Force vs. Reason

[XcesiveSlyd]

I found this on a motorcycle forum I frequent. I thought it was a good enough article to share.

http://www.cbr600rr.com/forum/index....c,18566.0.html






Why The Gun Is 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.

[NORTEXED]

Excellent article. When Florida passed the "Shall Issue" amendment, they saw a distinct drop in the violent crime rate. Violent criminals were no longer guaranteed "unarmed targets".

"The Lott-Mustard Report

John Lott and David Mustard, in connection with the University of Chicago Law School, examining crime statistics from 1977 to 1992 for all U.S. counties, concluded that the thirty-one states allowing their residents to carry concealed, had significant reductions in violent crime. Lott writes, "Our most conservative estimates show that by adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. If those states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them back then, citizens might have been spared approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies. To put it even more simply criminals, we found, respond rationally to deterrence threats... While support for strict gun-control laws usually has been strongest in large cities, where crime rates are highest, that's precisely where right-to-carry laws have produced the largest drops in violent crimes."

[sholling]

Beautifully spoken!!!

[imthegrumpyone]

+ 100

[Playboypenguin]

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.

I love how some people are so ignorant that they actually think hitting someone in the head with a baseball bat will only knock them out or at worst cause a hillarious bout of amnesia.

You would not believe the number of times people accidently kill someone that way and claim they thought it would just knock them out.

[ligonierbill]

"You will get a lot further with a kind word and a gun than just a kind word." Of course, the fellow reputed to have said that relied more on the guns, but if my gun takes force out of the discussion, we can exchange kind words.

[Mal H]

That is an excellent essay - and it wasn't written by any "Maj. Caudill", whoever he is.

It was written by our own Marko Kloos on his blog back in March of this year.

See this thread and read Marko's post: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...d.php?t=255851

[XcesiveSlyd]

Thanks for the correction. I was unaware. And its a repost. :^(

[vox rationis]

that essay is an absolute tour de force of reason and absolute kryptonite to people hysterical about guns..very well done!

[pax]

XcesiveSlyd,

An understandable mistake, since it's been making the rounds via email with the wrong name on it.

I've made a minor crusade of correcting it whenever I've seen it attributed wrong, since I know how frustrating that kind of thing can be for a writer. (Heh -- imagine it: flattering that so many people want to forward your words, but maddening that the words aren't credited to you, when you're the one that wrote them ...)

It's a good essay, and deserves to be widely reprinted though. Thanks for putting it here again.

pax

[Sgt.Fathead]

So many people think we are ll 'gun nuts' and that we have the IQ and communication skills of cavemen. Here's a great essay; articulate, well written, simple and clear, to put a different face on pro-gun people.

Thanks for the post and for the correction. I used to do some freelance writing in my twenties and was always fighting editors over the idea of "do not edit for style or content without express permission of the author(s)".

[The Tourist]

I wish we would also emphasize our will to defend ourselves and survive.

You'd be amazed at how many times an aggressor thinks twice when he realizes a citizen is going to make him pay. We mentioned baseball bats here, and it's a good example. I know I take my share of teasing for bringing a knife to a gunfight.

I believe it's attitude. You send out a message, "You're not the aggressor you think you are. You're just another adversary, and you are standing within my grasp."

If you look like food, you will be eaten.

[DennisD]

Or like the popular saying goes; 'God created mankind, Sam Colt made them equal'.

[Sgt.Fathead]

I like to think in terms relating to the natural world. Do want to be sheep or wolves? I want to be a tool making ape with a brain, an opposable thumb and my .357 ready to go!

[DMK]

A most eloquent commentary.

That one should be put on a wallet card to hand out to folks.

[XcesiveSlyd]

Thats a very interesting idea.