Pages

Thursday

Why I Carry A Gun

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 drunken 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 are asking 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 physically weaker party.

Those 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 it 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.

Please click here to leave a comment with your thoughts.

53 comments:

Adrian said...

Guns scare me

drew said...

A person with a gun is no safer in all reality. Especially if they have not been trained to use it. More people use guns to destroy society than to defend or protect it. History has shown that a military perspective on life does not ensure safety or security for a populace. I think you carry a gun out of fear of being overpowered by some unseen enemy than defending your rights or another person's.

creceveur said...

History has shown that those who turn their swords into plowshares have their crops taken by those with the swords. You can apply this to the last 5,000 years of documented human civilization.

Carrying a gun is not a military perspective, it is certainly not a decay on society -- it is a civilized act and a choice. A choice to have the option to make a choice, rather than to be helpless - at the mercy of another.

A gun may be something you never need. I pray this is the case for everyone, think of how great a world we would live in if this were the case. But I'd rather never need it and have it, than not have one and need it.

If you think the freedoms you enjoy and the protection you're granted are a result of the weapons that "only our military needs" then maybe you need a history lesson on why this country exists.

3Ball said...

i could not agree with the author and creveveur more

james_isaac09 said...

Drew says that "More people use guns to destroy society than to defend or protect it."

This simply is not true. It is a lie pushed by the liberal media (not that they are all bad but ALL media, liberal and conservative, slant their facts to push their opinions)

Guns were what created the US from the british empire and weapons as a whole have created almost every empire from ruthless warlords (learn history if you dont believe me)

Guns are only bad when they are feared (adrian) and/or when they are misused. If guns are used properly they can take care of most of your basic needs food, shelter (buffalo hide tents), protection and possibly more.

And people say that because we have such a huge government the need for firearms are declining. But on the contrary the need for guns are rising. With this world power comes resent for our government, from within and without of our boarders. And with this crushing national debt we might not can sustain such a large military longer. So someone is going to have to defend this country and who would it be if the private citizen does not have guns?

Or maybe its not us defending our government but us defending from our government (it could easily happen) without guns we cannot possible rebel in times of need. We are no longer in the era when we can use pitchforks and axes as arms again a tyrannical government if need be. And dont think that this cannot happen, it has happened many times to many different people.

And are you really that messed up in the head to think that these people who would use their guns for illegal activities would just hand them over because the government was taking all the law abiding citizens guns away? I may be no genius but this seems like a child's dream more than the thought of a rational person. I mean, the guns used for crimes are most likely attained illegally anyways. How are you going to convince these people to give up their guns? And you think that if you make them illegal then they would be found some way or another? Yes, probably, but only a small percentage. Making guns harder to come by is only hurting the widow who lives in a rough part of town who just wants a .38 where she can sleep at night, not a gang banger who already has an illegal full auto uzi.

So what im basically saying is, just because you are ignorant and have a bad opinion of my weapons (tools) dont take away my basic rights of life, liberty and happiness.

And trained to use a gun? Were you trained to use a computer or an alarm clock? Probably not, but most guns have less controls than most alarm clocks and unless you are using a mouse only without a keyboard then i know all guns have less controls than your computer. You dont NEED training to know how to use a gun, or to use it safely (use common sense if you have it) you only need to be trained to use it to the best of ITS ability.

creceveur said...

There are two rules for all guns. Follow these rules, and you'll be fine.

In fact, you can break either one of them, and still be safe, just don't break both at the same time.

Rule 1) Only aim the gun at things you intend to shoot

Rule 2) Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot

This is why guns don't kill people. People kill people - whether by knife, hammer, baseball bat or firearms, it's the person behind the tool.

julio said...

''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.'' This essay starts off with a contradiction. How can a personal firearm remove force from an equation when force is most effectively brought upon by firearms. What does this author recommend? Should every man, women and child carry a fire arm? Perhaps one should carry two if one is disabled or pregnant.

James Issac, although his response is detailed and thought out also tends to hold some narrow sighted views. Sure guns may have dealt a great hand in helping the formation of nations and liberties. (of course the most predominant example of this is the USA) but to play with this example, don't these same countries use these weapons to suppress and control. United Sates is a notorious gun salesman, often of time selling weapons to regimes.

And people say that because we have such a huge ''government the need for firearms are declining. But on the contrary the need for guns are rising. With this world power comes resent for our government, from within and without of our boarders. And with this crushing national debt we might not can sustain such a large military longer. So someone is going to have to defend this country and who would it be if the private citizen does not have guns?''

Do you realize that more than half of your taxes go towards the military budget? If one wants to worry about the national debt then a re-evaluation of your military is in definite order. Now i'm not necessarily saying a downsize in the military, but a reform. Do you know that the presence of privately contracted mercenaries outweigh the presence of US military troops in Afghanistan? This is horrible. This means that some private corporation, swimming in the liberties of a uncontrolled market is sending troops to Afghanistan who get paid more than twice as much as soldiers who are fighting for their country.

Anyways i'm falling a bit off topic here.

