Why Gun is Civilization...

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Perhaps a better analogy would be, would I trust a hungry lion to protect me from a rabid dog? I just might. I'm not so naive as to hate all police, or equate them all with such lions, but I'd much rather have that than risk being filled full of lead just for stepping out onto my front porch.

 

[Amaris]

^ Perhaps a better analogy would be, would I trust a hungry lion to protect me from a rabid dog? I just might. I'm not so naive as to hate all police, or equate them all with such lions, but I'd much rather have that than risk being filled full of lead just for stepping out onto my front porch.

If you've watched or read the news, then you know police officers have made that same error. I do not hate police officers, in fact I have several in my immediate family. However, they are human and do make mistakes. How would you feel if you were shot in your own home by the same people who are supposed to "serve and protect"? Would it matter if it were a policeman's gun or a robber's gun? A bullet's a bullet and if it kills you then it doesn't matter, the deed is done.


J.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I do not hate police officers, in fact I have several in my immediate family. However, they are human and do make mistakes.

True, but I refuse to condemn all cops just for the mistakes of a few. And I might add that *everyone* makes mistakes...even regular armed citizens.

How would you feel if you were shot in your own home by the same people who are supposed to "serve and protect"? Would it matter if it were a policeman's gun or a robber's gun? A bullet's a bullet and if it kills you then it doesn't matter, the deed is done.

Also true. But if I ever did something that would cause the police to burst into my home, they might be more likely to shoot me if they knew I was armed and thus more likely to shoot *them*.

 

[Amaris]

I do not hate police officers, in fact I have several in my immediate family. However, they are human and do make mistakes.

True, but I refuse to condemn all cops just for the mistakes of a few. And I might add that *everyone* makes mistakes...even regular armed citizens.

How would you feel if you were shot in your own home by the same people who are supposed to "serve and protect"? Would it matter if it were a policeman's gun or a robber's gun? A bullet's a bullet and if it kills you then it doesn't matter, the deed is done.

Also true. But if I ever did something that would cause the police to burst into my home, they might be more likely to shoot me if they knew I was armed and thus more likely to shoot *them*.

You don't have to do anything. You've heard of no knock warrants? Police getting the wrong address? And you're dead before you hit the ground. That's the police.

J.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Because that's one of the purposes of civilization: To protect its members. That's "Why Gun NOT Civilization."

So you love restricting the freedom of others? What other restrictions would you place upon someone who is doing no one any harm? When did you become the arbiter of rights?

Hello? Are you talking in your sleep? Or was this really directed at me for some reason?

Oh and please cite (philosophers, courts, stand up comedians) who say that is the purpose of civilization and how widely they are accepted?

Er... are you joking? Are you trying to tell me that one of the purposes of civilization is not to protect its members? A society that doesn't protect its citizens is not a society; it's just a bunch of people living near each other. But here's one reference that you might find useful:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[Chaos Descending]

Because only a licensed, legal organization with authority to do so, can ever be trusted to keep the peace and prevent disorder.

What about the fact that they consistently fail to perform either function? What do you tell the victims of rape, for example, who would have gladly defended themselves if able?

 

[Yassim]

Taking the large-scale, social view, guns seem to be a bad idea. There will always be criminals, they will always try to get weapons. Putting more weapons in more people's hands is going to get more weapons used, and more people hurt. Guns also seem uniquely able to hurt unintended targets.

But I understand an individual's desire to protect themselves.

So why is a gun preferable to a Taser or pepper spray, or some other non-lethal protection?

Honestly, my guess is that a gun makes one feel powerful in a way that pepper spray doesn't. A gun is one's personal tool for taking vengeance on someone who dares to attack you - it exacts a bloody, final, satisfying price that a mere electric shock or gagging session cannot.

 

[TheBrew]

Oh and please cite (philosophers, courts, stand up comedians) who say that is the purpose of civilization and how widely they are accepted?

Er... are you joking? Are you trying to tell me that one of the purposes of civilization is not to protect its members? A society that doesn't protect its citizens is not a society; it's just a bunch of people living near each other. But here's one reference that you might find useful:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I'll try one better.

