Why the gun is civilization

Remove all ads!

I saw this and thought it was very well done.

For disclaimer purposes, I am a supporter of the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms. I am also not a firearm owner and probably never will be (they scare the missus).

 

That gun is no good to him until he has an opportunity to take it out and aim. Criminals who know what they're doing won't give him the opportunity.

 

Indeed, Sarevok. If you're carrying a gun strictly on the intent of defending yourself, you won't have it drawn out till there's need. Thus, any thug might creep up on you and simply shoot you in the back.
That's a little besides the point here, but still noteworthy.

 

His situation is also worsened by the fact that anyone who has any intention of causing him harm, is most likely going to be carrying a gun.

 

I'm kind of out of date on my statistics, but it used to be true that, at least in the U.S., any gun in a household that ended up being used on a person was much more likely to be used on a member of the household than on an intruder. In some cases this was domestic violence. In some cases it was an accident. In a few cases the intruder got to the gun and used it.

Back when I carried a firearm (we got in trouble for calling it a gun) professionally, we were constantly reminded that every encounter we had with anyone involved a firearm - ours. It was sobering to learn how many police officers ended up shot with their own weapons.

I actually don't agree with the basic dichotomy between force and reason in this argument, either. IMHO most people get others to do what they want through the use and manipulation of emotions, which is a process somewhere between force and reason.

And, for the record, once I turned in my service weapon for the last time many years ago, I've never owned a firearm. Why? I might end up using it.

 

That's true, but guns are VERY illegal here in the UK. They are extremely hard to obtain, and if you do manage to get one, it's almost certainly going to have been used before, it's probably going to be a very moody modified replica, and it's going to cost you a huge amount of money. Naturally, organised criminal gangs and mafia types are going to have guns, but then, these aren't the kinds of people who'll rob you on the street, and actually, the risk is just too big for such a petty reward.

edit- and yeah, like revmaf says, look at how many people actually end up being killed with their own weapons

 

I found the point amusing where he sais that he carries his gun not because he's afraid, but because it enables him to be unafraid -- which leads me to conclude that when not carrying a gun, he is afraid of being unable to be unafraid

That means that he is permanently troubling himself over the possibility being the potential target of 'force', and that only the gun makes him 'free'. I don't know where he lives, but likely that's probably sub-clincally paranoid. Wee, poor tormented soul.

PS: The 'reason-force' argument reminds me of the 'love-hate' of preacher Harry Powell in 'The night of the Hunter' (unforgettable movie).

[ March 24, 2007, 20:17: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

First of all most people don't know beans about firearms or how to use them.

Secondly, if you do carry a firearm and point it at someone you jolly well better be ready, willing and able to use it or it will be used on you.

Thirdly, I think the article is a bunch of

and fourthly, I agree with you guys.

 

The article's a sterling example of the false binary choice. We see a lot of those in American political discourse, from 'both sides' (look, there's another one) of the fence.

Now, No Nonsense Self-Defense had a bit about knife-fighting that applies equally well to guns.

 

Hmmh... perhaps it's not really appropriate to call the example "Civilized", seeing that it's still the matter of force. In this case, the civilian with a gun is just using counterforce, which won't even necessarily work.
Let's say that we have a room full of gorillas and some smaller, weaker monkeys (just about any monkey will work).

Now, the gorillas could attack the monkeys any time they pleased, since they have strenght to do that.
But if you were to give the monkeys Killer Eye Lazers (Sorry, couldn't come up with anything less stupid ), so that they could defend themselves, the gorillas couldn't do as they please any longer.
Now, both the monkeys and gorillas are living in relative, forced peace since they can't attack each other. But are they civilized? I say no.

Then again, if all people would discard weapons and reason with each other, then they would be more civilized. Too bad that's never going to happen.

