[Mo250]

"
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 vali d 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.

- Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
"

[SilentBob187]

Every word of that rings true. He's makes an amazing arguement.

[Nightwanderer]

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.

That argument might be flawed, true, but it's not completely invalid. The people who watch too many movies and think unarmed strikes to the head or internal organs only result in minor injury are also seeing in those same movies action heroes walking around and capable of fighting with 'superficial' gunshot wounds to places that in real life would have you immobilized and bleeding to death. Usually it's the leg or arm. there are major arteries in both that would be deadly to be shot through.

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.

Only part I care to seriously object to, mainly because of the huge if in the second sentence. Also, the 'weaker' defender is often the older, more frail defender, as might be the case in a mugging. The field might be more balanced, but it certainly isn't always level, even with two gun users. Age and illness tend to affect reflexes, timing, vision, and hand eye coordination. So, when a mugger attacks an elderly person, there's a good chance (note emphasis on chance)the mugger would be faster at the draw, more sure of their aim, and more physically capable of handling things like recoil in the case of higher caliber hand guns.

The writer offers a passable argument, nothing worth clapping over IMO though. They state this 'leveled playing field' as too much of a fact without considering all the human variables that would cause it to simply be scaled up to a more potentially lethal outcome. The thing about guns vs melee is that pulling a trigger can be done in an instant and from a greater distance, with less fear of retribution from your victim because they'll most likely be incapacitated if not dead; whereas in melee the same variables such as strength/weight that a gun supposedly equalizes are the things that gives an attacker a reason to think and assess before harming you. A gun might help the meek defender negate physical prowess, but it also encourages the impetuous offender not to worry about those stronger than him.

[SilentBob187]

My concern has always resided in the fear of passing legislation in the United States similar to that in the United Kingdom, which ultimately states that "Under Home Office guidelines, gun licenses are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting or work-related reasons for owning a gun. Since 1946, self-defence has not been considered a valid reason to own a gun."

This can create an environment where only the lawless possess firearms. This removes any chance of a 'level playing field.' I really don't want to argue this. It's just my opinion and as such, it stinks.

[Nightwanderer]

Originally Posted by SilentBob187

My concern has always resided in the fear of passing legislation in the United States similar to that in the United Kingdom, which ultimately states that "Under Home Office guidelines, gun licenses are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting or work-related reasons for owning a gun. Since 1946, self-defence has not been considered a valid reason to own a gun."

This can create an environment where only the lawless possess firearms. This removes any chance of a 'level playing field.' I really don't want to argue this. It's just my opinion and as such, it stinks.

Completely understandable, I share the same apprehension. The problem with passing laws to where only the police/military have guns, is that chances are if someone is willing to shoot you in the first place, chances are they'd also be willing to illegally obtain guns. So, it'd make it harder and less likely for criminals to get a gun, but the ones that did have guns would be a lot more confident in the fact that most people wouldn't even be allowed to own a gun, much less maybe be packing. Gun control unfortunately is just one of those issues where people are irresponsible or outright malicious to the point where the gov't has to step in and trample everyone's personal freedom, and as usual they go about it ineffectively.

[SilentBob187]

Originally Posted by Nightwanderer

Gun control unfortunately is just one of those issues where people are irresponsible or outright malicious to the point where the gov't has to step in and trample everyone's personal freedom, and as usual they go about it ineffectively.

Exactly! Do nothing, people complain. Do something, people complain.

[Mo250]

Originally Posted by Nightwanderer

That argument might be flawed, true, but it's not completely invalid. The people who watch too many movies and think unarmed strikes to the head or internal organs only result in minor injury are also seeing in those same movies action heroes walking around and capable of fighting with 'superficial' gunshot wounds to places that in real life would have you immobilized and bleeding to death. Usually it's the leg or arm. there are major arteries in both that would be deadly to be shot through.

That point was the ARGUMENT is only made by those who think that way. Those people in real life are crying for their mommies when a gun is pulled or someone strikes them. Or they're drunk and well...that might be your argument cause drunks are stupid.

