[Lash]

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 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 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.

Source: Marko Kloos

 

[WaltGraham]

One of my personal favorites:

"Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another. Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful.? For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed

Source

 

[DArbeit]

Thank You

I cannot express too strongly my gratitude for you both posting these things.

 

[gobetween]

The correct title for the essay in the OP is "Why the Gun is Civilization."

It can be found here.

 

[IrishCop]

Mr. Kloos essay was the most eloquent and logical argument for the rights of free men (and women) to be armed I think I have ever read. Bravo, and thanks to Lash for sharing it with us.

And thanks to Mr. Graham for For reprinting Col. Grossman's essay. I have used (stolen) the sheepdog analogy myself. It has opened a few closed eyes.

 

[Oddbod]

The restriction on firearms possession imposed by governments is a deliberate conceit on their part & a refusal to admit the force of Law cannot & never will replace an individual's need to defend themselves.
It has little if anything to do with crime; rather it is the ultimate measure of social control, leaving the citizenry helpless against tyranny & criminality(with governments often being the most dangerous criminals).
Every step in the disarmament of UK citizens since 1907 has been followed by a sudden rise in crime.

 

[phantom4570]

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.

I reject this thesis. A significant amount of human interaction is altruistic. Few of us would deny food to a hungry child or a spare blanket to someone who is cold. Have you ever changed a tire for someone who needed assistance? Have you ever stood outside in the driving rain helping a neighbor clear branches of a fallen tree from their yard. We do these things without being convinced by reason or force.

Sadly these instincts have been corrupted by government mandated altruism and manipulated by a billion dollar charity racket but that is something for another topic.

 

[Javlin]

I reject this thesis. A significant amount of human interaction is altruistic. Few of us would deny food to a hungry child or a spare blanket to someone who is cold. Have you ever changed a tire for someone who needed assistance? Have you ever stood outside in the driving rain helping a neighbor clear branches of a fallen tree from their yard. We do these things without being convinced by reason or force.

Sadly these instincts have been corrupted by government mandated altruism and manipulated by a billion dollar charity racket but that is something for another topic.

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

You seemed to of missed something in your analogy there happens to be a disagreement.While all the items you have brought up are done from one's own will to HELP but coercion is another matter.

 

[phantom4570]

You seemed to of missed something in your analogy

I do not see where I missed anything. Altruistic deeds are not received by argument or force. I assert that a large amount of human interaction is rooted in altruistic instincts and I reject the assertion that "Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force."

 

[TommyGunn]

I reject this thesis. A significant amount of human interaction is altruistic*. Few of us would deny food to a hungry child or a spare blanket to someone who is cold. Have you ever changed a tire for someone who needed assistance? Have you ever stood outside in the driving rain helping a neighbor clear branches of a fallen tree from their yard. We do these things without being convinced by reason or force.

Sadly these instincts have been corrupted by government mandated altruism and manipulated by a billion dollar charity racket but that is something for another topic.

* "ALTRUISTIC" = REASON
If you consider the dichotomy of "reason vs. force" you must take a close look at what might come under the heading of "reason." You label it "altruism" but if you consider that a subset of reason then your conundrum is resolved in favor of the original argument.

 

[Javlin]

That is better than I could put it Tommy though I thought one might understand with a HS education that coercion does not = altruistism but HEY!there are trolls under certain bridges

 

[phantom4570]

* "ALTRUISTIC" = REASON
If you consider the dichotomy of "reason vs. force" you must take a close look at what might come under the heading of "reason." You label it "altruism" but if you consider that a subset of reason then your conundrum is resolved in favor of the original argument.

You are using a very elastic definition of "reason" that is inconsistent with the usage in the original statement.

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...

Reason is used to induce us to do something that we did not want to do in the first place. Reason convinces us that it is the right thing to do. There are human interactions that are not predicated on either reason or force.

Reason: Will you help me move this weekend?
Ummm. I have tickets to the game.
I have a friend who will buy your tickets and you can have my tickets to next weekends game.
OK, I'll help you move.
(Strictly speaking this is negotiation but I will accept this as a subset of reason)

Altruism: Will you help me move this weekend?
Sure. The Dodgers suck. I can't give away the tickets and I'd rather help you move than sit through another nine innings of eleven-ball.