Just to quickly reiterate, the idea of categorizing guns as a simple tool is a sad thought. Ultimately the true nature of a gun is to kill. Whether it be animal or man, killing is something that should only be bestowed to the trained few. I don't think guns should be removed from the hands of the average american, but i do think there should be a more regimental processes in acquiring guns. True guns do fall into the hands of criminals and self defense is needed, but the idea of needing bigger and better guns to defend oneself from a criminals' big gun is a slippery slope that many americans (who now sport assault and vicious weapons) have fallen into. Instead of so vigilantly defending your right to bare arms, one should dedicate half that effort into fixing what is wrong in a society that allows for such poverty and bigotry and such an easy access to weapons

Chas said...

If an individual chooses to carry, he definitely should attend tactical instructions on proper procedures for safe handling of a firearm and situational awareness.Finally,one should join a gun club for target practice and gaining of confidence of his chosen weapon.

Jeff said...

The playing field wouldn't be completely leveled if both the attacker and defender have guns. Chances are one of them will be better versed in it's use. Just saying.

Teg HardinAlvin said...

Food for thought: Ever notice that the cities with the strictest gun laws have the highest rates of Gun Violence. Only the law abiding citizens are kept from owning guns.

Dimondwoof said...

This is in answer to Drew's post that "More people use guns to destroy society than to defend or protect it." and an alternative to james_isaac09's response.

Let's say Drew is right. That only further proves the point of the post. The more law-abiding citizens that are not allowed to carry firearms, the more imbalanced the situation becomes. Those who commit violent crimes with guns will not willingly give up their guns, nor will they give up violence if they have their guns taken away.

I am astounded at the raw stupidity of people who say that if you remove guns from society, violence will end, or even be lowered in any way. Do they *REALLY* think there was no violence before guns were invented? These are delusional people who make decisions based on their feelings and wishes, rather than the actual facts of the real world. It's scary how blatantly people self-impose ignorance.

Sabra said...

How can a personal firearm remove force from an equation when force is most effectively brought upon by firearms.

Because, as was quite clearly stated in the essay, it means the bad guys can no longer force me or mine to go along with what they want. As a woman, I am already smaller and weaker than most criminals. My husband has physical limitations. My children are, well, children (and yes, kids can and do prevent violence to their families using firearms). Does the gun represent force? Of course. But the point still holds, as the good guys aren't the ones attempting to force anyone to do anything.

Whether it be animal or man, killing is something that should only be bestowed to the trained few.

Dear God, WHY? A few weeks ago, I had to call 911 because someone kept knocking on my doors and windows in the middle of the night. It took police--the "trained few"--30 minutes to respond. It would have taken me 30 seconds, tops, to pull down the .45 had anyone broken in. You are more than welcome to hope the police show up in time; I'll trust the gun.

True guns do fall into the hands of criminals and self defense is needed, but the idea of needing bigger and better guns to defend oneself from a criminals' big gun is a slippery slope that many americans (who now sport assault and vicious weapons) have fallen into.

The overwhelming majority of "assault" rifles kill the hell out of paper targets and the occasional deer. The ONLY differences between assault rifles and hunting rifles are looks and minor accessories. A better grip just doesn't make a gun any more dangerous.

Nor are rifles of any sort concealed carry pieces. Most folks I know who carry don't carry anything larger than a .38--it's simply too bulky and uncomfortable. That means any permit holder may well be going up against a gangbanger with a larger weapon. Or, to put it another way, your argument is silly and insupportable by any evidence whatsoever.

Instead of so vigilantly defending your right to bare arms, one should dedicate half that effort into fixing what is wrong in a society that allows for such poverty and bigotry and such an easy access to weapons

Or perhaps advocate arming the good guys who are too poor to get out of the hood, instead of continuing racist gun control measures.

John said...

tiny tiny pee pee. Tiny tiny brain brain.

Justin said...

If guns are bad and do not help, why are all law enforcement and military personnel required to carry them? What is the reason behind that requirement?

All guns were banned in Washington, DC. Formerly known as the murder capital of the USA. I was born there and everyone knows to be back across the bridges into Virginia before the sun goes down.

Weapon envy said...

I think we're all ignoring the most important thing here. When a man carries he a gun, he feels like a MOTHERFUCKING BADASS. Dirty Harry carried a gun, Rambo carried a gun - logic dictates that anyone who carries a gun is therefore some Dirty Rambo justice dispenser, and keeper of the peace par excellence.

In Britain, we are curtailed pussies that occasionally get stabbed. That's why I carry a 5-foot sword under my coat. It's no gun, but one time these kids were playing knock-and-run on my front door in Shaftesbury (which is one mean fucked up village, you don't want to be on the cobbled streets of Gold Hill after sunset). If one of them had come through the window all ninja and shit it would have taken me 30 SECONDS to chop that seven-year-old fucking arm off. Now who's the fucking ninja, bitch? My sword negates force, and chopping off the limbs of juvenile interlopers is my small contribution to keeping Britain civilised. If we were allowed guns, I'd take six of the bastards to the market every Saturday in case that old bastard that sells cheese thinks he can FORCE me into sampling another cube of of his stinking wares.

Léo Rodrigues said...

The most guns carried by gangs are taken from normal people, that think like you, that a gun can protect anyone that has one.
this is a mistake.

Justin said...

Leo, sorry but most guns are not taken from normal people. They are purchased by legitimate dealers from states where it is easier to purchase them and then transported to states like New York, DC, Virginia, etc. It's easy money. Check with the DEA and ATF.

If some thug who hates you for what you got and they don't have placed a gun to someone you loves head and is about to kill them, I wonder how you would feel about gun ownership then. It happens everyday in America. Unfortunately, there are some very bad people out there and by their own choice, the only way to stop them is to take them out.

