Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > >

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-19-2010, 12:03 PM
afriqueart afriqueart is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: east o' the Mississippi
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Default The Gun is Civilization

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 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.

So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2010, 08:56 AM
G.T. Smith's Avatar
G.T. Smith G.T. Smith is offline
US Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: south central missouri
Posts: 2,134
Likes: 699
Liked 1,506 Times in 455 Posts

True that!

better have that checked
Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2010, 09:19 AM
Kapuna's Avatar
Kapuna Kapuna is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: SE Texas & exotic beaches
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 6 Posts
Thumbs up

A good read...
Thanks for posting it up....
Travel light..stay aware..
Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2010, 09:24 AM
greengael greengael is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

I think you may have left out appeal?
Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2010, 12:19 PM
rocketdog rocketdog is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Louis MO
Posts: 363
Likes: 36
Liked 43 Times in 29 Posts

Eighty years old and a fighting man....

Samuel Whittemore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2010, 01:34 PM
Bat Guano Bat Guano is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 2,919
Likes: 979
Liked 1,926 Times in 792 Posts

I'm impressed!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2010, 02:32 PM
NFrameFred's Avatar
NFrameFred NFrameFred is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: WV
Posts: 2,787
Likes: 45
Liked 1,093 Times in 344 Posts

Originally Posted by rocketdog View Post
Eighty years old and a fighting man....

Samuel Whittemore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In 2005, Samuel Whittemore was proclaimed the official state hero of Massachusetts."

Isn't that ironic - for one of the most unfriendly firearms and self-defense environments in the country . . .
Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2010, 03:30 PM
oldRoger oldRoger is offline
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Citrus County, Florida
Posts: 2,080
Likes: 9
Liked 188 Times in 98 Posts

A great summary of interpersonal dealings. As Samuel Colt said the Colt Revolver is the great equalizer.

Unfortunately it fails is in our dealings with government. Armed or no, I will be compelled to buy a 1.5 gal toilet and soon compact fluorescent bulbs.
Ipsis Rebus Dictantitbus
Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2010, 04:08 PM
zercool zercool is offline
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: KC, MO
Posts: 1,092
Likes: 0
Liked 18 Times in 8 Posts

Ah, Maj. Caudill strikes again!

This was originally written by Marko Kloos and posted on his blog about three years ago; somewhere along the way someone stuck a military rank and a name in there and somehow it's stuck.

If you enjoy well-written blogs, his is worth a read. Guns, parenting, writing, and humor.
the munchkin wrangler.
Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2010, 08:44 PM
Onomea's Avatar
Onomea Onomea is online now
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Japan and Hawaii
Posts: 4,298
Likes: 4,635
Liked 2,907 Times in 1,140 Posts

Here is another extremely well writtten essay on the same topic:

Commonsense for Gun Control Advocates:
Why You Should Consider Owning a Gun

By Col. Buck Starr (ret)

My belief is that statistics prove that increased civilian firearms ownership decreases crime. Statistics, however, are subject to manipulation. You’ve got yours and I’ve got mine, and we’d both probably just reinforce our own views by citing them. So I prefer to try to sway your opinion with commonsense.

Ask yourself this: If a criminal suspects a potential home burglary target has a gun on the premises, is he more or less likely to rob or attack? As you’d expect, interviews with criminals show that he is less likely. This is why home invasions – in the US -- are less likely to occur at night when the owners are at home. Ask yourself if you think a criminal is more or less likely to target a house for robbery if the house has a burglar alarm sign. Or just a “Beware of the dog!” sign. The deterrence principle is the same, with the added reinforcement of the thought that if the intended victim is armed, grievous harm, perhaps death, to the criminal may result.

Is a criminal more or less likely to rob or attack a person on the street if he thinks that person may be armed? Surely you agree that given the choice between attacking a person who might be armed, and one who is almost certainly not, the criminal will choose the latter.

Perhaps you believe that the presence of a gun, either carried by a law-abiding citizen or in his or her home, in and of itself increases the likelihood of violence? Studies have shown this is a fallacy – it is demonstrably false -- but again, consider it from a common sense point of view: Think of yourself, a normal, law-abiding, family-loving, upstanding citizen. Do you honestly think a gun would make you, personally, a more violent person? Do you think you, personally, would ever be careless with a gun? If you answer in the affirmative to either question, of course you should absolutely stay away from guns, but for most citizens, for most gun owners, the opposite is true. We realize that a gun is a weighty responsibility, that its purpose is for defense only, and its very lethality makes us very, very careful. Do you go to sleep driving a car at 65 MPH?

