Er... personally I am always amazed that conservatives heads don't explode from the massive cognitive dissonance.
A kid raped by her father who gets an abortion is a despicable murderer. But... we should arm more people with guns whose only real purpose is to kill another human being.
Life is sacred 'till you're born. Then you're fair game?
But... we should arm more people with guns whose only real purpose is to kill another human being.
This Pandora's box has been open for a very long time. I'm afraid that even hope will escape it should we try to close it.
The mere existence of these weapons in the population makes them a deterrent for some crimes against the elderly and disabled. Even if it isn't a deterrent for some criminals, I would rather see the scumbag criminal breaking into an old person's home die than the old person getting killed, robbed, or otherwise abused. Dead criminals don't commit additional crimes.
If guns were banned today, and all citizens were required to turn in their weapons, do you think that the criminals with guns would trot off to the police station to hand in those weapons? Sorry dude, they aren't going to turn in those weapons.
Speaking from experience living in a country where people don't go armed, it works in a little different way. Naturally, the evil criminals don't turn in their weapons.
Today, anyone can just claim he's just exercising his right to be armed right up to the point when he does something criminal with it. With a weapon ban in place, whenever a police officers finds someone with a weapon, they can take him off the streets on that charge. They don't have to wait for him to do his evil deed.
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 make me 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 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.
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed
and can only be persuaded, never forced.
Just for the fun of it I'll pick some random pieces and demonstrate the flawed logic in them:
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 ou
How about emotional pressure (appealing to one's feelings), social pressure (you will be shunned/respected by your peers), flight (as in - run away)?
1. Reason (This isn't Star Trek's Vulcan; emotions and reason are intertwined)
2. Reason (why the social pressure works)
3. Force (physical removal of problem).
I suppose if you (re)define Reason to mean any level of human interaction that does not involve physical contact and (re)define Force to me
I think part of your problem in understanding the original poster is that you misunderstand how guns should properly be used.
When I was a kid the first thing I learned was do not ever for any reason point a gun, or any weapon, at something or someone whom you do not intend to use it on. If I draw my gun on someone it is because I am about to shoot them with it. It is not something with which to threaten or persuade. If my weapon is coming out it's because we are already past the point of resolving the issue
My overall point being that widespread gun availability means that both the good guys and the bad guys find it easier to get their hands on guns.
From here come a couple of effects: - While in an environment where guns are tightly controlled, a thief might or not have a gun, in and environment where guns are easy to come by, a thief almost always has a gun. This is because they can get hold of one easily, because they can't be imprisoned by just carrying a gun (when guns are outlawed, only bad guys - or cops
But guns don't empower the bad guys MORE than they empower the good guys.
Whereas being the biggest muscleman on the street definitely empowers you more than the average person, who may not be physically able to match you no matter how much he works at it. The disparity between a 100 lb. girl and a 250 lb. weightlifter CANNOT be leveled by their physical attributes alone.
Having personally used a gun to defend both my "9 stone weakling" self and others from a 300 pound muscleman, I speak with the voice of exp
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.
Seriously? That statement is most asinine.
Starting an encounter by saying "I have a gun and you can't use force on me" immediately puts the other party in the position of having to use force. The other party will have to use force to get your attention, stop you from doing something with the gun, or stop you from doing something that h
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.
Wow this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I could easily deal with an armed person by force in many situations:
A. If I have the element of surprise. B. I have friends with weapons guns as well. C. The victim sucks at using their gun.
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
No. The greatest civilization is one where all citizens have absolutely no reason to be armed or to use force.
I'm not that much of an anti-gun person but to say that guns will create a perfect civilization is absurd.
In the first two examples you posit it wouldn't matter in that case if the victim was armed or not so they lose nothing by having the gun.
For the third, if you can't use your gun or aren't willing to use your gun when appropriate you shouldn't be carrying one.
