Guns and civilization

[RolandtheHeadless]

Americans generally (though not universally) seem to have a different view on private gun ownership than much of the rest of the world. Our US Supreme Court has recently held that we have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. In so doing, the Court struck down laws banning possession of hand-guns in Washington DC and Chicago.

I think the American pro-gun view is well-expressed in the following essay, and I'd be interested in hearing others' views:

"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)

 

[Grandpa Frank]

PRO-gun , with reservations.

As a former police officer and military veteran, I am very pro-gun. Since the "bad" guys seem to have no problem getting and using guns, seems like the honest person ought to have the right to the same for protection. From the time your alarm goes off or you call 911 for help, it may be at least 10 to 15 minutes for the police to arrive to help you. Gives the bad guy a lot of time to do damage if you are totally dependent on someone else to defend/rescue you.
The big "IF" in the factor to me is training and safety. If you are going to own guns and store them in your home or work place, they should be protected from theft or children getting ahold of them or the ammo. If you intend to use a gun for defence or security, you should make darn sure you know how & when to use it and all state and federal laws involved. I recommend a training course of at least 20 hours by trained professionals , which includes actually firing range time. Doing some training at night with a flashlight is a good idea.
Also, be aware that if you have to use a gun, even though you may be totally right; a shootout will usually result in a police investigation and possible civil lawsuits and a LOT of hassles.
I have had my concealed carry permit for 40 years, and only once have I removed the gun from it's holster and aimed it (that was enough). Having to shoot someone will be a trumatic experience that will be a lifelong memory, but hopefully, you or a loved one will still be alive.

Uncle Frank

 

[Pandora]

Having went to high school in what most call a "hick-town", I can say that the one thing I got sick of hearing when the farmer/hunting-fanatic boys would leave their shotguns in the back of their trucks in the school parking lot was that they had the right to bear arms as long as they had a liscence for them (I am so glad that I've graduated and never have to see any of them again)....So many Americans only quote the first half of that amendment and leave out the rest of it simply because the rest of that statement would inconvienence them. "Second Amendment: The right to bear arms. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The right itself was intended for people to have the right to defend themselves or loved ones. I often think that here in America, the pro-gun viewpoint is taken too far for the wrong reasons (and I usually hold democratic beliefs quite strongly) because all it does is give idiots a false sense of entitlement and obnoxious pride because the gun gives power to a coward. Not all Americans who own guns are like this, but the majority that I encounter that have a problem with gun control tend to have guns just as a status object and a tool for threat. For example, the guys who hunt and leave their loaded guns in the back of their vehicles so that they can go hunting after their done with class. I believe hunting is pointless in these times, as most humans wouldn't know how to thrive in the wilderness with nothing but themselves and nature, so they can't say they hunt to survive, and they waste so much of the animal when they do kill it, when all they want from it is one of the many things that creature had to offer. "Wild animals never kill for sport. Man is the only one to whom the torture and death of his fellow-creatures is amusing in itself." ~James Anthony Froude, Oceana, 1886
It seems that more Americans buy and use guns for show, sport, amusement, illegal/criminal activity, and other personal pursuits other than self-defense. There are weapons other than guns that could be used for self defense, but the effectiveness of a given weapon is determined upon the situation and what type of offense/threat you are dealing with. I may be slightly biased because I have grown up surrounded by gun-crazy idiots inside and outside of my family, but I just get sick of how people have twisted their right to protect themselves. Although it is true for all things, that they can be used for great positive or negative results, I still have the right to be dissapointed when humanity chooses the negative. I don't intend to offend anyone or their reasons for owning a gun, I was simply stating that any reason other than self-defense is not necessarily what the second amendment was inteded to protect, but due to times changing has become 'acceptable' under that right, regardless of the intent or moral. I just find it sickening that any idiot can believe that they deserve a gun simply because they're American and they want it, regardless of what they intend to do with it. Therin that individual's thoughts lies the 'threat of one with a gun' that causes the need to 'protect oneself with another gun' to arise. So in a way it is a vicious cycle.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Pandora, I respect your views, but you're misinformed on several facts there.

