Jump to content
  • entries
    15
  • comments
    0
  • views
    848

Why The Gun Is Civilization

Dihappy

Entry posted by Dihappy ·

449 views

 Share
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.~Marko Kloos (German Immigrant)
 Share

0 Comments

Recommended Comments

Dihappy
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.~Marko Kloos (German Immigrant)
Link to comment
Mackerel

Washington, DC?Traditionally "pro-gun" states in the South and West lead the nation in overall firearm death rates according to a new analysis issued today by the Violence Policy Center (VPC) of just-released Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data.

http://www.vpc.org/press/0602rank.htm

Rank/State/number of gun deaths/Gun Death Rate per 100,000

1 Louisiana 847 18.84

2 Alaska 120 18.50

3 Wyoming 89 17.76

4 New Mexico 326 17.39

5 Alabama 765 17.00

6 Nevada 374 16.69

7 Mississippi 477 16.56

8 Montana 145 15.80

9 Arizona 849 15.21

10 Arkansas 413 15.15

The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows:

U.S.A. 14.24

Brazil 12.95

Mexico 12.69

Estonia 12.26

Argentina 8.93

Northern Ireland 6.63

Finland 6.46

Switzerland 5.31

France 5.15

Canada 4.31

Norway 3.82

Austria 3.70

Portugal 3.20

Israel 2.91

Belgium 2.90

Australia 2.65

Slovenia 2.60

Italy 2.44

New Zealand 2.38

Denmark 2.09

Sweden 1.92

Kuwait 1.84

Greece 1.29

Germany 1.24

Hungary 1.11

Ireland 0.97

Spain 0.78

Netherlands 0.70

Scotland 0.54

England and Wales 0.41

Taiwan 0.37

Singapore 0.21

Mauritius 0.19

Hong Kong 0.14

South Korea 0.12

Japan 0.05

Link to comment
Mackerel

ten ranking of death by firearms per year:

1. South Africa 31,918 (2000)

2. Colombia21,898 (2000)

3. Thailand 20,032 (2000)

4. United States 8,259 (1999)

5. Mexico 3,589 (2000)

6. Zimbabwe 598 (2000)

7. Germany 384 (2000)

8. Belarus 331 (2000)

9. Czech Republic 213 (2000)

10.Ukraine 173 (2000)

Top ten ranking of death by fire arms per year, per 1000 citizens:

1. South Africa 0.71 per 1000 people

2. Colombia0.50 per 1000 people

3. Thailand 0.31 per 1000 people

4. Zimbabwe 0.04 per 1000 people

5. Mexico 0.03 per 1000 people

6. Belarus 0.03 per 1000 people

7. Costa Rica 0.03 per 1000 people

8. United States 0.02 per 1000 people

9. Uruguay 0.02 per 1000 people

10. Lithuania 0.02 per 1000 people

http://www.mutantfrog.com/2005/10/01/bowling-for-rio-de-janeiro-and-johannesburg/

Link to comment
Mackerel

8. United States 0.02 per 1000 people

means 2 deaths per 100,000 people....

--> can't match that with the 1st comment....

Anyway.. I am glad that we are not allowed to carry guns in Holland!

Link to comment
grezzzy_greer

I am sorry but I cant agree with your argument that carrying a gun removes violence...the only deterrant is if you SHOW people around you that you have a gun, and in that case you are simply scaring them into submission to your will. That is not civilised, sorry, no way!

In a society where EVERYONE can carry a gun, then it simply means that evry argument or disagreement could end in death...whats civilised about that?

In a society where EVERYONE can carry a gun, what advantage is there to carrying it? You are on an equal footing with everyone else, but now EVERYONE, even the nutters, can carry a gun and instead of just getting annoyed when someone accidentaly slams a door in their face, they can kill the perpetrator...

Think of how dangerous it would be when you really cant tell how angry someone can get at some perceived wrong, until it is too late, and they have shot you dead?

If a someone unarmed gets angry, for the most part all they will generally do is maybe hit out or scream and yell, but they don't usually possess the means to kill.

If a person has to carry a gun just to feel that they ar safe in society, then there are two things wrong - one is a mental problem on the part of the person carrying the gun, and the second, is with the society in which they live.

I have never needed to carry a gun, and I would not.

The simple fact is that a gun has ONE use...to kill...

Link to comment
vbroker

g_g quote: "I am sorry but I cant agree with your argument that carrying a gun removes violence..."

I am sorry but the argument never suggested guns *remove* violence. The argument correctly suggests guns provide an equal or greater counter to unwanted violence or a threat in the hands of a trained user.

Quote: "In a society where EVERYONE can carry a gun, then it simply means that evry argument or disagreement could end in death...whats civilised about that?"

Nothing...but a bat, knife, blackjack, brass knuckles (the ones anyone can buy on Suk or Pratunam), etc. can also effect the same outcome if someone is motivated enough. Granted, it's easier with a gun. That's why the civilized people you referred to are licensed and trained to carry a firearm and understand never to use it confrontationally; only defensively. According to your logic we should ban all martial artists (esp. the black belts and masters) because any time they want to they can use their skills to kill another with their bare hands. When was the last time you heard of a top martial artist accused of murder? It doesn't happen because of one word: discipline. Something lacking in many a farang's vocabulary.

