Another question for gun control proponents

"The Gun Is Civilization"

Interesting take and one you don't hear much. . . . .. .

As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against the
Chicago, IL Gun Ban, I offer you another stellar example of a
letter (written by a Marine) that places the proper
perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society.

Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay 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 drunken 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.

Thank You