1. Welcome To ShotTalk.com!

    We are one of the oldest and largest Golf forums on the internet with golfers from around the world sharing tips, photos and planning golf outings.

    Registering is free and easy! Hope to see you on the forums soon!

An Interesting Argument

Discussion in 'No Golf For You!' started by warbirdlover, May 27, 2011.

  1. warbirdlover

    warbirdlover Ender of all threads Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    18,576
    Likes Received:
    5,225
    Trophy Points:
    363
    Location:
    central Wisconsin
    Country:
    United States United States
    As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against the Chicago, IL Gun Ban, I offer you a stellar example of a letter that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society. Interesting take and one you don't hear much. Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph of the letter.

    "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 drunken 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.

    So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.



     
  2. SilverUberXeno

    SilverUberXeno El Tigre Blanco

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Messages:
    4,620
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Very well thought out. I do have some other questions; such as, does a gun not give a physically weak person the ability to mug anyone? Doesn't universal use of firearms create a situation where the-first-to-draw-their-weapon becomes the most powerful?

    That being said, I am pro-gun. I don't own one, but I would like to. Marijuana is illegal, and any dumbass can allocate that. I don't want to be the one who can't level the playing field because I obey the law. If someone breaks into my house and puts my family in danger, I want to be able to offer a very simple ultimatum. I fully intend to have a foolishly strong lock mechanism on my doors though, because I never want to be put in that situation.

    Escalation is a very valid concern, but I feel that the potential for escalation is not as dangerous as the potential for only law-breakers to have access to firearms. Guns are basically legal now, and people aren't going around shooting the **** out of eachother everywhere you look.

    Sort of like telling North Korea, "Hey, nuclear weapons are against the rules!"

    and NK responds, "That's good to know."
     
  3. warbirdlover

    warbirdlover Ender of all threads Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    18,576
    Likes Received:
    5,225
    Trophy Points:
    363
    Location:
    central Wisconsin
    Country:
    United States United States
    1. Not if the potential victim the physically weak person wants to mug has a gun also.

    2. It would be risking death by drawing the weapon as the other person might be faster. It's an even playing field.
     
  4. nututhugame

    nututhugame Winter Sucks! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    4,939
    Likes Received:
    1,351
    Trophy Points:
    263
    Location:
    Southeast Wisconsin
    Country:
    United States United States
    Problem is that we will never be at a time where everyone has a gun. If concealed carry passes a criminal won't know one way or the other who's packing, but the playing field is not truly even until everyone is packing or everyone is not.

    The other problem is that an 18 year old criminal with a premeditated plan will still have an advantage over an 80 year old woman who doesn't know what's coming.
     
  5. BigJim13

    BigJim13 Well-Known Member Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    3,024
    Trophy Points:
    363
    When did we get to a point in our society thatto be left alone we need to carry a gun?

    I have no issue with gun ownership actually. That being said I am not opposed to limiting the types of guns that are allowed to be sold and owned by our citizens. Does Joe blow really need an AK-47 to hunt with? Really?
     
  6. Wi-Golfer

    Wi-Golfer Golfer on hiatus. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    8,136
    Likes Received:
    1,463
    Trophy Points:
    363
    Location:
    Madison, Wi
    Country:
    United States United States
    You also need to have the mental toughness to actually be able to carry out shooting someone if you are indeed going to pull a gun on someone. Say that 60-70-80 yr old is about to get mugged or raped by some 25 yr old freak high on crack. That individual most likely won't blink twice in regards to thinking about shooting the victim.


    This^^^. You need to be able to get to your weapon, but if someone has out of the blue surprised you then it's already too late.


    I have never felt the need to carry a gun while in town, I don't fear anybody and think it's ridiculous that in this day and age we need to walk around as if it's the old west. I do however carry when the wife and I are on extended motorcycle rides as you never know what might happen in the event of a mechanical breakdiwn. Some "good samaritan" decides you are easy pickings on the side of the road with no protection such as a car offers. Not going to happen to myself.

    I don't agree with your stance regarding ownership of AK-47's and such. A handgun is much more likely to be used in robberies, muggings, car jackings, etc because they are conceable. Ever try to conceal an AR-15?
     
  7. BigJim13

    BigJim13 Well-Known Member Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    3,024
    Trophy Points:
    363
    I can see your point about long trips, that to me makes sense. Packing while on your way out he door to go to work or out to dinner to me is just excessive.