"Having went to high school in what most call a "hick-town", I can say that the one thing I got sick of hearing when the farmer/hunting-fanatic boys would leave their shotguns in the back of their trucks in the school parking lot was that they had the right to bear arms as long as they had a liscence for them."

We don't need a license to own or carry a firearm precisely because we have a constitutional right to do so. It's not like a driver's license; there is no constitutional right to drive. However, most schools have now banned this practice -- which they can do, since our courts have held that students don't have the full spectrum of constitutional rights while in school.

"I often think that here in America, the pro-gun viewpoint is taken too far for the wrong reasons (and I usually hold democratic beliefs quite strongly) because all it does is give idiots a false sense of entitlement and obnoxious pride because the gun gives power to a coward."

What about the guns-as-equalizers argument made in that essay? A gun makes a 90-year old grandma equal to defending herself from a big male attacker.

"For example, the guys who hunt and leave their loaded guns in the back of their vehicles so that they can go hunting after their done with class."

Leaving a loaded gun in a vehicle violates the rules of gun safety and is probably against the law in most states. Responsible gun-owners don't do this.

"I believe hunting is pointless in these times, as most humans wouldn't know how to thrive in the wilderness with nothing but themselves and nature, so they can't say they hunt to survive, and they waste so much of the animal when they do kill it, when all they want from it is one of the many things that creature had to offer."

I hunt for meat. We much prefer moose or other game meat to the artificially-colored, hormone- and anti-biotics-infused beef for sale in the supermarket. There are many people in my state who live off the land; my brother and his girlfriend live "off the grid" in a cabin in the woods with no running water or electricity. It's a crime here and in most states to waste game meat.

""Wild animals never kill for sport. Man is the only one to whom the torture and death of his fellow-creatures is amusing in itself." ~James Anthony Froude, Oceana, 1886"

This is commonly repeated, but totally false. Every cat species known to man kills for sport. Ever seen a house-cat play with a mouse? Wolves kill far more than they can eat, given the chance. I myself have seen wolf-killed moose just left to rot. Orcas (killer whales) have been observed killing more seals than they can eat, just for the "sport" of it.

In fact, it would be harder to find a predatory species that does NOT kill for sport than one that does.

 

[Pandora]

We don't need a license to own or carry a firearm precisely because we have a constitutional right to do so. It's not like a driver's license; there is no constitutional right to drive. However, most schools have now banned this practice -- which they can do, since our courts have held that students don't have the full spectrum of constitutional rights while in school.

I have never owned a gun, and as a child I was told that a liscence was required, so I assumed if anyone openly carried a gun, they had a liscence for it or profession that permitted them to do so. Thank you for telling me this, I never knew guns could be owned without a liscence. I have learned something. As for the classmates...They left them loaded in their vehicles, and people knew...

"I often think that here in America, the pro-gun viewpoint is taken too far for the wrong reasons (and I usually hold democratic beliefs quite strongly) because all it does is give idiots a false sense of entitlement and obnoxious pride because the gun gives power to a coward."

What about the guns-as-equalizers argument made in that essay? A gun makes a 90-year old grandma equal to defending herself from a big male attacker.

Four years ago, a close family friend of mine who fits that description (80 though, not 90) was murdered in her own home by a nineteen-year old who was still inside her home when she returned. He was just going to steal a few things and leave, but since she was there and trying to run once she saw him, he pushed her into a mirror, the glass cut her neck, and she bled out. If you recall my original writing was like so: "The right itself was intended for people to have the right to defend themselves or loved ones. I often think that here in America, the pro-gun viewpoint is taken too far for the wrong reasons (and I usually hold democratic beliefs quite strongly) because all it does is give idiots a false sense of entitlement and obnoxious pride because the gun gives power to a coward." What I meant was that although I support the use of guns as protection, it seems the majority of people do not own guns for that specific reason.

"For example, the guys who hunt and leave their loaded guns in the back of their vehicles so that they can go hunting after their done with class."

Leaving a loaded gun in a vehicle violates the rules of gun safety and is probably against the law in most states. Responsible gun-owners don't do this.

I am aware, and it is against the law here. That statement was referring to the previously mentioned guys from my school. They are by no means responsible people. I don't remember if the police were notified about it or what because that happened a couple years ago and I don't remember if they were allowed to take their guns home and leave them or if they emptied them...I just remember those guys making a big deal about it for attention because they didn't want to be there they wanted to leave and that was why they were loaded....I don't see why they couldn't wait until they got to their deer blinds?