But, you say, accidents happen. Yes, they do, and with automobiles the accident toll is indeed tragically high, but accidental death by firearm is one of the very lowest causes of accidental death. It comes after things like slipping in bathtubs and drowning in swimming pools. Then again, your real concern is probably the murder and mayhem of deliberate gun violence, right?

Do you realize that the murder and mayhem of deliberate gun violence is committed by criminals, not by people like you and me? Do you realize that criminals do not, by definition, obey the law so that even if civilian gun ownership were banned that criminals would have guns anyway? Illegal drugs have been illegal our entire lives, but they are still present in society, are they not? Do you realize if we were to ban the civilian ownership of guns, that only criminals would have guns? This is not simply a trite turn of phrase. It is true. Think of our cities today. Do you believe that people like you and me should not be able to defend ourselves against criminals? Or, perhaps you think that armed police should defend us from armed criminals because that is why we train and employ policemen?

A criminal is not going to attack policemen! He knows they are armed. He is going to attack someone like you or me, especially if he knows we are not armed, while doing his level best to steer clear of policemen. If unarmed and attacked, the very best we can hope for is that the police may catch this criminal who has attacked us long after the damage is done. Hopefully, you say -- although quite possibly not -- we will remain intact in body and soul, if not in property, to see justice served. That is, after all the very best we can hope for from the police doing their jobs conscientiously and with a great deal of good luck.

For many of us, though, that it is not enough. We believe we have the right and moral obligation to protect ourselves.

Further, consider: If all handguns could miraculously be made to disappear in a sudden “poof,” do you think violent crime would disappear? Has violent crime not been with us throughout human history? Do you believe that “might makes right,” that the weak should be at the mercy of the strong, especially if the strong are criminals? No, right? Don’t you think that a criminal, larger and more powerful than you or I, should be prevented from stealing our property or harming our person or our loved ones? If so, how will we prevent him? Call the police? Too late! Then again, perhaps you think it will not happen to you. Do you have fire insurance for your home because you think your house will burn down or because you know that it might? Maybe you are willing to live with the risk of criminal violence because it seems relatively slight to you. But would you therefore begrudge your neighbor fire insurance simply because you’ve decided to have none yourself?

It is legal to own a handgun in the US, and it is legal to carry them concealed, with training and a license, in most places. Get trained. Get a concealed carry license. Always remember that these rules are absolute: Treat every gun as if it were loaded. Never point a gun at something you are not willing to shoot. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target. Be sure of your target and what is behind it.

If you think you are a psychologically stable, law-abiding, normal citizen of this country, consider getting a gun. Take responsibility for your own safety. Contribute to a safer, more peaceful, more just community.

Actually, "Col. Buck Starr (ret.)" is a pseudonym for a working stiff -- unretired --who on the internet goes by the handle “Onomea.” No need to Snopes this – I have it on excellent authority!

Last edited by Onomea; 04-20-2010 at 08:49 PM. Reason: font
Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2010, 11:01 PM
TACC1 TACC1 is offline
US Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Wild Rose, WI
Posts: 4,097
Likes: 6,106
Liked 718 Times in 450 Posts

Good thread, thanks for posting. Wish I could afford to
buy advertising space to air these views when the anti-gunners
are attempting their usual legislative fiats.
Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2010, 12:09 AM
j38 j38 is online now
US Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: OR
Posts: 3,307
Likes: 2,713
Liked 534 Times in 195 Posts

Amen! ... and, thanks,

Reply With Quote

colt, concealed, military, sig arms

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hey Supreme Court- Marko Kloos: Why The Gun Is Civilization everReady Rob Concealed Carry & Self Defense 19 02-06-2013 01:14 PM
The Kardashians: The End Of Civilization Is Here Wyatt Burp The Lounge 41 12-24-2011 09:36 PM
Civilization Ain't All It's Cracked Up To Be nostraDONus The Lounge 20 09-10-2009 08:30 AM
Who's really ready for the collapse of civilization? glypnir The Lounge 34 04-09-2009 05:41 AM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3 tested by Norton Internet Security tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:01 PM.

S-W Forum, LLC 2000-2015 is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)