"The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

This came across my E-mail today, I have seen it before but never posted it here before. I think it is an instant classic.

"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 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.)

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Semper Fi, Major. You'll do to ride the river.

Mountain Rifleman


free web site traffic and promotion