Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Entry 158: A Takedown of THE BEST WORDED PRO-GUN ARGUMENT [SOMEBODY ON FACEBOOK] HAS EVER READ

I have a Facebook friend who's really keen on putting up posts about government tyranny and the welfare state and all that type of tea party-esque jazz, and lately, since it's been a hot topic, he's really been hammering out the pro-gun posts and links.  Sometimes I have a look at what he puts up, just because, why not, and today I came across the gem below.  It was under the header: THE BEST WORDED PRO-GUN ARGUMENT I HAVE EVER READ.  I've copied it verbatim, and I've given my comments in bold.  (By the way, I'm going to be sexist and assume the author is male, even though he never says that, because I'm pretty sure he is.)


"The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

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.

The author's starting point -- the premise from which his later arguments emanate.  It's laid out neatly and concisely, and it's obviously horseshit.  "Reason or force, that's it"? Those are the only two ways we have as humans to get somebody to do what we want?  What about manipulation?  What about shame or guilt or coercion or addiction or love or loyalty?  The reason-or-force premise is embarrassingly simpleminded.  So already the author is on such weak, infantile footing there's really no need to continue, but let's do so anyway, just for kicks.   

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.

Watch out Zeno, you've got nothing on this guy.

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.

Unless I, say, hit you in the back of your head and steal your gun.  Or maybe I just shoot you at random when you are walking down the street minding your own business, because I'm crazy.  Who says I want to deal with you at all?  Maybe I'm just nuts.  Where does that fit into your reason-or-force model?

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.

I don't know what type of gun this guy is talking about, but from what I know about guns they actually have to be removed from their holsters, aimed, and fired to work properly.  The last story I heard from somebody about getting mugged (sadly, it happens too often in certain parts of D.C.), the muggers walked up next to him on a crowded street, socked him nearly unconscious, rifled through his pockets, and snatched his girlfriend's purse, all in about 15 seconds.  Having a gun wouldn't have mattered one bit (other than some muggers would now have his gun), because they never would've had a chance to use it.  What, are we all supposed to walk around with our guns drawn like a S.W.A.T. team?  Should I invest in one of those gun-slinging contraptions like DeNiro had in "Taxi Driver"?  This "equal footing" thing is gun-nut fantasy. 

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.

Dude, muggings aren't duels.  Each gentlemen doesn't get ten paces before he turns and fires.  Muggers aren't going to slap you in the face with a glove, and make an honorable announcement that they shall mug you henceforth at high noon a fortnight from the morrow.  If one creeps up on you and puts a gun to your head, how are you even going to deploy your gun without getting shot?  "Uh... this gun shaped thing is actually my wallet... I'm just getting your money... so don't shoot."  If you have a gun, you basically have to anticipate who the bad guys are (assuming you see them coming at all) and be ready to fire at the drop of a hat.  A lot can go wrong with that, just ask Trayvon Martin... oh wait, never mind, you can't.

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.

Force monopoly?  We do have such things in this nation called police forces.  I haven't heard one person make the argument that policemen should give up their guns.  Actually, nobody is even really arguing private citizens should give up their guns, just certain types of guns that aren't even practical for self-defense.  Mostly what gun-control types want is to try to ensure that guns stay out of the hands of people who are too crazy, or criminal, or stupid to have them.  (And also to demonstrate that most gun zealots are not the profound thinkers and champions of liberty they think they are... Maybe that's just what I want.)

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.

Again with the level field nonsense.  A gun does not work "solely in favor of the weaker defender".  It works in the favor of the person who is willing and able to use it first.  A drawn gun could be used for protection, sure, but it could also unnecessarily escalate a situation and lead to a fatal accident.  If all criminals remember to wear their "I'm a Criminal" buttons that day, then deciding when to use a gun is easy, but when they forget, it's a decision I'd prefer be made by a trained professional.  Like this author, actually, given his military background, I don't have a problem with him having guns.  (Writing about having guns on the other hand...)    

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.

It's a civilized act in a society comprised of completely rational individual units (even the criminal units are rational) all of whom fit nicely into a category of good (those who persuade through logic) or bad (those who persuade through force).  Unfortunately, our society, the one in which we all actually live, is a bit more nuanced and subtle than that.  Gun nuts aren't good with nuance and subtlety. 

Ugh... pure tripe.  This is my new gold standard for the "a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like" category.  It is decidedly not the best worded pro-gun argument I've ever read.

4 comments:

  1. I've seen this article making the rounds but I stopped reading it shortly after his whole reason-force premise.

    This just basically comes down to the NRA's crazy "good guy" stopping a "bad guy" argument. Its romantic and idealistic thinking. Something most kids grow out of when they hit their teens and for good reason. "Good" guys and "Bad" guys are notions best left to movies and Saturday morning cartoons. The real, actual world is more more complex. Which is a hard argument to make on twitter and facebook.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Another idiotic, zombie argument that came up recently at a congressional hearing is that gun control laws -- even basic, commonsense ones like universal background checks -- don't work because criminals will find a way to circumvent them. Uh... isn't this true of ANY law?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." HA! I will be stealing that line.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This person is too stupid to even waste my time with.

    ReplyDelete