THE BEST PRO-GUN ARGUMENT I HAVE EVER READ
Thursday, August 23, 2012
As the Supreme Court heard arguments for and against the Chicago, IL Gun Ban, this man offered you another stellar example of a letter (written by a Marine), that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society.
Interesting take and one you don't hear much. Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph of the letter.
"The Gun Is Civilization" By 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 drunken 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.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
So, the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
Member Comments About This Blog Post
This was a good read regardless of what the wolf in the sheep dress coffeezombie has to say. You may be from "Canada" eh, leave us fearful Americans to deal with our own God(Government) Fearing Problems.
I don't own a gun(yet), I am not a fanatic(yet) and I am not Jewish(ever) but I have one question.
If Hitler didn't ban and take away guns from his citizens, would they have been able to be simply persuaded to go on summer vacation at death camp?
FYI More non-Jews were killed under Hitlers regime than Jews, Just saying. This isn't a Jewish thing, its a history thing.
He was also voted in as Chancellor, regardless if lies and propaganda put him there. People looked at him as a great leader. "Obama is king!"
If little baby Napoleon didn't have guns and cannons, would he have been able to ride the big boy rides at six flags?
Force is always the weapon of choice for the wrongdoers
The Constitution was written for a reason. It wasn't written by one, it was written by many. It wasn't written in one night.
All changes that have been made to the constitution by one man and/or over night need to be negated.
I may be wrong, but when that trains a comin' you better be runnin' (cause they already took your gun)
Fight or Flight, Logic or Violence, Reason or Force
Choose you defense wisely, if you still have a choice
1805 days ago
"Isn't it possible to just make this entire argument for anti-gun control by replacing the personal firearm with a personal device that is meant to subdue, not kill?"
Good question. When is subduing force sufficient and how can one tell? Too much is lethal, but if too little, then you just bet your life and lost. Suppose we use an electrical device; how much voltage is sufficient and under what circumstances? Is the attacker drunk? High on drugs? How does this change the amount of subdue-ance? Wait! What if the amount to subdue a 300 lb. attacker is lethal to a 120 lb. perpetrator? See where this is going? There is no way to measure a sub-lethal force. One may die from a slip in the tub or a big sneeze. No one, no matter how much information is available, can foretell. An unreliable deterrent to a threat is worse than no deterrent at all because it announces to the attacker that although he is willing to kill you, you are not willing to kill him. Watch the lessons in “The Usual Suspects” in the perspective of defense rather than criminal offense.
Coffeezombie thinks that guns are not equalizers because the young bucks are still faster, smarter and better in every way than old people. Studies show that this is not the case. Most people are far more willing to shoot to defend their life than someone who just wants your wallet. Even when robbers anesthetize their frontal lobes with a drug of choice, it also impairs speed and judgement. An amusing story is illustrative of a day trader who wanted to make a killing in the market by staying up on coke (chase the time zone around the world); after his normal productivity period elapsed, his judgement progressively worsened and he lost heavily. Coffeezombie is appropriately self-named.
1816 days ago
Isn't it possible to just make this entire argument for anti-gun control by replacing the personal firearm with a personal device that is meant to subdue, not kill?
1848 days ago
CoffeeZombie... I think you miss the whole point. The fact is that, In the U.S. we have a right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't matter what you think, say or drag up as a statistic. If one man would use the power of government to disarm another, how cowardly is that?
1902 days ago
If this is the best the pro gun movement has then I am disappointed. This great equalizer is not really that equal Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.), you are right that the elderly person has a better chance against the 19 year old gang banger and the 100lb women has a better chance against the 200lb roid monkey but the young man is still faster/better shot and the roid monkey is probably going to mug you at closer then 21 feet. which is well within the distance needed to pull a HOLSTERED gun. Does it really make people equal? Not really.....
I live in a city (Vancouver) that has had more then 3 mass stabbing rampages. If the attackers had a gun, the great equalizer would have had deaths rather then just injuries. No one has died from well over 20 assaults. Now some would say that a gun would of resulted in no injuries but if you consider that the defenders would of had a gun then you still could of had at least 3 deaths. Realistically more innocent people would of died just by being caught by surprise by a man with a gun.
James Rawles calls guns a force multiplier and he is right. A person in a psychosis can kill way more people with a gun then if he had just had a knife or another weapon. So do having freely available guns really make a healthier nation?
So what about tyranny you ask? Well look at Iraq/Afghanistan, these insurgents have not used guns for most of their "kills" but IED's. So do we really need guns to stop tyranny? No we need plumbing equipment and some basic chemistry.
What really drives the pro-gun movement is fear. Fear of other people, fear of big-brother, fear of being weaker. There is no great game changer to being a weaker person, there is just higher consequences with guns.......
ueller/How.Close.htm (21ft comment)
ges-1.1140258 (Mass stabbing)
ouver-stabbing-spree-1.1168915 (Mass stabbing pt 2)
ancouver-teen-girls-ends-with-arrest/ (Mass stabbing pt 3)
-multiplier-by-jlh.html (force multiplier)
0452295831 (force multiplier)
1916 days ago
Comment edited on: 3/22/2013 6:54:30 AM
The NRA nuts always crack me up. Guns will be taken away when monkeys teach college-level math.
Are NRA folks soooo wimpy that all they can do is cry wolf and drop tears if "gun control" is even talked about, and just for large, automatic weaponry?
Wimps - pussies and wussies, as Bob Dylan would say.
2105 days ago
2120 days ago
2126 days ago
Disclaimer: Weight loss results will vary from person to person. No individual result should be seen as a typical result of following the SparkPeople program.