Quote: "..but now EVERYONE, even the nutters, can carry a gun..."

If the laws are followed and enforced, the nutters shouldn't be able to get a gun. I agree more needs to be done to enforce the laws.

Quote: "I have never needed to carry a gun, and I would not."

That's your call. You don't, however, have the right to make the call for anyone else; anymore than you're able to take away alcohol from an addict jumping into his car about to go for a drunken joy ride.

Quote: "The simple fact is that a gun has ONE use...to kill..."

Nonsense. The simple fact is a gun has several uses. Killing is just one and the least used of all. There is training, target shooting, competition, collecting and my favorite: deterrence. Nothing more quickly gets a "belligerent" to tone down his uncalled for outburst and start walking/running in the other direction faster than his discovering you are packing.

Link to comment
Cosmo

They have plenty of guns floating around in Iraq!!!!!!!

But does it stop them killing each other!!!!!!!

The American soldiers have plenty of guns there too - but does it stop the Iraqi insurgents or foreign terrorists from trying to shoot and kill them.

If you truly believe in your argument, then you should join the army, go over there with plenty of guns and see if they will sit and talk with ya!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Kerry2004

F**king genius... who would think of this? Gun ownership leads to more reasonable arguement and more civilized society. I guess it's also helpful to let people know first hand that you carry a gun before trying to convince them with "reason".

Let us all own a gun so the society can be more civilized and everyone (from a 100-pound woman to a 220-pound mugger) can be equally lethal.

Persoanlly, I think "civilized" is an not an accurate description for gun ownership; I'd rather use the word "primitive". When conflicts arise, civilized people seek legal or peaceful means to resolve them. Primitive ones need firearm as a backup.

Do you guys feel less safe not carrying your guns around in Bangkok?

Link to comment
CoolCruiser

As a former member of the military who has personally been involved in, and witnessed the horror and personal devastation caused by the use of firearms my first reaction to your post here was one of anger and frustration.

But then I read your other posts and your profile and realized that you are an individual who needs compassion and professional help. You are a sad, lonely and tormented individual.trying to survive in a society that operates outside your social,mental and physical capabilities.

The very fact that you feel the need to push your pro gun cause on a website such as this one, is a true indication that you are a disturbed zealot, seeking approval of your fantasies by those around you.

Seek help my friend before you make the headlines.

Link to comment
i_love_som_tam

many people that argue for their right to own and carry a firearm are mainly in it for the power they feel the firearm gives them. you say that it puts on equal footing a 100 pound woman and 220 pound mugger. are you saying that this woman should shoot this mugger if he tries to take her purse? would deadly force be justified?

it has been my experience that people who do carry firearms will resort to deadly force when it is not warranted. instead of using ""reasoning", as you are so emphatic about, they resort to the firearm when provoked. instead of using their fists to defend themselves, they resort to the firearm.

why not carry pepper spray? why not carry a stung gun? why do you think police officers carry a multitude of non-lethal and less lethal weapons? if they carried only firearms they have no use of force continuum and their would be more officer involved shootings.

ok, the US gives you the right to own a firearm. why do you feel the need to carry one all the time? do you get a boner when you strap it on?

Link to comment
Loburt

"if there were no guns in your country, you'd have got nothing to be scared of.

i think you need to grow up"

well, while i vehemently disagree with the journal writer, this comment is also childish.

Link to comment
Dihappy

Assaults Per 100,000

It doesnt have to be "gun" related. IF guns are outlawed there are other ways to commit an crime and if you dont have a way to protect yourself, then too bad for u :)

PS- To hear Free comment on how "glad" he is that he is "not allowed" to be free to defend himself any way he chooses is just plain sad.

#1 South Africa: 74.5748

#2 Colombia: 51.7683

#3 Thailand: 33.0016

#4 Guatemala: 18.5

#5 Paraguay: 7.3508

#6 Zimbabwe: 4.746

#7 Mexico: 3.6622

#8 United States: 3.6

Link to comment
Dihappy

Afook, Yes I'm another free American who "CHOOSES" to defend himself with a gun if i choose to..... :)

George,

Doesnt matter if his gun is "bigger", my gun will put him down just as fast :D

Backsearching,

Your comment shows ur ignorance of guns and the people who own them. There are thousands of Americans who legally own firearms who are just as normal as the next Joe. They are CEO's, Pastors, Ministers, Doctors, Teachers, Grandmothers, Grandfathers, Moms and Dads.

Angry, lol. So only "angry" peole carry guns, you guys are totally ridiculous. Owning a gun takes great responsibility. IT takes an extra effort to avoid any and all confrontation just because i carry a weapon. I would be thrown in jail the moment i pulle my gun out and it wasnt in self defense of my life. Carrying a gun does not give me permission to muscle my way and point it at everyone i dont agree with. You guys need to get informed and stop watching John Wayne movies.

