a fair point there..

[johno]

makes sense to me.

As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against the Chicago, IL, Gun
Ban, I offer you another stellar example of a letter (written by a Marine),
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 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
an 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 would not 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.)

[mugley]

well said

[Lonestar]

Very good point.

[cerina]

Sorry to disagree with you guys, but I think that is bullshit. The US, where guns are legal, has an exponentially higher incidence of death by firearm than virtually anywhere else in the world, apart from South Africa, Colombia, Guatemala and now, probably Mexico, and most certainly higher than here in the UK where firearms are banned or, in some cases, tightly licenced. I know where I would prefer to live.


Okay, this information may be out of date now, but I think it bears out my argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

[Laney]

I love my country, but I am gonna have to agree with Cerina on this one....

[Jack Flash]

She keeps a machine gun under her bed


To be fair I think one would have to take suicide out of the equation. People will just use another means the guns are not available to them. When that is done the death rate drops in half.