The writer offers a passable argument, nothing worth clapping over IMO though. They state this 'leveled playing field' as too much of a fact without considering all the human variables that would cause it to simply be scaled up to a more potentially lethal outcome. The thing about guns vs melee is that pulling a trigger can be done in an instant and from a greater distance, with less fear of retribution from your victim because they'll most likely be incapacitated if not dead; whereas in melee the same variables such as strength/weight that a gun supposedly equalizes are the things that gives an attacker a reason to think and assess before harming you. A gun might help the meek defender negate physical prowess, but it also encourages the impetuous offender not to worry about those stronger than him.

OK, lets try and take the article and THINK it to the next level. You shouldn't read something and only read the words. You have to analyze it.

OK lets create a world where most people have a gun on them. You understand the idea of risk reward right? You'll only take a risk if the reward is great enough. If everyone has a gun you have to worry about being shot by the person you're attack AND anyone else going by. Even if only 30% of people are armed at all times the feeling has to be "well odds are someone's got a gun." Thus one attacking another person would face the very real threat of someone else outside of the problem taking actions into their own hands. They have to worry about the person they are trying to exert force on and they have to worry now about greater legal risks for shooting/using a gun in the act of violence.

Thus in this world the only time someone would take on the risk of using the gun would be for a greater reward. People already use guns when the reward is great enough to justify their use now, but crimes where guns make the risk reward too low aren't committed and would be reduced if not completely gone.

The argument that a group of 3 with guns would scare an individual with a gun is true, but it still doesn't take into account the risk reward factors that are needed here.

[Nightwanderer]

Originally Posted by Mo250

That point was the ARGUMENT is only made by those who think that way. Those people in real life are crying for their mommies when a gun is pulled or someone strikes them. Or they're drunk and well...that might be your argument cause drunks are stupid.

The point to me only seemed to be an expression of a dismissive attitude towards the point of view because it's misleading or not always correct.
''the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways.''

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fallacious

I was stating my general agreement with the fact that it can be misleading, just that it can't be completely dismissed because let's face it, there have been confrontations where people only died because both sides had guns.

Originally Posted by MO250

OK, lets try and take the article and THINK it to the next level. You shouldn't read something and only read the words. You have to analyze it.

I'm very tired right now so I can't go into detail, but telling me I need to analyze things beyond what was written seems a bit silly when I couldn't have come up with the somewhat lengthy response that I did, without having done so in the first place. Regarding risk vs. reward, if everyone had a gun, which is what the author is advocating, they think it would establish a confrontational equilibrium. after having analyzed things rather thoroughly in my opinion, I don't think this would be the case, because the gun is merely a tool and the author failed to mention any consideration of human variables, like the ones I had mentioned. To use an analogy, handing everyone in the world a computer would not suddenly make everyone equally skilled in using one because people all have natural flaws and limitations, and different strengths in their abilities to learn, as well as in abilities to operate said machinery. Also, just because everyone on the street would have a gun doesn't mean everyone would put it to use. I've seen plenty of 'true crime' type videos on TV where someone was getting beaten in the streets and other people merely kept their head down and kept walking for fear of their own safety. Then obviously, you have the moron with the camera that just sits there dumbfounded watching it all. Now, let's add guns to the equation.vRemember, the author is setting the scenario of everyone being armed. Do you think suddenly every time there was a crime being commited in the general view of others that everyone is going to feel secure and courageous enough to step in just because they have a gun? I don't, you know why? because no one wants to get shot, and the second you pull your gun, your involved, and the hostilities might just be turned away from the victim and towards you. It's sad yes, that someone could be in need of help and not get it because other people are afraid to step in. I just don't think handing everyone a gun is automatically going to change that. Sometimes the best way to avoid violence is simply not to partake in it. That said, not everyone is going to be willing to play the hero just because they have a gun. Again I'm very tired, so if some of what i'm saying doesn't seem to make sense, I apologize

[Mo250]

The point to me only seemed to be an expression of a dismissive attitude towards the point of view because it's misleading or not always correct.
''the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways.''

fallacious - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

I was stating my general agreement with the fact that it can be misleading, just that it can't be completely dismissed because let's face it, there have been confrontations where people only died because both sides had guns.