You and Grezzy sound like the anti-gunners who claimed blood would run in the streets if the gun bill passed. Well, it passed and nothing happened, with the exception of crime going down. Go ahead and continue on your unfounded fear of guns if u wish. I hope that if u ever need to defend yourself from a criminal with a gun or knife that the police get there in time to save ur life since the only thing you guys can do, is HOPE the criminal decides not to harm u.

Owning a gun has nothing to do with paranoia and everything to do with self defense and a "choice" which you probably dont have. If you choose to NOT defend yourself with a gun, then i will respect that choice. Dont knock a man, or woman, who chooses to arm himself.

Vbroker,

You are a model gun owner. Many could learn from you.

Kerry,

Guess what? This isnt a

Link to comment
Dihappy

(cont)

Kerry,

Guess what? This isnt a Utopia, this is the real world. There are bad guys in this world, the sooner u realize this the better.

Hey Cool,

I hope u didnt fight for America. I have more respect for those fighting for my right to defend myself any legal way i want to.

Oh, and im in no way looking for acceptance here. I have plenty of forums i frequent whos members subscribe to the right to bear arms as i do.

This is entertainment for me :)

I usually go back and post your opinions on other boards to show others how ignorant, crazy people think :)

Beej,

I dont like the NRA :)

MrT,

You cant be serious are u? "If there were no guns... youd have nothing to be scared of"

LOL, thats priceless. Thanks for the quote :) Now go walk your puppy throught flowers of your little bubble world :)

Som Tom,

Thats ridiculous! HOw about the 100lb old lady whos is being raped or stabbed, do u think she should pull out her gun and shoot the guy? Oh wait, ur right, she should "reason" with him. Your just as ridiculous as the rest.

THe rest of you argument doesnt deserve a response.

Loburt,

Lord have mercy! I cant believe i agree with you on that one :)

Link to comment
i_love_som_tam

"

Som Tom,

Thats ridiculous! HOw about the 100lb old lady whos is being raped or stabbed, do u think she should pull out her gun and shoot the guy? Oh wait, ur right, she should "reason" with him. Your just as ridiculous as the rest.

THe rest of you argument doesnt deserve a response"

gee... your example was regarding a mugger, not a rapist nor an armed suspect. and what about the rest of my argument does not deserve a response? the argument regarding a proper escalation of force before resorting to the use of a firearm? or the part about the boner?

Link to comment
Dihappy

Som Tom,

I didnt write the above. But how does an old lady know that a big guy is only going to take her purse when he corners her and is approaching? Even if she pulls her weapon and doesnt shoot, the "mugger" will either change his mind and run off or get shot. But you would take away that old ladies choice to arm herself with a gun and leave her with OC spray.

Any one will tell you that OC spray is only a deterrent and "helps" you to get away it doesnt always turn the aggressor away 100% of the time. An old woman would not do well with just having OC spray as a means of self defense, hell even concealed weapons carriers have both OC spray and a gun. THere are situations which may require OC spray and others which can only be dealt with a gun.

To you and I, proper escalation of force is a luxury.

Link to comment
mrT

ye my "bubble world"as u call it actually works. u take a look at how many deaths are caused by firearms in the us compared with those in the uk. big difference or not?

not even the police have guns in the uk!! and u know what? i never feel like im in danger walking around the streets at any time, day or night.

i hardly think thats a childish response at all. i think probably a lot more mature than a person who wants to have a big loud toy to make him/herself feel big

does anyone remember columbine? even this year there was a similar event involving a college student.

you know why this happens???/ maybe something to do with the fact that you can buy guns easily???

if you can think of a better reason for gun tolerated countries to have such a high murder rate then you've won the argument...otherwise i think you need (as a country not just personally) to realise this.

and theres not just murders theres other violent gun crimes...muggings, rape, etc...these are all made easier by guns.

yes a responsible person can keep a gun safely.....but what percentage of the us would you class as responsible enough to carry a gun???

Link to comment
Dihappy

MrT,

Your argument is flawed. Britain and other countrys which have banned handguns may not have many assaults or deaths attributed to handguns, but instead have them commited by other means such as beatings with clubs, bats, or stabbings with knifes.

Do you honestly think that criminals and murderes stop committing crimes just because they do not have a gun?

Do you also think that criminals will stop trying to buy a gun on the blackmarket because it is "illegal"? Do you think they care about the "laws"?

Let me ask you this MrT. Lets imagine that you are married and a couple thugs assault your wife, one holds a knife to her throat and the other starts to rip her clothes off.

Imagine that there is a law abiding citizen who is licensed and trained to carry a handgun watching this happen to your wife.

What would you like to happen? What would you like that person who is armed with a gun to do?

Lets say he calls the police on the phone and 5 minutes have passed and the police have not arrived, yet the two thugs are continuing to assault your wife.

It doesnt matter if you feel safe MrT. I feel completely safe walking around also, i feel safe in my car, i feel safe in my home. But i still carry a gun just in case, i still carry auto insurance..just in case, and i still carry homeowners and fire insurance...just in case.

What will u do if one or more men with clubs, or knives decide they want to take your money, your car, beat you because they dont like the way you look? Would you let them, well, you would have to since you dont have the means by which to defend yourself from them.

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...