That is better than I could put it Tommy though I thought one might understand with a HS education that coercion does not = altruistism but HEY!there are trolls under certain bridges

Resorting to name calling ... I expected you to be above such behavior.

 

[phantom4570]

In my not so humble opinion this is a poorly constructed argument. It is the type of argument that will convince people who already believe in bearing arms. My primary issues with the argument are the force versus reason assertion that I've rejected in an earlier post and the implication that a gun by itself is a solution. Experienced shooters already know that situational awareness, training, practice and resolve are necessary skills but this missive fails to communicate these details.

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.A personal firearm does not remove force from the menu. A personal firearm creates an equality or parity of force which is a deterrent. Ideally you want to communicate to your adversary that the best possible outcome they can expect in a hostile encounter is mutually assured destruction.

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.
A civilized person in a face to face encounter will not employ force. We bear arms to deal with the uncivilized. Does anyone expect a prison hardened crackhead to confront you face to face or is he going to bushwhack you from behind? A firearm can only negate such threats using situational awareness, training, practice and the resolve to pull the trigger.

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.
You are awakened out of a deep sleep by the noise of an intruder. Where is your gun? Do you need glasses? Do you need wetting drops for your contacts? You grab your gun and confront the intruder. Another damn raccoon in the catfood. You chase the varmint off with a broom and secure cat door. How long will it take you to go back to sleep? Who left the cat door unsecured? You hear the floor creak, You snap to to face the noise. It's your nine year old granddaughter looking for her cat. You reengage the safety while feeling relieved that you only broke one of the four rules.
Four extremely hostile drunks with baseball bats. How close are they? Can you draw and fire before they close the distance? Can you put two in the nine ring of four dispersed moving targets in dim light? If not, how fast can you run?
Mas Ayoob demonstrated that it takes about one and a half seconds to draw and fire an aimed shot. An determined attacker can close over twenty feet on you in one and a half seconds. A personal firearm is one part of the solution. That firearm is nearly useless without situational awareness, training, practice and the resolve to pull the trigger.
...
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.
The advocates of banning arms implicitly argue to give the state a monopoly on force. Criminals inherit a de facto monopoly on force when the state abdicates its responsibility to those it has disarmed.
...
Source: Marko Kloos

 

[TommyGunn]

You are using a very elastic definition of "reason" that is inconsistent with the usage in the original statement. Reason is used to induce us to do something that we did not want to do in the first place. Reason convinces us that it is the right thing to do. There are human interactions that are not predicated on either reason or force.

Reason: Will you help me move this weekend?
Ummm. I have tickets to the game.
I have a friend who will buy your tickets and you can have my tickets to next weekends game.
OK, I'll help you move.
(Strictly speaking this is negotiation but I will accept this as a subset of reason)

Altruism: Will you help me move this weekend?
Sure. The Dodgers suck. I can't give away the tickets and I'd rather help you move than sit through another nine innings of eleven-ball......

Answer me this: do you think it is unreasonable to be altruistic?
Neither of your two examples above are so substantially different that I would characterize them as being either solely altruistic or reasonable.
"Reason" is a word which I believe has a great deal of natural leeway in it.

YMMV. "Reasonable" people can disagree -- as can we.

 

[phantom4570]

Answer me this: do you think it is unreasonable to be altruistic?

I believe altruism transcends reason. We perform altruistic deeds without regard to reason. The following story is among many examples from my personal experience:
I heard a woman swearing like a sailor while standing next to her car in the parking lot of a strip mall. I look, I can see she is both angry and crying. My instincts say don't get involved but then I notice the flat tire, the scissor jack and the bleeding scraped knuckles on her hand. It's a hundred and seven degrees in Sacramento and here I am in the sun on an asphalt parking lot changing this snarky drama queen's tire after giving her an alcohol wipe for her hand. There was nothing in this deed for me except a few thimbles worth of karma. I stopped her unpleasant screaming. I taught her how to break the lug nuts loose before jacking up the car. I changed the tire and showed her the pallet nail that had punctured the inside sidewall. I parted ways with "Welcome to the University of Life Sucks. You can pay your tuition at the tire shop when you replace that tire." I doubt there is a reasoned argument that would have convinced me to perform that deed and nobody forced me either.

 

[Tim Burke]

I doubt there is a reasoned argument that would have convinced me to perform that deed and nobody forced me either.

Nobody forced you; you had your reasons.