"I believe hunting is pointless in these times, as most humans wouldn't know how to thrive in the wilderness with nothing but themselves and nature, so they can't say they hunt to survive, and they waste so much of the animal when they do kill it, when all they want from it is one of the many things that creature had to offer."

I hunt for meat. We much prefer moose or other game meat to the artificially-colored, hormone- and anti-biotics-infused beef for sale in the supermarket. There are many people in my state who live off the land; my brother and his girlfriend live "off the grid" in a cabin in the woods with no running water or electricity. It's a crime here and in most states to waste game meat.

I got a little carried away on the hunting part when I was trying to tie it in with gun-control issues, mainly I meant it as a use of guns that did not involve self-defense (in most cases), but I was on a roll and got muddled up in my opinions on hunting as well. I didn't mean to veer off topic a little.
I'm not much of a meat eater for health reasons (I'm not a vegetarian, most meat just makes me sick), but in my community, the meat is all that people hunt for when it comes to the deer(hence only one of the many things it had to offer). I don't hunt, but some of my family does. A friend that hunts deer tells me that she throws out the pelts (I see that as a waste), she doesn't use the bones (many things can be made from bone, it is a shame), and I don't know if the organs and fleshy parts that humans don't like to eat or are unable to eat are made into animal food or simply disposed of as well, but my point with my discussion there was that the bones and pelts can be sold or donated to tradesmen who work with those materials instead of them being thrown out, and a lot of the hunters in my area throw those parts out because they have no use for them.

""Wild animals never kill for sport. Man is the only one to whom the torture and death of his fellow-creatures is amusing in itself." ~James Anthony Froude, Oceana, 1886"

This is commonly repeated, but totally false. Every cat species known to man kills for sport. Ever seen a house-cat play with a mouse? Wolves kill far more than they can eat, given the chance. I myself have seen wolf-killed moose just left to rot. Orcas (killer whales) have been observed killing more seals than they can eat, just for the "sport" of it.

In fact, it would be harder to find a predatory species that does NOT kill for sport than one that does.

Then I stand corrected using that quotation. I believe I chose to use it because it best reflected my feelings for how people in my community only use the meat of their kill and nothing else. I usually don't partake in a serious discussion in which I have little experience in what is being dealt with, but I wanted to jump in with what I did know and how I currently felt to see if I could come to know things that others had experienced. It seems I have learned a little more from nature from you, and I thank you for the wisdom you have passed on to me.

 

[Half-n-Half]

It seems that more Americans buy and use guns for show, sport, amusement, illegal/criminal activity, and other personal pursuits other than self-defense.

I agree somewhat on this point. Sure, many Americans never actually use their weapon in self-defense, whether that be through intimidation or actually shooting the weapon, but I'm not so sure I agree that people who own a gun don't own it for self-defense being a primary goal.

Sure, some of those people may also be "gun junkies" and own guns that aren't concealable and/or practical for self-defense (assault rifles, larger caliber guns, etc.) but I personally do not see anything wrong with owning a gun to use recreationally or for sport.

Second Amendment: The right to bear arms. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What this means is that the people of the State should have the right to bear arms in case it becomes necessary to overthrow a tyrannical government. If you don't have the guns in the first place, how are you supposed to get them once a tyrant has taken over? It doesn't matter if someone owns a gun for various other reasons (recreation, self-defense, etc.) by default it helps ensure the security of a free State.

 

[Pachipro]

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

"No free government was ever founded or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state.... Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen." - State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788

"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive." - Noah Webster An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

"As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -- Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle." --
"... whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." - Richard H. Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer 53, 1788

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson, in letter to William S. Smith, 1787

They said it better than I ever could and, 234 years later, these words still ring true. Once they take our arms from us we are finished as a free country (although I can debate that we are not a "free" nation today). But the fact remains, as long as the populace remains armed there is hope.

In all of human history no standing Army has ever won a war against an armed populace because they could never defeat their guerrilla forces and tactics which is why the "guerrillas" of the US defeated the most powerful military in the world 234 years ago. Never have and never will unless they just blow them off the map.