Robertwb70 said...

"delusional people who make decisions based on their feelings and wishes, rather than the actual facts of the real world. It's scary how blatantly people self-impose ignorance."

In a country where 85% of the population claims to believe in some sort of invisible sky daddy this surprises you???

Mark Knowles said...

I disagree because you have missed on equation. A gun also empowers a weaker aggressor. This negates the value of empowering a weaker prey.

If we all carry guns - then we get back to the stronger, faster person being more powerful than the weaker slower. Facing 12 people with guns pointed at you - are you going to draw yours? No - therefore they can force you.

Now you need to be more honest about why you need to carry a gun to feel unafraid?

creceveur said...

Mark,

What would be your suggestion to dissuade those that wish to use force to compel the rest of us?

George Orwell wrote a book back in the 40's with a great idea on how to do this... Nineteen Eighty-Four I believe it was called...

Dimondwoof said...

@creceveur - Mark also missed the point that, no matter what, if there are 12 aggressors against 1 person, all else being equal, it doesn't matter what weapons any of the involved have. But this scenario has absolutely nothing to do with the article or the subject. It's just a distortion of the subject to justify ignorance. However, I disagree with his conclusion in any event.

The article very much specified a 1-on-1 scenario, which is what most violent crimes are. Or *possibly* 2-on-1. It is extremely rare that a person would be the victim of a dozen (or even 1/2 dozen) well-armed assailants. However, the situation would very much be the "fox and rabbit". The fox (or aggressor) is fighting for his dinner (e.g. to rob you or just some crazy wanting to kill a bunch of people), but the defender is fighting for his life (or the life of another, probably a loved one).

However, let's look at Mark's example. If there were a gang of 12 people intent on doing me harm, whether they had firearms or not, DAMNED STRAIGHT I would want a firearm to defend myself!!! Usually, a gang like that are a bunch of cowardly bullies, so I figure that after I take out the first 5 or 6, the rest will be much less likely to want to continue their attack. After all, these are not the kind of people who go looking for the best armed person they can find to harass. It is HIGHLY likely that they are specifically looking for the weakest pry and me being an ex-Marine with a .45 in my side holster and/or my S&W M&P strapped to my back doesn't really radiate the aura of "victim". True, if they got the drop on me and several of them had me at gun point, I would be reluctant to pull my own gun. But we are talking about a bunch of thugs, not a well trained assault team. If only 1 or 2 had a gun or guns trained on me, I may very well decide to pull my gun if the opportunity presented itself.

All in all, Mark's comment just goes to show how ignorant some people can make themselves when they absolutely refuse to thing their argument through.

Dimondwoof said...

And, by the way, for all you people who are convinced that "if we could just do away with all guns, the world would live in peace and harmony at last", here's a thought: No matter how we try, no matter what legislation is passed, no matter how you vote, we will NEVER, EVER be able to get rid of all the guns in this country. That is an absolute, indisputable fact of life. And, with that absolute certainty in place, we will NEVER, EVER be able to get guns out of the hands of criminals. EVER! The question is, do you want the criminals to be the only ones that have guns? Are you so dead set on making sure that the law abiding citizen is absolutely helpless against the armed criminals?

Are you so sure that, if your home is invaded and you manage to call 911 (if you can even call 911 before that criminal stops you), that the cops will show up before that criminal rapes your wife and daughter before putting them to death right before your eyes?

How can you be so convinced that your moral slavery is so perfect that you feel justified in making sure that I am not allowed to defend and protect MY family?

How dare you call yourself a patriot, an American, a "lover of life and liberty" and yet work so hard in stripping me of my civil right to defend myself? How dare you tell me that I must also be an abject slave to the criminals that will not obey the laws of slavery that you are trying to force on those that want to defend themselves within the laws of this country! How dare you try to criminalize those who simply want to live free and peaceful lives!

Dimondwoof said...

@Mark Knowless - If you are against privately owned guns based on the assertion that they don't really help people protect themselves, please explain these simple facts:

Since 1991, total violent crime has dropped by 43% (based on 758/100,000 population in 1991 and 429/100,000 population in 2009)

Since 1991, murder has dropped by 49% (based on 9.8/100,000 population in 1991 and 5/100,000 population in 2009)

Since 1991, rape has dropped by 32% (based on 42.3/100,000 population in 1991 and 28.7/100,000 population in 2009)

Since 1991, robbery has dropped by 51% (based on 272.7/100,000 population in 1991 and 133/100,000 population in 2009)

Since 1991, aggressive assault has dropped by 39% (based on 433.3/100,000 population in 1991 and 262.8/100,000 population in 2009)

Here's a link that explains these stats. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rep/gun-ownership-up-crime-down.html. Most of these facts come from the FBI.

Armorer said...

And to think that nobility fought against Crossbows due to their ease of use, and deadliness all those years ago..

I wonder what they'd think of what we got now?

It takes minimal training to learn how to use one, and the deadliness is unquestionable.

If given thought: anything can be used as a weapon, anything can be used to kill, but its the person behind the power that counts.

Banning guns is useless.

If all guns were removed from the world somehow, it would not stop violence.

Once again, person behind the power.

Eh, thought I'd put in my two cents worth of opinion(even if its hated, disliked, despised, or whatever.)