 

Exactly, Nakia. The rule I learned as a young police officer: if you're not legally entitled to kill the person you're pointing it at, don't even draw the firearm. And at some point you have to get your head around that: killing someone. No nonsense about wounding them in the leg, folks. In the heat of a fight there's no telling what body part you'll hit, so you'd better be justified in killing them.

I never had to kill anybody. But I've seen people die, violently and accidentally, as well as due to illness and old age. And I decided a couple of decades ago I'd rather die myself than kill someone else. (One of the main reasons I left my former line of work, as a matter of fact.) I respect those who feel differently but that is the moral choice I've made.

The comments about the knife fight are exactly right. Even trained police officers get killed all the time by attacks they didn't have time to react to. And so they get jumpier all the time. So, BTW, next time you're pulled over in the U.S. - do keep your hands where the officer can see them. Get permission before digging around in the glove box or under the seat. And don't feel put upon, either. Just a couple of months ago a Tennessee highway patrol officer got murdered by a driver he had pulled over in a "routine" traffic stop. Law enforcement types remember these things.

Whew. Pressed my buttons, this topic did. Sorry. I'll stow it.

 

revmaf, you are quite correct in your choice to change what you did for a living given the way you felt. My opinion only for what it is worth.

I carried a gun for over 25 years and only once pulled it out and that was to stop a man, his grown son as well as his friend and wife from atacking a crippled up bussiness owner in his place of bussiness. Yes, I was quite ready to use it. It worked and the weapon was returned to me after investigation into the incident. I was in the right as far as the law was concerned but never carried a weapon again. I still don't.

 

Old One, you made a morally supportable and, as investigation proved, quite legal choice. In fact, it was my uncertainty about whether I had the nerve to kill someone in order to defend someone else that led me to leave police work - one of the main reasons, anyway. It's one thing to choose not to defend yourself. It's something else altogether not to defend an innocent person you're oath-sworn to defend.

I know a number of people who routinely carry firearms for various quite legal reasons. I'm not as sure they are all adequately trained in using them, or that they have thought through what using them might mean - but I suspect that's true of many who carry firearms.

I can't say I agree they're the, or even a, basis for civilization, though.

 

Exactly, it was a complete load once one gets past the artificial and phony parameters crafted by its author. Rational thinking is not only about persausion (as the author contends), but about problem solving.

The last statement is a complete load of crap, and the author does nothing to prove that it is "without exception." In fact, out of the many types and facets of "human interaction" and relationships, those are probably THE exceptions. Now, if he wishes to state that resolving "human conflict" falls into those two catagories, then he might be able to make a strong case. Of course, there is another way of resolving conflict: compromise.

[ March 25, 2007, 23:56: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

The whole spiel is based upon the notion that human happiness is a zero sum game---as if there were only 10 units of happiness in the world, and it was a dog-fight amongst everyone to grab as many as they could. Baloney. We can all make ourselves happier by making our fellow beings happier.

It is important to let go of the fear of pain and death. The pain and death don't cause us all to be mean and distant towards one another; rather, it is the FEAR of pain and death that causes people to be mean and distant towards one another. I'd rather die young, loved, and with a kind-heart than old, feared, and scared.

 

I'm not opposed to guns - if there are other people out there who have them then I see no reason why you shouldn't if you feel the need. I've heard of several examples where someone having a gun has being incredibly handy. Plus, IIRC, the reason for throwing in the Second Amendment was so that civilians could overthrow the government if the need arose. If the need does arise (and I hope that the people here aren't foolish enough to think that it couldn't) I'd feel a lot happier knowing that the resistance isn't going to end up fighting off the military with spears...

American gun culture is pretty scary though. When the gun is glorified to that level I have quite a few second thoughts...

 

I did not say you could: An idiot with a gun is still an idiot and two idiots with two guns are even worse. My point was that there are still different approachs to solving the problems of human conflict and warfare.

The idea was to have a citizen militia, since many of the Founding Brothers (including Thomas Jefferson) believed that one of the greatest threats to liberty was a profesional, standing army.