TexasCHLforum.com

linman wrote: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.

I’m not sure about this. I interact with people all day long and not all those interactions involve persuading and/or forcing someone to do anything. Maybe I’m just being picky about the wording.

linman wrote: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.

Again, I disagree. Force is the corner stone for a civilized society. In order to have a “moral� and “civilized� society there must be a common set of morals, standards, and laws. Fortunately, we humans are endowed with free will. However, because of free will, it becomes very difficult to keep everyone on the same page in regards to morals, standards, and laws. Those that do not share the same morals, standards, and laws may need to be met with force to comply or force may be needed to remove said person from the society against their free will.

linman wrote: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 footin g 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 poten tial attacker and
a defender.

Just because you have a gun does not mean someone can not use force on you to get their way. LEOs do this on a daily basis. Often times, LEOs use force against someone who has a gun to get them to comply with our laws. I do agree, that a gun can help level the playing in some situations but not all. I also must say that a gun is not always the only weapon that can level the playing field…more times than not, using your head and situation awareness, is the best thing for leveling the playing field.

linman wrote: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.

This further illustrates why force or counter force is the corner stone to a civilized society.

linman wrote: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.

Again…I disagree; just because one has a firearm does not mean it is as lethal no matter whose hands it is in. It is only lethal in the hands of someone trained in the use of the weapon. If an Octogenarian (and I must say I have to give you 10 points for that word) has no idea how to work the firearm than its lethality is dependant upon luck and less about having the weapon. That being said, even in the hands of a trained person, the lethality of the weapon is still, to some degree, a matter of luck. Training, situational awareness, mental faculties, and etc. all play a part on how effectively lethal a weapon is.

Perfect case in point...here is a woman shot between the eyes and survives. I gun is not always leathal.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/23914454/

linman wrote: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.

Again, a gun at your side does not mean you can not be met with overwhelming force. A gun does not remove force from the equation; it only helps mitigate force in certain and specific circumstances.