It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
An Open Letter to Lovers of the Gun
page: 27share:
I don't know if anyone has posted this yet on ATS.
I saw it on FaceBook yesterday.
I like the way this guy puts it.
The Gun is Civilization.
I saw it on FaceBook yesterday.
I like the way this guy puts it.
The Gun is Civilization.
The Gun is Civilization by The Munchkin Wrangler 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.
edit on b000000282014-02-03T07:50:50-06:0007America/ChicagoMon, 03 Feb 2014 07:50:50
-0600700000014 by butcherguy because: broke wall of text into author's original paragraphs.
reply to post by FyreByrd
Why is it that anyone, who is guaranteed a right, 2nd Amendment comes to mind, must succumb to additional restrictions just to make a small minority happy?
Do you propose such insurance requirements for say, the 1st Amendment?
No!!
This whole idea of "common sense" gun restrictions is BS disguised as cake.
We, gun owners, do not need to have additional insurance, or any other load of crap you or Progressives are pitching.
Funny, as Gun Ownership is soaring to new levels, Gun Murder is down. bjs.gov...
Why is it that anyone, who is guaranteed a right, 2nd Amendment comes to mind, must succumb to additional restrictions just to make a small minority happy?
Do you propose such insurance requirements for say, the 1st Amendment?
No!!
This whole idea of "common sense" gun restrictions is BS disguised as cake.
We, gun owners, do not need to have additional insurance, or any other load of crap you or Progressives are pitching.
Funny, as Gun Ownership is soaring to new levels, Gun Murder is down. bjs.gov...
thesaneone
When my loved ones lives are threatened with force from any wrong doer that's when.
Problem occurs what some of us consider under 'threat'. From look at some earlier posts here, or some other topics, such as one with flags being up side - down, I assume some already feel under threat. Should they default on use of force to protect them selves?
Armed militia is very dangerous thing, if not controlled. You can view that from all wars around the world, even in recent history. Mass killings from Africa (tribal), wars on Balkan (paramilitary formations carried some of worst war atrocities since WWII in Europe), even Iraq and Afghanistan, where everyone think that they have right to carry on killings.
For some of them lost of family is enough reason to continue with killing. This create circle that is very hard to stop. One of rare people that was able to stop it was late Nelson Mandela, but SA thanks to aids, bad economy has one of highest criminal rates in the world.
reply to post by cavtrooper7
I am sorry to hear that. School does help, at least you have some other worries and chores.
Not sure why or how, but I managed to be fine with everything that has happened to me and everyone around me. I did create aversion toward people with guns, tho. I saw first hand what monster gun can create in people, especially what I would consider 'weak people', those who like to prove them selves worth with gun, but without a gun they are nobody.
butcherguy
Yep.
If we don't think like they do, we are nuts.
They are down to that excuse now.
I never said that. Tho, some gun owners are nuts. I even have a friend who is gun collector, has many guns. He does not carry gun, but has large collection at home.
This topic went in good way - focusing on why people think that freedom is something that needs to be protected on daily basis with gun. I do get security concerns, but all statistics is against claims that more guns would mean we are more secure.
Actually quote opposite, with more guns you are more likely to be shot.
edit on 3-2-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)
SuperFrog
This topic went in good way - focusing on why people think that freedom is something that needs to be protected on daily basis with gun. I do get security concerns, but all statistics is against claims that more guns would mean we are more secure.
Actually quote opposite, with more guns you are more likely to be shot.
No...Wrong again.
www.breitbart.com...
bjs.gov...
You want "what ifs" and "maybes" to be legislated out of existence.
Now, I fully know you will ignore this, move to the next person as you don't like getting involved with discussions you can't win.
You enjoy the easy dialog with others here, but when confronted by someone that stands their ground, you refuse to engage.
SuperFrog
thesaneone
When my loved ones lives are threatened with force from any wrong doer that's when.
Problem occurs what some of us consider under 'threat'. From look at some earlier posts here, or some other topics, such as one with flags being up side - down, I assume some already feel under threat. Should they default on use of force to protect them selves?
editby]edit on 3-2-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)
I said with force.
Learn to read.
FyreByrd
This thread is so far off-topic. That I want to offer a solution that should make our, how to say this, gun owning friends happy.
Any gun owner should be required to purchase firearm insurance in order to be responsible and pay the costs of damage to people or property due to discharge of said firearm. The policies would have to include coverage for uninsured users (those not specifically cited as insured users). Proof of insurance required to purchase ammunition.