The point is that by being armed with a gun the victim is on a much more level footing against their assailant. Criminals don't pick targets that stand anywhere near a 50/50 shot of resisting them. The idea isn't to carry a weapon openly but to carry i
It's an interesting perspective, here's a counterargument (I don't have the exact text in front of me, so I'll have to paraphrase) by Geoffrey Canada, head of the Harlem Children's Zone:
Geoff described his experience of carrying a gun after he'd managed to work his way out of the ghetto and into college. What he realized after a while was that situations that he would have avoided based on his upbringing on the streets (like walking right through the middle of a group of rival gang members) he no longer avo
This sounds to me like he had a problem with trying to prove to himself that he was no longer afraid, so he sought out confrontation. But one man's personal problems should not be used to dictate to everyone else, most of whom have outgrown such behaviour.
Is he claiming that not one single soldier (all of whom are armed to the teeth) has ever been "forced" to do something? Wow, I didn't realise the military was run by consensus at every level.
The people who modded this "insightful" need a strong dose of realism. Let me preface this by saying that I'm certainly not of the, "take all guns away and make them illegal" mindset. I believe the whole gun issue is being distorted by extremists on both sides: those who want firearms to be illegal to own, shoot, and look at and those who think every 5-year-old should be armed.
But this Major Caudill seems to be stumbling through his own logic. Seriously, this reads more like a religious justification to bel
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger with a gun, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger with a gun, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with guns.
Fixed that asshattery.
The gun is the only personal weapon that escalates a simple mugging / rape / beating into a killing.
So we should all have are own individual nuclear weapons? Also, the whole premise is flawed. We are a lot more complex than reason or force. My girl friend doesn't have to reason with me to have sex with her. I do so because I want to. Humans have instinct which act beyond reason or force.
In any case, stuff written by gun nuts only appeal to other gun nuts. If you want to convince other people that guns are good...then maybe work on making all the gun owners out there responsible so that a loved one
Pohl's law:
Nothing is so good that somebody, somewhere, will not hate it.
God, please let this be true. (Score:5, Funny)
I want to see liberals' heads explode when they realize that Socialized medicine is being used to buy people guns.
LK
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
A kid raped by her father who gets an abortion is a despicable murderer. But... we should arm more people with guns whose only real purpose is to kill another human being.
Life is sacred 'till you're born. Then you're fair game?
Re: (Score:5, Interesting)
But... we should arm more people with guns whose only real purpose is to kill another human being.
This Pandora's box has been open for a very long time. I'm afraid that even hope will escape it should we try to close it.
The mere existence of these weapons in the population makes them a deterrent for some crimes against the elderly and disabled. Even if it isn't a deterrent for some criminals, I would rather see the scumbag criminal breaking into an old person's home die than the old person getting killed, robbed, or otherwise abused. Dead criminals don't commit additional crimes.
If guns were banned t
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
If guns were banned today, and all citizens were required to turn in their weapons, do you think that the criminals with guns would trot off to the police station to hand in those weapons? Sorry dude, they aren't going to turn in those weapons.
Speaking from experience living in a country where people don't go armed, it works in a little different way. Naturally, the evil criminals don't turn in their weapons.
Today, anyone can just claim he's just exercising his right to be armed right up to the point when he does something criminal with it. With a weapon ban in place, whenever a police officers finds someone with a weapon, they can take him off the streets on that charge. They don't have to wait for him to do his evil deed.
The second part is that
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:5, Insightful)
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 make me 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 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.
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
Wrong Attribution (Score:4, Insightful)
Just wanted to mention that although this version pops up pretty regularly, it appears that it was not written by "Maj. Caudill, USMC" [blogspot.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Just for the fun of it I'll pick some random pieces and demonstrate the flawed logic in them:
Re: (Score:2)
With no guns you're limited mostly to using methods that require more physical strength.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose if you (re)define Reason to mean any level of human interaction that does not involve physical contact and (re)define Force to me
Re: (Score:1)
I think part of your problem in understanding the original poster is that you misunderstand how guns should properly be used.