Stuart said...

How "UNCIVILIZED” and uninformed can one be? Just look at the ratio of manslaughters involving guns in this country to countries where they are banned. There is NO sound argument for anything other than the strictly enforced 100% ban on ALL privately owned guns. It would be VERY interesting to see the psychological profiles of those arguing to the contrary.

See also http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita and decide if the top or bottom groups are the “civilized” ones.

Dimondwoof said...

@Stuart - I have a sound argument against your 100% ban on all guns: I prefer to NOT live in a totalitarian society. If all guns are taken away from us, that's what happens. There is a REASON that "right to bear guns" is the second amendment. I prefer to live in a free society.

It's also interesting to note that, although most states are "shall issue" states, and there are so many guns here in America, we STILL end up almost 1/2 way down the list. If you think that it is ONLY gun ownership that drivers of those numbers, you are self-deluded and just don't want to look at anything else. These numbers are meaningless without any other stats to compare them to.

creceveur said...

@Stuart - I would encourage you to not look at the gun violence rates, but at overall homicide rates. The real answer to your question lies there.

There are plenty of statistics from gunbanning countries on this blog that clearly show crime rates staying the same and increasing with a ban of firearms.

Dimondwoof said...

@Stuart - And besides, you can't just compare a single or even a couple of statistics between countries and jump to conclusions about a barely related issue such as gun control. Well, it appears you can, but logically it is invalid. There are so many differences in the countries on your list, so many factors including government type, location, history, population size, religion, etc., etc. that it's obvious to anyone that a single issue, even as large as gun ownership can't possibly be compared and assumed to be a singular cause to any comparable issue. A much more accurate comparison would be the crime rates of an area before and after gun control laws being either put into place and/or being removed. These stats CLEARLY indicate that violent crime rates increase across the US as gun control laws are put into place, and diminish when gun control laws are removed.

Justin said...

There already are laws on the books now banning criminals from possessing firearms, explosives, cocaine, meth, heiroine, etc. Yet those bans still have not kept any of these things out of the hands of the criminals. So how is removing the rights of law abiding citizens going to make these failed bans work any better? How do you plan on enforcing them differently than they are now so they actually work?

blooscrien said...

This argument simply doesn't work in the real world. I know you're all trying to look smart by presenting convincing arguments against the popular opinion on a controversial subject, and some people may in fact be convinced, but that doesn't mean your arguments aren't fallacious.

In a truly civilized society, threats of violence are dealt with by reason. This is obviously quite unlikely to succeed, but so is achieving a truly civilized society. Carrying a gun only swings the weight of force to your side, it does not negate any force at all. I'll argue that every situation can be dealt with by reason, force is only a factor in that decision. To the mugger, the issue is very clear: You have money, he want's money. He has a knife, you have nothing. You will give him the money or he will give you the knife. If you suddenly pull out a gun, it changes the conclusion but it is still perfectly clear. You have money and a gun. He has a knife. He wants your money, but if he tries to take it you'll use the gun. This works because a gun trumps a knife. But what if the mugger has a gun? Your civilized, gun toting society becomes a perpetual western style standoff?

By your logic, the proper course of action would be to get a bigger gun. Or two guns. This would continue, criminals acquiring larger and larger weaponry to keep up with the advanced arsenal of civilians with a penchant for self defense.

In my opinion, guns should remain legal, if they were outlawed then the only people with access to them would be criminals, but law enforcement should be ramped up. That might take a while, so in the mean time go ahead and keep carrying guns, just hope you never come across a criminal who has one too.

Dimondwoof said...

@blooscrien - "Your civilized, gun toting society becomes a perpetual western style standoff?"

Why do people keep missing the point? NO, IT WOULD NOT TURN INTO A WESTERN STYLE STANDOFF!!!! Criminals victimize the weak. Why is this concept so hard to understand? If a criminal knows I have a gun and am willing to use it, they will find someone else to victimize. Is this REALLY that hard of a concept to understand? Most criminals are cowards. And just like any other predator, they look for weak pry.

"By your logic, the proper course of action would be to get a bigger gun. Or two guns. This would continue, criminals acquiring larger and larger weaponry to keep up with the advanced arsenal of civilians with a penchant for self defense."

No, I DO NOT NEED A BIGGER GUN! Pretty much ANY gun will do. A .22 is just as deadly as a .45. Granted, a .45 is more intimidating, (and yes, I happen to own one) but plenty of people die from .22 wounds (which is what my assault rifle happens to be). Why would you need a bigger gun? That is a leap that no one makes except for argument's sake. No one who actually advocates gun ownership uses this argument. If a criminal has a choice between being shot by a .45, or a .22, or victimizing a person who is NOT carrying a firearm, I'm pretty sure they would choose the "conscientious objector" to rob, rape, or murder and leave those "western style" rebels alone.

blooscrien said...

Alright, so say everyone takes your advice and now everyone carries a gun. Do you really think crime will just stop? Your argument only works when there are still people who don't carry guns. You deflect violence away from yourself, towards anyone who's unarmed. Not only is that the biggest dick move since the Roman Senate stabbed Caesar, but it only works while these pacifist dopes still exist. Your line of reasoning inevitably ends in a world where everyone has guns, and everyone uses them to kill each other. There is no way to argue that that is a civilized society.