I wonder if any insurance company would carry such coverage. They don't and will never insure nuclear plants becaue the risk and number associated are way too high. Do we have any actuaries around?
You are already responsible for the damage caused by yourself, both civilly and criminally. Accidents with firearms are already covered under most home owners insurance polices, just like any other accident, so your premise is rather stupid.
Unless of course by "uninsured users" you mean criminals, I would rather a criminal be held responsible for his own actions. Like a typical leftist, you always blame anyone but the responsible party.
reply to post by SuperFrog
So people that carry guns are nuts?
Just want you to clarify so that I am not blaming you for something that you didn't say, even if you may have inferred it.
I never said that. Tho, some gun owners are nuts. I even have a friend who is gun collector, has many guns. He does not carry gun, but has large collection at home.
So people that carry guns are nuts?
Just want you to clarify so that I am not blaming you for something that you didn't say, even if you may have inferred it.
SuperFrog
This topic went in good way - focusing on why people think that freedom is something that needs to be protected on daily basis with gun. I do get security concerns, but all statistics is against claims that more guns would mean we are more secure.
Wrong. Statistics prove otherwise. And they have been enumerated ad nauseum for you here. To sum it up: Chicago. Mexico.
Actually quote opposite, with more guns you are more likely to be shot.
edit on 3-2-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)
Well no kidding. If there were more dinosaurs, you'd have a greater chance of being eaten by one, too.
reply to post by SuperFrog
So more people are killed in National Guard armories, sporting goods stores and at gun shows?
How about when cities have gun buy-back programs? That must be like a killing field when all of those guns are in one place at one time!
Oh, I almost forgot. Police shooting ranges must be pretty freaking dangerous too. How many cops survive their qualification related firearms practice???
Crap, I posted too soon.
Are a lot of people killed by firearms in the warehouses of Colt, Smith and Wesson, Glock, Winchester, Savage.... How does a towmotor operator make it out alive after a day at work in those places? OSHA must have a field day with those companies....Therefore there would be records of the deaths and injuries.
Actually quote opposite, with more guns you are more likely to be shot.
So more people are killed in National Guard armories, sporting goods stores and at gun shows?
How about when cities have gun buy-back programs? That must be like a killing field when all of those guns are in one place at one time!
Oh, I almost forgot. Police shooting ranges must be pretty freaking dangerous too. How many cops survive their qualification related firearms practice???
Crap, I posted too soon.
Are a lot of people killed by firearms in the warehouses of Colt, Smith and Wesson, Glock, Winchester, Savage.... How does a towmotor operator make it out alive after a day at work in those places? OSHA must have a field day with those companies....Therefore there would be records of the deaths and injuries.
edit on bu282014-02-03T10:31:16-06:0010America/ChicagoMon, 03 Feb 2014 10:31:16 -060010u14 by butcherguy because: (no reason
given)
reply to post by macman
Year 1993 was peak of violence in USA. Anything from there seems like relief.
Data comparing USA and rest of developed world shows that we have 41 times more gun related deaths then for example UK. This research was released at the end of last year. We are also on the top, far ahead with number of guns, but guns per family is about the same. This means that families just got more guns, or it might be product of migration and naturalization. (more families lowering overall proportion of families with guns.
While we are at this, what is considered main reason for gun related violence to be lowered, but still much higher than in rest of industrialized world?
reply to post by butcherguy
Irony does not help much, especially after tragic events such as school shootings we had in past years. I know, those people live 'far away' from you, and you are not much interested in their rights, you worry just about yourself. Feel better now? Are you the same man with and without gun?
www.nbcnews.com...
Never said that - I just gave an example that someone can be gun nut (not in bad meaning) without carrying gun. Just like you can have sports nuts, geeks etc. Why are you purposely trying to get wrong meanings from my words? Last 2 posts are quite unusual. Problems with sports from last night?
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
Finally something we can agree with - if there are no dinosaurs, no problems with them, and according to your last post - if there is no guns - people would not get hurt with them. Thank you! It was not that hard to apply logic here, was it?
Year 1993 was peak of violence in USA. Anything from there seems like relief.
Data comparing USA and rest of developed world shows that we have 41 times more gun related deaths then for example UK. This research was released at the end of last year. We are also on the top, far ahead with number of guns, but guns per family is about the same. This means that families just got more guns, or it might be product of migration and naturalization. (more families lowering overall proportion of families with guns.
While we are at this, what is considered main reason for gun related violence to be lowered, but still much higher than in rest of industrialized world?
reply to post by butcherguy
Irony does not help much, especially after tragic events such as school shootings we had in past years. I know, those people live 'far away' from you, and you are not much interested in their rights, you worry just about yourself. Feel better now? Are you the same man with and without gun?
www.nbcnews.com...
