Guns gave us a civilized society

[Quantum Windbag]

I just discovered this blog post, and it got me to thinking about things in a way I never actually articulated to myself before.

why the gun is civilization. « the munchkin wrangler.

There is a simple fact of life that most people do not really think about, all human interaction boils down to one of two things, reason, or force.

People today like to pretend they live in a society where reason has triumphed over force, they are wrong. If that was true, we would live in a society where violence does not happen at all. (Please note, the fact that violence exists does not prove that that we live in a violent society. Whether or not our society is violent is a separate discussion to my point, and not one that I believe is critical to the point I want to make.)

If you want to convince someone who is stronger than you of the merits of your arguments you have to either accept the fact that he might decide to ignore your reason and opt to use force, or find away to negate his advantage in force over you. Guns are that equalizer, and they are why control passed from the hands of people who could fight to the hands of people who can think. In other words, it wasn't reason that triumphed over force, it was guns that defeated it.

Guns turned the American west from a place where the strong triumphed over the weak to a place where farmers planted crops and built towns that became cities. Without guns we would be living under feudalism, not as free people. Taking gins out of the hands of people will turn our society from one where everyone is equal to one where the strong, who are usually the young, rule by fiat.

 

[Urbanguerrilla]

I just discovered this blog post, and it got me to thinking about things in a way I never actually articulated to myself before.

why the gun is civilization. « the munchkin wrangler.

There is a simple fact of life that most people do not really think about, all human interaction boils down to one of two things, reason, or force.

People today like to pretend they live in a society where reason has triumphed over force, they are wrong. If that was true, we would live in a society where violence does not happen at all. (Please note, the fact that violence exists does not prove that that we live in a violent society. Whether or not our society is violent is a separate discussion to my point, and not one that I believe is critical to the point I want to make.)

If you want to convince someone who is stronger than you of the merits of your arguments you have to either accept the fact that he might decide to ignore your reason and opt to use force, or find away to negate his advantage in force over you. Guns are that equalizer, and they are why control passed from the hands of people who could fight to the hands of people who can think. In other words, it wasn't reason that triumphed over force, it was guns that defeated it.

Guns turned the American west from a place where the strong triumphed over the weak to a place where farmers planted crops and built towns that became cities. Without guns we would be living under feudalism, not as free people. Taking gins out of the hands of people will turn our society from one where everyone is equal to one where the strong, who are usually the young, rule by fiat.

The fact remains that the US has 300 million guns in circulation, if guns made society safer it would be the safest country in the world...as we know from instances like this, it is definitely not...

 

[NYcarbineer]

I just discovered this blog post, and it got me to thinking about things in a way I never actually articulated to myself before.

why the gun is civilization. « the munchkin wrangler.

There is a simple fact of life that most people do not really think about, all human interaction boils down to one of two things, reason, or force.

People today like to pretend they live in a society where reason has triumphed over force, they are wrong. If that was true, we would live in a society where violence does not happen at all. (Please note, the fact that violence exists does not prove that that we live in a violent society. Whether or not our society is violent is a separate discussion to my point, and not one that I believe is critical to the point I want to make.)

If you want to convince someone who is stronger than you of the merits of your arguments you have to either accept the fact that he might decide to ignore your reason and opt to use force, or find away to negate his advantage in force over you. Guns are that equalizer, and they are why control passed from the hands of people who could fight to the hands of people who can think. In other words, it wasn't reason that triumphed over force, it was guns that defeated it.

Guns turned the American west from a place where the strong triumphed over the weak to a place where farmers planted crops and built towns that became cities. Without guns we would be living under feudalism, not as free people. Taking gins out of the hands of people will turn our society from one where everyone is equal to one where the strong, who are usually the young, rule by fiat.

We took the West away from the Indians because we had greater firepower. Is that what you mean?

 

[midcan5]

Civilized!

 

[Defiant1]

I just discovered this blog post, and it got me to thinking about things in a way I never actually articulated to myself before.

why the gun is civilization. « the munchkin wrangler.

There is a simple fact of life that most people do not really think about, all human interaction boils down to one of two things, reason, or force.

