Thursday, October 9, 2014

Gun Control Is An Irresponsible Act Of A Barbaric Society

 
 
As the Supreme Court was hearing arguments for and against the Chicago, IL, Gun Ban, this man's letter places the gun in its proper perspective in a civilized society.
 
 
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 your 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 would not 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. I do it 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 responsible act for civilized people. 
 
Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

1 comment:

Ron Livesay said...

Great article, Ralph. As I have said before, a gun serves the same function as a spare tire. I don't carry a spare tire in my car because I plan to use it or because I want to show it to other people. I carry it because if I ever need it, I will REALLY need it, and it will be good to have on hand. That is the same reason a law-abiding citizen carries a gun. (Note: I am very partial to my .44 Special Charter Arms Bulldog.)