Another gun control thread.........

[paladin]

Why carrying a gun is a civilized act

By Marko (Writer and student from Knoxville, TN)



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 gay 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 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 weightlifter. 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.

[jbelow]

paladin , very good answer ! Carrying a gun is a civilized act because only law abiding free men can without fear of retribution .

[ljb5]

Chuck, you've lived such a remarkable life and have so many interesting stories to tell.

Why do you debase yourself by repeatedly posting this trite, predictable, juvenile hogwash?

Why not astound us all with some of your unique insight instead of just cutting and pasting this stuff?

[seanz]

Chuck, you've lived such a remarkable life and have so many interesting stories to tell.

Why do you debase yourself by repeatedly posting this trite, predictable, juvenile hogwash?

Why not astound us all with some of your unique insight instead of just cutting and pasting this stuff?

Try here:
http://www.woodenboatvb.com/vbulletin/upload/showthread.php?t=70931

Paladin likes to come to the bilge and throw stones in the water to see which way the frogs jump.


lived such a remarkable life

and that should be living.

[The Bigfella]

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.


...and therein lies the flaw. You force me to deal with you by force. Your implied force is easily defeated by an early and deadly application of force on my part.

[paladin]

I personally find the logic flawed. If you are face to face in the debate, the mear closeness of the weapon is intimidating, especially if one chooses to expose the weapon for effect, and once the weapon enters the debate whether as a method of intimidation or not, it may be found to have the opposite effect.
Well over 20 years ago when I first started leaving the weapon either in the trunk of the car or at home, I became the subject of some "razzing". I was involved in a conversation in a hallway when another gentleman came walking in a hurried manner toward us, I had a cup of coffee in my left hand. As he approached his jacket opened exposing his weapon, which I noticed was not secured....the conversation continued. At the last possible moment the person took a hard swing with his right hand into my midsection, I blocked it by driving my right hand down hard on his rising wrist, fracturing it, and immediately reversed the blow by striking hard on the right cheek with the full force of the back of my hand, flooring him. As he lay there dazed, I removed his firearm as I had no idea of his intentions.....and I never spilled the coffee. I don't think things have changed much, just more unqualified idiots running around with firearms and real bullets, same as in granddads day.

[seanz]

:D And here's me trying to stick up for you............


...and therein lies the flaw. You force me to deal with you by force. Your implied force is easily defeated by an early and deadly application of force on my part.

O.K.
Marko's main point seems to be that firearms are an equalizer ,the flaw in this argument would be that first the law is the equalizer.You should apply reason or else the law will apply force.
Too statist of me?
;)

[The Bigfella]

Hey I wasn't sticking up for the logic .... I agree, the law is not only the equalizer - it is the "force of the law". I had this discussion with some senior cops once - one of our major police forces became a police "service" and I argued for that in another jurisdiction ...... and lost the argument. The one that called itself a "Police Service" is now a "Police Force" again.

[Duncan Gibbs]

...and therein lies the flaw. You force me to deal with you by force. Your implied force is easily defeated by an early and deadly application of force on my part.

Maaaate! Now you're talkin' turkey!!! And thank dog we can't use force here... Which is probably why we all like it: No fear and no favour!! (I think that's why I'm addicted to this place!?!?!)

PS: The US has the highest gun-murder rate in the OECD and most of the rest of the world, whilst it has the slackest gun control laws!! Go figure...

I'm off to force my argument with water with my paddle!:D

[jbelow]

I personally find the logic flawed. If you are face to face in the debate, the mear closeness of the weapon is intimidating, especially if one chooses to expose the weapon for effect, and once the weapon enters the debate whether as a method of intimidation or not, it may be found to have the opposite effect.
Well over 20 years ago when I first started leaving the weapon either in the trunk of the car or at home, I became the subject of some "razzing". I was involved in a conversation in a hallway when another gentleman came walking in a hurried manner toward us, I had a cup of coffee in my left hand. As he approached his jacket opened exposing his weapon, which I noticed was not secured....the conversation continued. At the last possible moment the person took a hard swing with his right hand into my midsection, I blocked it by driving my right hand down hard on his rising wrist, fracturing it, and immediately reversed the blow by striking hard on the right cheek with the full force of the back of my hand, flooring him. As he lay there dazed, I removed his firearm as I had no idea of his intentions.....and I never spilled the coffee. I don't think things have changed much, just more unqualified idiots running around with firearms and real bullets, same as in granddads day.

Your logic is flawed . Civilized men by definition would not behave the same as idiots .

[seanz]

Civilized men by definition would not behave the same as idiots .

I wish it were true but civilization is not magic............

[Phillip Allen]

Okay...consider this:

First, there are some qualifiers:
I'm talking about a pair of 16 year old girls and arming them is silly at best. (I am teaching them how to shoot...which removes the magic that others on this form apply to the existence of firearms.)

One girl works about a third of a mile away at a fast food restaurant. She walks to work and often comes home in the dark (which worries hell out of her mom). She is a very attractive young lady which I point out to emphasize the fact that she could easily become a target.

As to the ASS who thinks “law” will protect her…you are not qualified to vote or hold a position of responsibility beyond moping floors (and then must be closely supervised).

Law may try and even succeed in catching a rapist but does nothing to prevent it in the first place. To put all your (her) eggs in that “one” basket is an act of cowardice or foolishness, the scale of which boggles the mind.

I am trying to help as best I can: I teach them self-confidence through camping, sleeping without the tent, baiting their own hook, shooting and even reloading the ammo they use, I show them how to be aware of other people and how to look them directly in the eye, how NOT to act like victims, and…how to get MADDER THAN HELL. They won’t be armed with guns but will have their brains loaded to kill if I have anything to do with it.

I love playing with guns and even endorse their existence in private hands as an option in defense…but not the first option. Because the girls I talk about above are not likely to ever be carrying firearms for personal defense and because I don’t consider the firearm as a first choice in defense, I am trying to teach them what ever I can to defend themselves…I think it is the right approach. BUT…I will not take the deadly weapon option away from them in their more mature future nor will I hamstring them by such preaching as I have heard about not resisting…I want to see them grow up as autonomous, self-possessed persons and, therefore, valuable citizens.

[Tylerdurden]

Chuck, you da man!

Its funny how some just don't get it. Thanks for the thread.

"Thread written while cleaning AMT .45 long slide in Stainless."

[Norman Bernstein]

I must have a mental defect of some sort.

I've never been interested in guns, in the slightest way. I've never owned one (except for an antque souveneier, a WWII German Mouser that my Dad picked up in the war, for which I have no ammo, and which I have no intention of ever firing). I've never understood the fascination with them... it's a loud bang and some damage, more or less.

I think I could understand hunting and target shooting, even though I have no particular interest in either one. It's a skill, like any skill, and I can understand why people might want to develop the skill and take pride in it, if they become accomplished.

As for the issue of personal protection, and the logic of this 'force/persuasion' argument, I'm at a loss. At the ripe old age of 56 years old, I've never been in a situation where having a gun would have been advisable.... and furthermore, I don't know anyone who has. I walk the streets, drive here and there, interact with people, and I don't see any guns, don't get threatened, don't see situations calling for firearms. When I was 19, I drove a cab in Boston, which was a dangerous job at the time, but I couldn't have legally carried a gun as a cabdriver anyhow.

I understand the people's life experiences are different.... if I had lived a life like Paladin's, it would have been a different story. However, I didn't, and don't... and here in the United States, living a rather ordinary life as a husband, father, sailor, and electrical engineer, firearms are still irrelevant.

I used to be a big gun control advocate.... now I'm nuetral, only because I studied the issue pretty intensely a few years ago (while involved in a different internet discussion group) and came to the conclusion that gun violence, while certainly higher in the US than in many other countries, wasn't all that big a problem in comparison with things like defenses with a gun... even though I still think there ought to be fairly stringent limits on gun ownership.

[Tylerdurden]

I must have a mental defect of some sort.

I've never been interested in guns, in the slightest way. I've never owned one (except for an antque souveneier, a WWII German Mouser that my Dad picked up in the war, for which I have no ammo, and which I have no intention of ever firing). I've never understood the fascination with them... it's a loud bang and some damage, more or less.


I don't know if I should respond to a fugitive felon? My advice to you now that you have publicly admitted to a felony in the great state of Massachusetts's that you take that weapon to your attorney for proper disposal. I like you Norman but I never took you as a criminal.
Of course the weapon may be legal if you had your prostate checked and sworn to by your local police chief in Sharon and you took the state approved safety course and paid the fees to be photographed and fingerprinted.
Of course you did all that and hold at least a valid Target Pistol ID?
If not your facing a mandatory 1 year in Walpole on your stomach in the showers. What a great country it is Norman?