Just look at today's war in the Middle East and in the past in Vietnam. The most powerful nation in the world, with the most sophisticated and deadly weapons the world has ever seen has lost and is losing today because they will not do what is necessary. Maybe the powers that be want it that way.

Do I own a gun? Yes I do. A few. For the safety of my family and home. Never used them and I hope I never have to, but God help anyone that invades my home as one is always by my side. I would rather be shot dead protecting my family and home than to watch in hopeless despair, with no arms, the rape of my family, the pillaging of my home, and to hopelessly succumb to a tyrant military.

 

[justin]

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
"No free government was ever founded or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state.... Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen." - State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788
"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive." - Noah Webster An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787
"As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -- Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle." --
"... whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." - Richard H. Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer 53, 1788
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson, in letter to William S. Smith, 1787
They said it better than I ever could and, 234 years later, these words still ring true. Once they take our arms from us we are finished as a free country (although I can debate that we are not a "free" nation today). But the fact remains, as long as the populace remains armed there is hope.
In all of human history no standing Army has ever won a war against an armed populace because they could never defeat their guerrilla forces and tactics which is why the "guerrillas" of the US defeated the most powerful military in the world 234 years ago. Never have and never will unless they just blow them off the map.
Just look at today's war in the Middle East and in the past in Vietnam. The most powerful nation in the world, with the most sophisticated and deadly weapons the world has ever seen has lost and is losing today because they will not do what is necessary. Maybe the powers that be want it that way.
Do I own a gun? Yes I do. A few. For the safety of my family and home. Never used them and I hope I never have to, but God help anyone that invades my home as one is always by my side. I would rather be shot dead protecting my family and home than to watch in hopeless despair, with no arms, the rape of my family, the pillaging of my home, and to hopelessly succumb to a tyrant military.

You sir, have and will always have my respect!

 

[Haruspex]

I think both sides of the argument tend to rely on hypothetical situations too much. Firearms boost one's offensive potential greatly and that is that. The potential may be used to disrupt or to create a power-balance. If a state can ensure that guns are used to maintain a power-balance between citizens, that is excellent, America is not that state, as has been demonstrated by numerous occurrences and statistics. Also, I think it is false that prohibition to bear firearms does not prevent, at least partially, people from obtaining guns. It does. If you compare a situation where people may freely acquire firearms with one where they cannot, the difference is striking. I think the only safe situation where civilians can be allowed, freely, to possess firearms is one where they no longer need them for anything. I find that protecting me is included in the bundle of reciprocal rights and obligations that persist between me and my state, that I will not, freely, carry a gun and that my state will protect me from the dangers of firearms through prevent others from carrying guns, but that is a very European view, I guess.

Ultimately, the more guns available, the more chance there is that they will be abused or negligently misused. If allowing an elderly lady to be mugged preserves lives, that is a bargain and the gain far outweighs the loss.

 

[Revenant]

Definitely agree with Derfel, and just to add my tidbit...

My brother (when he was a teen and into all sorts of trouble, he's a decent guy now) and two of his friends broke into a cabin, broke the lock to a gun safe, and had six guns stashed away as well as one on one of them when we found them in our cabin (they had broken in, and were doing an assortment of drugs). They were not thinking straight at all on whatever drugs they were on, but they were still able to break into a gun safe.. seven guns more floating around in the underworld. To me that says that even where the laws governing gun ownership are stricter, like they are in Canada as opposed to the U.S., plenty more guns make it from the legal and accounted for to the illegal and unaccounted for.

Protection like a gun is only as good as the will to pull that trigger and watch the lights go out in the other guy, something that a lot of gun toting housewives in America don't have, and end up having their guns pointed at themselves, being at the mercy of often enraged criminals, enraged that someone would point a gun at them.

That's not to say guns can never be owned by the citizen. Japan seems to have a very strict screening system, so much so that only those that really wanted a gun for purely hunting purposes would bother going through it. I mean I know a few Yakuza obtain guns illegally, and on rare occasion citizens have been caught in crossfire between rival gangs, but that's very rare, and it's much much more common to hear of some angry or deranged guy wielding a knife.

I had something else I wanted to say... seems to have gone back into the deep recesses of my mind though....

