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 forcing 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.
As pointed out elsewhere, this assumes that noone is capable of acting in a helpful manner towards someone else unless told to do so or threatened into it. I'd like to think that a large proportion of people do so without being convinced or bullied into 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.
Unless I get a bigger gun, or more guns, or a more powerful gun, etc. Isn't this referred to as an arms race?
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.
It is also the best in terms of giving people a strong sense of overconfidence. I seem to remember reading that many people are shot with their own weapon, as a result of believing themself to be '
on equal footing' with an attacker. I realise I'm leaving this open to the '
we're all trained and we know what we're doing' brigade, but not everyone who gets a gun is as skillful as this group, so the field isn't quite as level as some make out.
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
...or, indeed, the civil.
and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society.
Not saying that the problem is exclusive to the US by any means, but surely if the only way you feel society can function is by keeping everyone scared of each other, then something is wrong?
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.
If I hit you lightly, it does less damage than if I punch you as hard as I can. The same is true if I use a bat or a club. If I point a gun at you and pull the trigger, it makes no difference if I mean to slightly harm you or not, the bullet has no way of knowing this and will hit you at the same speed and do the same amount of damage. Saying that shooting someone is less likely to seriously injure them than hitting them is a bit of weak argument.
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.
Again, this depends entirely on how hard and where you hit someone with the fist or bat.
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.
One minute the argiument is that guns are no more lethal than a bat, the next the argument is that guns definitely are lethal, whoever is using them. Once again, while they
can be fatal, you can use a bat to hurt someone without killing them. The trauma, loss of blood, and whatever else is associated with getting shot mean that you have far less control over the damage you inflict, if using a firearm.
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.
You may not be looking for trouble or trying to appear tougher than you are, but plenty of people are.
The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded.
Strange attitude, this one. Are people with guns also bulletproof? If you have one in a holster and I step out in front of you with a gun pointed at you and tell you put your hands up, how is having a gun going to help you? Either you're planning to draw, aim and fire before I've got time to pull the trigger or you walk around with your gun already in your hand, just in case.
I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid.
In much the same way that I don't drink a glass of water because I'm thirsty but because it allows me to not be thirsty.
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.
If two people get into a debate on some hot-button topic like religion, politics, sports, or whatever and they are unarmed, a fight may start. Yes, this
can be fatal, but in many cases, having thrown the first punch or two, people come to their senses and it ends there. If the same people were armed, one or more of them could get a shot off before calming down. I knew plenty of people while growing up who would get into fights in pubs, clubs, etc. but nobody ever got killed. If these same hotheads been allowed to carry a gun, who knows what would have happened? The chances of someone - even an innocent bystander - dying over a relatively trivial argument are increased by the presence of a gun.