People today like to pretend they live in a society where reason has triumphed over force, they are wrong. If that was true, we would live in a society where violence does not happen at all. (Please note, the fact that violence exists does not prove that that we live in a violent society. Whether or not our society is violent is a separate discussion to my point, and not one that I believe is critical to the point I want to make.)

If you want to convince someone who is stronger than you of the merits of your arguments you have to either accept the fact that he might decide to ignore your reason and opt to use force, or find away to negate his advantage in force over you. Guns are that equalizer, and they are why control passed from the hands of people who could fight to the hands of people who can think. In other words, it wasn't reason that triumphed over force, it was guns that defeated it.

Guns turned the American west from a place where the strong triumphed over the weak to a place where farmers planted crops and built towns that became cities. Without guns we would be living under feudalism, not as free people. Taking gins out of the hands of people will turn our society from one where everyone is equal to one where the strong, who are usually the young, rule by fiat.

The fact remains that the US has 300 million guns in circulation, if guns made society safer it would be the safest country in the world...as we know from instances like this, it is definitely not...

No. If people "open carried" their weapons, which is my interpretation of the 2nd amendment, we would be safer.

 

[Katzndogz]

In places where there is strict gun control, like Los Angeles, Detroit, Chicago, Washington DC there is much more crime and violence than in places where the population is more likely to be armed.

It is like a war and many areas of the country have been described as war zones. Liberals only want one side armed.

 

[ChrisfromDenver]

Guns turned the American west from a place where the strong triumphed over the weak to a place where farmers planted crops and built towns that became cities. Without guns we would be living under feudalism, not as free people. Taking gins out of the hands of people will turn our society from one where everyone is equal to one where the strong, who are usually the young, rule by fiat.

Wow.

Really?

Wow.

whew.

Wow.

I really can't believe what I'm reading here

Blows the mind, seriously


The social economic/population/ and rising incomes of the United States as well as increased police enforcement are just discounted? The industrialization ? discounted? Economic policies that allowed people to rise and aspire to a better life? Forget about tit

its the guns

seriously, so many countries did not allow guns and prospered just fine. Man some people when they make up ideas, they really MAKE up ideas.

 

[ChrisfromDenver]

In places where there is strict gun control, like Los Angeles, Detroit, Chicago, Washington DC there is much more crime and violence than in places where the population is more likely to be armed.

It is like a war and many areas of the country have been described as war zones. Liberals only want one side armed.

Correlation Vs. causation

Places with low gun tolerance are normally socio-econimic conditions wich support widespread gun violence. Gun laws are a response to violence.

its a bit like saying malaria shots must cause malaria, because only areas where they give the shots they have malaria.

 

[LilOlLady]

I just discovered this blog post, and it got me to thinking about things in a way I never actually articulated to myself before.

why the gun is civilization. « the munchkin wrangler.

There is a simple fact of life that most people do not really think about, all human interaction boils down to one of two things, reason, or force.

People today like to pretend they live in a society where reason has triumphed over force, they are wrong. If that was true, we would live in a society where violence does not happen at all. (Please note, the fact that violence exists does not prove that that we live in a violent society. Whether or not our society is violent is a separate discussion to my point, and not one that I believe is critical to the point I want to make.)

If you want to convince someone who is stronger than you of the merits of your arguments you have to either accept the fact that he might decide to ignore your reason and opt to use force, or find away to negate his advantage in force over you. Guns are that equalizer, and they are why control passed from the hands of people who could fight to the hands of people who can think. In other words, it wasn't reason that triumphed over force, it was guns that defeated it.

Guns turned the American west from a place where the strong triumphed over the weak to a place where farmers planted crops and built towns that became cities. Without guns we would be living under feudalism, not as free people. Taking gins out of the hands of people will turn our society from one where everyone is equal to one where the strong, who are usually the young, rule by fiat.

If every american believed as you do, it's no wonder we are having so much violence. This is what the white man live by and what he bought to america. Sad but true and live by the sword, die by the sword. Humans don't need guns to be free, they only need to be human and not animalistic as guns has made us. The stong usually lack a brain.

 

[ChrisfromDenver]

No. If people "open carried" their weapons, which is my interpretation of the 2nd amendment, we would be safer.

