Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Civilization and an armed society

This is an excellent post written by Marko Kloos back in 2007.  I encourage you to read the rest of it. I'm pushing the limits by excerpting as much as I have, but I think it is well thought out and well written.

why 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.

.... 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. (more)

9 comments:

  1. "It [firearm] 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."
    This is contingent on the civilized, the peace loving person being armed. Society is enhanced. Even some liberals are beginning to agree with the obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  2. OK,if [all] firearms were removed from our society, including law enforcment and the Military, there would be no more injuries,fatal or otherwise, caused by firearms. I'd like to see what some simple minded, Liberal 'gun grabber' has to say about this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What trite...simplistic bullshit for guys who think guns equate to balls.

    You guys are pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Megan McArdle's article from 12/18/12 http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/17/there-s-little-we-can-do-to-prevent-another-massacre.html
      Very long article, but to sum it up: "But I would rather do nothing than do something stupid because it makes us feel better. We shouldn't have laws on the books unless we think there's a good chance they'll work:"
      "It's true: I would oppose a total gun ban even if it were structurally and practically possible, for reasons that we can argue about later. But Mark Kleiman and Jeffrey Goldberg are not gun nuts. They are impeccably Democratic coastal liberals. As are several other academics I saw make the same point on Facebook and Twitter: nothing short of a ban is going to do much good. And America is not going to ban guns.

      Former Vice President and Senator:
      "The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
      Hubert H. Humphrey

      Delete
    2. Good Response gmw

      And Anon -

      Why is it that when confronted with an argument of facts and reason a liberal response is so often an emotional attack? Name calling, four letter words, and insults seem to be your stock and trade.

      You have not refuted the argument.

      Delete
  4. "Why is it that when confronted with an argument of facts and reason a liberal response is so often an emotional attack?"


    Liberalism is an emotion based tenet which becomes very dangerous when reaching epidemic proportion. Watch VP Biden in weeks to come.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous said................

    "What trite...simplistic bullshit for guys who think guns equate to balls."

    Well, I have a great set of "balls" as well as several guns. Do you have either?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Both. But I don't equate them.

    ReplyDelete

All points of view are welcome, but comments with excessive bad language and/or personal attacks will be deleted. Commenting on posts older than 5 days has been disabled.