Carrying a gun: a civilized act
- Thread starter 9mm4545
- Start date
- Status
Yesterday, 08:24 AM #1
9mm4545 wrote:
A spiritual path teaches that all human behavior comes from either love, or fear. Reason, or Force seems to me to be secondary responses to love, or fear.
Jesus, among other Prophets, seems to me to have come to teach love as the way to conduct oneself.
Unfortunately, I see the gun at your side as a warning that you are not open to reasonable communications, but rather prepared to force your will (even if that will is merely to be left alone) upon another.
If I then slip into my fear state, as you have entered yours, I will naturally look for a bigger, badder gun with which to deal with you.
What I read on these boards is all that prevents this is a greater fear of a higher power ... no not God, but the courts and lawyers. There is constant warning about the cost associated with drawing, let alone using, one's gun.
I guess it just saddens me that in my lifetime I've witnessed a return to such a culture.
9mm4545 wrote:
A spiritual path teaches that all human behavior comes from either love, or fear. Reason, or Force seems to me to be secondary responses to love, or fear.
Jesus, among other Prophets, seems to me to have come to teach love as the way to conduct oneself.
Unfortunately, I see the gun at your side as a warning that you are not open to reasonable communications, but rather prepared to force your will (even if that will is merely to be left alone) upon another.
If I then slip into my fear state, as you have entered yours, I will naturally look for a bigger, badder gun with which to deal with you.
What I read on these boards is all that prevents this is a greater fear of a higher power ... no not God, but the courts and lawyers. There is constant warning about the cost associated with drawing, let alone using, one's gun.
I guess it just saddens me that in my lifetime I've witnessed a return to such a culture.
TallPine
Member
In that case, leaving me alone just might be the wisest course of action.
BruceRDucer
Member
That's quite clear.
Of course, had I written that here, the topic would have been shut down, or I'd have been hit with a stick and called Spanky
.
Of course, had I written that here, the topic would have been shut down, or I'd have been hit with a stick and called Spanky
.Artiz
Member
That is great writing.
If more people were thinking this way, oh lord life would be sooo less frustrating.
If more people were thinking this way, oh lord life would be sooo less frustrating.
smartshooter.45
Member
"Force Equalizer" +1
JesseL
Member
Hook686 said:
Why would you be so scared of someone who just wants to be left alone that you would go out of your way to overpower them and deny their wish to be left alone? What could make you so eager to bother them?
This line of reasoning doesn't add up.
neviander
Member
Say what? If you think that a civilized person confronted by a crackhead or a deranged teen wanting to bash their head against the pavement isn't "open to reasonable communications"...well I guess you'd be right. Please tell me you're not boiling down self defense to not being "open to reasonable communications".
Jesus was love in the flesh, but he didn't tell his disciples to find a couple of swords to take on their journey just so they could fillet some fish.
JImbothefiveth
Member
I don't have it yet, but I want to get my CCW permit in case I am put in a situation where I have to use it or I will die.
I won't use it to force others to leave me alone. I don't even intend to let anyone see it.
If I'm walking down the sidewalk, and an ederly woman asks me for food, because she can't afford any, you bet I'll help feed her. I want it in case I am forced to use it, to protect my life, where I can't run away, or fight the attacker off unarmed.
And can anyone remember the verse in the Bible where it says to "gather swords"? I think it was something like mathew 22:36. (You also have to be careful not to "live by the gun", but I don't think carrying it in case someone tries to kill you is living by it.)
I've noticed this too, people saying stuff like "shoot to kill".(You shoot to stop the attacker, so you can't be killed. After that, you want them to live, ot at least I do.)
M203Sniper
member
Which is why you'll never SEE the gun at my side.
Concealed means concealed; armed means always.
BruceRDucer
Member
Well, has he read "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" yet?
Here's a link.
/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Day_in_the_Life_of_Ivan_Denisovich
And then there's the Armenian Massacre:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
barry960
Member
First, like others already stated, you aren't going to see mine because it's concealed. But secondly, you seem to be implying that when you see someone armed, you take it as a challenge and seek to win their 'challenge'? Are you 'challenged' every time you see a uniformed duty police officer in that case? I've heard this line of thinking from people before, who come to their conclusions based on a mindset of fear and willful ignorance, and not based on real incidents. Maybe in 17th century Europe with rapiers there were people like that, based on movies and literature, and that's where this kind of thinking came from?
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
Let's give credit where credit is due, folks...
9mm4545, I hope you advise your friend that the source of the "Civilizing" essay has been misattributed and in fact was written by Marko Kloos, the Munchkin Wrangler, and has been around for a couple of years. I have copy of it on my wall at work.
el tigre offered the following link to objections by the Munchkin Wranger, who originally wrote that beautifully done essay:
http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2008/04/13/front-sight-plagiarizing/
I am quoting a portion of the link posted above by el tigre, which contains the following words from the Munchkin Wrangler:
I am repeating the correction as to who originally wrote that essay here because I am sure many people skip over posts and might have missed the fact that the Munchkin Wrangler was the original author.