My interpretation of the 2nd amendment is, you can get a gun if you join the national guard.

regardless -

It feels like you want to put a swimming pool in everyone backyard so that people stop drowning. The very act you propose is not correlated to protection. It only increases your chance of dying (or your household)

For every 1 in 40 million spree shooting event you might prevent, a few hundred will die by suicide, a few hundred more by accident, a few hundred more by spouse on spouse violence.

Your solution would kill more people than the problem does.

(and btw: if you quote a study, make sure its not one taken during a nation wide crime decrease or increase. . .)

You know what is funny. I heard the same exact crap about Aurora (nearbye to me). They say its the only theater that bans guns. wow. really? except All major chains ban guns, Regal, UA, and Cinemark. I can't believe the media just lets these people lie on TV.

 

[Ravi]

In places where there is strict gun control, like Los Angeles, Detroit, Chicago, Washington DC there is much more crime and violence than in places where the population is more likely to be armed.

It is like a war and many areas of the country have been described as war zones. Liberals only want one side armed.

Correlation Vs. causation

Places with low gun tolerance are normally socio-econimic conditions wich support widespread gun violence. Gun laws are a response to violence.

its a bit like saying malaria shots must cause malaria, because only areas where they give the shots they have malaria.

This.

 

[expand]

In places where there is strict gun control, like Los Angeles, Detroit, Chicago, Washington DC there is much more crime and violence than in places where the population is more likely to be armed.

It is like a war and many areas of the country have been described as war zones. Liberals only want one side armed.

I think you'll find that the reason those areas have stricter gun control is because of the notoriety of their crime statistics.

You are reversing cause and effect. Gun control was implemented because of their high crime stats. And you cannot expect those stats to immediately change, especially when you have the mentioned areas surrounded by other areas with practically no gun control. A bit like banning cocaine (if it was legal) in Brazil, and expecting all negative events in the country regarding the drug to stop, when it still borders Columbia, Peru and Bolivia.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No. If people "open carried" their weapons, which is my interpretation of the 2nd amendment, we would be safer.

My interpretation of the 2nd amendment is, you can get a gun if you join the national guard.

regardless -

It feels like you want to put a swimming pool in everyone backyard so that people stop drowning. The very act you propose is not correlated to protection. It only increases your chance of dying (or your household)

For every 1 in 40 million spree shooting event you might prevent, a few hundred will die by suicide, a few hundred more by accident, a few hundred more by spouse on spouse violence.

Your solution would kill more people than the problem does.

(and btw: if you quote a study, make sure its not one taken during a nation wide crime decrease or increase. . .)

You know what is funny. I heard the same exact crap about Aurora (nearbye to me). They say its the only theater that bans guns. wow. really? except All major chains ban guns, Regal, UA, and Cinemark. I can't believe the media just lets these people lie on TV.

“In mass shootings involving guns and mind-altering medications, politicians immediately seek to blame guns but never the medication. Nearly every mass shooting that has taken place in America over the last two decades has a link to psychiatric medication, and it appears today's tragic event is headed in the same direction.

According to ABC News, Adam Lanza, the alleged shooter, has been labeled as having “mental illness” and a “personality disorder.” These are precisely the words typically heard in a person who is being “treated” with mind-altering psychiatric drugs…. The Columbine High School shooters were, of course, on psychiatric drugs… One of the most common side effects of psychiatric drugs is violent outbursts and thoughts of suicide…. We should be outlawing psychiatric medications, not an inanimate piece of metal.” Gun control? We need medication control!
Gun control? We need medication control! Newton elementary school shooter Adam Lanza likely on meds; labeled as having 'personality disorder'

 

[PoliticalChic]

In places where there is strict gun control, like Los Angeles, Detroit, Chicago, Washington DC there is much more crime and violence than in places where the population is more likely to be armed.

It is like a war and many areas of the country have been described as war zones. Liberals only want one side armed.

I think you'll find that the reason those areas have stricter gun control is because of the notoriety of their crime statistics.