"It's all legal & fun — No permits or licenses required!!!!" reads the ad, posted on the club's Web site.
butcherguy
So people that carry guns are nuts?
Just want you to clarify so that I am not blaming you for something that you didn't say, even if you may have inferred it.
Never said that - I just gave an example that someone can be gun nut (not in bad meaning) without carrying gun. Just like you can have sports nuts, geeks etc. Why are you purposely trying to get wrong meanings from my words? Last 2 posts are quite unusual. Problems with sports from last night?
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
Finally something we can agree with - if there are no dinosaurs, no problems with them, and according to your last post - if there is no guns - people would not get hurt with them. Thank you! It was not that hard to apply logic here, was it?
edit on 3-2-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)
reply to post by SuperFrog
Nope. But the genie is out of the bottle.
If you want to eradicate weapons from the Earth, I am all for it. Start with nukes and work your way down. But before I give up my weapons, there can be no standing armies left. THEN I will feel secure enough. Until then, we have a Mexican standoff.
Nope. But the genie is out of the bottle.
If you want to eradicate weapons from the Earth, I am all for it. Start with nukes and work your way down. But before I give up my weapons, there can be no standing armies left. THEN I will feel secure enough. Until then, we have a Mexican standoff.
bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by SuperFrog
Nope. But the genie is out of the bottle.
If you want to eradicate weapons from the Earth, I am all for it. Start with nukes and work your way down. But before I give up my weapons, there can be no standing armies left. THEN I will feel secure enough. Until then, we have a Mexican standoff.
I am not delusional that we will be ever able to remove all weapons, but I hope that there will be better control of weapons, in first place starting from weapon companies, then down the chain to consumers. Someone should be behind the bar for every weapon that gets into wrong hands.
I agree about nuclear weapons - world would be better place without them.
All those weapons remind me of one great man saying:
" It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value."
Arthur C Clarke
I still have hope that one day earth might be war and hunger free...
reply to post by SuperFrog
I have enough confidence that I would play with you on an even playing field, sight unseen.
Me... and my children. You can worry about everyone else if you want to, that's not my job. But please, just stick to worrying, don't take my rights away.
Then,
Your link provides evidence of one killing at a gun show.
I expected some stats showing the overwhelming numbers of people that are killed because guns are present. People are killed at rock concerts, should we ban them?
I don't have a clue what you are talking about here. Would you like to elaborate?
Irony does not help much, especially after tragic events such as school shootings we had in past years. I know, those people live 'far away' from you, and you are not much interested in their rights, you worry just about yourself. Feel better now? Are you the same man with and without gun?
I have enough confidence that I would play with you on an even playing field, sight unseen.
you worry just about yourself.
Me... and my children. You can worry about everyone else if you want to, that's not my job. But please, just stick to worrying, don't take my rights away.
Then,
Your link provides evidence of one killing at a gun show.
I expected some stats showing the overwhelming numbers of people that are killed because guns are present. People are killed at rock concerts, should we ban them?
Last 2 posts are quite unusual. Problems with sports from last night?
I don't have a clue what you are talking about here. Would you like to elaborate?
edit on b000000282014-02-03T13:25:11-06:0001America/ChicagoMon, 03 Feb 2014 13:25:11 -0600100000014 by butcherguy because: (no reason
given)
SuperFrog
I still have hope that one day earth might be war and hunger free...
Me, too.
I am a pacifist at heart. My mind is one of a survivalist, however. I am more of a "thinker" than a "feeler", so ignore my heart to stay alive.
SuperFrog
reply to post by SuperFrog
All those weapons remind me of one great man saying:
" It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value."
Arthur C Clarke
This is true and can be evidenced by the many intelligent people who disregard their own survivability at the behest of an ideology.
For instance..I know several highly educated people that scoff at the thought of "prepping". I am certain they are more intelligent that I am however I guarantee I will be around longer than them. How long is open for an honest debate but the fact remains I am more prepared for survival.
I assure you disasters and mob rule and any host of SHTF scenarios have no way of deducing your intelligence nor is there any interest in it.
SuperFrog
reply to post by macman
Year 1993 was peak of violence in USA. Anything from there seems like relief.
Data comparing USA and rest of developed world shows that we have 41 times more gun related deaths then for example UK. This research was released at the end of last year. We are also on the top, far ahead with number of guns, but guns per family is about the same. This means that families just got more guns, or it might be product of migration and naturalization. (more families lowering overall proportion of families with guns.
