 'neighbors' once that were brutish, savage, and uncivilized, if they had known that I was unarmed I'm sure they would have taken advantage of me. Yes we do live in a sick society, but it has nothing to do with guns.
    "Grin and Bear It"

  14. #14
    Member JOAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Soldotna, ALASKA since '78
    Posts
    3,720

    Default

    Line one was a reponse to posts #8 & 9.

    This isn't a need to arm ourselves against our neighbors. It is a need to arm ourselves against evil. Big difference.
    Winter is Coming...

    Go GeocacheAlaska!

  15. #15
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tearbear View Post
    . . we do live in a sick society, but it has nothing to do with guns.

    "Guns" are a symptom, not a cause.


    Heck, even the need to comment anonymously on these and other fora is a symptom.


    John

  16. #16
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JOAT View Post
    This isn't a need to arm ourselves against our neighbors. It is a need to arm ourselves against evil. Big difference.

    The problem is that we can't tell the difference between our neighbor and evil and, living thus in fear, we feel the need to arm ourselves.


    It wasn't always this way . . trust me.

  17. #17
    Member 4merguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Alaska
    Posts
    9,750

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post

    ( Personal Attacks are Strictly Prohibited! Thank you for keeping the debate civil.)


    He didn't attack you in any way, shape, or form.....
    Sheep hunting...... the pain goes away, but the stupidity remains...!!!

  18. #18
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 4merguide View Post
    He didn't attack you in any way, shape, or form.....

    Did I say he did?


    If the shoe fits . . .

  19. #19
    Member JOAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Soldotna, ALASKA since '78
    Posts
    3,720

    Default

    I can tell the difference between my neighbor and evil. If I couldn't, then it would not be prudent to arm one's self, less you shoot the wrong guy.

    It has nothing to do with fear. I don't fear my neighbor and I don't fear evil. Why? Because I carry a big stick.

    The real underlying problem here is that people have become so desensitized to proper, civil behavior that they actually cannot tell the difference between neighbor and evil.

    Here is an example:



    What do you see? Neighbors or Evil?

    http://www.kptv.com/story/20548025/m...and-to-educate

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/10...public-on-gun/
    Winter is Coming...

    Go GeocacheAlaska!

  20. #20
    Member Tearbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,986

    Default

    Yes I knew those neighbors were evil, and I must admit that I was fearful of them...and thankful I was armed so I had a chance to defend myself against them if the need to do so arose. Not all neighbors are uncivilized, sick or evil, yet some most certainly are.
    "Grin and Bear It"

Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •