On the Use of Force

[LovelyLadyLux]

Consider the following within the context of ISIS. This is an interesting take and worth considering particularly the last paragraph:


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.


"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 an 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 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.


By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

[Horus]

Put in those terms it is difficult to argue with any of his logic, but I don't think it is quite as simple as he makes out.

[LovelyLadyLux]

I've never been PRO gun. Partly coming from Canada I think as guns are not allowed, not available so we're not nearly as apt to shoot somebody as guns just aren't there unlike the USA where they're everywhere.

I've been thinking a lot about guns, self protection and on and on lately given the rise of ISIS and especially since this lately atrocity committed by ISIS.

IF and it is a big IF however IF we were attacked in Canada by any sort of force how exactly would be protect ourselves? We really would not be able to protect us at all and is that honestly really wise? Is it wise to leave oneself so open and vulnerable?

I don't think we need to be out there in a root tooting shoot 'em up mode but does it make plain down to earth sense to have a gun (and know how to appropriately use it) for ones own protection?

I get all the arguments about if I have a 6" gun that shoots 1 bullet the bad guys will come in with a 10" gun that is automatic but but but - at least having that gun would give me some hope I MIGHT be able to protect myself, my family whereas now I'm a sitting duck hoping the hunter doesn't see me. I get the arguments that we shouldn't stoop to that level, 2 wrongs don't make a right - but are we really shorting ourselves out of safety by ignoring or disallowing that which just might one day save our skins?

I quite liked this man's article. Can't deny that everything he says makes sense.

Do you wait 'til it is too late? OR does one prepare for the worst?

Need to think on this further