why the gun is civilization.

I do not know why anyone is bringing these other things into it. I think someone got us off track.

If you can, try and quote a section of the essay you do not agree with and explain. We are getting off track from the posted OP.

I made NO assertions in the OP, I only posted the essay that someone else wrote.

Just SAYING.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


When I first got my CC license, my weapon (Bersa 9mm) was awkward. I always was aware of it. But my wife was the one who benefitted. She thought that we could all go out (with our sons) shop, eat, visit, explore, with a level of safety that she didn't have before.

I had her "back".

We all know that there are nuts in the world. But if I can do anything to make my family feel safer, then by god I am going to do just that!!!!

reply to post by beezzer


Well what I like about this essay is the part the author brings up. It really is not about fear, he said it better than I can.

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.

Another thing also, is the first time my father taught me about Situational Awareness. He was an Air Force Major, Korea and Vietnam. You do not scan your surroundings and evaluate dangers because you are afraid, you do it because you are aware that dangers exist. Just the same as when you are driving a car. You should check your threat areas every 6 seconds or so. This is no fear, it is only being prudent.

Thanks for the comment.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

De nada.
I'm an officer in the Army. And you and your reference are spot on! With a weapon, I feel more responsible, (MORE RESPONSIBLE) with my family, surroundings, and the people that inhabit them.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower

To me, this is a discussion of the debate between individuals. If an individual that is powerful or has a gun, knows or suspects someone else is on the same footing will think twice about engaging in force to persuade or to implement their action.
.

I think that sums it up perfectly.

I think that problem with all the anti-gun folk out there is that they think they life in a theoretical world. Like someone said about "well if NOBODY had guns then everything would be awesome!"

This is true, if you could press a button and make every firearm disappear, and stop them from being made in the future, then the whole gun debate is over. But we live in a real world, where you are NEVER EVER going to get rid of firearms. Pass all the laws you want, criminals are still going to get their hands on guns. And then use them. Who is going to stop them? The police? It's already been proven the police aren't required to protect you. The vast majority of their job is to clean up the mess the criminals make, not to stop them from making it in the first place.

The following blog gives a very accurate, logical, and well thought out commentary on an armed society. I would beg any anti gunners out there to find fault with any of the logic used.

carteach0.blogspot.com...

"In one way or another I have been armed since I was old enough to have my own .22 rifle. When I was of age I applied for and received a carry permit, and have held one most of my years since then. Truth be told, permit or not I have always had a weapon near me, as long as I can remember.

Since I grew up with weapons as tools, the morality of being armed was never raised as an issue. You had a chain saw to cut wood, and you had a firearm to defend yourself. You learned to use the chainsaw safely because you would need the skill as a capable adult. For the same reason you learned to shoot well and safely keep a weapon, as defending oneself is what a capable adult does. Personal responsibility demands one be able to do what’s needed, and be able to use the tools to meet that need. Anything less is a failure to oneself, ones loved ones, and ones community.

Later, in adult years, as introspection grew and answers to life’s questions were sought, I faced the issue of self defense. After carrying a weapon for years I finally took the time to ask myself why, and took the time to reason out an answer, or at least one of them.

I carry a weapon because it is the moral thing to do. It meets with my definition of doing ‘right’. Being prepared to defend myself and loved ones is part of being a responsible person.

Please allow me to explain…

I believe people have a ‘moral obligation’ to take responsibility for themselves, not leaving the task as a burden to others. I know this may not be a popular concept in some circles, but that doesn't change it as my belief. I know we are laden with entire generations of people who honestly think they bear no responsibility for their own safety, well being, and actions. I interact with such people every day.

I choose not to be one of those people.

I carry a weapon for much the same reasons as I usually have a pocket knife and a flashlight around me. These are all tools I may need to take care of myself and pull my own weight. To think of them other than tools is silly. Everything a man lays his hands on to complete a task is a tool, and no morality can possibly reside in the inanimate objects we use.

Why not leave my personal defense to ‘The Authorities’? For several reasons, as I’ll explain....

It’s simply not possible for any government authority to defend my person. There is no arguing this point. Even in the most restrictive environments imaginable, our federal prison system, there are daily physical attacks resulting in death and injury. There is no ‘civilized’ society in the world where government authority has been able to protect and defend the individual citizen from criminals bent on harm. There is an element, a breed, of humans who live as predators on their fellow humans, and they reside next door to each of us. No amount of authority can take on the task of defending the individual, no matter how well meaning. If it must be done, then I must do it myself.

This notion of ‘The Authorities’ is often a nebulous one, with folks forgetting that government service is peopled with humans no different than ourselves. Good and bad, competent and worthless, our government mirrors our population and that should cause a moments thought. When I call on the police to help me, what am I really doing? I am asking my neighbor to put his life on the line for my needs. Perhaps not when simply investigating a break-in or calming a troubled situation, but often enough when danger calls. For an unreasonably small handful of dollars I should expect the officer to arrive with weapon in hand and interpose himself between trouble and I? Is this right?