Thomas Hobbes famously called human life in its natural state as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Civilization's purpose is for man to rise above his "natural state." In other words, laws designed to limit our violent self-interest. John Locke clarified this purpose:

[Civilization is imbued with] a right of making laws, with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties for the regulating and preserving of property and of employing the force of the community in the execution of such laws, and in the defence of the commonwealth from foreign injury, and all this only for the public good.

With such a system in place, guns become irrelevant. They are a form of negative consequence for actions that are replaced upon the agreed upon-penalties enacted by the state. In fact, it is more effective then guns. You cannot enact a penalty on someone (i.e. shoot them) when you are dead. Civilization, however, can through its laws and enforcement mechanisms. Guns do not protect you in any meaningful way because you have a justice system in place. It is similar to the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction: civilization is our second-strike capability. Guns, much like nukes, have become a rather irrelevant weapon. Having a gun, therefore, is not only pointless, but goes against the purpose of civilization.

Even just having them to hunt goes against the grain of civilization.

It is always possible to go from the natural to the civilized state, but it is never possible to go from the civilized to the natural state. The reason is that man in a natural state, subsisting by hunting, requires ten times the quantity of land to range over to procure himself sustenance, than would support him in a civilized state, where the earth is cultivated

Unless you are a farmer (or living in wilderness), you have no reason to hunt. In a swift one-two punch, the top two reasons for gun ownership (protection and hunting) have been stripped away. Now it is time to talk about the third argument: The 2nd Amendment. First of all, to assume something is a right because it is written down is foolish. I am sure that if the Bill of Rights had something saying that Abortion is a Right, many people would disagree with that. Rights must be reasoned and justified. Since protection and hunting have been dismissed as reasons for gun ownership, we must talk about the real reason behind the 2nd Amendment, reproduced here:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This, in conjunction with other writings of the founders, has a clear meaning: when Civilization fails, it is up to trained citizens to maintain the order. It is the only piece of the Constitution maintaining the right of rebellion. The freedom of the State is not secure, the People are supposed to secure it themselves. It is a defense mechanism against the state turning into a tyranny. A state cannot credibly threaten a trained and armed citizenry.

Except they now can.

Nobody can effectively challenge the U.S. military. If the citizenry rises up against government injustice, it will quickly be put back down. The most famous example was the U.S. Civil War and that failed. Now there is a simple technology gap. The U.S. military has all the best toys. A .45 will not do much against an armed solider with a semi-automatic and that solider will not do much against a modern tank. Therefore, guns are still largely irrelevant because they cannot effectively perform their third function. In fact, the best way for the citizenry to now threaten the government is through peaceful organization and arming of the minds. An organized and thoughtful citizenry is a much more effective agent of revolution than a sidearm.

In modern Civilization, guns in the hand of the citizenry is an archaic throw-back to when we had no civilization. We are no longer a frontier nation. Education is now the greatest weaponry the citizenry can use. Being active and thoughtful is the only way to now currently fulfill the relevant third function of guns.

That or steal a tank.

 

[FrontLine]

Restricting carry to criminals and police only is not going to deter road rage incidents with guns.

The fewer people who have guns, the less likely it will be that road rage - or indeed any rage - would escalate into gunplay.

Well no shit, and the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. However your design wouldnt do anything to eliminate road rage. Your problem is that you are focusing in on the end result (the firearm) and not the underlying causes (poerty, lack of education, lack of jobs, etc..). Eliminating the guns is like putting your finger in the dike. It is at best a shitty stop gap measure that doesnt address the real problem.

For instance, it would decrease the likelihood that my batshit-insane next door neighbor, who is firmly convinced that anytime I do any sort of work on my house or yard it somehow causes damage to his property, might just decide to get a gun and shoot ME because of this. So I freely admit that self-preservation also colors my attitude on this issue. Fine. I get that.

We all have bat shit crazy neighbors. Has he/she threatened you or acted in a threatening manner? Why have you not called the police / sheriffs department? Whats to keep said batshit crazy neighbor from coming after you with a knife or bat or golf club? Once again you arent thinking it through.

