The Gun is Civilization

[Anonymous]

Sure, there are primal instincts and values that invoke themselves all in the name of preserving the species but it has also been shown that humans can negate these in place of a new system of value. We are not complete slaves to our biology.

How does this make us slaves to our biology?  Why should this be seen through a dichotomy model of slave or free?

It makes us subject to the whims of the machine we inhabit. As a sentient being, it would be preferable to achieve value and happiness through my own determined will. Not sporadic circumstances.

[epi 1:10,000]

Sure, there are primal instincts and values that invoke themselves all in the name of preserving the species but it has also been shown that humans can negate these in place of a new system of value. We are not complete slaves to our biology.

How does this make us slaves to our biology?  Why should this be seen through a dichotomy model of slave or free?

It makes us subject to the whims of the machine we inhabit. As a sentient being, it would be preferable to achieve value and happiness through my own determined will. Not sporadic circumstances.

I find no evidence for existence of mind body duality but a ton of evidence to the contrary. It is not that it is impossible but that given the current understanding of the human brain and behavior it doesn't appear to be necessary.  I can see how viewing oneself as a slave to the machinery they inhabit could have distressing consequences stemming from cognitive dissidence.  The brain is plastic and can be remodeled within limits with conscious effort and as science and technology advance we learn how to have more control over our minds.

On a side note I find this brief overview of a case study quite amusing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFJPtVRlI64

[MoonShadow]

I moot a counter-argument for the sake of debate. (I'm generally in favour of guns)

I have gun, you have gun. The first to shoot wins. Therefore the first to abandon the reasoned debate for violence wins.

I don't think that's very civilised.

This results in a social event wherein the violently uncivilized are quickly identified by the rest of society, by reason of their victims.  Then, as a method of protecting itself from future violence from such persons, proceed to negate their violent tendencies in an organized fashion.  Some would form posses (or hire rough & tumble types) to capture or kill the offender, as well as send the appropriate warning to others with a violent tendency to squash it or face similar consequences; or the offender will eventually encounter someone who is aware of his history and is faster than he is.  Thus the old adage, 'an armed society is a polite society'.

[eturnerx]

I moot a counter-argument for the sake of debate. (I'm generally in favour of guns)

I have gun, you have gun. The first to shoot wins. Therefore the first to abandon the reasoned debate for violence wins.

I don't think that's very civilised.

This results in a social event wherein the violently uncivilized are quickly identified by the rest of society, by reason of their victims.  Then, as a method of protecting itself from future violence from such persons, proceed to negate their violent tendencies in an organized fashion.  Some would form posses (or hire rough & tumble types) to capture or kill the offender, as well as send the appropriate warning to others with a violent tendency to squash it or face similar consequences; or the offender will eventually encounter someone who is aware of his history and is faster than he is.  Thus the old adage, 'an armed society is a polite society'.

Agreed - but the original victims of the overly-violent are still dead. The posse system was notorious for it's corruptibility. But the tendancy of people to band together for the common good is, I think, a better claim for the basis of civilisation than the gun.

[MoonShadow]

I moot a counter-argument for the sake of debate. (I'm generally in favour of guns)

I have gun, you have gun. The first to shoot wins. Therefore the first to abandon the reasoned debate for violence wins.

I don't think that's very civilised.

This results in a social event wherein the violently uncivilized are quickly identified by the rest of society, by reason of their victims.  Then, as a method of protecting itself from future violence from such persons, proceed to negate their violent tendencies in an organized fashion.  Some would form posses (or hire rough & tumble types) to capture or kill the offender, as well as send the appropriate warning to others with a violent tendency to squash it or face similar consequences; or the offender will eventually encounter someone who is aware of his history and is faster than he is.  Thus the old adage, 'an armed society is a polite society'.

Agreed - but the original victims of the overly-violent are still dead. The posse system was notorious for it's corruptibility. But the tendancy of people to band together for the common good is, I think, a better claim for the basis of civilisation than the gun.

It's in the nature of humans to band together.  That doesn't always result in civilization.  Gangs & mobs are perfect examples of groups of people who band together for a force advantage, and is entirely contradictory to a civilized society.

[MacFall]

Is my point any different if it's mutual lust?  Two people who find each other attractive do not necessarily jump into bed.  Therefore reason overrides lust.

Humans are not animals.  We are capable of choosing not to let our instincts guide us.  If you are going to say "lust", you might as well say "anger", "sadness", "joy", or "envy" as well.  Humans experience all of these things, and for the most part keep them under control.

