Performance Boats Forum banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Inland Empire-Big River
Joined
·
807 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,169 Posts
Terrific!!

Actually I can remember when an after school fight, for what ever reason, ended up with someone with a busted lip, maybe a black eye tomorrow, for everyone to ooah, and ahhhhhh over...So what, you gained respect, even if it was your ass that got "kicked"......Respect because you didn't run away, stood your ground, got it handed to you, but you still showed the fock up......Now days, the punks wait until they think they can get away and shoot wildly into a school yard or playground, maybe blast away at a house, pepper it with gunfire, just to show some other dildo how "bad" they are......I realized society had reached it's lowest of lows when I saw a group of "Lowriders" oooing and ahhhhing over a Hyundai.....WTF? a fockin' Hyundai?? Have you ever seen a Hyundai that wasn't in your way???.............MP
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,145 Posts
Why the gun IS civilization

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts...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.
The only qualm I have with this statement, is that the disparity of force is not negated until the one guy with the gun gets down to one attacker. The gun does not remove the disparity of force that multiple assailants provide. ;)
 

·
mo balls than $cents$
Joined
·
11,734 Posts
Actually I can remember when an after school fight, for what ever reason, ended up with someone with a busted lip, maybe a black eye tomorrow, for everyone to ooah, and ahhhhhh over...So what, you gained respect, even if it was your ass that got "kicked"......Respect because you didn't run away, stood your ground, got it handed to you, but you still showed the fock up......Now days, the punks wait until they think they can get away and shoot wildly into a school yard or playground, maybe blast away at a house, pepper it with gunfire, just to show some other dildo how "bad" they are......I realized society had reached it's lowest of lows when I saw a group of "Lowriders" oooing and ahhhhing over a Hyundai.....WTF? a fockin' Hyundai?? Have you ever seen a Hyundai that wasn't in your way???.............MP
those days are over unfortunately, kids are skeered to take an asswhooping. i've gotten my ass beat down, and i've beat some ass down but i lived to talk about it and learned lessons from it.
 

·
Dog Days of Summer
Joined
·
590 Posts
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.
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.
“God didn’t make all men equal, Sam Colt did.”
Samuel Colt is the man behind the handgun that armed the West.
 

·
Distinguished Member
Joined
·
5,782 Posts
Your statement is only valid when dealing with rational people. Unfortunately, many are not... especially those that resort to force quickly. And because guns, especially hand guns, are readily available to anyone, they end up in the hands of irrational people... And people catch bullets intended for others, even minor disputes are settled with lethel force and the US has the highest homicide rate of any "civilizied" society. Finally, most folks couldn't shoot thier way out of a paper bag in a real fire fight. Even trained officers/soldiers end up shooting people they didn't intend to...
I think everyone with out a felony record should be able to have as many guns as they want. However, I also think any person who owns guns should be responsible for them, much as they are a motor vehicle. All guns should be registered to the owner. It gets sold, lost or stolen, you should be responsible for notifying the authorities. You want to buy a gun, you should be comfortable with a 1 week waiting period while your background is checked.
But it will never be... the bangers, thugs and criminals will always be better armed (mostly with weapons stolen/bought from "responsible" people) and more inclined to use force... As a result, countless innocent victims will end up hurt or dead....
 

·
Inland Empire-Big River
Joined
·
807 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
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.
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.

Their will always be opinions in both directions, and some more extreme than others. I can say that I don't see eye to eye with this entire argument but I can see his point of view. I find it funny that the argument is not about arming yourself to inflict injury upon others but to be "left alone." It makes me laugh when I show people this perspective who are completley against owning firearms. The first words out of their mouths usually goes something like this, "ummm, but, but..." :D:D

I'm all for the second amendment:)devil
 

·
Desert Racing Widow
Joined
·
2,073 Posts
Their will always be opinions in both directions, and some more extreme than others. I can say that I don't see eye to eye with this entire argument but I can see his point of view. I find it funny that the argument is not about arming yourself to inflict injury upon others but to be "left alone." It makes me laugh when I show people this perspective who are completley against owning firearms. The first words out of their mouths usually goes something like this, "ummm, but, but..." :D:D

I'm all for the second amendment:)devil
I remember my dad and his cousin arguing over this. Cousin was totally against gun ownership. He said if a burglar came into his house, he could have anything he wanted. My dad asked, "But what if he wanted your wife?" Cousin didn't have a response.
 

·
Inland Empire-Big River
Joined
·
807 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
I remember my dad and his cousin arguing over this. Cousin was totally against gun ownership. He said if a burglar came into his house, he could have anything he wanted. My dad asked, "But what if he wanted your wife?" Cousin didn't have a response.

LMAO :D

Thats great. I don't know your Dad but he's already a friend of mine;)
 

·
U Member, Member?
Joined
·
639 Posts
I agree with all that. but i do wonder............how big that frame is:)grn
 

·
Inland Empire-Big River
Joined
·
807 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
I agree with all that. but i do wonder............how big that frame is:)grn

Big enough to read if your sitting opposite of me at my desk ;)


:)violent44 :)violent44 :)violent44

But I do have a personal office...not much traffic
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top