Since I personally have never even held a gun, let alone shot one, I obviously wouldn't last two seconds in a gun battle anyway. So I suppose my death would be one of the added little perks in the kind of society you would advocate that we build. You will forgive me if I don't want to give you that advantage.

So becasue you chose to go one route you want to force all others to follow you? Great. Please let me know if you ever make it into Government.

Because that's one of the purposes of civilization: To protect its members. That's "Why Gun NOT Civilization."

So you love restricting the freedom of others? What other restrictions would you place upon someone who is doing no one any harm? When did you become the arbiter of rights?

Hello? Are you talking in your sleep? Or was this really directed at me for some reason?

Dont selectively parse the quote and it becomes relevant

Oh and please cite (philosophers, courts, stand up comedians) who say that is the purpose of civilization and how widely they are accepted?

Er... are you joking? Are you trying to tell me that one of the purposes of civilization is not to protect its members? A society that doesn't protect its citizens is not a society; it's just a bunch of people living near each other. But here's one reference that you might find useful:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

So do tell me where it says that the government has the duty to do so? All the preamble says is that the government will to its best to allow the citizen to have the opportunity to strike out on their own and that the citizen is still the master and responsible for their own success or failure. The preamble is not a "Hey here is the government teat, suck on it and we'll take care of you from cradle to grave" statement. Funny thing is that the US Supreme Court agrees with me. The citizen is responsible for their own protection from criminals and the state is not.

Taking the large-scale, social view, guns seem to be a bad idea. There will always be criminals, they will always try to get weapons. Putting more weapons in more people's hands is going to get more weapons used, and more people hurt. Guns also seem uniquely able to hurt unintended targets.

False. If what you were saying were true then how do you explain areas in the US that have little restriction on the right to keep and bear arms and their lower rates of crime Vs. municipalities that have higher barriers to firearms ownership and posession, but yet have higher rates of violent crime?

So why is a gun preferable to a Taser or pepper spray, or some other non-lethal protection?

Honestly, my guess is that a gun makes one feel powerful in a way that pepper spray doesn't. A gun is one's personal tool for taking vengeance on someone who dares to attack you - it exacts a bloody, final, satisfying price that a mere electric shock or gagging session cannot.

No the reason that pepper spray and the like are not preferred is because it has proven and documented by multiple uses that those forms of self defense are marginally successful at best. People dont want half assed solutions that might or might not work when their lives or the lives of their loves ones are at stake.

 

[FrontLine]

Nobody can effectively challenge the U.S. military. If the citizenry rises up against government injustice, it will quickly be put back down. The most famous example was the U.S. Civil War and that failed. Now there is a simple technology gap. The U.S. military has all the best toys. A .45 will not do much against an armed solider with a semi-automatic and that solider will not do much against a modern tank. Therefore, guns are still largely irrelevant because they cannot effectively perform their third function. In fact, the best way for the citizenry to now threaten the government is through peaceful organization and arming of the minds. An organized and thoughtful citizenry is a much more effective agent of revolution than a sidearm.

In modern Civilization, guns in the hand of the citizenry is an archaic throw-back to when we had no civilization. We are no longer a frontier nation. Education is now the greatest weaponry the citizenry can use. Being active and thoughtful is the only way to now currently fulfill the relevant third function of guns.

That or steal a tank.

Oh my ass. You can eaisly stand up against a trained military and win with rudimentary tactics and weapons. For exampled Afghanistan, Vietnam, and almost Iraq. The only reason we didnt blow Iraq is the fact that we got the people on our side. If that doesnt happen then yes, in a domestic situation the US military can be defeated unless they start bombing every thing in sight. Ive trained for insurgency / counter insugency. Its not hard at all to defeat a modern military force UNLESS 1) You lose the support of the people or 2) that military force wants to kill everything in its path.

On the rest, despite what they have said (and yes it s a mea cupla to you, good job) the reality of this nation per case law and statutes and the constitutiosn (this does not apply to other nations) is that you are responsble for your own personal protection and have the ability to excercise it (thank God / Allah / Buddah / FSM).