[Norman Bernstein]

I don't know if I should respond to a fugitive felon? My advice to you now that you have publicly admitted to a felony in the great state of Massachusetts's that you take that weapon to your attorney for proper disposal. I like you Norman but I never took you as a criminal.
Of course the weapon may be legal if you had your prostate checked and sworn to by your local police chief in Sharon and you took the state approved safety course and paid the fees to be photographed and fingerprinted.
Of course you did all that and hold at least a valid Target Pistol ID?
If not your facing a mandatory 1 year in Walpole on your stomach in the showers. What a great country it is Norman?

You don't bother to stop and think before you spout, do you?

Yes, I took the gun safety course, paid the fee, got the license, and own the gun legally.

You might have bothered to ask first.... instead of just running your mouth.

[Tylerdurden]

You don't bother to stop and think before you spout, do you?

Yes, I took the gun safety course, paid the fee, gotr the license, and own the gun legally.

You might have bothered to ask first.... instead of just running your mouth.

It was a question Norman, I kinda knew all along you being so law abiding and all. I just was curious how far you would go for a souvenirs. I held a Fire arms ID in Massachusetts and like thousands of others in that state we were stripped of our rights for no reason and forced to re-apply and bow to our local chiefs of police. Funny thing is while waiting for this blessed event we were supposed to store our weapons at a licensed dealer until approval and if denied that dealer (Mostly Law enforcement) would kindly sell our weapons for a fee. How Nice. Come to find out that lots of police were getting kickbacks to approve these ID's.
Great state Norman, who did you pay for yours?

[Tylerdurden]

Oh, Norman you think maybe you could post your license and put us at ease. I mean I can take you at your word without demands for documentation but some others here may not.

[Phillip Allen]

guns are at least as valid as golf clubs (which the Kennedy family used to commit murder) except they are considered a right and golf clubs are not

[Tylerdurden]

guns are at least as valid as golf clubs (which the Kennedy family used to commit murder) except they are considered a right and golf clubs are not

Agreed!, In protest whenever I drive by a course and see someone swinging those dangerous things I lay on my horn.

[Norman Bernstein]

guns are at least as valid as golf clubs (which the Kennedy family used to commit murder)...

The whole family?

Sheeesh.

[Norman Bernstein]

Oh, Norman you think maybe you could post your license and put us at ease.

Stick it, Mark. You started out as a pretty reasonable guy to discuss things with, and you've morphed into another erster. Play with someone else, I've had enough.

[Tylerdurden]

The whole family?

Sheeesh.

He was a bit over the top, the survivors (sell outs) like to use cars too.

"I will give up my gun when Ted gives up his car"

[Phillip Allen]

The whole family?

Sheeesh.

That's as valid as some here accusing anyone who "appears" to hold political views to the right of themselves of being neocons...(what's good for the goose is good for the donkey)

Oh, and thanks for someone taking the bait... :)

[Tylerdurden]

Stick it, Mark. You started out as a pretty reasonable guy to discuss things with, and you've morphed into another erster. Play with someone else, I've had enough.

Just making a point Norman. Most of the legitimate Gun owners in my town were denied. Chief didn't think anyone needs firearms.
Of course as you know Worcester is not a bastion of public safety.

I am sure you fully complied with all laws, but being from the same district comrade I have a completely different view of the process.
I didn't own a business or live in a bedroom community for the upwardly mobile. Life is different for your crowd than it is for mine.
Out of all the posters here I will give you credit for being the most open minded that confronts me. Sorry to upset you while making a point.

[seanz]

As to the ASS who thinks “law” will protect her…you are not qualified to vote or hold a position of responsibility beyond moping floors (and then must be closely supervised).


But I get to own a gun, right?
Or maybe just a really cool tactical black mop.:D



To put all your (her) eggs in that “one” basket is an act of cowardice or foolishness, the scale of which boggles the mind.

So if she was armed but there was no law, that wouldn't be any better would it? Her first protection is the law ,the attitude and hopefully some basic selfdefence moves you teach her come second.
Don't believe me?
In a lawless society she wouldn't be able to walk the streets after dark.

[Tylerdurden]

In a lawless society she wouldn't be able to walk the streets after dark.

Funny, I was in a lawless society were a woman could do just such a thing and who she had to worry about was "the law".

Kind of like Iraq right now I imagine.

[seanz]

Funny, I was in a lawless society were a woman could do just such a thing and who she had to worry about was "the law".

Kind of like Iraq right now I imagine.

O.K. where?
And that just sounds corrupt not lawless.

[Tylerdurden]

O.K. where?
And that just sounds corrupt not lawless.

Nicaragua, a while ago. Back when it was fashionable for Neocons and their financiers.