"Gun Control"

[Mac]

I stole this from another site, and have never heard it put in a more sensible or logical manner:


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 vali d 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, confrontatio ns 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 sole ly 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)

[Ambessa]

Hallo Mac

Very well put by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Ambessa

[Francois Marais]

Mac

Very well said by that gentleman......but I like this best.....

I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid.

Keep well
Francois

[CHRIS]

oom Mac

het my tyd gevat om die ingels onder knie te kry maar baie goed gestel, kom weer terug na wat ek op bumper sticker gesien het, hoop ek spel alles reg "RATHER HAVE A GUN AND DON,T NEED IT THAN NEED A GUN AND DON,T HAVE IT"

GROETE    CHRIS

NS mac ek het toe bushnell cam gekry v krismis