Your "criminals are cowards" argument isn't worth crap. Throughout the ages, people have shown an incredible tendency to engage in conflicts in which the opposing side is just as well, if not better armed than they are. A criminal with a gun who believes the only way they can survive is by robbing others will continue to rob others, even if he knows they have a gun as well. Gangs are perpetually warring with other heavily armed gangs. If they're willing to do that, what makes you think they wouldn't try to take on the business man who only carries a gun for self defense? Also, even if all parties are packing, two criminals still beats one civilian. CARRYING GUNS BREEDS MORE DANGEROUS CRIMINALS. The same way overuse of antibacterial soap creates an abundance of highly resistant microbes, armed civilians will create an abundance of ruthless and aggressive criminals who don't care if you have a .22 or a .45, they have combat shotguns and Kevlar armor.

Bill Coffin said...

That a gun is a force multiplier for the individual is obvious. However, most who carry one are, in fact, unwilling to use it, and if police statistice are any indicator, people who carry guns for self-defense are far more likely to have their weapon taken and used against them than they are to successfully defend themselves with it. This is no argument against the 2nd Amendment, but it is an argument for martial arts training. There are 60-year-old people and 10-lb. women in my dojo who are lethal.

creceveur said...

@bloscrien: Deflecting onto those that don't carry? How does carrying a concealed weapon deflect the criminal? Do they have premonitions before they commit felony's so they know who has weapons and who does not?

You're ASSuming that all parties know and they're going to war like you played a game of Battleship when you were 8 yrs old.

An armed society is a polite society. Your making of this comment clearly illustrates you have not read below the first post on this site to see the real statistics behind countries that have banned all firearms.

@Bill Coffin: Catchy punchline, but not true. While it has happened no denying that, those legally possessing firearms are far more likely to successfully defend themselves.

Moreno said...

Criminals are afraid of an armed society and not police officers. Criminals know the police officers have to fill out lost of paperwork if they fire the weapon proving that it was a last resort. A citizen will pull the trigger when their life is threatened no matter what.
Legal gun owners take care of their guns and follow laws- we don't want any more gun laws than needed. A legal gun owner knows how to handle their gun and when to properly use it. When I open carry I know I cannot start fights, threaten people or use my gun for anything other than self defense.
Criminals are the hot-headed ones that abuse guns and ignore gun laws and gun safety. Why Neuter the public for criminals to have free reign?

blooscrien said...

@creceveor: Either the criminals don't know you have a gun and it does little to protect you other than to actually kill muggers, or they find out that you have a gun and decide to go pick on someone who doesn't. To deny this is to negate your entire argument.

"You're ASSuming that all parties know and they're going to war like you played a game of Battleship when you were 8 yrs old."

You are an asshole.

@Moreno: You're absolutely right. If all guns were outlawed, the only people who would have them would be criminals, and they would all be unregistered. We should not outlaw guns, but neither should we claim that they are making us more civilized.

andrew said...

seeing as im the gun-toting, force weilding asshole, i dont Have to reason with you non-carrying pussies..i can just use the force of my .45 to shut you up right? I mean lets face it any one who actually carries a gun (like myself) is mentally unstable, insecure in their manhood, and afraid of something. But good luck with your reason.

Colin Receveur said...

@blooscrien: or when they ask for your wallet (and/or life) you present your weapon and without killing anyone they are deterred. To open carry or concealed, the effect is the same once you brandish.

You must be uneducated about our current system, because all guns are "unregistered" now. There is no firearm registry (barring form 4 weapons which you're not referring to) nor any such thing as "transferring" a firearm. Only a criminal background check is required to buy a firearm.

Bennitt said...

First off, this post is amazing and very well thought out, and logical too. I believe that we should be able to purchase guns legally.
So ,Just as a overall general statement (to everyone since it has been brought up a lot), how do you define "civilized"?, or better you how can you define "civilized".
Civilized is a inconsistent term that varies from person to person. Even though it has a definite definition, Your level at which something is "civilized" might be very "civilized" to another. Now the definition from Dictionary.com (for civilized) is
"having an advanced or humane culture, society, etc."
now there are 2 words in this definition which could also be interpreted differently (advanced and humane) so I will define those too.
"Advanced -- ahead or far or further along in progress, complexity, knowledge, skill, etc."
"Humane -- characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, esp. for the suffering or distressed."
So when we specifically look at the argument that allowing everyone to get guns (legally) is more civilized. It definitely holds true. For many reasons.
First, and most importantly, allowing people to have guns has lowered many categories of crimes since 1991 (as showed and SOURCED in dimondwoofs's post). Most categories of rape, assault, murder, and total crime have dropped 50%! Now is lowering all of that stuff civilized, yes. It is advanced because were are ADVANCING in lowering these categories. And it is humane because there are now LESS cases of rape, murder, etc., which means less people are getting hurt every Year. So it meets both of the sub-definitions of civilized. Which means providing guns is civilized. But that is only one point.
Second, (and kind of a obvious point) having guns is civilized because back in 1000 A.D guns weren't even created, furthermore, Allowing more people to have guns, is more civilized because more people will have guns than people did in 1900. Now, this is definitely advanced. And it is also humane, because with more people having guns, this will allow for less cases of rape, murder, etc (as like I said before was shown in those previous studies).
So for those 2 reasons its very hard to deny that having guns is more "civilized".
But is that the main point of the main debate over guns? For me its no. Although being more civilized is a great point its not the main point. If you went to court stating that its being more civilized it probably wouldn't pass. And I dont think that being more civilized is always a good thing. There are SOME cases in which it isnt, but most of them are controversial so it could go either way. but thats not the point.
I think that the main point and reason why people should have guns is for one simple reason. Regardless of whether it makes of more civilized is good or not.

