Ending Gun Violence Requires Commitment, Not All of it Voluntary

[mikesilvia]

The good news is: Obama and the Senate Democrats have no intention of passing more idiotic gun legislation in response to the Newtown massacre. The bad news is that they also have no intention of passing any...

More...

[JustAlex]

>The Good news (for gun owners)......none of Obama's gun regulations will pass!

>The Bad news (for everyone!)..........once again NOTHING is done!

The next horrific gun shooting that occurs, I don't want to see any tears, I don't want to hear any "condolences".

We have FAILED as a country, failed big time.

Whether it's gun legislation, more background checks, more mental health awareness.....ANYTHING is better than doing nothing.

We have chosen to do nothing.

One side is at least trying (maybe it won't stop anything major, maybe it only saves ONE life, but they're at least attempting to do something).

The Other side has convinced itself that that we are now on "code red" and the solution is MORE guns, DO nothing, and become even more paranoid of "big government".

[shrewsbury]

that article sucked!!!

and what sucks worse is both parties refuse to compromise on anything!!!!

[habsheaven]

I actually think that was one of Coulter's better articles. It had the usually "pot shots" (pun intended) taken at the Democrats, but for the most part was on point.

[Wickabee]

She does have a point that the classification system is ridiculous. Grips shouldn't come into it. And I will admit, that does sound like work of the Dems.

[mrveggieman]

that article sucked!!!

and what sucks worse is both parties refuse to compromise on anything!!!!

CHURCH!!

[ajcorleone]

Stumbled on this the heading is not mine it is how the article started

THIS IS THE BEST WORDED PRO-GUN ARGUMENT I HAVE EVER READ

Interesting take and one you don't hear much. . . . . .
Read this eloquent and profound letter and p...ay close attention to the last paragraph of the letter....


"The Gun Is Civilization" 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 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 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.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

[Wickabee]

Hmm, he likes that I can't force him. His gun says he can force me. If I have a gun one or both of us dies.

Great argument.

[tpeichel]

Hmm, he likes that I can't force him. His gun says he can force me. If I have a gun one or both of us dies.

If two citizens carrying weapons for defensive purposes meet, why would someone die?

If an armed assailant knows a potential target is also armed, they move on to easier prey, thus, the author is simply saying that arming himself makes him a less likely target for criminals.

Your logical error is assuming that anyone that owns a gun intends to do harm with it.

[Wickabee]

If two citizens carrying weapons for defensive purposes meet, why would someone die?

If an armed assailant knows a potential target is also armed, they move on to easier prey, thus, the author is simply saying that arming himself makes him a less likely target for criminals.

Your logical error is assuming that anyone that owns a gun intends to do harm with it.

If he's so worried I'm going to force him, why wouldn't I believe he could force me?
(yes, I realize he's not talking about me personally)