    Honestly, have never even held an AR-15. I guess what I was trying to say is that gun "enthusiasts" seem to think they should have carte Blanche with what they own. I feel that limiting what is available for sale in the states just makes sense. I know the arguments against that, criminals don't follow laws anyway and all that. It just seems a bit ridiculous that "enthusiasts" seem to think they need to be able to buy any weapon they want with no limits.
     
  8. warbirdlover

    warbirdlover Ender of all threads Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    18,576
    Likes Received:
    5,225
    Trophy Points:
    363
    Location:
    central Wisconsin
    Country:
    United States United States
  9. BigJim13

    BigJim13 Well-Known Member Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    3,024
    Trophy Points:
    363
    I wouldn't live in any of those cities, hell I would even say I have no interest in even visiting any of those places.
     
  10. Bignose

    Bignose Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Messages:
    426
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    168
    To me, a powerful flip side argument is that it is undeniable that countries where gun ownership is allowed do have higher homicide rates than those where gun ownership is restircted to hunting clubs or similar. Just some numbers:

    UK had a homicide rate of 1.28 (per 100,000 people) in 2009, Germany 0.84 in 2010, Greece 1.05 in 2009, Japan 1.02 in 2009. I made sure to throw Greece in there simply because they have had a great deal of strife lately.

    Compare this with the U.S. at 5.0 in 2009. That is a significant difference.

    There are some number of crimes of passion where a person is upset and while still upset able to very easily get access to a gun. Suicide rates are also significantly higher where guns are easily available; again it is supposed that while a person is really upset and wanting to take their own life, if they can find the means quickly that is when they go through with the suicide.

    I am certianly not saying that the above is compelling, a fair counter point to the above is that there is quite a number of guns in this country illegally, and it certainly will not be easy to root them out. But, the difference in homicide rates is very striking when you compare two similar countries side-by-side.
     
  11. Wi-Golfer

    Wi-Golfer Golfer on hiatus. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    8,136
    Likes Received:
    1,463
    Trophy Points:
    363
    Location:
    Madison, Wi
    Country:
    United States United States
    Those stats, are they strictly deaths by handguns or just homicides in general? Remember that there are a lot of homicides in this country where the weapon is something other than a gun. Baseball bat, knife, sword, car, truck, home made bomb, poisonings....you would surprised to learn how many people are poisoned by their spouses.
     
  12. Bignose

    Bignose Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Messages:
    426
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    168
    I found the firearm related homicide rates -- most of these are several years old as they aren't reported every year:

    U.S.: 7.07 in 1994
    U.K.: 0.07 in 1998
    Greece: 0.59 in 1994
    Japan: 0.02 in 1994
    Germany 0.22 in 1994

    I couldn't find them all in the same year, but I think it is fair to say that it appears a great number of the U.S. homicides are gun-related. The total homicide rate for the U.S. in 1994 was 8.96, 78% of the murders were gun related. If we apply that same ratio to the recent numbers, that means almost 4.0 of the 5.0 homicide rate is probably gun related in the U.S.
     
  13. Esox

    Esox Well-Known Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2008
    Messages:
    860
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    168
    "When all outlaws are gunned, only guns will have outlaws." Wilt Chamberlain.

    "A handgun without bullets is a meat tenderizer. I'd rather shoot my way to freedom. Just ask the French." Julia Child.

    "It is every American's right to own and bear arms to protect himself, his family, his property, and his pets." Billy Jean King.


    Kevin
     
  14. warbirdlover

    warbirdlover Ender of all threads Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    18,576
    Likes Received:
    5,225
    Trophy Points:
    363
    Location:
    central Wisconsin
    Country:
    United States United States
    I was informed this article was not written by the said author above but that was changed for some odd reason. I had no way of knowing this.

    In the countries where the percentage of guns is much lower then the US in homicides I suspect that another means of killing is used and that the homicide percentage is similar. People used to use bows and arrows, spears, knives, swords and clubs before there were ever guns. It's that same inanimate object has a brain argument (gun) that we all keep hearing over and over. The GUN killed him. No the guy who pulled the trigger of the gun killed him.

    And I'm betting a good share of the gun related homicide rates in the US are where the victim killed the bad guy. And I'm betting the major share of the gun related homicide rates in other countries are where the bad guy killed the victim.
     

Share This Page