Guns gave us a civilized society

[NYcarbineer]

Guns made it possible to farm the American west????

Didn't farming start several thousand years ago, in Mesopotamia maybe?

Oh, for you relatively new types around here, the brilliant originator of this thread believes we don't need ANY government,

so be wary of letting yourself take him seriously.

 

[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.

Human civilization predates guns by over 1000 years.

That depends on your definition of civilization, if it includes slavery and being killed at the whim of the guy in charge, you are right. If it includes individual freedom and the right of free speech, you are definitely wrong.

 

[Koios]

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.

Human civilization predates guns by over 1000 years.

That depends on your definition of civilization, if it includes slavery and being killed at the whim of the guy in charge, you are right. If it includes individual freedom and the right of free speech, you are definitely wrong.

Rome seems to come to mind. Or Athens, perhaps?

Hahahahahahahaha. Righties. Ya'll entertain to no end, godbless ya.

 

[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.

Human civilization predates guns by over 1000 years.

That depends on your definition of civilization, if it includes slavery and being killed at the whim of the guy in charge, you are right. If it includes individual freedom and the right of free speech, you are definitely wrong.

Didn't we kill a few million Indians in order to take over the continent?

 

[ChrisfromDenver]

You might think that. You would, however, be wrong. The simple fact is that gun control in large cites predates gun violence by decades.

Source? Or just part of the Quantum reality we can't see?


I don't know what impact the gun laws had (though a 1991 new England journal of medicine noted a significant impact for Washington). . its probably pretty mixed. Homicides are a reflection of social economic issues, access to weapons (state borders for example).

The 80s and 90s saw a spiral up, and just as quickly a spiral down. . .which I thank Roe v wade (who needs guns, when abortions work better).

I don't know if gun control will have a HUGE impact with criminals. .. .but if guns are severly limited and penatlities are pretty high for violation the risk to carry for a bad guy is pretty high

and Spree killings anything that makes it harder to acquire a weapon, will be beyond the ability of the average spree. THey are crazy, not criminals.

 

[Koios]

You might think that. You would, however, be wrong. The simple fact is that gun control in large cites predates gun violence by decades.

Source? Or just part of the Quantum reality we can't see?


I don't know what impact the gun laws had (though a 1991 new England journal of medicine noted a significant impact for Washington). . its probably pretty mixed. Homicides are a reflection of social economic issues, access to weapons (state borders for example).

The 80s and 90s saw a spiral up, and just as quickly a spiral down. . .which I thank Roe v wade (who needs guns, when abortions work better).

I don't know if gun control will have a HUGE impact with criminals. .. .but if guns are severly limited and penatlities are pretty high for violation the risk to carry for a bad guy is pretty high

and Spree killings anything that makes it harder to acquire a weapon, will be beyond the ability of the average spree. THey are crazy, not criminals.

Quantum "Reality" we can see, since it's theories into what reality is.

Quantum mechanics is figuring out the rules of the very small, and while we're clueless as to what's happening, certain outcomes of particles on the quantum level are highly predictable, and without that understanding, neither you nor I would have a computer nor an Internet to kibitz via.

 

[Trajan]

"God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Human civilization predates guns by over 1000 years.

That depends on your definition of civilization, if it includes slavery and being killed at the whim of the guy in charge, you are right. If it includes individual freedom and the right of free speech, you are definitely wrong.

Rome seems to come to mind. Or Athens, perhaps?

Hahahahahahahaha. Righties. Ya'll entertain to no end, godbless ya.

Rome and Athens both had slavery and allowed powerful people to get away with just about anything, and had no problem with people abandoning children to fend for themselves. I think most people would call that barbaric.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Human civilization predates guns by over 1000 years.

That depends on your definition of civilization, if it includes slavery and being killed at the whim of the guy in charge, you are right. If it includes individual freedom and the right of free speech, you are definitely wrong.

Didn't we kill a few million Indians in order to take over the continent?

I see you ignored my reply the last time you mentioned the Indians, why is that?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You might think that. You would, however, be wrong. The simple fact is that gun control in large cites predates gun violence by decades.

Source? Or just part of the Quantum reality we can't see?


I don't know what impact the gun laws had (though a 1991 new England journal of medicine noted a significant impact for Washington). . its probably pretty mixed. Homicides are a reflection of social economic issues, access to weapons (state borders for example).

The 80s and 90s saw a spiral up, and just as quickly a spiral down. . .which I thank Roe v wade (who needs guns, when abortions work better).

I don't know if gun control will have a HUGE impact with criminals. .. .but if guns are severly limited and penatlities are pretty high for violation the risk to carry for a bad guy is pretty high

and Spree killings anything that makes it harder to acquire a weapon, will be beyond the ability of the average spree. THey are crazy, not criminals.