And yes, darn it, it does make a difference who wrote it!
Now there may have been a misunderstanding or something --perhaps the good Major forwarded a copy to Dr. Piazza, and the good Dr. may have thought the Major had written it. These things do happen.
However, I think it is important for people to know who the true author was, and that's why I am repeating the correction here.
Especially, as I say, a lot of people skip over posts and may have missed it.
See also:
http://www.corneredcat.com/Ethics/civilization.aspx
9mm4545, I hope you advise your friend that the source of the "Civilizing" essay has been misattributed and in fact was written by Marko Kloos, the Munchkin Wrangler, and has been around for a couple of years. I have copy of it on my wall at work.
el tigre offered the following link to objections by the Munchkin Wranger, who originally wrote that beautifully done essay:
http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2008/04/13/front-sight-plagiarizing/
I am quoting a portion of the link posted above by el tigre, which contains the following words from the Munchkin Wrangler:
I am repeating the correction as to who originally wrote that essay here because I am sure many people skip over posts and might have missed the fact that the Munchkin Wrangler was the original author.
And yes, darn it, it does make a difference who wrote it!
Now there may have been a misunderstanding or something --perhaps the good Major forwarded a copy to Dr. Piazza, and the good Dr. may have thought the Major had written it. These things do happen.
However, I think it is important for people to know who the true author was, and that's why I am repeating the correction here.
Especially, as I say, a lot of people skip over posts and may have missed it.
See also:
http://www.corneredcat.com/Ethics/civilization.aspx
Last edited:
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
Sounds like a judicial problem, not a gun problem. And I think you were the one who made it a gun problem. OK, this is your hypothetical example, but, hypothetically, you may have been trespassing on the other party's rights for all those years.
Just hypothetically, even though I realize that you picked about the worst hypothetical example possible.
Suppose the person ("me," that is, the hypothetical "you" in your tale) was 6'9" and 285 lb. and well-muscled.
But without a gun.
What then?
Hypothetically.
Your first mistake.
Any other mistakes? Anyone? Mr. Buehller?
Last edited:
JesseL
Member
Hook686 said:
In addition to the excellent points by 230RN, I've got to wonder how you would react if the other guy was a apparently unarmed, and totally non-threatening - but he still wasn't cooperative? Would you use force to eject him?
Furthermore, what would posses you to assume anyone is unarmed? It's wise to never assume that anyone is unarmed, always do your best to deal reasonably and rationally with people (armed or not), and never initiate force.
DeathByCactus
Member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 245
Copied and noted. Thanks for the great article!
Hook686 said:
The problem is that you're reading stuff into the act of carrying a gun that isn't necessarily the case. How do you know someone isn't open to reasonable communication? You're correct that carrying a gun indicates a willingness to exert one's will through force, but it doesn't say anything about the conditions under which this will occur. As people have been noting, their conditions (which are also the only legally justifiable ones) are the use of coercive, lethal force against them by another. In other words, when someone uses a gun in self-defense, it's to stop another's attempt to force his will on another. Sure, you could argue that it's basically the same mechanism at work (forcing one's will "even if that will is merely to be left alone"), but cutting an act off from its context to such an extent robs it of any meaning; it's like claiming that surgery is mutilation of a helpless, unconscious person: You'd be technically correct, but missing the point entirely.
Then there's the assumption that carrying a gun is a fear-motivated decision, which seems to stem from your response to gun-carrying by others. It's natural to assume that others act for the same reason as we do, but it's incumbent on us to make sure that our reasoning is logical, lest our models of others' behavior become nonsensical. As a rule of thumb, if your explanation for why people behave a certain way is predicated on those people being insane, irrational, or very stupid, there's a chance that your own perception of the issue is clouded.
In defense of the above assertion: "I will naturally look for a bigger, badder gun..." I see talk about a "bigger gun" being a response to someone's gun, but that just doesn't make any sense. The size of a firearm has little direct bearing on its utility in countering another person's gun. It's an indicator that you're not getting past the appearance of things.
Finally, there's the troubling bit: "I will naturally look for a bigger, badder gun with which to deal with you." It's understandable that you're seeing force as a means to deal with a threat of force; however, shouldn't this apply in reverse to the hypothetical person with a gun who prompted this behavior, even if his decision to carry the gun is just so he can be prepared for unanticipated violence against him? I guess what makes your stance troubling is that it implies you see forcing one's will "even if that will is merely to be left alone" as universally unreasonable. It's quite possible to posit circumstances where being left alone is unreasonable ("Leave me alone so that I can set fire to this building!"), but others seems to make sense ("Quit trying to stab me and leave me alone!").
Ske1etor
Member
When faced with the question of why I carry or a person making assumptions of why someone would carry a firearm I politely respond with "I carry a firearm because I never want to become a defenseless victim and I never want to be put in the situation where I cannot help a defenseless victim because I was not prepared."
- Status