It saves lives.
(This is ironic since saving lives is a supporting point for being more civilized.)
Like I said, It saves lives. Which is a point that I think can't be refuted. If it is going to save lives, then we must do it. We can not continue to let people get raped, assaulted, robbed, and beaten. The solution is allowing for guns to be sold and not making them exclusive to police men. (and for anyone that argues guns cause more killing, as shown in the 1991 study stated above that is not true.)
Like many people have said, allowing for the selling of guns is only helping the helpless. Its leveling the playing field. It doesn't do any benefit to the criminal that already has a weapon. All that outlawing them would do is hurt the helpless. Allowing for gangs and criminals to run the cities and be the authorities.
So after all of these points, links and insights into whether guns should be allowed or not, it all comes down to this.

Do you want to save lives, and lessen the amount of rapes, assaults, and burglaries?
If so then guns should be allowed to be sold and obtained legally.

Nate said...

I'm reading lots of statistics (which can always be spun however way you want) about how guns are either the problem or the answer. I always feel that pro-gun control citizens are more wary of guns than they are of people, and anti-gun control citizens are more wary of people than guns.

Look, I just can't see any argument against me owning a gun to protect my household and/or person. Argue that I should take handgun safety/defense classes once a year. Argue that ammo should be registered. Argue for stricter concealed permits. Argue something that makes sense, something I might actually consider other than, "no one should own a gun".

That being said...there are a lot of you out that would get yourselves killed by carrying. If you don't ever practice with it, don't carry it.

Nate said...

@ blooscrien:

Criminals with combat shotguns and Kevlar? I'm not worried about the gang from Heat robbing me. "Awful lot of force for the $1300 in my checking account, guys." Most common weapon for firearm violence is a .25, gun-control or not. If someone's robbing you, they probably don't have the money for combat arms and armor.

@ Billy Coffin:

"most who carry one are, in fact, unwilling to use it, and if police statistics are any indicator, people who carry guns for self-defense are far more likely to have their weapon taken and used against them than they are to successfully defend themselves with it"

I wouldn't say "most", but I absolutely agree with you on this. But I think martial arts are overrated as far as protection from an armed, dedicated, smart assailant. C'mon now...you apparently have some martial arts training, if you were a criminal, could those same people stop you?

Dimondwoof said...

@blooscrien "Alright, so say everyone takes your advice and now everyone carries a gun. Do you really think crime will just stop?"

No, but nice try deflecting the point. I have never said it would stop crime. I said I have the right to try to defend myself and that if the criminals have gun, or even baseball bats or knives for that matter, I have the constitutional right to carry a firearm to protect myself.

"You deflect violence away from yourself, towards anyone who's unarmed. Not only is that the biggest dick move"

Kiss my ass. I'm not FORCING the criminal to victimize someone else. Are you saying that you are so altruistic that you would prefer a criminal to rob you and rape your wife and daughter rather than try to stop it and take the chance they will go somewhere else? If you are, you are an idiot! And I'm sure your wife and daughter will call YOU a dick when that happens.

"Your line of reasoning inevitably ends in a world where everyone has guns, and everyone uses them to kill each other."

Again, you are an idiot. How about the reasoning ending where everyone has a gun and no one (or very few people) commits violent crimes. Like, for example, Switzerland.

"Your "criminals are cowards" argument isn't worth crap. Throughout the ages, people have shown an incredible tendency to engage in conflicts in which the opposing side is just as well, if not better armed than they are."

Yo, moron boy - we are talking about some asshole breaking into your house, not starting a war. learn to separate...

"A criminal with a gun who believes the only way they can survive is by robbing others will continue to rob others, even if he knows they have a gun as well."

Never said they wouldn't. I just said I want to have the ability to shoot him if he tries it with me.

"Gangs are perpetually warring with other heavily armed gangs. If they're willing to do that, what makes you think they wouldn't try to take on the business man who only carries a gun for self defense? Also, even if all parties are packing, two criminals still beats one civilian. CARRYING GUNS BREEDS MORE DANGEROUS CRIMINALS."

Well, once again you show how incredibly uneducated you are. The last sentence has absolutely NO statistical data to prove it in any way shape or form. You know, just because you think up any only bullshit, doesn't actually make it real...

"...aggressive criminals who don't care if you have a .22 or a .45, they have combat shotguns and Kevlar armor."

Are we talking about a thug who is trying to steal $200 in loose change or a military assault team here? I'm not trying to defend myself against a Seal team, just a street thug. How many street thugs have you ever heard of that wear Kevlar?

You know, you can take anything out of context and throw in any old ridiculous scenario to argue against a point of view but people that have any common sense at all can easily see through the stupidity of your arguments. You might want to stop watching Steven Seagal movies and try to get back into the really real world for a change.

Dimondwoof said...

@blooscrien said... "Alright, so say everyone takes your advice and now everyone carries a gun. Do you really think crime will just stop?"

Of course not. I never said it would. I would never expect it to. But that doesn'[t change the fact that I expect the right to be able to defend myself and my family.