 

[flux_29]

Agreed. If wearing a gun makes him unafraid, then he's a foolish person. False bravado is going to get him shot.

J.

How so? 99.9% people who go through the process to LEGALLY carry a gun will go through their entire lives and never have a problem with it.

But it does show in america's gun crime

USA has a population of about 300 million with firearm deaths at about 30,000 per year (2004 results) were as Britain has a rate of about 100 deaths per year (Pop': 60 million)

 

[Surefire]

So why is a gun preferable to a Taser or pepper spray, or some other non-lethal protection?

Because pepper spray is often ineffective. The effective rate stopping power ranges from 50-75%. It gets worse if someone is on drugs or in "pit bull" mode.

Pepper spray also fails miserably in windy conditions (it can come back and hurt the good guy), and fails if the bad guy armors himself with a ski mask.

Tasers are almost worthless, you only have 1 or 2 shots depending on model, so if you fail to stop the attacker(S) immediately, you're in deep trouble.


Sure, if someone invents something like a phaser that can temporarily knock someout out 95% of the time with a single shot, a lethal weapon would not be needed.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Because that's one of the purposes of civilization: To protect its members. That's "Why Gun NOT Civilization."

So you love restricting the freedom of others? What other restrictions would you place upon someone who is doing no one any harm? When did you become the arbiter of rights?

Hello? Are you talking in your sleep? Or was this really directed at me for some reason?

Dont selectively parse the quote and it becomes relevant

Now I'm even more confused. I didn't selectively parse anything. At least I didn't think so. Unless your belief that a society shouldn't protect its own people is related to a bizarre string of statements accusing me of being a Right Wing extremist? You need to clarify this before I have any clue how to respond-- it looks like a complete non-sequitur to me.

Oh and please cite (philosophers, courts, stand up comedians) who say that is the purpose of civilization and how widely they are accepted?

Er... are you joking? Are you trying to tell me that one of the purposes of civilization is not to protect its members? A society that doesn't protect its citizens is not a society; it's just a bunch of people living near each other. But here's one reference that you might find useful:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

So do tell me where it says that the government has the duty to do so? All the preamble says is that the government will to its best to allow the citizen to have the opportunity to strike out on their own and that the citizen is still the master and responsible for their own success or failure. The preamble is not a "Hey here is the government teat, suck on it and we'll take care of you from cradle to grave" statement. Funny thing is that the US Supreme Court agrees with me. The citizen is responsible for their own protection from criminals and the state is not.

The Supreme Court outlawed the Police, FBI, et al? I see in the Preamble that two of the purposes of our specific civilization is to "promote domestic tranquility" and "provide for the common defence." I would hardly describe law enforcement as "sucking on the common teat."

Why do you hate America?

 

[Surefire]

We all have bat shit crazy neighbors. Has he/she threatened you or acted in a threatening manner? Why have you not called the police / sheriffs department? Whats to keep said batshit crazy neighbor from coming after you with a knife or bat or golf club? Once again you arent thinking it through.

For that matter, what will prevent the crazy neighbor from getting a gun?

Nothing. One can buy a stolen Saturday Night Special on the street for $5. If one wants something nicer, there are plenty of criminal thugs that will be obliged to sell a stolen Sig Sauer for around $25-50.

Gun control only hurts the law abiding citizen. There are hundreds of thousands of stolen guns on the street, and they are often cheaper to buy than new guns.

Preventing the law abiding citizen from using a gun is only making the criminal's job easier.

So becasue you chose to go one route you want to force all others to follow you? Great. Please let me know if you ever make it into Government.

This seems to be a common practice among parts of the population. The scary thing is that they are gaining in numbers.

 

[LaxScrutiny]

We all have bat shit crazy neighbors. Has he/she threatened you or acted in a threatening manner? Why have you not called the police / sheriffs department? Whats to keep said batshit crazy neighbor from coming after you with a knife or bat or golf club? Once again you arent thinking it through.

For that matter, what will prevent the crazy neighbor from getting a gun?