You're implying absolutes vs generalities. An argument of this nature should be looked at from a generalities view point. If the addition of an element causes a statistically significant change in outcomes then it is relevant and can be stated as such. Essentially if you're hypothetical guy then you're going to miss the big picture. I'm not saying that argument can't be argued against as it can. That said the idea isn't to show that there are exceptions but to show that confrontations with guns lead to a higher mortality rate. That would be an argument though it would be short sighted as currently gun confrontations with both sides having guns are going to be screwed towards individuals with intent to harm vs exert power/protection against others.

I don't think this would be the case, because the gun is merely a tool and the author failed to mention any consideration of human variables, like the ones I had mentioned. To use an analogy, handing everyone in the world a computer would not suddenly make everyone equally skilled in using one because people all have natural flaws and limitations, and different strengths in their abilities to learn, as well as in abilities to operate said machinery.

Duh? The thing is one doesn't know if the 70 year old 160 pound man was an ex seal or not. Granny might also be a gun range pro. Again risk reward. The 80 year old granny has zero chance of preventing a 220 pound guy from mugging her. With a gun the chance of protecting herself goes up. So while not in a state of equilibrium things have been leveled relatively speaking. Same applies to the group scenario.

Also, just because everyone on the street would have a gun doesn't mean everyone would put it to use. I've seen plenty of 'true crime' type videos on TV where someone was getting beaten in the streets and other people merely kept their head down and kept walking for fear of their own safety. Then obviously, you have the moron with the camera that just sits there dumbfounded watching it all. Now, let's add guns to the equation.vRemember, the author is setting the scenario of everyone being armed. Do you think suddenly every time there was a crime being commited in the general view of others that everyone is going to feel secure and courageous enough to step in just because they have a gun? I don't, you know why? because no one wants to get shot, and the second you pull your gun, your involved, and the hostilities might just be turned away from the victim and towards you.

See this is an example of not thinking big picture. Would the RISK alter the attacker's thought process? Would the guns change this dynamic? If we assume that attackers are stronger doesn't the gun dynamic also increase ABILITY of others to intervene? We all know there is no absolute in life, end of story. Stop looking for exceptions and start looking at the general results.We KNOW what happens when guns are taken away from the citizenry.

[FcuktheFDA]

Our Four Fathers gave us this write. It shall remain protected. It's our right as American citizens and not even the government should be able to take that right away from us. The government seems to be getting worse and worse as time goes on, and we may eventually need to revolt. The NRA is the only thing standing between our right to bear arms and the government taking that right away.

[Usf97j4x4]

Originally Posted by FcuktheFDA

Our Four Fathers gave us this write. It shall remain protected. It's our right as American citizens and not even the government should be able to take that right away from us. The government seems to be getting worse and worse as time goes on, and we may eventually need to revolt. The NRA is the only thing standing between our right to bear arms and the government taking that right away.

I agree... and don't give me the "colonial times / militias" argument.

I have a concealed carry permit and do carry about 50% of the time. I also have a large collection of firearms that no one will ever take from me.

Without guns who would protect us? The goverment? lol

[CDB]

I prefer the arguments put forward in A Nation of Cowards.

[Nightwanderer]

See this is an example of not thinking big picture. Would the RISK alter the attacker's thought process? Would the guns change this dynamic? If we assume that attackers are stronger doesn't the gun dynamic also increase ABILITY of others to intervene? We all know there is no absolute in life, end of story. Stop looking for exceptions and start looking at the general results.We KNOW what happens when guns are taken away from the citizenry.

But see, as per my example with violence caught on tape, I am thinking of the bigger picture, which is why I don't
think arming the entire public would change the dynamic as you say. Yes, the thought of a bystander stepping in with potentially lethal force would deter some people, but in reality, very few people can hold their own in a 2 on one melee fight either, yet people are still attacked in public. I'm not against anyone owning a gun at all, I just think it's ridiculous for the author to present their views in a way that makes it seem like if you just hand everyone in the world a gun, suddenly the world will be so much safer because supposedly people will usually be too scared to initiate violence. It seems to me that for every criminal it might discourage, it would simply cause 2 more to change their tactics to adapt to the new conditions. That, and I think if fire arms were more commonplace among the people that small arms technology would develop faster, but as that's purely a scientific advancement there's really nothing 'wrong' with that, it's just a spontaneous speculation.