Essay: Ethics of CFP/CCW.

[VIP3R 237]

My sister has come to me for help on an essay she has to write for her college class. The topic: Is it ethical for one to carry a concealed firearm? unfortunately she cant just write down her red blooded, gun loving, american opinion. she needs some facts to back up her positive opinion of CFP/CCW.

Any good supportable Facts or Links she can use?

[C4IGrant]

My sister has come to me for help on an essay she has to write for her college class. The topic: Is it ethical for one to carry a concealed firearm? unfortunately she cant just write down her red blooded, gun loving, american opinion. she needs some facts to back up her positive opinion of CFP/CCW.

Any good Facts or Links she can use?

Ethical? So the right to defend yourself is now an ethics question???



C4

[Spiffums]

SOF has an article this month about the Divine right of self defense. It gives a few verses from the bible to state the case then moves on to moral and ethical agruements.

[VIP3R 237]

Ethical? So the right to defend yourself is now an ethics question???



C4

To most of us it isnt a question at all, unfortunately to her possible left wing nut-job of a professor it is.

[jamesavery22]

There are stretches of ethical discussions that can be made about killing someone that is trying to kill you.

Firearms, CCW, any kind of weapons should be left out of that discussion.

A handgun is a tool. A CCW is a license to carry a tool. You don't need a tool to kill anyone.

While carrying a tool is a debatable fashion and cultural choice it is not an ethical one.

[CaptainDooley]

This. Your sister's professor is wanting an essay on the ethics of killing in self defense, CCW does not factor in to this.

Unless of course he thinks that carrying a CCW is making an "ethical" choice to kill someone... I dunno. Seems odd to me.


There are stretches of ethical discussions that can be made about killing someone that is trying to kill you.

Firearms, CCW, any kind of weapons should be left out of that discussion.

A handgun is a tool. A CCW is a license to carry a tool. You don't need a tool to kill anyone.

While carrying a tool is a debatable fashion and cultural choice it is not an ethical one.

[C4IGrant]

To most of us it isnt a question at all, unfortunately to her left wing nut-job of a professor it is.

I understand. I would simply write this:

The second amendment has no ethical issues.


C4

[Redhat]

I agree with the general consensus, CCW has nothing to do with the ethics of having the right of survival.

[travistheone]

double tap

[travistheone]

to give you some information instead of rhetoric...

http://www.johnlott.org/

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/hemenway1.htm

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

Google it, or have her consult research databases provided by her schools library.

[S. Galbraith]

I guess a better question to ask, "Is it ethical to CC if you are not proficent with the weapon, or are in an altered mental state due to alcohol/drugs?" I would never recommend my mother carry a weapon due to her not training with it, nor having any interest in the ins-and-outs of the pistol. She would never carry the pistol in a holster on her person, but would put it carelessly in her purse. Some CCW holders do this(I've checked quite a few during traffic stops).

As far as altered mental state goes, I've dealt with a few shootings involving a CCW holder under the influence. I had one guy completely passed out in the parking lot as he was listening to music in his truck. He had taken off his holster and his weapon was sitting in plain view in his center console.

My point? Carrying a weapon requires a high level of personal responsibility, and unfortunately there are a number of people who are poor candidates for CC.

[gunrunner505]

You can also read up on things here

http://www.gunfacts.info/

While not specific to CCW it does have a lot of good overall facts.

I'm with the crowd, how is self defense an ethical or moral question? If someone's trying to hurt/kill you, then you defend yourself by any
and all means at your disposal

Somewhere along the line we took this great cerebral approach to self defense. Here's an example. I took a class a couple years ago where I got my Florida and Utah non resident CC permits. In that class there was 3 or 4 married couples. The instructor asked those married couples to close their eyes so they could not see eachother and asked them a series of yes or no questions while the rest of us watched. They were to raise their hand if they consented with what the instructor said, no talking by anyone,even the spectators. The questions were as follows:

1) would you kill to protect yourself?
2)would you kill to protect your spouse?
3)would you kill to protect your children?

There were a few others that I don't recall but you would be surprised how many of them did not raise their hands to these 3 questions. How on earth do you think it's ok for some greaseball to kill you and potentially your family because you do nothing? Pacifism only goes so far.

I don't get it. Maybe I'm not smart enough.

[Reagans Rascals]

I actually just did this myself for a graduate class

these are the facts...