 

[Mycernius]

"The Gun Is Civilization"
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Hmmm, a military man giving an essay on pro-gun. Well this should be objective.

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.

Way to go. Let's start with a false dictomy. Humans also interact by compromise. I cannot reason some one to my way of thinking and I will not follow there way of thinking. Reason has its place, but when faced with something like that we look for a compromise rather than start shooting each other. Force someone to do something you want will make them irate and they will force you to do it their way. A compromise might not be ideal, but at least people stop shooting each other.
Reason never helped in northern Ireland, so people used violence, but that never made any difference and even divived communities even more. Then John Major decided to compromise with the IRA. Although it was a tough path the IRA have finally decommissoned their weapons and the only nutters till bombing and shooting each other in Ireland are selfish thugs whio liked the violent times as tehy could get away with their brutish behaviour.

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.

Coming from a country where guns are not commonplace we find reason much better. Overall we are not as violent as the US. This man seems to think that without a firearm people will resort to force more often. Very military thinking.

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.

I get a bigger and better gun. Now I'm in position of force. What do you do, erason with me? Boloocks, you get an even bigger and better gun.

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.

And does this top 220 lb muggers from mugging 100 lb women? No. Most people who carry firearms are not fully trained in their use. Sure a woman might be carring a gun, but I sure it would most likely be in her handbag. During the mugging she has to find it, get it out and pioint it at the mugger. As muggers have a tendecy to use stealth I do not think the gun would help her much.
It might remove the disparity, but people who commit crimes usually have the advantage of surprise. It is no good carrying the weapon if the offender is already pointing a gun at you, or jumped from a dark alley with a knife at your throat.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations.

Which it is.

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.

In this he is right. You cannot remove guns rom any society. The criminals will always find a way, but the mugger still has the advantage whether he has a gun or not. That is surprise, so he can be carrying a gun or a knife, either way the victim is still going to be at a disadvantage.

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.

See above

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.

What a huge steaming pile of BS. I see by this logic Japan and the UK should be ruled by young and strong. Have you looked at the governments of these countries?

A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

A person who is mugging has already failed in society and has hardly succeeded.

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.

No the argument is not fallacious. A gun confrontation would have a tendency to be more lethal. Why do you think some states have cooling off periods before you can buy a gun? To stop you buying one immediately after someone has annoyed you and you going off to shoot them. Anyway I have explained why the mugging senario fails as an argument.

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 field is not level. The criminal always ahs the advantage, be it with a stick, stone, bat or large gun. Unless you are visible carrying the weapon the criminal will attack, usually by surprise.

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.

Maybe, but law abiding citizens do not go around attacking each other. A civilised society sholdn't worry about the fact that guns are so freely available to criminals that we feel that we must also carry one.

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.

That is a sad statement on your society that you even need to carry a weapon to feel safe. Millions of peo-ple do not and they get along fine.

The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded.

Unless I have the bigger gun.

I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid.

Great big pile of steaming BS. Of course you carry it because you are afraid of the society you live in. I think his ego is showing here.

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.

That it might, but it also gives you an advantage agains those who are not armed. you can just as easily force people to see your view because they do not wish to carry a gun.

It removes force from the equation... And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

No it doesn't as I have explained a few times. Now I suppose I could link up some states (which I will), but gun ownership doesn't mean that everyone is shooting each other, except in the US.
Gun violence - Wikipedia
What the US should look at is why there is such a high rate of shootings? Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret) has missed the point entirely. Gun ownership is high in Canada, and every man in Switzerland has his army issued rifle at home, yet the firearm homicide rate is lower than the US. Maybe the US should look at its society and why it feels so scared that the populace needs to have guns. Does owning a gun cut down on the crime rate? Well, no.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Derfel:

"Also, I think it is false that prohibition to bear firearms does not prevent, at least partially, people from obtaining guns. It does."

True enough. Such prohibitions do prevent law-abiding people from obtaining guns. But they don't prevent criminals (who, by definition, are already breaking the law) from obtaining guns.

"If you compare a situation where people may freely acquire firearms with one where they cannot, the difference is striking."

We can't make any such valid comparisons, given the difference in history, cultures, ethnic/multi-ethnic make-up of various nations.