Nothing. One can buy a stolen Saturday Night Special on the street for $5. If one wants something nicer, there are plenty of criminal thugs that will be obliged to sell a stolen Sig Sauer for around $25-50.

Gun control only hurts the law abiding citizen. There are hundreds of thousands of stolen guns on the street, and they are often cheaper to buy than new guns.

Preventing the law abiding citizen from using a gun is only making the criminal's job easier.

That's only possible because such weapons are legal, mass produced and mass distributed.

If legal weapons were 3 feet long with fixed magazines, you wouldn't have Saturday night specials being sold out of the trunk of your brother-in-law's car outside nightclubs.

 

[Chaos Descending]

RJDiogenes, are you aware that as per Warren vs. DC, the SCOTUS held that law enforcement agencies are under no obligation to protect individuals?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

We all have bat shit crazy neighbors. Has he/she threatened you or acted in a threatening manner?

He came over one day and banged on my door and yelled at me. I considered that to be rather threatening.

Why have you not called the police / sheriffs department?

Oh, so NOW we're advocating going to the police? How quickly this thread can shift its tracks.

Whats to keep said batshit crazy neighbor from coming after you with a knife or bat or golf club?

Nothing, I admit. But a gun is more instantly lethal than any of those things. And much harder to defend oneself against.

So becasue you chose to go one route you want to force all others to follow you?

There seems to be a lot of that in this thread.

 

[RJDiogenes]

RJDiogenes, are you aware that as per Warren vs. DC, the SCOTUS held that law enforcement agencies are under no obligation to protect individuals?

I didn't until I just investigated it. So the gun culture is now using the the obscene dismissal of a negligence suit against police whose incompetence resulted in the kidnapping, rape and beatings-- fourteen hours worth-- of three women to promote their agenda of a Wild West America? Charming.

 

[TheBrew]

Nobody can effectively challenge the U.S. military. If the citizenry rises up against government injustice, it will quickly be put back down. The most famous example was the U.S. Civil War and that failed. Now there is a simple technology gap. The U.S. military has all the best toys. A .45 will not do much against an armed solider with a semi-automatic and that solider will not do much against a modern tank. Therefore, guns are still largely irrelevant because they cannot effectively perform their third function. In fact, the best way for the citizenry to now threaten the government is through peaceful organization and arming of the minds. An organized and thoughtful citizenry is a much more effective agent of revolution than a sidearm.

In modern Civilization, guns in the hand of the citizenry is an archaic throw-back to when we had no civilization. We are no longer a frontier nation. Education is now the greatest weaponry the citizenry can use. Being active and thoughtful is the only way to now currently fulfill the relevant third function of guns.

That or steal a tank.

Oh my ass. You can eaisly stand up against a trained military and win with rudimentary tactics and weapons. For exampled Afghanistan, Vietnam, and almost Iraq. The only reason we didnt blow Iraq is the fact that we got the people on our side. If that doesnt happen then yes, in a domestic situation the US military can be defeated unless they start bombing every thing in sight. Ive trained for insurgency / counter insugency. Its not hard at all to defeat a modern military force UNLESS 1) You lose the support of the people or 2) that military force wants to kill everything in its path.

On the rest, despite what they have said (and yes it s a mea cupla to you, good job) the reality of this nation per case law and statutes and the constitutiosn (this does not apply to other nations) is that you are responsble for your own personal protection and have the ability to excercise it (thank God / Allah / Buddah / FSM).

1) Do you think that citizens could wage a successful open military battle against the US military and force a surrender?

2) I wasn't questioning the legal status of guns. Just making a few philosophical points. As long as you are a responsible gun owner, I don't really care if you carry.

 

[Chaos Descending]

RJDiogenes, are you aware that as per Warren vs. DC, the SCOTUS held that law enforcement agencies are under no obligation to protect individuals?

I didn't until I just investigated it. So the gun culture is now using the the obscene dismissal of a negligence suit against police whose incompetence resulted in the kidnapping, rape and beatings-- fourteen hours worth-- of three women to promote their agenda of a Wild West America? Charming.

So you think that it's only a trivial matter that the higher court in the land says that the police effectively have no obligation to anyone to do their job?