Why The Gun Is Civilization

This was sent to me in an email from a fellow GunDiva...I thought I'd pass it on...

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 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 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 [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.