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 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 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.
 By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)


Anonymous said...

At first glance I thought a machine/robot wrote this, but of course I was wrong.

Look, even in a gun toting society you still have victim and perpetrator. This will never change unless society attitudes change. You also have the death penalty in some states....it doesn't stop the most heinous of crimes.

Overall I give this forward a "D" for having the gaul to brainwash the masses telling them (via email) that a civilised nation is a gun toting nation.

gruaud said...

"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."

So what do you call being persuaded to act
against your own and your neighbor's interests
by propaganda spin-machines like FOX News?

Is that reason or force, Major?

And how does your AR-15 help you there?

Anonymous said...

Filled with rage then, Billy Joe
reached for his gun to draw
but the stranger drew his gun and fired
before he even saw.
As Billy Joe fell to the floor,
the crowd all gathered 'round
and wondered at his final words:

Don't take your guns to town, son!
Leave your guns at home, Bill!
Don't take your guns to town!

Anonymous said...

I am extremely pro gun but I hate crap like this.

CharlieE said...

"When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. "

Of course I can, unless you by "carry" you mean "I have a gun in my hand at all times."

If it's in a holster or a pocket, and I pull a gun on you, you're going to cooperate or get shot, and having a gun on your person isn't going to help you.

But these gun nuts live in a fantasy world where they always imagine that they'll have the upper hand if they're armed.

ferschitz said...


The major is "mythical" and this has been included as part of (wait for it but you guessed it) the Ted Nugent manifesto.

I smelt bull hockey before I even turned on my PC; this one stinks.

Well if gun toting teabaggers starburst over drek like this, so be it. It's more rightwing stupidity sent out there to entertain the cheeto-breathed keyboard warriors living in their mommy and daddy's basement trembling in fear at everything pooped out by Uncle Ted, as well as RushBilloSeanGlenn.

Pretty darn pathetic.

I am ok (mostly) with the 2d Amendment, but I've never owned a gun and never felt the need to do so. The reasoning employed in this screed is so screwed up that it's almost beyond belief. I certainly do not NEED to have some &*^% gun to "force" people to bow to my whims and fancies. There is an apparently little known, at least to teabaggers who love crap like this, process called negotiation.

And hey: guess what? If you're good at negotiation, you can usually get what you need, even if it's not exactly what you want. And don't whine and beef to me about strangers attacking on the street. Yes, it happens, but as Charlie says, even IF I happen to have a gun, the likelihood is that the mugger would have his/her gun pulled on me first, and my gun would either be taken from me or used against me.

I have come to realize that I am a heck of a lot more brave and courageous than any of these teabaggers. I certainly do NOT feel the need to carry a gun to make me feel "big" or "secure" or that I "need it" to "get my way."

So idiotically pathetic that it's almost beyond belief. Plus it came out in 2007, so once again, we're treated to recycled b.s.

cretins. grow up.

gruaud said...

anon said: I am extremely pro gun but I hate crap like this.

Amen. I practice on a regular
basis. I also have no problem
with something that causes RW nuts
to recoil like a vampire facing a
crucifix: regulations.

ferschitz said...

As I stated, I don't own a gun, but members of my family do. They are hunters, who dress and eat the animals (mostly deer) that they kill. I have no problem with that, and they are very responsible about their gun ownership.

I would be surprised if they would agree with this crap. It's just stupid. I cannot see my nephews believing that they need to be holding some gun to "force" someone to do their "will."

I think my nephews, very rightwing fellows I might add, would find that pathetc, too. I think my nephews have a lot on the ball, and don't need some gun to make themselves "more manly" or "more forceful." They are that way anyway and have self-confidence and self-esteem (what a concept).

Just saying....

Hooray4US said...

I'm not a gun owner but mostly have no problem with the 2d Amend, until I read stuff like this. Then I have to wonder. Commenters here display responsible gun ownership attitudes.

This weird tirade (which apparently is made up) does not display what I would consider to be a responsible gun owning attitude. It makes me very uncomfortable.

If rightwingers are so worried (for no reason) about losing 2d Amend rights, then they need to take a good long look in the mirror and be honest with themselves. Are they mature and responsible and respectful of others in terms of their attitudes towards gun ownership and use? If they truly are, then they don't need to worry.

If they think like this diatribe indicates they should, then I'm not so sure. Just saying... Gun ownership means being responsible, mature and respectful of the rights of others. People who wish to be bullies because they have gun should think twice before buying one.

Thx 4 Fish said...

This is a sort of wild-west fantasy world where there are no laws or police and one is in danger at every moment, yet the writer seems to have no idea that he may be a danger to others.

I don't have a problem with gun ownership or carrying. However, this author (probably propaganda from a gun or ammo manufacturer) doesn't even mention laws governing when one can use their gun or the responsibility involved in carrying a loaded weapon, and most important-regular training. This guy seems to just want to talk about his rights and how macho that makes him feel. I'd like to hear about how the gun owner needs to be reasonable and responsible too. I really hope most gun owners think about those things once in a while.

katz said...

"75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger"

That's...a very undiscriminating gang banger.

But seriously, Bebe's right. The law exists to even out force discrepancies. Adding more force to one side will never fix the problem.

Marc with a C said...

I own about 20 guns, including "evil" guns like the AK-47.

But at the same time, I support a robust enforcement of the gun laws which are already on the books, a loosening of laws in some places, and a tightening of the laws in others.

Some people are afraid of guns, and I respect that. I certainly wouldn't want to cause consternation to anyone, and as such don't carry my gun on me, either openly or concealed (though I do have a permit to do so). And while I keep a loaded .45 in the nightstand in the bedroom, I certainly don't lay in bed at night with a hard-on in the hopes that I hear someone breaking in so I can teach them a lesson and have a cool story to post of web forums.

Because you know what? It makes a lot of sense to carry around a fire extinguisher wherever you go, but you don't see a whole lot of people walking around with a c02 tank strapped to their sides.

Hibryd said...

I'd just like to put in a word of support for #3 Anon, gruaud, and Marc. I don't own or carry a gun myself, but I have a huge amount of respect for responsible gun owners. Especially because responsible gun owners don't think their guns act like magical force fields making them impervious to all evil-doers AND government agents in black helicopters.

Anoner said...

I think it can be summed up by saying that owning a gun doesn't give you the "right" to be a complete @$$hole, although it appears that's how some rightwingers see it.

Thanks for the warning, @$$hole. Duly noted.

Responsible gun ownership is fun; this kind of crap is not.

katz said...

I'm doing archery. I haven't bought a bow yet, but I'd love to see the reaction from a burglar if I pulled that on him/her.

alcoolworld said...

This approach worked out well for Vernon Forrest.


Vernon, a Pro Boxer was killed when he exchanged gun fire with muggers in South-East Atlanta. The real world just kinda sucks for right-wingers...

Creative Commons License
MyRightWingDad.net is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.