A Great Argument for Guns

Status
Not open for further replies.

warbirdlover

New member
THIS IS THE BEST WORDED PRO-GUN ARGUMENT I HAVE EVER READ.

======================

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.

SEMPER FIDELIS
 
Last edited:
Makes a lot of sense. I once did a platoon exchange in Chile. Their national motto is (translated from Spanish) "By Reason or By Force."

And they mean it.
 
Thank you Warbirdlover I enjoyed reading this excellent letter. I have always thought that the best way to combat crime is to have a firearm in every home and on every law abiding citizen.

I have a friend from Finland. He told me that in Finland they have forced military service. Every man has served in the military. And every man takes his issued weapon home after service, because he is now a reserve. Virtually every home in Finland has a firearm and everyone knows it. Guess what the violent crime rate is.....Less than 1% and very close to 0.
 
That leaves out "Self Interest" and "Bribery", personally I like the latter two better.

I would reason with you that both of those fall under "persuasion." "Is it in my best interest to do this?" "Am I being compensated (legally or not) for this?" Those questions require persuasion from one party to make the other party do something.
-Dan
 
A couple things could've made it better:

1) At some point, he switched from the word 'reason' to the word 'persuasion.' Mistake.

2) Signing it 'Semper Fidelis' was a mistake too. Like it or not, it gives the air of military pride, which has no place in the rest of the argument. It may also mean 'always faithful', but before presenting this argument to anyone, I'd remove that. (did the original author write that, or was that inserted by warbirdlover?)
 
Good thread. Jesse Stoner in his latest movie was asked why he continued to carry since he was no longer a peace officer -

His answer, "Peace of mind".
 
Last edited:
An excellent treatise, no matter how many times it has been plagiarized. It was originally written by Marko Kloos. And does not contain 'semper fi.' See here and here.
 
Trickery, deceit, public opprobrium, or emotionalism. That's just a few examples of getting people to do things other than force or reason.

Don't people get tired of getting emails that divide the world into either/or, black/white, or us/them?

And as far as guns equaling civilization; I'd like to point out that civilization predates guns by one or two years.
When a Roman said "a naked virgin carrying a sack of gold could ride from one end of the empire to the other, un-molested", it wasn't that far from the truth.
 
Very good Twycross!!!

Why folks feel the need to attribute a decent bit of writing to some fictional military figure is beyond me. Either the writing has merit or it does not. Oh wait, this is done to give credit to the writing because apparently somebody didn't think the original author's name sounded patriotic enough so they attributed it to a Maj. L. Caudill, USMC (Ret.). Let's see, first he is a Marine and we all know Marines are tough fighters who really know what they are talking about when it comes to fighting and are patriots. Next we see that he is a well placed officer indicated a long career which undoubtedly meant fighting, but he isn't so high ranking as to be detached. Third, he retired from the military. Could he be much more of a patriotic author?

By attributing it to a fictional person, even when Ted Nugent cites it (no surprise Teddy was duped as he doesn't seem to let facts get in the way of his arguments) as well as Dillon, two things happen. One, we come across as ignorant for reproducing something that is wrong and passing it off in that manner. It means we didn't bother to verify the authenticity of the work. Two, we become part of the lie. Either way, we look bad with this appeal to non-existent authority.

I do like the name. It is a variant spelling on "caudal" which is an anatomical term that means toward or relating to the tail, the tale (another variant) here being that this is authored by Caudill.

Yep Buzz, trickery, deceit, public opprobrium, or emotionalism are all at work here in the misattribution of the work to a fictional military author.
 
big al hunter said:
Thank you Warbirdlover I enjoyed reading this excellent letter. I have always thought that the best way to combat crime is to have a firearm in every home and on every law abiding citizen.

I have a friend from Finland. He told me that in Finland they have forced military service. Every man has served in the military. And every man takes his issued weapon home after service, because he is now a reserve. Virtually every home in Finland has a firearm and everyone knows it. Guess what the violent crime rate is.....Less than 1% and very close to 0.
So you want us to be more like Finland?
"Guns and other weapons are tightly regulated. One must separately apply for a gun license, which cannot be issued for "self defense reasons". Even other weapons, such as pepper sprays, are regulated. Carrying weapons, including guns and knives, in public is not allowed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Finland
 
Not to hijack the thread but:

Good thread. Jesse Stoner in his latest movie was asked why he continued to carry since he was no longer a peace officer -

His answer, "Peace of mind".

I've had the same question asked of me serveral times. "Why do I carry since I'm no longer a cop?",

My answer is aways, "becuase I was a cop...I know how long it took me to get to a call, you want a crime investigated, call 911, you want to prevent a crime, get a pistol".
 
I think the best reason for carrying a gun can be summed up by this short simple quote:

"When seconds count the police are minutes away" (Original Author Unknown)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top