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)