5,340,000 violent crimes were committed within the United States during the year of 2008

Of those 5,340,000, 436,000 were visibly armed with a firearm, so roughly 8% of the violent crimes committed within the US during 2008 were committed by those with a firearm

However; based on a survey from 2000, there were on average 989,883 instances in which US citizens used a firearm to defend themselves, family, friends or property...

granted there is an 8 year disparity between the surveys but it is more than logical to assert that on average, guns wielded by responsible citizens save more lives than they take within the US

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp


* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year

liberals and like minded individuals seem to like superfluous numbers as opposed to properly prepared suppositions or factual explanations let alone logical rationalizations... so therefore... the link provided above will present her with all of the facts and statistics she could ever need to validate her argument...

basically in short.... it is unethical to restrict the ability of the populous to defend themselves because the facts say firearms are used for safety more than harm...

[El Cid]

If the professor is a liberal, your sister is in a no-win situation. Liberals will not respond to facts or evidence (especially with regard to firearms)... They are driven by emotion.

That said, I would point out that merely carrying a forearm doesn't mean a person is compelled to use it. It's simply another option available in the face of a threat. It gives the person carrying more/better choices for responding.

She could try going the opposite route and try to defend not carrying using sarcasm or hyperbole.

Finally a good source to bombard the professor with real examples is the NRA.

[Lomshek]

Coming at it from the opposite direction. Is it ethical or moral to ask someone else to carry a gun to protect you if you are not willing to do the same?

[yellowfin]

Maybe take it a different direction, instead of making it a yes/no matter and reason 1, 2, and 3 say why, say this is how I/you reached the decision versus not to do so. What are the ethical considerations you took to where you decided it wasn't an option that outweighed the negatives, but instead a decision you felt satisfied the ethics you live by which NOT being armed would not have been ethical. In short, it's not just OK to carry, it's not OK to not carry.

[VIP3R 237]

Wow thanks for all of the advice so far everyone, this is freaking awesome. My sister says we've pretty much written her paper for her already with all of the good information and ideas.

[ThirdWatcher]

I wonder if it's ethical for a productive person to forfeit their life to a scumbag without a fight.

[Hogsgunwild]

If the professor is a liberal, your sister is in a no-win situation. Liberals will not respond to facts or evidence (especially with regard to firearms)... They are driven by emotion.


I agree as we all know the emotional ****tard Liberals (my mother-in-law) that cannot be swayed with common sense or facts. I truly believe that these hard-core idiots are wired backwards. It's like they actually know what really makes sense and they purposely choose to take the path that leads them to chaos and stupidity in their lives and even screw their own loved ones over in the hopes of attracting attention to themselves and receiving accolades from their fellow ****tards.

Although El Cid is correct in pointing our that Liberals tend to be driven more by emotion, this is also a bit of a generalization as some are capable of thought and reasoning. Perhaps they have just been misguided while surrounded by ****tards for most of their life or just had poor upbringing. I say this because it is always best to try to sway them with reason and facts until you discover that they are beyond hope. At this point, the only things that could sway that type of person to common sense
based reasoning would be to experience a traumatic event like the rape scene in the movie "Death Wish". Afterwards they could correlate that "Gee, my _ _ _ wouldn't be so sore if I had attained the proper firearms training and the proper permit". Even then, a true Liberal will want a firearm for himself but will believe that no-one else should be "allowed".

Seriously, the only thing that can sway some of the hard-core Liberals is if they should ever have a real world encounter such as in being accosted or some form of injustice / violence that clues them in to reality. If you can even get the prof to understand that the government is not responsible for your safety and that even if they were, the response time of law enforcement leaves you helpless more often than not, you would have made progress. Another vote here for Jon Lott's work.

[Heavy Metal]

I once had a woman tell me she could never shoot a rapist.

I told her if she had the opportunity to do so and did not take it, she was then half responsible for every atrocity that rapist comitted for the rest of his life.

That got her thinking.

[oldtexan]

My sister has come to me for help on an essay she has to write for her college class. The topic: Is it ethical for one to carry a concealed firearm? unfortunately she cant just write down her red blooded, gun loving, american opinion. she needs some facts to back up her positive opinion of CFP/CCW.

Any good supportable Facts or Links she can use?

Maybe this link will contain something useful for her.

http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/journal/18_1/symposium/1111.html

I think that in order to argue that carrying a weapon for self-defense is morally justifiable, first she'll need to make the case that self-defense is morally justifiable.

Also try googling "just war theory".

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/justwar.htm This link includes principles of just war. She could use most or all those principles in her case for self-defense itself.

[Rosco Benson]

As to the ethical question; If one chooses to be unarmed and one's plan is to hunker down and call the police, that is unethical.

