4554x4
always modifing something
- Location
- Sandy Utah
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 6:33 AM
> Subject: The Gun is Civilization
>
> 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 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.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 6:33 AM
> Subject: The Gun is Civilization
>
> 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 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.
>
>