"I find that protecting me is included in the bundle of reciprocal rights and obligations that persist between me and my state, that I will not, freely, carry a gun and that my state will protect me from the dangers of firearms through prevent others from carrying guns, but that is a very European view, I guess."

Such a covenant is a fiction some people like to buy into for their own comfort. If there is such a covenant, then government has broken it by virtue of the fact that any crime still exists. Government cannot protect us everywhere, at all times. The police will look for your killer, but only after the fact. With a breach by the government (or society, if you prefer), we should be free to look after ourselves. In fact, I believe, we have the responsibility to look after ourselves.

"Ultimately, the more guns available, the more chance there is that they will be abused or negligently misused."

Of course. That's true of anything, including butter knives and automobiles.

"If allowing an elderly lady to be mugged preserves lives, that is a bargain and the gain far outweighs the loss."

For the criminal maybe; but I doubt the old lady would agree.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Mycernius:

"Way to go. Let's start with a false dictomy. Humans also interact by compromise. I cannot reason some one to my way of thinking and I will not follow there way of thinking."

You've confused a result with a means of persuasion; compromise is a result, not a means. Let's say you want me to do something that I don't want to do. There are three possible results: 1. I do it (you win), 2. I don't do it (I win), or 3. we compromise.

People might compromise as a result of reason or of force (as where two combatants exhaust their resources and will to fight, so reach a peace treaty).

"I get a bigger and better gun. Now I'm in position of force. What do you do, erason with me? Boloocks, you get an even bigger and better gun."

If that were a valid response, then yes, we'd have a myriad of individual arms races that would presumably end when we were carrying too much weight to move. But let's try a real-world scenario.

Armed with a gun, you batter down my door to enter my home. Hearing you, I wait near the entrance with my own gun. Which of these two outcomes is most likely:

A. Me: "Excuse me, sir, but what size gun do you have? A .45? Oh dear, I only have a .38, so I give up. You may rob us, rape my wife, and do with us as you will."

B. I shoot you, and admire your .45 as it lies beside your cooling carcass.

Having bigger and better weaponry may be decisive in wars, but not in close-range, one-on-one combat. You'd be a fool to start shooting at me with a handgun at fifty meters, if I had a rifle. But at across-the-room distances, no one is going to stop to compare weapons.

"You cannot remove guns rom any society."

I'm glad we agree on something. Society must also recognize this fact. Why should society deny law-abiding people the same means of defense/offense that are in the hands of criminals? Since self-defense is a primal instinct (even a cornered rat will defend itself), it is in the nature of a fundamental human right. Just as people have the right to procreate, to think their own thoughts and speak them, they have the right to defend themselves from those who will do them harm. Governments that deny their citizens this right are human rights violators, just as much as those that deny free speech.

"The criminals will always find a way, but the mugger still has the advantage whether he has a gun or not. That is surprise, so he can be carrying a gun or a knife, either way the victim is still going to be at a disadvantage."

True, the criminal has the advantage of knowing that he will commit a crime, and you don't know that you're his intended victim. But why cede him a further advantage in weaponry? I prefer to have a means of defending myself, so as to at least have a chance. In any event, I won't give in to this sense of futility, that I'm powerless to prevent someone else's actions against me. Doesn't sound like much of a life to me.

"A civilised society sholdn't worry about the fact that guns are so freely available to criminals that we feel that we must also carry one."

So how should a "civilised society" act? By submitting to criminals and embracing victimhood?

"That it might, but it also gives you an advantage agains those who are not armed. you can just as easily force people to see your view because they do not wish to carry a gun."

Then I'd be a criminal, and you'd have the right to protect yourself from my use of force. However, you'd make me happy, and encourage me to ply my trade elsewhere, if you just submit.

 

[Haruspex]

True enough. Such prohibitions do prevent law-abiding people from obtaining guns. But they don't prevent criminals (who, by definition, are already breaking the law) from obtaining guns.

If statistically, in states with strict gun laws, there are fewer acts of crime involving guns, then criminals either don't have guns or they opt not to use them. Which sounds more plausible?

We can't make any such valid comparisons, given the difference in history, cultures, ethnic/multi-ethnic make-up of various nations.