While we are at this, what is considered main reason for gun related violence to be lowered, but still much higher than in rest of industrialized world?
So, be given statistics that show homicide by firearm is down, and you dismiss it by stating "1993 was a high rate anyways".
The fact is, the numbers are still going down.
And comparing the US, to other countries is a weak attempt of a cop-out.
We are not GB, or France or Australia or Canada. Different cultures, different people, different mindset, different way of life and etc....
If you don't like guns, maybe you should return to the country you migrated here from.
This is basically like all the Progressives fleeing failing CA. They relocate to Western States, wanting to be free of the shackles that state has placed on the people, only to try to bring the same crap to the new State.
No no no no no.
We, as a people, have the Right to Bear Arms.
You don't like???? The doors to exit are North and South. East and West if you would like to swim or boat.
Just as in your argument that more guns in a house, may lead to more shooting is like stating living and walking in Antarctica leads to more slips on the ice.
edit on 3-2-2014 by macman because: (no reason given)
butcherguy
Me... and my children. You can worry about everyone else if you want to, that's not my job. But please, just stick to worrying, don't take my rights away.
Then,
Your link provides evidence of one killing at a gun show.
I expected some stats showing the overwhelming numbers of people that are killed because guns are present. People are killed at rock concerts, should we ban them?
One kid is one too many. I am sure that there were more kids killed, this one I remember from news.
Just place yourself into shoes of his father, I am sure he took his son with protection of him in mind, not to hurt him. Some members here mentioned to use guns since they were 5. I have kid who is almost 5 and I worry that he does not injure himself with toys and while playing. What might be in head of someone giving guns to kids at that age, that is just out any reasoning and should be prohibited by law.
As for rock concerts, well we have law and regulations where concert should be held, make sure that there is enough fire exit (after many tragical events) and we have people responsible if they place people into danger by not providing safety to all those attending/performing. There is also nice check for any weapons before you enter, just as safety measure. Speaking of that, I wonder how often do you go to concerts?! Have you seen Bon Jovi last year?
I don't have a clue what you are talking about here. Would you like to elaborate?
Super Bowl from last night.
reply to post by macman
Once again you prove me wrong - it is not possible to communicate with you. Let me know once you learn a bit more netiquette and learn what means civilized discussion.
edit on 3-2-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)
reply to post by SuperFrog
No thanks, I don't want to follow in his footsteps.
I used to go to quite a few, not so many now.
Didn't watch it. I heard that it sucked.
Just place yourself into shoes of his father
No thanks, I don't want to follow in his footsteps.
Speaking of that, I wonder how often do you go to concerts?!
I used to go to quite a few, not so many now.
Super Bowl from last night.
Didn't watch it. I heard that it sucked.
SuperFrog
reply to post by macman
Once again you prove me wrong - it is not possible to communicate with you. Let me know once you learn a bit more netiquette and learn what means civilized discussion.
Wow. Seems like the times when I walked into the sitting area of a Country Club, and I was basically told that since I didn't seem the part, I needed to leave. Since my pinky wasn't up while sipping my tea.
You want, like when Progressives state "Work across the aisle", me to capitulate to your "opinion". And since I will not (Because what you suggest is immoral and wrong), you have gotten pissy. I can read how others interact with you. Personally, I don't see how they do it. How one would counter such inaccuracies, falsehoods, baldfaced lies and feet stomping with a smile and kind word is beyond me.
Your views do not coincide or come close with the Constitution, MY best interest, MY protection, nor anything else.
You wish for everyone to disarm, for "the sake of the children".
There is nothing more childish then someone not debating and using "etiquette" as their card hand played.
Please, go look under my name.
I never claimed to be civilized. I am a rude, tasteless, blunt American savage that has no problem putting people in their place when they pitch bull$h*t.
I have no problem defending myself with what ever means necessary. I am not a coward that would let someone live only to violate someone else, my family or me.
Ignore me all you like. I will not backdown, nor will I leave the discussion.
bjs.gov... ill just leave this here OP for those who do not like to click on PDF's its from the DOJ and talks about
how gun crime has gone consistantly down since 1993....
companion link
www.breitbart.com...
companion link
www.breitbart.com...
The success of the gun control lobby was evidenced by an LA Times column which ran at the same time as the BJS report. According to the Times, although "gun crime...plunged in the United States since its peak in the middle of the 1990s...few Americans are aware of the dramatic drop, and more than half believe gun crime has risen."