"Not only is that the biggest dick move..."

Kiss my ass. I am not FORCING the criminal to go victimize someone else. I'm sure that you are so altruistic that you'd bee happy that someone broke into your house and raped your wife and daughter instead of going to the house next door, right? I'd sure they wouldn't think YOU were a dick for not protecting them... jackoff.

"Your line of reasoning inevitably ends in a world where everyone has guns, and everyone uses them to kill each other."

Well, with your limited intellect, you might see it that way, but there IS another possible outcome. Say, for example, violent crime ACTUALLY GOES DOWN, maybe? Gee, where in the world is there a place where everyone has a gun and there is no violent crime. Well, I guess if you nike SWITZERLAND, it might be hard to find someplace. I guess I'll have to try to think of ANOTHER example. Idiot.

Dimondwoof said...

@blooscrien said... "Your "criminals are cowards" argument isn't worth crap."

Ya, because you see predictors attacking the STRONGEST pry in nature all the time, right? D!p$h!t.

"Throughout the ages, people have shown an incredible tendency to engage in conflicts in which the opposing side is just as well"

Well, gee, I'm not planning on moving to a 3rd world developing nation, so how about we keep our focus on the US, shall we?

"...two criminals still beats one civilian. CARRYING GUNS BREEDS MORE DANGEROUS CRIMINALS."

Ya, but THOSE 2 CRIMINALS WILL STILL FIND A MORE VULNERABLE TARGET! If you weren't so dense, you might see this. And the "breeding" statement has absolutely NO data backing it up. So, basically you apparently think that just because you make a statement, it must be true. The problem is, the rest of us deal in actual empirical data, not some egomaniac delusion that we just automatically know everything.

"...they have combat shotguns and Kevlar armor."

Are we talking about a thug breaking into your house to steal $200 or a Seal Team? How about you back away from the Steven Seagal movies and try to live in the real world. Please, share links to articles about criminals gearing up with combat shotguns and missile launchers when gun control laws are relaxed. I'd LOVE to see them. Sure, you can take a basic premise and through any moronic scenario at it and make it nonviable, but that isn't what we are talking about here. How many street thugs have YOU heard about walking around in Kevlar? I've never head of any. This discussion isn't about me trying to defend myself from a SWAT team.

Colin Receveur said...

@Nate

"Argue that I should take handgun safety/defense classes once a year."

Very much agreed.

"Argue that ammo should be registered."

Impossible to accomplish without 1) Driving ammo prices literally 5000% through the roof and and 2) Destroying all ammo from the market currently and starting over (all surplus, stock piles, etc)

"Argue for stricter concealed permits."

I saw a snippet from a news agency online recently that said that in the state of Indiana alone (where I'm from) a newspaper found over 500 felons that had been issued concealed carry licenses, and we need stricter laws. They made a big deal out of this, like it was putting guns in the hands of criminals/felons.

I completely and 100% disagree. If a felon applies for a CC license, who cares. IT'S A(nother) FELONY FOR HIM TO POSSESS OR OWN A GUN! Again, MORE laws will NOT solve the problem.

My vote is to require the same criminal background check for a cc license that is required to buy a firearms, no more. Require all CC license holders to take x number of "CE" credits each year to keep up their license.

I would go so far to say as let federally licensed firearms dealers in each state issue CC licenses on the spot if they pass the background check. The CC license really doesn't mean much, many states don't require ones to carry, many states allow you to open carry or have guns in your car without one, and almost all states (barring Chicago and DC) permit possession of handguns in your home for protection.

blooscrien said...

Look, For all intents and purposes, I agree with you. Guns should be as available to the public as possible. It's limiting the common man's access to firearms that skews the balance towards criminals. My point is that you are in error to call this "civilized." But whatever, that doesn't matter. I'm tired of this discussion. You speak of carrying deadly weapons in a peaceful and civilized way, and yet you are unable to remain civil in a discussion on the internet? I understand that your views are very deep rooted, and there is not a lot that I could say to sway you. Before I go though, I would like to hear your thought on a few things.

Your essay, "Why I Carry A Gun," is advocating the possession of firearms, correct? Ideally you want to convince EVERYBODY that it is a good idea to carry a gun. You say that carrying a gun will make criminals go pick on someone else. I'm I following you so far? What if you won? What if everyone went out and got a gun? Obviously this won't stop crime. Yo yourself say:

"Of course not. I never said it would. I would never expect it to. But that doesn't change the fact that I expect the right to be able to defend myself and my family."

We aren't talking about your right to have a gun. It's the second goddamn amendment, it won't be changing anytime soon. You were arguing having guns will make us more civilized, that it is beneficial to our society.

If every citizen gets a gun, criminals will no longer have weaker prey to turn to. You admit that crime will not stop, so these criminals must now be praying on people who have guns. When criminals figure out that everyone has guns, they will want to get guns as well. Now the playing field is relatively even, as you are correct, I was being facetious in my remark about more/bigger guns. However, we still have a situation where criminals with guns are pitted against civilians with guns. There are no "weaker prey," therefore your gun is not offering you any extra protection.

I could argue that criminals who make a living of assaulting people might have an advantage in this situation, but I won't. My point is perfectly valid even if the odds are perfectly even. Every encounter ends in an armed confrontation, regardless of the outcome, is that really better?

creceveur said...

