The Uncomplicated Rationale for Carrying a Firearm
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: The Uncomplicated Rationale for Carrying a Firearm

  1. #1

    The Uncomplicated Rationale for Carrying a Firearm

    I post this from time to time so new members can see it. This is the best reasoning I have found on why people carry firearms. When it comes down to it everyone on this forum and any other carries for this reason...
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By Major L. Caudill United States Marine Corps (Retired)

    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 gay 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.

  2.   
  3. I had a conversation with a guy at work today about the workplace shooting at Hartford Distributors that occurred on Aug 2, 2010. They are a liquor distributor and some idiot got caught stealing the merchandise and was going to be fired when he came to work. When he got there he managed to kill 8 people in about 3 minutes. My point in the conversation was that if one person was allowed to carry on the premises, the number of fatalities would have been much lower.

    The guy I was talking to asked, "tell me again how more guns would have made that better"? I said, Really, someone could have stopped him as soon as the shooting started. A half hour later he still didn't get it because his point was that too many unstable people carry guns and allowing more people to carry at work would mean more workpace shootings.

    A half hour after trying to explain that the rules of not bringing a gun to work only apply to the good guys who dont want to kill and anyone bent on killing would ignore them. He still didn't get it. Go figure...

  4. #3
    "like"

  5. #4
    Every mass shooting in the last umteen years has been in a gun-free zone: Columbine, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, etc. Tell me if there has ever been a mass shooting at a gun show. NOT
    Charlie

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Sandpoint, Idaho
    Posts
    1,315
    "love"

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Mo.
    Posts
    137
    Some very good thoughts in that post, however it is incomplete. There are more ways to deal with people other than reason or force. What about deception? People can trick you into thinking they are being reasonable. Be aware of that. (Look at our current government )
    I try to deal with people based on principles and basic morales. Do what is right even when it seems to go against the reasoning of the majority.
    Its agood line of thought but I think it is a little too narrow.
    We ALL shall see the Lord one day .... please don't make me set up the meeting.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    St. Louis County, MO
    Posts
    3,445
    Quote Originally Posted by OpenCarryYes View Post
    I had a conversation with a guy at work today about the workplace shooting at Hartford Distributors that occurred on Aug 2, 2010. They are a liquor distributor and some idiot got caught stealing the merchandise and was going to be fired when he came to work. When he got there he managed to kill 8 people in about 3 minutes. My point in the conversation was that if one person was allowed to carry on the premises, the number of fatalities would have been much lower.

    The guy I was talking to asked, "tell me again how more guns would have made that better"? I said, Really, someone could have stopped him as soon as the shooting started. A half hour later he still didn't get it because his point was that too many unstable people carry guns and allowing more people to carry at work would mean more workpace shootings.

    A half hour after trying to explain that the rules of not bringing a gun to work only apply to the good guys who dont want to kill and anyone bent on killing would ignore them. He still didn't get it. Go figure...
    Some people are dense...I've met some and one of them I love very much. She is so nice and sweet but I would like to hit her sometimes because she is just that -- dense. But what can you do or say that you haven't already said and done? Just smile and turn your back or smile and change the subject.
    "Don't let the door hit ya where the dawg shudda bit ya!"
    G'day and Glock
    GATEWAY SWIFT WING ST. LOUIS

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Pasco, Washington, United States
    Posts
    6,271
    Quote Originally Posted by rudiepop:207954
    Some very good thoughts in that post, however it is incomplet There are more ways to deal with people other than reason or force. What about deception? People can trick you into thinking they are being reasonable. Be aware of that. (Look at our current government )
    I try to deal with people based on principles and basic morales. Do what is right even when it seems to go against the reasoning of the majority.
    Its agood line of thought but I think it is a little too narrow.
    Deception is persuasion through lies...I have read this before. Awesome post. Although I see this more of why to own a gun in the first place.

  10. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by OpenCarryYes View Post
    I had a conversation with a guy at work today about the workplace shooting at Hartford Distributors that occurred on Aug 2, 2010. They are a liquor distributor and some idiot got caught stealing the merchandise and was going to be fired when he came to work. When he got there he managed to kill 8 people in about 3 minutes. My point in the conversation was that if one person was allowed to carry on the premises, the number of fatalities would have been much lower.

    The guy I was talking to asked, "tell me again how more guns would have made that better"? I said, Really, someone could have stopped him as soon as the shooting started. A half hour later he still didn't get it because his point was that too many unstable people carry guns and allowing more people to carry at work would mean more workpace shootings.

    A half hour after trying to explain that the rules of not bringing a gun to work only apply to the good guys who dont want to kill and anyone bent on killing would ignore them. He still didn't get it. Go figure...
    You can't reason with people like that... don't get it and never will. Sad thing is we have way too many people in elected offices that think that way.

  11. Quote Originally Posted by rudiepop View Post
    Some very good thoughts in that post, however it is incomplete. There are more ways to deal with people other than reason or force. What about deception? People can trick you into thinking they are being reasonable. Be aware of that. (Look at our current government )
    I try to deal with people based on principles and basic morales. Do what is right even when it seems to go against the reasoning of the majority.
    Its agood line of thought but I think it is a little too narrow.
    The successful use of deception in negotiation is termed fraud. In libertarian and to a lesser extent conservative thought, fraud is considered to be a type of force.

    The author hints at but does not directly address a third means of relation. Although it does fall under reason. Namely trade. Arguement is an attempt to persuade through ideas. Trade is using money or goods to accomplish the same.
    "Get this through your head! We're not fighting to have everybody think the way we do, we're fighting so that people can think whatever they want! Even if they don't agree with us!"--Stalker, GI JOE #39

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast