Results 11 to 20 of 44
-
22-02-2013, 22:09 #11
- Join Date
- Mar 2012
- Location
- Rustenburg/Sun city, North west
- Age
- 44
- Posts
- 910
Re: Argument for Gun Ownership - A letter sent via e-mail
Excellent letter checkmate!
-
23-02-2013, 07:09 #12
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Posts
- 1,966
Re: Argument for Gun Ownership - A letter sent via e-mail
Brilliant checkmate, well written!
-
23-02-2013, 07:23 #13
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Age
- 37
- Posts
- 737
Re: Argument for Gun Ownership - A letter sent via e-mail
Well-done guys!
Last edited by GVC86; 23-02-2013 at 07:25. Reason: spelling
-
23-02-2013, 15:38 #14
- Join Date
- May 2011
- Location
- GP, but in my mind, hunting for Ivory in the 1930's
- Age
- 43
- Posts
- 6,255
Re: Argument for Gun Ownership - A letter sent via e-mail
Nice letter, what media house was that sent to?
-
27-02-2013, 08:12 #15
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Location
- Not where I want to be..
- Posts
- 12,596
The Gun is Civilization.
I do not know if this has been post before and if it has been posted then it is imo worthwhile to post again for those who may have missed it the first time.
"The Gun Is Civilization"
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 an
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.
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally
armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
-
27-02-2013, 08:13 #16
- Join Date
- Sep 2011
- Location
- Strand
- Age
- 38
- Posts
- 10,408
Re: The Gun is Civilization.
Mooi!
-
27-02-2013, 08:24 #17
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Location
- Pretoria
- Age
- 55
- Posts
- 559
Re: The Gun is Civilization.
Can this please be sent to the media, crimefreesa, violence against woman, GFSA, etc and LULU Xhingwala?
-
27-02-2013, 08:41 #18
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Location
- Pretoria
- Age
- 55
- Posts
- 559
Re: The Gun is Civilization.
I sent this to GFSA on their email as found on their website:
"Dear GFSA,
I support your idea of trying to curb the gun deaths in SA, but I am perturbed by some of the analogies and conclusions on your website.
I attach an article I found regarding firearm ownership and would appreciate your views and reply thereto before I go ahead with any contribution or donation to your organisation.
Yours Sincerely
Bertie"
Do not worry, I am not going to make or ever considered making any contribution or donations to GFSA.
-
27-02-2013, 13:01 #19
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Location
- Pretoria
- Age
- 55
- Posts
- 559
Re: The Gun is Civilization.
Got this resonse from GFSA:
"Dear Bertie
Thank you for your email, regarding your request for GFSA’s views on the article attached. In fact research shows that gun ownership doesn’t lead to more respect for others e.g.: · Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively: see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16434012
· Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without: see: http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/american-...ublic%2BHealth
· In US states with laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides: http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdf Further, the article you attached was not in fact written by Maj. L. Caudill. I look forward to your contribution to Gun Free South Africa, and thus civilisation by reducing gun death an injury in South Africa - our bank details can be found on our website. Yours Sincerely Claire"
and my reply:
"
Dear Claire,
Thank you for your prompt response.
I am now more confused. The article attached does not speak to "respect", but to control from one person over another. Is that control not what is the foundation for violence, especially violence against woman in SA?
From the research I have done in SA, all points to the fact that the object by which a crime is committed is not relevant, but the prevailing pshycosis of the offender as well as many other factors which contribute to the perpetuation of violence as alluded to by The Human Rights Commission Enquiry research after 1994.
Should there not be more focus on why crime is committed than on the instrument used to commit crime?
I understand your explanation of the research as quoted in your email, but is it the law abiding citizen who commits the crime (and I am referring only to gun crimes) or is it the violent criminal element who are responsible for the overwhelming majority of gun crimes? I have done research on this issue too, where do the criminal get the guns? Unlicensed firearms are freely available in SA. I can today go and purchase an AK47 of someone in the street(Hillbrow, Soshanguve, Atteridgeville,Tembisa and Marabastad in PTA) for approx R500. Where do these firearms come from, research shows that it comes from Mozambique, Zimbabwe and ANC arms caches never declared or handed in after the new dispensation came into effect. Then there is the Military and Police who sell and "misplace" firearms. The minority are stolen from licensed firearm owners. Would you then not agree that your research is most probably biased?
In our great country all is possible, we showed the world that after 1994, but it appears to me that your organisation is misinforming the public and in so doing are indirectly responsible for the lives and safety of innocent citizens you so misinform based on your biased interpretations of legislation and research.
I therefore once again kindly ask for you or your organisation, who wants my support and money, to clarify your position based on the content of the article provided to you. In other words, how do you suggest I prevent unlawful control being exercised over me or my family in SA?
I sincerely do hope you are able to alleviate my concerns and not make yourself or your organisation further guilty of endangerment. Bear in mind that your organisation has publicly confessed to stand by these remarks and ideals as contained in your website and thus should be held accountable for that or the actions which can be directly attributed to your public comments.
"All that is required for Evil to prevail, is for good men to do nothing".
Yours Sincerely"
-
27-02-2013, 13:18 #20
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Posts
- 13,531
Re: The Gun is Civilization.
Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively:
Similar Threads
-
settle an R1 argument
By sakush in forum General Firearm DiscussionReplies: 74Last Post: 23-07-2015, 07:25 -
Argument settled
By Clint357 in forum Small TalkReplies: 17Last Post: 07-01-2015, 20:27 -
Argument for more guns
By spiggs in forum General DiscussionReplies: 12Last Post: 21-07-2012, 23:46 -
Letter of permission to transfer ownership - Contents ?
By Apoc999 in forum Firearm Licensing and Re-licensingReplies: 5Last Post: 27-02-2012, 11:52
Bookmarks