When I was a kid the first thing I learned was do not ever for any reason point a gun, or any weapon, at something or someone whom you do not intend to use it on. If I draw my gun on someone it is because I am about to shoot them with it. It is not something with which to threaten or persuade. If my weapon is coming out it's because we are already past the point of resolving the issue
Re: (Score:2)
My overall point being that widespread gun availability means that both the good guys and the bad guys find it easier to get their hands on guns.
From here come a couple of effects:
- While in an environment where guns are tightly controlled, a thief might or not have a gun, in and environment where guns are easy to come by, a thief almost always has a gun. This is because they can get hold of one easily, because they can't be imprisoned by just carrying a gun (when guns are outlawed, only bad guys - or cops
Re: (Score:2)
But guns don't empower the bad guys MORE than they empower the good guys.
Whereas being the biggest muscleman on the street definitely empowers you more than the average person, who may not be physically able to match you no matter how much he works at it. The disparity between a 100 lb. girl and a 250 lb. weightlifter CANNOT be leveled by their physical attributes alone.
Having personally used a gun to defend both my "9 stone weakling" self and others from a 300 pound muscleman, I speak with the voice of exp
Re: (Score:1)
In addition to the misattribution noted above, this version omits the word "gay" between "single" and "guy" in the fourth paragraph.
Re: (Score:1)
Seriously? That statement is most asinine.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Wow this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I could easily deal with an armed person by force in many situations:
A. If I have the element of surprise.
B. I have friends with weapons guns as well.
C. The victim sucks at using their gun.
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
No. The greatest civilization is one where all citizens have absolutely no reason to be armed or to use force.
I'm not that much of an anti-gun person but to say that guns will create a perfect civilization is absurd.
Re: (Score:1)
In the first two examples you posit it wouldn't matter in that case if the victim was armed or not so they lose nothing by having the gun.
For the third, if you can't use your gun or aren't willing to use your gun when appropriate you shouldn't be carrying one.
The point is that by being armed with a gun the victim is on a much more level footing against their assailant. Criminals don't pick targets that stand anywhere near a 50/50 shot of resisting them. The idea isn't to carry a weapon openly but to carry i
Re: (Score:2)
It's an interesting perspective, here's a counterargument (I don't have the exact text in front of me, so I'll have to paraphrase) by Geoffrey Canada, head of the Harlem Children's Zone:
Geoff described his experience of carrying a gun after he'd managed to work his way out of the ghetto and into college. What he realized after a while was that situations that he would have avoided based on his upbringing on the streets (like walking right through the middle of a group of rival gang members) he no longer avo
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds to me like he had a problem with trying to prove to himself that he was no longer afraid, so he sought out confrontation. But one man's personal problems should not be used to dictate to everyone else, most of whom have outgrown such behaviour.
Re: (Score:2)
Is he claiming that not one single soldier (all of whom are armed to the teeth) has ever been "forced" to do something? Wow, I didn't realise the military was run by consensus at every level.
Idiot.
Re: (Score:1)
Or love? Trickery? I don't buy the premise; there are certainly more than 2 ways to deal with someone.
Re: (Score:2)
The people who modded this "insightful" need a strong dose of realism. Let me preface this by saying that I'm certainly not of the, "take all guns away and make them illegal" mindset. I believe the whole gun issue is being distorted by extremists on both sides: those who want firearms to be illegal to own, shoot, and look at and those who think every 5-year-old should be armed.
But this Major Caudill seems to be stumbling through his own logic. Seriously, this reads more like a religious justification to bel
Re: (Score:2)
Fixed that asshattery.
The gun is the only personal weapon that escalates a simple mugging / rape / beating into a killing.
Re: (Score:2)
In any case, stuff written by gun nuts only appeal to other gun nuts. If you want to convince other people that guns are good...then maybe work on making all the gun owners out there responsible so that a loved one