Good argument to use on Anti's

[Njgunowner 2]

Read this on a post in some anti article or other. It's good rebuttal.

 

 

 

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.)

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

I've read that before - it's as great a piece of reasoning now as it was when I first read it. Thanks for publishing it here, but alas, you are preaching to the choir. It needs to be put in the face of any "anti" legislator or civilian that fails to understand that "gun control" only benefits the criminals in society.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[Soju 153]

The irony is, this has no effect on the "anti's" because as he stated, the only way to get people to do something is through force or reason. They can't be reasoned, so your only option is force. It makes it hard to use force when you don't have guns! And that is their argument to begin with...

 

That of course, is recognized by the author. It is also recognized by the state/government. So they will continue to use force against us to get their way, by preventing us from being able to use force back! And with only the two options, which trumps which? Of course that is also obvious. Force trumps reason. So using reason as a way to promote firearms will never work!

[Candide 0]

I've always found this to be one of my favorite pieces to read. The problem is we see what we want to see and a true anti-gun person will not see it how we do.

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

When dealing with haters, using 'facts' and or 'reason' is a complete and utter waste of time.

 

 

[Texan 1]

Its like trying to convert a Buddhist to Christianity or the reverse. Niether are wrong, just wrong for the opposing side. Why do people try to convert or take away anothers view or right because they don't agree?

 

When using the selfdefense angle of firearms, the way I have always explained it is as car insurance.

The majority of your life you won't need it, but if and when you ever do, it saves all else. As is firearms.

 

I love the question " why do you feel the need to or reason why you would want to carry a firearm?"

for anti's there is no reasoning for them, so the answer is always, - I hope that at the end of my years in old age, I can hope to say there was never a reason I needed to carry a firearm and that I never had to use it to defend my family and young children.

 

or if your life was threatened right this moment by someone intending to do you bodily harm, would you want a phone to call the police to be here in 15 to 20 mins. or a firearm?

 

And car insurance is manditory as is becoming health insurance.