Posts
Rarely do I post another blogger's work in its entirety.
I said rarely, not never...
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.
By: the munchkin wrangler
Hat tip: California Conservative
11 comments:
Is that guy really saying we'd be more civilized if we all carried guns on the street and in our cars every day? What about at work, where we all get told to do stuff that makes no sense every day? ;)
I don't know what to say. The argument that LA would be SAFER if we all had guns seems absurd on its face in the real world. It would mean South LA is the safest place in LA, or that murderer;s are scared of going after those with guns. In LA, drive by's and freeway killings alone would double the murder rate...
Incidentally, I tend to agree with the notion of carrying weapons to protect yourself. It's sad that we live in a world where such weapons are necessary, but even Christ told his disciples to bring their swords with them as they went out.
But it is sad. It's a sad statement about the world.
Okey dokey leftside. Where did any of that come out in the post. Where was any of what you wrote, stated? It wasn't was it? Now, prove everything you said.
Skul
"Incidentally, I tend to agree with the notion of carrying weapons to protect yourself."
Wow! I'm shocked!
=)
Shocked? Why? We've never had a conversation about guns before - there's no reason for you to have assumed my position on it one way or the other.
... that is, unless you were putting me into a box under a label. ;)
"... that is, unless you were putting me into a box under a label. ;)"
As you have stated in the past, you are a man who tends to fall on the left side of issues.
I think it was reasonable to assume you would do the same when it comes to weapons.
However, you know what they say: To assume is to make an @$$ out of u and me.
=)
So I'm curious...
What exactly are your thoughts on personal firearms? Do you believe law-abiding citizens should have the right to carry a weapon on their person?
Is it unreasonable to allow a law-abiding citizen the right to own an "assault weapon" (as asinine as the term is).
The floor is your's, I'm all ears!
=)
Do you believe law-abiding citizens should have the right to carry a weapon on their person?
Absolutely. But I also think that law abiding citizens should be able to own chemistry sets, own sex toys, and shouldn't be charged with a crime for creating bio-diesel and driving with it (and avoiding taxes).
In these issues, I lean libertarian, on account that I don't think government has any business messing with these things.
"In these issues, I lean libertarian, on account that I don't think government has any business messing with these things."
Interesting. Good to know!
reason or force. that's it? how about emotion, dummy, where does emotion come in? certainly not under reason, there's nothing rational about love. EMOTIONS, FEELINGS. you know, the things that make us human. yeah, them.
jesus certainly didn't tell nobody to use their swords, even in self defense. that whole love thy enemy bit, i guess you wooden soldiers skipped that bit in bible class.
"reason or force. that's it? how about emotion, dummy, where does emotion come in?"
Dummy? I see you're coming from a purely intellectual standpoint.
I'm not sure you're even worth responding to, but it's the weekend and I'll entertain another scared, anonymous, blog troll.
Emotion is not a form of interpersonal interaction - genius. The author of the post is clearly discussing human interaction, not various forms of human emotion.
"there's nothing rational about love."
It sounds to me like you're writing a song... not debating the points of the post.
"jesus certainly didn't tell nobody to use their swords, even in self defense. that whole love thy enemy bit, i guess you wooden soldiers skipped that bit in bible class."
First of all, terrific grammar! I'm surprised you 'didn't tell nobody' you're a master of the English language.
But I digress...
So you're obviously one of those sheltered, "violence doesn't solve anything," kind of folk.
You know what... I don't like where I'm going with this, so I'm just going to cut this response short.
Idiocy... be gone!
"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force."
this statement is a pile of indefensible shit mate, however you want to spin it.
Post a Comment