I used the same source you did, XXXXXXX.

 

[oldfart]

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.

I think you are guilty of the fallacy of bringing a gun to an explosives fight. Your argument that guns equalize the conflict between reasonable and unreasonable players is not well thought out. Both sides are perfectly capable of resorting to violence and can choose to escalate violence. What makes the the person who escalates the more reasonable?

If we are going to play escalato, I shall leave my logic and reason at home and make sure I have access to thermonuclear weaponry, saran gas, and weaponized plague with suitable delivery systems.

All of this kind of talk reminds me of the folks running around arguing that the Second Amendment is intended to allow citizens to arm themselves so they may violently overthrow the government of the United States by force if they feel sufficiently threatened and/or aggrieved. What do they think the armed forces of the United States are going to come after them with when they decide to play war?

I have a word of advice. Stop the posturing and macho talk. If an armed police officer gives you an order, obey it. You will probably have an opportunity to fight it in court later on. Going for your guns will probably get you killed. Possessing a gun in a world of SWAT teams is not exactly the great equalizer.

 

[Koios]

That depends on your definition of civilization, if it includes slavery and being killed at the whim of the guy in charge, you are right. If it includes individual freedom and the right of free speech, you are definitely wrong.

Rome seems to come to mind. Or Athens, perhaps?

Hahahahahahahaha. Righties. Ya'll entertain to no end, godbless ya.

Rome and Athens both had slavery and allowed powerful people to get away with just about anything, and had no problem with people abandoning children to fend for themselves. I think most people would call that barbaric.

So did the Southern colonies / states until the Federal Government came and changed it via military force.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I think you are guilty of the fallacy of bringing a gun to an explosives fight. Your argument that guns equalize the conflict between reasonable and unreasonable players is not well thought out. Both sides are perfectly capable of resorting to violence and can choose to escalate violence. What makes the the person who escalates the more reasonable?

If we are going to play escalato, I shall leave my logic and reason at home and make sure I have access to thermonuclear weaponry, saran gas, and weaponized plague with suitable delivery systems.

All of this kind of talk reminds me of the folks running around arguing that the Second Amendment is intended to allow citizens to arm themselves so they may violently overthrow the government of the United States by force if they feel sufficiently threatened and/or aggrieved. What do they think the armed forces of the United States are going to come after them with when they decide to play war?

I have a word of advice. Stop the posturing and macho talk. If an armed police officer gives you an order, obey it. You will probably have an opportunity to fight it in court later on. Going for your guns will probably get you killed. Possessing a gun in a world of SWAT teams is not exactly the great equalizer.

I did not say that guns equalize the conflict, I said they eliminate the use of force as the deciding factor.

Nice attempt to actually debate though.

 

[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.

Human civilization predates guns by over 1000 years.

Yeah. So what? Before guns, people found all kinds of other methods of killing the hell out of each other.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So why are we trying to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons? Aren't they the ultimate gun?

Won't they give Iran a civilized society based on the premise of this thread?

 

[Trajan]

Human civilization predates guns by over 1000 years.

That depends on your definition of civilization, if it includes slavery and being killed at the whim of the guy in charge, you are right. If it includes individual freedom and the right of free speech, you are definitely wrong.

Didn't we kill a few million Indians in order to take over the continent?

a few million

whats next? the ole chicken pox blankets that wasn't us...

 

[Trajan]

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.

Human civilization predates guns by over 1000 years.

you're off by 6500 years or so, but who's counting.....

 

[PaulS1950]

Recently, in one of America's fine prisons, an inmate shot himself in the leg with a gun he hade made from a steel bed.
Now, tell me again how restricting law abiding citizens from having guns will prevent crime?

Let me ask this one last questions: When have criminals abided by gun laws?

 

[Billo_Really]

Tell you what, just to humor you, I will agree to that. It still leaves me free to point out that guns gave us the rule of law because they make it harder for rich people to get away with breaking the law.

Guns won't stop rich people. Not when they have the power to write the laws. Or change the laws in their favor. Plus they control people who have bigger guns.

The one thing we have in our favor that rich people can't control, is not guns, it's "one man, one vote". As long as we still have that, there's a chance we can purge these corporate whores from government and get our representation back.

BTW, rich people don't break the law, they just change the law to make legal whatever they happen to be doing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is not my contention at all, my contention is that guns neutralize force so that reason has a better chance to win the argument. The best example of this is the cold war doctrine of mutually assured destruction. I thought it was ridiculous at the time, and actually expected it to fail at any moment. Instead, because two bitter enemies both knew that they could not win a fight, they talked, and they eventually figured out a way to come together and work toward a common goal for no other reason that force was removed from the equation.