Why not? Where is it easier for you to procure a gun? Where every place sells weapons short of lemonade stands and vending machines, or where gun possession is strictly controlled? Surely, if I'm a criminal, I'll have an easier time getting a gun if I can walk into a shop and buy a beast of a gun, than if I have to seek shady dudes hoping that they will get me an antediluvian luger.

Such a covenant is a fiction some people like to buy into for their own comfort. If there is such a covenant, then government has broken it by virtue of the fact that any crime still exists. Government cannot protect us everywhere, at all times. The police will look for your killer, but only after the fact. With a breach by the government (or society, if you prefer), we should be free to look after ourselves. In fact, I believe, we have the responsibility to look after ourselves.

The tiny government of Hungary is doing a better job at not letting citizens enrich one another with lead than the brave, mighty and free people of the United States. Surely now, the fact that being confronted with a gun is as remote a fear to me and my peers, whether in Hungary or the United Kingdom, as contracting the bubonic plague, must count for something. If you're looking for a guarantee, give up, there's only varying degrees of efficacy, prohibition ranking higher than a flurry of firearms.

Also, as Mycernius pointed out, most assailants are not entirely bereft of reason. Stepping into the shoes of a criminal for a brief moment, it seems to me logical to ambush a person that may fight back and wound or kill me, but if such a risk is not present, I will simply resort to intimidation.

Of course. That's true of anything, including butter knives and automobiles.

It is also true of butter knives and automobiles that they have utility separate from the need to negate the threat that they themselves pose. What is the inherent benefit of guns? Keep guns so that we can solve the problems caused by us keeping guns. How is that sensible?

For the criminal maybe; but I doubt the old lady would agree.

Is this an appeal to my emotions? The old lady will hand over the high tech dildo she just bought for a pile of money, so that little Steve of 12 years of age won't have to be shot in a conflict between gangs or some similar sophisticated event.

 

[Revenant]

It simply makes sense that the more people that own guns legally, the more guns will end up being stolen and sold on the black market. Here in Japan, I have only heard of one guy using a gun to shoot people here in the past eleven years. Kind of means that the average citizen here doesn't need a gun to defend themselves.

 

[Haruspex]

It simply makes sense that the more people that own guns legally, the more guns will end up being stolen and sold on the black market.

I think the whole argument in favour of allowing persons to carry guns freely is a commendable effort aimed at sidestepping that very point. I mean, how is it not evident?

 

[Half-n-Half]

I think a major hurdle in imposing any type of stricter gun control in the U.S. is the culture everyone here grows up with. Somebody born and raised in a European society where guns are much much harder to get for the general public might find it hard to understand exactly why American's feel the need to own a gun. But here in America owning a gun is a pretty common thing, and it is just something most people grow up with. My father owned several guns, including an assault rifle, but most of them were either small caliber sidearms or hunting shotguns.

Guns have always been around in America, so it's hard for some people to imagine being forced to give them up, and many more indeed would see it as a sign of a tyrannical government. The "you can take my gun from my cold, dead hands" sort of mentality. I'm not sure what kind of society America would turn into if the public were banned from owning guns, and I don't pretend to. I think it's also hard to say exactly how effective guns are in protecting the general public. As far as I know, no studies have been done that poll "people who used a gun to survive an attack" or whatever. They just live instead of being another statistic for gun-related crimes/deaths.

 

[The Dunadan]

The Second Amendment was written when there was no organized national army or even a national militia to call upon (like the current National Guard), thus the private ownership of firearms was important because all able-bodied men, in possession of a firearm, were liable to be called upon to serve in the militia (i.e. units of armed citizens and not professional soldiers). In my opinion, this is based upon the Old English concept of the fyrd (tribal/local militia that the kings used to form their armies in Old England).

The Thirteeen Colonies didn't have a professional army like the British did during the American Revolution; there were, in many cases, citizens who owned firearms who alos served as militiamen. For example, President Washington began his career in the military as an officer in the militia of Virgina.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

The claim that higher gun ownership leads to more gun violence fails if you look at Mycernius's link. Compare Mexico with the US, for instance.

You can't produce any valid evidence because there is no way to remove other variables from the comparison. History and culture, for instance. The US had to win its freedom with guns, and we have no wish to be vulnerable to despots.

