[Mtbkski]

The following is very well said, and perhaps should be
disseminated to those who don't get it...
>
> WHY THE GUN IS CIVILIZATION
> By Marko Kloos
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> 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 gay 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, 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.