It’s here that morality raises its ugly head. How can I ask my neighbor to risk his life for me when I am not willing to do so for myself? How can I in good conscience expect an officer to care more for my loved ones and me, than I do myself?

I was raised understanding that a man did for himself, and only asked for help when he had to. This went hand in hand with the idea that you always helped your neighbor when they asked, because they wouldn’t ask if they didn’t really need it. That and it was part of the contract that they would be there when you asked in return. This contract has fallen by the wayside in our society, in many places. Too many now demand ‘help’ with every problem real or perceived, and too many honestly believe that ‘help’ is owed them by society for some unknown reason. Far too often, ‘help’ is defined as ‘Someone come and do this for me because I don’t want to!’

I carry a weapon because I believe a person has a moral responsibility to take care of themselves and not be a burden on others. The pistol I carry on my belt, and the rifle stored in my safe, are nothing more than tools needed to meet my responsibility. This is not a responsibility that can be relieved by some fool wishing it so and announcing it.

It’s a moral obligation that can only be self imposed, self delivered, and self administered."

reply to post by beezzer


Yeah, I read that article. It reminded me of this essay and I actually came across it in the comments on her article. She has her articles posted in a couple of places besides her home site. I recognized the essay and did a little research on it.

I missed this comment earlier. Boy Coulter definitely gets a lot of comments to her articles. I think it had like 2700 comments.

reply to post by James1982


Thanks for the comment. We got off the topic of the essay when I replied to the components the person you are commenting to here on your comment.

I just thought it a pretty good essay on self defense and individual gun rights.

reply to post by James1982


James that is one of the best responses I've seen in any gun thread. I agree 110% with everything you said.

I care a gun because it is my responsibility to look after my family and myself. As long as their are predators in the world good men will have to stand between them and the innocent.

reply to post by James1982


I will agree with MikeNice. Excellent breakdown.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower

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.

Gun still equals force in the form of threat.

That threat can be used to defend against force or to force another to do something they do not want to do.

A gun does not remove force from the equation, but rather accelerates the outcome to an extreme whether someone is defending themselves or commiting a crime.

A gun does not introduce virtue into an interaction, it simply raises the stakes for better or worse.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by beezzer

 

Well what I like about this essay is the part the author brings up. It really is not about fear, he said it better than I can.

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.

A gun means that he might be "forced" to kill someone...or someone might be "forced" to kill him.

Carrying a gun does not guarantee that no one else also has a gun or is not a better shot.

I am not against gun ownership. I own guns. But the logic presented here...a gun eliminating "force" from interactiosn is not sound.

reply to post by kinda kurious


"You get farther with a kind word and a gun,
than just a kind word."

- Al Capone, "Untouchables"

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by kinda kurious

 

Well, you bring to the argument the persuasion end of it. But if you have no time to use that persuasion, what good is it?

Perhaps you are right. Go ahead and shoot 'em then. I kid.

reply to post by maybereal11


Here is the thing that kind of lends credence to the point Marko Kloos was trying to make in the essay. Studies done in the 1980s and 1990s showed three things. 60% of convicted felons said they would avoid targets they knew to have a gun. 40% said they would avoid targets they believed to have a gun. A majority said that they were more concerned about running in to an armed citizen than a cop.

Just like all other humans, most criminals don't want to get shot. More importantly they seek weak targets that provide minimal resistance with maximum reward. In every part of the country where "shall issue" concealed carry laws were inacted, the crime rate dropped faster than the national average the very next year. When the criminals knew that people could fight back they backed off.

It levels the field between old and young, weak and strong. It also deters violence from even begining.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by James1982

 

James that is one of the best responses I've seen in any gun thread. I agree 110% with everything you said.

I care a gun because it is my responsibility to look after my family and myself. As long as their are predators in the world good men will have to stand between them and the innocent.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by James1982

 

I will agree with MikeNice. Excellent breakdown.

I'm not sure if I made it clear in my post, but the blog was NOT written by me. The part in quotations after the link is from "carteach0"

carteach0.blogspot.com...

That's his blog. Full credit where credit is due. I've seen people on here post text from other websites, and they put it in like a "quote box" that says "off site content" on the side of the box. Anyone know how to do that? I would like to edit that post with the carteach0 blog in quote box so people don't think it was written by me.

Unless you were complimenting me on the first part of the post which I wrote, in which case thank you! But I have a feeling you guys are referring to the blog post.

reply to post by James1982


It was pretty clear that it was from another source. I still like to give credit to the person that fines something good to share.

