Reason versus Force

[Dusty Harry]

Apologies in advance if this is old news to some, but I've only seen it once and figured many of you might find this useful. From time to time, we all get questioned by the uninformed and naive about why we choose to go armed. What follows is probably the best argument I have ever encountered, and use an abbreviated version as a common reply. This is attributed to Maj. L. Caudill, USMC (Ret.):

Reason versus Force

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 individual on equal footing with a carload of drunks 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 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.

[cubbyjg]

First time for me and i think this is excellent. People ask me why I carry and i try to explain it to them but they never truly understand. Im going to print this out and keep it handy. LOL

[The Annoyed Man]

I've seen this before. I believe that the actual original title is "The Gun is Civilization." In any case, it was as true the first time I read it as it is now.

[joe817]

Thanks for sharing Dusty Harry! Good post.

[cougartex]

[longtooth]

For some of us it is old.
For some new.

For all of us that is good enough to review several times.

Thanks for posting it again.
LT

[Quahog]

For some of us it is old.
For some new.

For all of us that is good enough to review several times.

Thanks for posting it again.
LT

100%

[TxKimberMan]

First time reading that for me. Very well articulated. Thanks for posting that, I enjoyed it.

[tqu9047]

Tim

[The Annoyed Man]

I've seen this before. I believe that the actual original title is "The Gun is Civilization." In any case, it was as true the first time I read it as it is now.

Now I know where I saw it before...

This is commonly attributed to a Major Caudill, but that is not true. It was actually written by Markos Kloos, owner of the Munchkin Wrangler blog.

It can be found in his list of essays. On the Essays landing page, he says:

Essays

This is a repository for essays I have written. It will be updated as I add material.

Any of these essays are free to use for non-commercial purposes. You don’t have to contact me for permission–it is granted, providing that you only use my material for non-profit use. You may reproduce them on your web page, online discussion boards, internal non-advertising newsletters, and any other medium that does not involve making money off the content. All I ask in return is proper attribution, and a backlink or reference to this blog. Reproduction for commercial purposes is expressly prohibited without prior written consent and permission.

That comment used to contain a certain amount of displeasure at the inaccurate attribution of his writing on that essay. In Markos' replies to some of the comments on the essay, it is clear that he not only wrote it, he got paid for writing it.