A friend of mine, whom I dearly love, sent me the following (name withheld for the obvious reasons):
"......remember when the bullies ruled in school.... well there are still evil people in our society that will make you a beaten or dead victim in a heartbeat.....read on
Your Friend
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 gay 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 s o 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.
I responded this morning:
1.) This is not information. It IS opinion.
2.) Lets take it to an extreme. Anyone can have a gun in Iraq and most people do ... most people are armed to the teeth. Quieted the place right down, didn't it? Guns have lead to peace there, right? All those guns in circulation have gone a long way to ensuring a peaceful resolution of problems through reason as the opinion below seems to imply.
Quoting yesterday's Guardian: (British - because you won't hear much about it here) -
The US has lost about 190,000 weapons issued to Iraqi security
forces since the 2003 invasion, according to an official report
published in Washington.
The weapons include AK-47 machine guns, pistols, body armour and
helmets, some of which will have ended up in the hands of insurgents.
The disclosure adds to the picture of the chaotic and clumsy
administration of Iraq that has been emerging over the last four years.
The report, by the Government Accounting Office, which sent its
report to Congress last week, found an alarming 30% gap between the
number of weapons issued to Iraqi forces and records held by US
forces in Iraq. No one in the Bush administration knows what
happened to the weapons or where they are now.
The 20-page report is entitled Stabilising Iraq: department of
defence cannot ensure that US-funded equipment has reached Iraqi
security forces. It says that the Pentagon and the multinational
force in Iraq responsible for training "cannot fully account for
about 110,000 AK-47 rifles, 80,000 pistols, 135,000 items of body
armour and 115,000 helmets reported as issued to Iraqi forces as of
September 22, 2005."
Stabilising Iraq! What an ironic title for the article! But the point is that unregulated weapons distribution (or ownership) does not lead in the direction the good Major Caudill (USMC Ret.) seems to think it would. Being a Major does not, in itself, make him right. After all, McClellan was a General who was replaced by Lincoln during the Civil War because he couldn't get anything right - and as a consequence, suffered a series of defeats. Being a General didn't make him right.
Guns don't kill people - unregulated guns in the hands of self-righteous people kill people.
The one time I had a gun shoved in my face (I got mugged), it is my opinion and with a high degree of certainty that if I had a gun and attempted to use it, I'd be dead. He had his pistol out when he approached me from out of my line of vision. He also had two friends with him (who may or may not have been equally well armed). I would have been shot before I could have brought a weapon into any kind of useful firing position. That I didn't have a gun removed my temptation to escalate an already uncontrollable situation from critical to lethal.
However, current interpretations of the Constitution (which completely ignore the "well regulated militia" clause in favor of unregulated personal weapon ownership) have it that you can own your weapons - and, until the laws and/or their interpretation change, you're welcome to it/them. However, if I were you, I would be constantly vigilant - carrying them exposed and in a firing position, pointing them in the direction of anyone who arouses your sense of fear - because, if they get the drop on you first, having a dozen firearms on your person - even of a significantly larger caliber - won't help you. On the other hand, recognizing that you've just lost control of the situation just might. It got me out of the danger I was in at the cost of my wallet ... a small price to pay in light of the fact that it could as easily been my life.
J
“Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.”
