good article--"Force vs. Reason"

[KenpoTex]

Why The Gun In Civilization?

By Marko Kloos

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 100pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, or a solitary individual 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 acts as a deterrant to those that would choose to use force as a means of persuasion. 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.

A couple of quotes that mention the same type of concept come to mind...

The way of the warrior begins with the acceptance of the fact that
reason requires two willing minds. Whether a conflict in question is
a struggle between two individuals or a true war involving many
nations, a peaceful solution is always dependent upon the willingness
of the opposing part to listen to reason. In the real world, violent
aggressive people who are immune to reason either get their way or
are stopped by greater, more skilled, and more determined violence
and aggression.
To be a warrior is to accept the inevitable reality of human conflict
and prepare for it diligently while at the same time never
sacrificing ones appreciation for humanity. It is the ability to
respect life while actively developing both the will and the skill to
ruthlessly take it when necessary. ~Mike Janich (emphasis added)

"You must know then that there are two ways of contesting: one by the law, the other by force. However; as the first is often insufficient, one must have recourse to the second." ~Niccolo Machiavelli

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Great article, thanks for posting that.

That could be the best reasoned call for carrying a firearm I've ever heard.

Jeff

 

[tellner]

There is quite a bit to agree with. But the author really does conform to the worst of the hoplophobes' stereotypes. He utterly and unashamedly fetishizes guns, damned near worships them and considers them the Source of All Good. He will make many like-minded people feel warm and fuzzy. And he will confirm the suspicions of anyone who isn't in complete mental lock step with him.

 

[Guardian]

I have to say that is one heck of an article for sure. Not that I concur with all the aspects of it, but it's darn good food for thought.

 

[thardey]

Altho' a good article in theory, I have a problem with it:

In our society, you're supposed to (for good reason) keep your gun concealed until you're ready to use it. Other than LEO's, drawing and branding your gun seems to either 1.) make you a high-priority target, or 2.) freak out bystanders who don't understand why you unleashed that particular "force equalizer" in that situation.

His whole point only works if everyone knows he is armed. If he's carrying concealed, then the gun isn't performing the "warning" function he's praising.

Of course, you can argue that the bad guys "won't know who's armed, and who isn't", and that will deter them. But really, we all know that there could be a traffic cop around the next corner, but that doesn't really stop us from testing that law, does it?

(since someone will probably call that a bad analogy, let me pre-empt by explaining). The stakes between getting a traffic ticket and getting shot by mr. refuse-to-be-mugged are significantly different, true. But the odds are higher that I'll get caught speeding at any one time, than a mugger will try to mug someone who both has a gun, and is willing and able to use it. If you go too long without getting caught, you start to think that you'll "get away with it." Unless the mugger personally knows or has experienced someone who makes that chance reality, it probably won't be as much of a deterrent for him, at least, according to the reasons in this article.