@blooscrien: http://www.reasonorforce.com/2010/11/why-switzerland-has-lowest-crime-rate.html

Dimondwoof said...

@blooscrien: What I'm saying is that your point is not valid, it is supposition. Criminals pry on the weak because they ARE weak. I'm not saying that every criminal would immediately cease committing crimes. There are those that would indeed not be swayed by the prospect of getting a bullet in the brain pan. However, those criminals will be criminals no matter what.

What I'm saying is that there are certain criminal elements that are committing criminal activities because they can get away with it. The majority of criminals that a common citizen will run into are opportunists. If they can bully or strong-arm someone, they will. The rapist, for example, pry on women specifically because they are weaker. And yes, I believe that rape is not as much about sex as it is about violence. It just happens to have a sexual component. If you'd like me to elucidate on that, I'd be happy to, but I assume at this point you understand what I'm saying.

You make the supposition that no matter how dangerous the situation, there is absolutely no way to deter any criminal from doing any crime in any way. I don’t believe that is true. Sure, if the ONLY thing that criminal is there for is to kill or damage you, then a gun might not deter him, but what if it’s just a person that decided that he was going to work you over with a baseball bat because you stole his parking space? I’m betting that knowing you have a gun will make him think twice about “teaching you a lesson”. I’m betting that when a criminal breaks into your house with a knife and you pull that .38 out of its holster, the knife wielder will decide that discretion is the better part of valor, so to speak. That the prospect of being a live coward is much more desirable that being a dead badass.

And as for promoting “civilized” behavior, yes, I believe that to be true as well. As, with my point about the baseball bat wielding neighbor, I think that people would be more apt to be respectful and hold their temper when it’s known that anyone they decide to bully or verbally assault might be carrying a firearm. It’s really hard to bully someone when they aren’t intimidated by size or the fear of violence. And I think we can pretty much all agree that people being more level headed, tolerant, and polite does add to a more civilized society.

Dimondwoof said...

@Nate:

I know you aren't actually advocating any of these things, I just wanted to answer these points.

"Argue that I should take handgun safety/defense classes once a year."

I'd first argue that people should take a driving test once a year. People are a lot less responsible with cars than they are with guns. But even if this were pushed, I'd opt for something like 5 years. You don't forget gun safety in a year...

"Argue that ammo should be registered."

This is ridiculous on so many levels. As was said, it would drive prices through the roof. But the more important issue is that it would not actually accomplish anything. Who would buy registered ammo with their real name and then use it to commit a crime? All it would do if cause criminals to either use false identities or use stolen ammo. That would be like dropping your registered gun at the crime scene. Plus, even if someone was stupid enough to use ammo that they bought, all they'd have to do is say "it's not mine. Someone stole it from me." There are SO many other arguments about this, but I just wanted to throw a couple out there.

"Argue for stricter concealed permits."
Why? How many criminals are getting CCW licenses before they go out and use their guns in a crime? What, are they willing to use their gun to rob a liquor store, but feel compelled to get a CCW license so they won't be "breaking the law" by having a concealed weapon? Give me a break!!! CCW is solely and strictly a money making process by the government. That process doesn't deter crime in any way, shape, or form. There is no higher crime in states that don't require a CCW than any state with any level of CCW requirement. Actually, it is usually lower, which proves that it doesn't work as a crime deterrent.

Just my 2¢.

Peter Dark said...

Living in a country where you can be a arested for carying somthing as inoqious as a fountain pen i cant help but be envious of any land that give you freedom to protect your self and your loved ones rathere than the right for the scum bags to do you over .. well said and very eloquent
peter Dark

Evil Creamsicle said...

Once armed, a free man can never be disarmed. Only defeated.

supamanc said...

Of course you could completely ban guns, and it would only take a couple of generations for guns to become as rare in the USA as they are in Britain. As the police take more and more guns of the street, and there are no guns to replace them, availability goes down, and value, therefore expenditure required to obtain one goes up. Of course there will always be some guns, but they would be only available to organized criminals, not common or garden variety muggers and rapists. In the UK an enterprising criminal would have to pay £1000+ for a firearm and ammo, this is an investment, which must be used wisely, considering that if caught, you do 5 years!

As for guns making the society safer? A gun is only effective if you are willing to use it, and able. (shooting is not an easy thing to do under pressure, as i found out during Naval general training). look in your wallet right now. How much do you have? Are you willing to kill for it? To take a mans life because he wants your money, maybe your watch? Maybe you are, (I would not be, but thats me) But that's not the point, because the mugger probably is. The criminals willingness to use force and violence will ALWAYS overshadow that of the rest of society as a whole (with maybe a few exceptions). These aren't cowardly bullys who will run away if you stand up to them, they are hardened career criminals who will shoot you in the face. (by and large only rape is a crime of opportunity, robberys, muggings ect are planned) Increasing gun ownership will not help, it wll just rquire the criminals to be MORE extreme. there's a 90% chance that my intended victim has a gun? I'll take him from behind, shoot his knee out, mace him, whatever, the point is criminals adapt. If the mugger knows you have a gun, it just means he has to not give you the opportunity to use it, best way to do that? brick to the back of the head. If everybody carried a gun, the world would be a much much more dangerous place, and anybody who argues differently has some serious blinkered vision

Squeaky Wheel said...

This post is plagiarism.

http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/

Please give proper attribution to Marko Kloos.