Relevant quote:

"Man is a being capable of subduing his instincts. A man does not ravish every female that stirs his senses; he does not devour every piece of food that entices him; he does not knock down every fellow he would like to kill . . . man rationalizes the satisfaction of his sexual appetites. Their satisfaction is the outcome of a weighing of pros and cons. Man does not blindly submit to a sexual stimulation like a bull; he refrains from copulation if he deems the costs—the anticipated disadvantages—too high. In this sense we may apply the term moral restraint. "--Ludwig von Mises

[Basiley]

why no good, 'ol Freud. for exampl ?
anyone freaky-addicted/twisted about something specific, eventually try compare/measure something/anything, relatively to it.
liky gun-addicts, for example.

[niemivh]

"The Gun Is Civilization" - 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 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.

Are you equal to this guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vl9FniemlE&feature=related

[bitcredit]

For once I agree with you.

With a 2 BTC handgun a 3-year-old child can easily kill his/her abusive 6' 300 lb father. No other piece of technology brings about this sort of social equality.

[MoonShadow]

For once I agree with you.

With a 2 BTC handgun a 3-year-old child can easily kill his/her abusive 6' 300 lb father. No other piece of technology brings about this sort of social equality.

Oh Noes!  Somebody please think of the children!

Wow, you really went deep to find the straw to stuff this one.

[Basiley]

For once I agree with you.

With a 2 BTC handgun a 3-year-old child can easily kill his/her abusive 6' 300 lb father. No other piece of technology brings about this sort of social equality.

Oh Noes!  Somebody please think of the children!

Wow, you really went deep to find the straw to stuff this one.

sure.
fusion/alloty of Juvenal justice and democracy, driven to extreme.

[IVNAY ALBIN FAHAD 150]

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. 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. So yes, I agree gun is civilization.

[anazinovjeva]

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. 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. So yes, I agree gun is civilization.

I would rather leave weapons in hands of police. I don't want to be shot by a policeman just because he is afraid that I might have a gun.

[coolcoinz]

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. 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. So yes, I agree gun is civilization.

Great explanation.
Guns are tools meant to help us. The main argument of those who are against them is that they give too much power. One moment you're walking down the street and another you're dead after being shot in the head by some maniac. But this can happen anyway. Gons already exist and this maniac will be there whether you like it or not. Carrying a gun will give you the edge if you meet this maniac face to face. If you won't have it what will you do against him? Start running?

[coolcoinz]

I would rather leave weapons in hands of police. I don't want to be shot by a policeman just because he is afraid that I might have a gun.

You would rather, but you don't have that choice. Remember that the policemen are also people. They get depressed, drunk, have their own problems, lose people they love...
Some of them are dirty and might lead double lives. If you allow them to carry weapons there's a chance these weapons will be aimed at you at some point. I think that we either should ban guns completely which is impossible, or allow every adult and sane person to carry.

[BADecker]

"We're Going To Start A Revolution": 500,000 People Storm Washington To Protest Guns

Survivors of the deadly Valentine's Day shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. (along with numerous celebrities such as Oprah, George and Amal Clooney, Steven Spielberg, Chrissy Teigen and a handful of other celebrities) are leading some 500,000 high school students Saturday during the "March for our Lives" anti-gun protest in Washington, DC.

The march was organized to build on the momentum of last week's National School Walkout and put further pressure on lawmakers to ban assault weapons after shooter Nikolas Cruz killed 17 students and faculty with an AR-15.

Participants gathered on Pennsylvania Avenue near the US Capitol on Saturday morning ahead of the march, which was slated to begin at noon.

Live stream: March for Our Lives in Washington, D.C.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIzzuvqCU1Y


Read more at https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-24/what-democracy-looks-500000-people-storm-washington-during-march-our-lives.

[BADecker]

Switzerland has a stunningly high rate of gun ownership...

Switzerland hasn't had a mass shooting since 2001, when a man stormed the local parliament in Zug, killing 14 people and then himself.

The country has about 2 million privately owned guns in a nation of 8.3 million people. In 2016, the country had 47 homicides with firearms. The country's overall murder rate is near zero.

The National Rifle Association often points to Switzerland to argue that more rules on gun ownership aren't necessary. In 2016, the NRA said on its blog that the European country had one of the lowest murder rates in the world while still having millions of privately owned guns and a few hunting weapons that don't even require a permit.

But the Swiss have some specific rules and regulations for gun use.

Read more and click the links at https://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Switzerland-has-a-stunningly-high-rate-of-gun-12709383.php.