You are reversing cause and effect. Gun control was implemented because of their high crime stats. And you cannot expect those stats to immediately change, especially when you have the mentioned areas surrounded by other areas with practically no gun control. A bit like banning cocaine (if it was legal) in Brazil, and expecting all negative events in the country regarding the drug to stop, when it still borders Columbia, Peru and Bolivia.

"Gun control was implemented because of their high crime stats."


So....you believe that putting up a sign that says "Gun-Free Zone" will convince felons to turn around and go home?

No...gun control is based on feeling rather than knowing, a typically Liberal methodology.
Every venue that had allowed honest folks to carry guns has seen a drop in serious crime.


“I would ask gun control advocates one question: name a single place in the entire world where murder rates fell after gun control laws were passed.”
That is the powerful challenge from economist Dr. John Lott, Jr., who was kind enough to discuss with CFIF the third edition release of his tectonic book More Guns, Less Crime.
John Lott: More Guns, Still Less Crime


Why is it that folks like your cannot learn?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Civilized!

Yes let's hold everyone who owns a firearm responsible for every murder that takes place.

You don't even realize the idiocy of blaming many people for the acts of one do you?

 

[expand]

The argument regarding the Second Amendment, in this day and age, is a straw-man. People seem to be under the false impression that they are somehow holding the greatest military might the World has ever seen at bay - holding them hostage - with their guns. This, not only is completely untrue, but also completely ridiculous.

I agree that back when the Constitution was drafted - when civilian-owned guns equaled (or almost equaled) the weaponry of the American military - this would no doubt have been true. But now, if the U.S. was to turn into a dictatorship operating against its citizens, there would be literally nothing any militia could do about it. Think about it. The U.S. is not Syria. In such a paranoid and hypothetical situation they would have no one in the World to answer to. They could literally wipe out entire towns or cities with the push of a button, and after a few cities were to disappear, the citizens of the U.S. would be more submissive than the Chinese or North Koreans. (If we're going down the paranoid road of 'protection against our government', we're as well analysing the full scope of what that would really mean).

Look at Yemen. 50% of Yemenis own a gun and they are one of the least free societies on earth. Their standing army is literally a blip compared to the might of the U.S., yet their guns don't help them one bit. They would be crushed.

And if people really think that the only thing holding their government at bay is the fact that some of them have guns, then is that really freedom that they have? There are many countries across the World with acceptably strong gun control (European countries, Australia, Japan, for example) and they are in some cases far more free than the U.S., in all cases just as free. This isn't the days of King George and the Wild West.

In reality, the only things your government fears is its citizens not voting or them going on strike. Not your silly little guns.

Just my two cents.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I just discovered this blog post, and it got me to thinking about things in a way I never actually articulated to myself before.

why the gun is civilization. « the munchkin wrangler.

There is a simple fact of life that most people do not really think about, all human interaction boils down to one of two things, reason, or force.

People today like to pretend they live in a society where reason has triumphed over force, they are wrong. If that was true, we would live in a society where violence does not happen at all. (Please note, the fact that violence exists does not prove that that we live in a violent society. Whether or not our society is violent is a separate discussion to my point, and not one that I believe is critical to the point I want to make.)

If you want to convince someone who is stronger than you of the merits of your arguments you have to either accept the fact that he might decide to ignore your reason and opt to use force, or find away to negate his advantage in force over you. Guns are that equalizer, and they are why control passed from the hands of people who could fight to the hands of people who can think. In other words, it wasn't reason that triumphed over force, it was guns that defeated it.

Guns turned the American west from a place where the strong triumphed over the weak to a place where farmers planted crops and built towns that became cities. Without guns we would be living under feudalism, not as free people. Taking gins out of the hands of people will turn our society from one where everyone is equal to one where the strong, who are usually the young, rule by fiat.

If every american believed as you do, it's no wonder we are having so much violence. This is what the white man live by and what he bought to america. Sad but true and live by the sword, die by the sword. Humans don't need guns to be free, they only need to be human and not animalistic as guns has made us. The stong usually lack a brain.

And you believe that native Americans lived all happy-dappy, cum-bah-yah with one another before the Europeans arrived? They never warred with other tribes, took slaves, slaughtered the women and children of other tribes? Guess what, they didn't need guns either, they used all manner of sharp and blunt instruments to bring death to one another.