The first rule for a government wishing to control the people is to disarm them. In Europe and Japan, the populace has historically been disarmed by despots. The right to possess arms was limited to nobles (samurai , in Japan). Even the English Magna Carta's right to bear arms was limited to the upper class. Hunting was also a privilege only for royalty and nobility, and even today remains a rich person's sport in those countries.

In contrast, the USA extended human rights, including the right to bear arms, to the common person.

Personally, I know two people who successfully defended themselves with guns, one a young woman, who saved herself from rape in her own home. These incidents weren't reported in the news because no shots were fired; the bad guys beat hasty retreats after being shown the business end of the guns.

 

[The Dunadan]

Personally, I know two people who successfully defended themselves with guns, one a young woman, who saved herself from rape in her own home. These incidents weren't reported in the news because no shots were fired; the bad guys beat hasty retreats after being shown the business end of the guns.

This is a valid reason, for self-defense. What I find objectionable is the reading of the Second Amendment as the right to own an arsenal of weapons larger than that possessed by the militaries of some small countries.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

People here don't have guns. The police don't have them, law-abiding citizens don't have them and, generally speaking, neither do criminals. Since no-one has them, no-one needs them. In the US you have the opposite situation. Everyone has them, and therefore everyone needs them.

The idea of walking down a street where there are guns puts me off the idea of ever visiting the US. The US is in a situation where it would probably be difficult, though I doubt far from impossible, to rid the streets of guns, and I find that telling against it as a civilised nation. For me, one necessity of a civilised nation is that its citizens can coexist without the threat of deadly force. If a nation has reached a high degree of social development, then the need to defend oneself should not be at the forefront of one's mind.

 

[Half-n-Half]

The idea of walking down a street where there are guns puts me off the idea of ever visiting the US.

I'm sorry if you have an image of us all walking down the street, proudly toting our guns and waving them about. I have never seen someone carrying a gun in public ever, apart from police officers, and I assume most people don't. It's really not a big deal as some people make it out to be. Life carries on like anywhere else. You can come to America, it's OK

 

[Tsuyoiko]

I'm sorry if you have an image of us all walking down the street, proudly toting our guns and waving them about. I have never seen someone carrying a gun in public ever, apart from police officers, and I assume most people don't. It's really not a big deal as some people make it out to be. Life carries on like anywhere else. You can come to America, it's OK

Although I'm sure you're right that people don't walk down the street waving guns around, I do think it's a big deal that around 40% of American households own guns.

The only time I've ever seen a gun is when I was in Bruges on honeymoon. There was some kind of rally going on and the police were armed.

Given that that's the only time in 35 years that I've ever seen a gun, I'm sure you can understand my fear of visiting a country where all police officers are armed at all times, where there are 90 civilian-owned guns for every 100 citizens, where in 2004 there were almost 13,000 gun-related homicides compared to 78 in the UK, regardless of whether or not the guns are being waved about.

 

[Half-n-Half]

Although I'm sure you're right that people don't walk down the street waving guns around, I do think it's a big deal that around 40% of American households own guns.
The only time I've ever seen a gun is when I was in Bruges on honeymoon. There was some kind of rally going on and the police were armed.
Given that that's the only time in 35 years that I've ever seen a gun, I'm sure you can understand my fear of visiting a country where all police officers are armed at all times, where there are 90 civilian-owned guns for every 100 citizens, where in 2004 there were almost 13,000 gun-related homicides compared to 78 in the UK, regardless of whether or not the guns are being waved about.

Sure, I can certainly understand your fear, but guns don't turn an honest person into a murderer/criminal. Of that 40% of American households who own guns, how many of them would actually use them on another person short of to save their lives and the lives of their families?

If I gave you a gun Tsuyoiko, apart from turning it in no doubt, what would your first reaction be? It certainly wouldn't make you lean more towards homicidal/hurtful thoughts. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, although I will admit guns can make it easier.

 

[Revenant]

....where in 2004 there were almost 13,000 gun-related homicides compared to 78 in the UK.....

I'm sure guns don't turn honest people into murderers, it just turns murderers into much more lethal killing machines. An angry man will be able to mow down a lot more people with a gun than they'd take down wielding a knife. Think Columbus, Ohio.