To put something in the off site quote box click on the ex-text button when replying or posting. It is in the row of command boxes under the font options. After you click on that it is self explanitory. Sometimes it wont take everything. So you have to add in what ever it doesn't take. Nothing hard just an extra step.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by James1982

 

It was pretty clear that it was from another source. I still like to give credit to the person that fines something good to share.

To put something in the off site quote box click on the ex-text button when replying or posting. It is in the row of command boxes under the font options. After you click on that it is self explanitory. Sometimes it wont take everything. So you have to add in what ever it doesn't take. Nothing hard just an extra step.

Cool, thanks for the info man!

Like I said, I just wanted to make it clear it wasn't written by me, as I can't stand it when people post other peoples stuff as their own.

Thanks again!

reply to post by maybereal11


I do not think the author says it eliminates force, it just makes the two individuals equal if someone attempts force. From the essay-

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.

A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

I do not think the author is stating that force, crime or other bad things are not going to happen, the gun just evens things up. This in turn makes those that would use force, to have to be weary.

As far as acceleration, I would say the true statistics on guns and crime would say the exact opposite. Since I was about 14, I have always carried a knife. Usually about a 4" folding knife. It is in my pile of things I pick up every morning. The current one is a 3.5" folding knife with a couple of extras. Right along with my keys, wallet, cell phone and lighter, it goes with me everywhere. Now, lately that list is getting an addition. It is not always there in the pile to go with me every time, but the times are a changing. All of these are just tools. They are used or not used as the events warrant.

Thanks for the comments, I see your points. But I know I would never go to some places any longer without my tool. As I look back on my life, there are some places that I have gone that I am amazed I never carried back then. East St Louis, Chicago, Minneapolis, Fresno (of course I can now say I did carry a lot there-shhhhh)

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

Blah, blah, blah, blah. Tell me of one time in the history of mankind, that violence was not there. One time and this comment I will give you. All I ask is one time in history.

Never. If you've seen any of my posts on the subjects, you'd know that I believe even the so-called "peaceful movements" in history are successful only when backed with hte thread of force. The classic example is the Civil Rights Movement vs. the Anti-Vietnam movement in the 60's; the Civil Rights movement had Watts and Chicago in its back pocket "just in case." The anti-Vietnam movement had nothing. Which one was more successful?

However, you're missing my point. The gun is not the "basis of civilization." It has been quite effective in performing the exact opposite function, in fact. This is because the same qualities you laud in a gun - the ease of use, the availability across a broad spectrum, and the simplicity of it - also make it very easy to misuse.

THAT WAS NOT an emotional argument, that was a logical argument about self defense and the ability to level the force playing field. Just because you do not like the logic of the argument, does not mean it is directly an emotional argument.

It is, actually. It plays on the righteous indignation of having "MY STUFF" touched. It strokes the ego with assurances that your gun magically transforms you into a badass capable of triumphing over all threats. And of course, there's the undercurrent that the gun is inherently good and moral, rather than something more akin to a hammer or a roll of toilet paper.

How does leveling the playing field become emotional? Because a woman is inherently weaker? Well then, what about a person with a disability or say anyone facing a person that has been trained in martial arts? Or has a knife? Or has a machete? Does that remove the emotional argument?

Why do you assume it does level the playing field? Seriously, this is the core of your problem. You never question this one assumption. You accept it as a religious and universal truth. You base your entire point around this one thing, that you never ever examine.

Does the gun "level the playing field"? No, in fact it does not. It could conceivably contribute to forming a more level field, but it's far from guaranteed. In some instances it could even get you killed more reliably. Someone who means you harm is ALWAYS going to have several advantages over you, and odds are, they're not bringing a knife to a gunfight, either.

Now, just so you understand, I'm not anti-gun. That, to me, would be like being anti-crowbar or anti-radio. It's an object with a use, nothing else. What drives me up the wall is the gun mythology, the sort of cult that has grown up around it, where the gun is inherently good, and the universe is defined into White hat "gun owners" and Black Hat "criminals" with absolutely zero overlap, where every victim deserved it, and just having a firearm around magically makes you safer. It's as ludicrous as the Brady Bunch mythology where guns are the ultimate embodiment of evil, and corrupt anyone who touches them.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

It is, actually. It plays on the righteous indignation of having "MY STUFF" touched. It strokes the ego with assurances that your gun magically transforms you into a badass capable of triumphing over all threats. And of course, there's the undercurrent that the gun is inherently good and moral, rather than something more akin to a hammer or a roll of toilet paper

Well, the next time a woman defends herself from getting raped and murdered or a family frightens a would be psychotic that wants to rape the wife and child then burn them alive, I will tell them that they should have let someone touch their stuff! Because THAT never happens.

A gun is NOT a living thing, it cannot kill, it cannot do anything without a PERSON to make it function.

It is a tool, just as the knife, the sword or the myriad of other tools that were used in the past for defense. I suppose you thought it righteous in the past that peasants were not allowed to have those either? Pffft.