 

[gallantwarrior]

In places where there is strict gun control, like Los Angeles, Detroit, Chicago, Washington DC there is much more crime and violence than in places where the population is more likely to be armed.

It is like a war and many areas of the country have been described as war zones. Liberals only want one side armed.

I think you'll find that the reason those areas have stricter gun control is because of the notoriety of their crime statistics.

You are reversing cause and effect. Gun control was implemented because of their high crime stats. And you cannot expect those stats to immediately change, especially when you have the mentioned areas surrounded by other areas with practically no gun control. A bit like banning cocaine (if it was legal) in Brazil, and expecting all negative events in the country regarding the drug to stop, when it still borders Columbia, Peru and Bolivia.

And yet, all that additional gun control has done damned little to bring their crime stats down.

 

[gallantwarrior]

The argument regarding the Second Amendment, in this day and age, is a straw-man. People seem to be under the false impression that they are somehow holding the greatest military might the World has ever seen at bay - holding them hostage - with their guns. This, not only is completely untrue, but also completely ridiculous.

I agree that back when the Constitution was drafted - when civilian-owned guns equaled (or almost equaled) the weaponry of the American military - this would no doubt have been true. But now, if the U.S. was to turn into a dictatorship operating against its citizens, there would be literally nothing any militia could do about it. Think about it. The U.S. is not Syria. In such a paranoid and hypothetical situation they would have no one in the World to answer to. They could literally wipe out entire towns or cities with the push of a button, and after a few cities were to disappear, the citizens of the U.S. would be more submissive than the Chinese or North Koreans. (If we're going down the paranoid road of 'protection against our government', we're as well analysing the full scope of what that would really mean).

Look at Yemen. 50% of Yemenis own a gun and they are one of the least free societies on earth. Their standing army is literally a blip compared to the might of the U.S., yet their guns don't help them one bit. They would be crushed.

And if people really think that the only thing holding their government at bay is the fact that some of them have guns, then is that really freedom that they have? There are many countries across the World with acceptably strong gun control (European countries, Australia, Japan, for example) and they are in some cases far more free than the U.S., in all cases just as free. This isn't the days of King George and the Wild West.

In reality, the only things your government fears is its citizens not voting or them going on strike. Not your silly little guns.

Just my two cents.

That's just about what your...thoughts, did you call them...are worth. Two cents. Not much value in the current economy.

 

[expand]

"Gun control was implemented because of their high crime stats."


So....you believe that putting up a sign that says "Gun-Free Zone" will convince felons to turn around and go home?

No...gun control is based on feeling rather than knowing, a typically Liberal methodology.
Every venue that had allowed honest folks to carry guns has seen a drop in serious crime.


“I would ask gun control advocates one question: name a single place in the entire world where murder rates fell after gun control laws were passed.”
That is the powerful challenge from economist Dr. John Lott, Jr., who was kind enough to discuss with CFIF the third edition release of his tectonic book More Guns, Less Crime.
John Lott: More Guns, Still Less Crime


Why is it that folks like your cannot learn?

I believe (actually, from looking around the World, I know) that having far stricter gun control than those that now exist will result in less gun crime. This is quite simply a fact. People will still be able to get their hands on guns, but for the most part this will be limited to only people with connections to the criminal World, with it becoming more and more difficult as time goes by. When we consider that these school shootings have largely been committed by people with very little or no criminal record, we can deduce that this would cut them down almost immediately.

People who should be allowed to own guns: Police (on and off-duty), farmers, (some) store owners, people who live in areas that require them to own one for protection against wildlife. After this, there really no need for anyone to own a gun, other than paranoia.

I am not a liberal.

I'll name one country: Australia.

Even Britain, though gun crime did jump in the year after (it is a slow process, but rewarding, ultimately). There are 50 times more deaths by guns in the U.S. than in Britain when population is taken into account. This is an astounding fact.

But the thing about the U.S. is that it is not simply the guns that are the problem. The U.S. has an absolutely massive problem with mental health - this issue, even more-so than gun control, needs to be addressed.