Asking someone to risk their life to defend yours, because you are unwilling to do so yourself, is unethical.

Rosco

[glocktogo]

Is it ethical to carry auto insurance if you drive a car?

Is it ethical to carry life insurance if others depend on you to be the breadwinner?

Is it ethical to carry homeowners insurance so that you can replace the roof over your family's head in the event of a disaster?

If it's ethical to put safety nets in place to combat financial threats, then why would it be unethical to put safety nets in place to protect your personal safety? The aforementioned statistics amply display the threat as real. Failing to prepare for such a contingency is in my opinion, unethical. Particularly when an effective response plan can be put into place for less than some people pay for 6 months car insurance.

Not all insurance policies are created equal. I carry a high level of insurance to protect my financial well being. Likewise I invest in quality self defense equipment, training and practice to ensure my physical threat mitigation policy is as good as it can practically be.

In everything important you do, it's a good idea to do a risk assessment. Risk is quantified as: Probability X Vulnerability X Consequences = Risk. One popular all-hazards methodology to assess risk is the CARVER2 method. It can be applied in this case as well. CARVER2 stands for:

Criticality
Accessibility
Recoverability
Vulnerability
Effect
Redundancy

Each part is rated on a scale of 0-5. The higher the score, the the more the asset deserves protection

First, you define the asset to be assessed. Are you an asset? Are your loved ones assets? If so, then they're suitable to be assessed for protection.

Criticality. How critical are you? This value is subjective and some would say it's valued based on your overall contribution to society. I'm a selfish bastard and consider myself to be of more value to me an my family than others might. I consider myself to be fairly critical, so let's say that's a 5.

Accessible. How accessible are you to someone that might want to harm you? If you're POTUS or the mayor of NYC, you're probably fairly inaccessible to most threats. If you live in the ghetto, you're very accessible. I live in a suburb of a suburb where crime is low and so is the threat of terrorism. I have an alarm system and a neighborhood watch program. Workplace violence is also unlikely due to security values at my workplace, so for me this would probably be a 3.

Recoverability. This would be difficult if you're injured or seriously debilitated psychologically. Do you have basic or advanced lifesaving skills? That's something to consider. If you're dead, it's a hard 5.

Vulnerability. Unless you have an armed guard 24/7, you're vulnerable, particularly if you haven't trained in threat avoidance, OODA Loop, unarmed and armed response, etc. Let's say you score a 3-4 here.

Effect. What happens to your family if you're seriously debilitated or killed by an attack? Will you have PTSD if you survive? How much will physical reconstruction and rehab cost? Will there be a loss of income? What if you don't recover 100%? Simply stated, the effect could be minimal to outright devastating. It could quite easily be a 5.

Redundancy. This one is scored 1 for full redundancy and 5 for no redundancy.There is only one of me, so this one is obviously a 5.

So on a scale of 0-30, with 0 being significantly low risk and low priority for protection and 30 being extreme risk and extreme priority for protection, I would score 26-27. That means I deserve to be protected. In other words, it would be ethical to implement a protective plan in case of felonious assault.

There's a complete series of threat assessment worksheets available from the Texas Engineering Extension Service (TEEX) as a training partner to DHS/FEMA under the National Preparedness Directorate. CARVER2 is just one of a series that can be used to draw up a comprehensive all-hazards risk model with which to prioritize asset protection resources. In other words, these are the processes used by major corporations, local, state and federal agencies to prioritize our protection, to include protection from human attacks. If one were to use the entire series to fully address the outcomes based effects that local assets provide for your protection (i.e., law enforcement response, workplace security measures, security measures provided by commercial and governmental facilities you might visit, etc.), they would not amount to much asset protection for your life as an individual. On the other hand, a comprehensive personal security plan for you and your family that included arms for defense would be a significant threat mitigation tool.

Using an outcomes based risk model would indicate that CCW is a logical and ethical tool for the task at hand, as opposed to emotion based theory and misapplied statistical values that don't address each asset specifically and individually.

I hope this isn't too "egghead" for your purpose. :)

[okie john]

Here's the outline for your sister's term paper:

I. The right to keep and bear arms is a civil right.
A. It was given to all people by our Creator.
B. It happens to be listed in the Bill of Rights.

II. We don't debate the ethics of civil rights.
A. Civil rights protect all people in this country, even if they're not citizens.
B. We often debate how civil rights are exercised, but the rights themselves are above question.

III. Debating the ethics of the right to keep and bear arms is moral equivalent of debating whether we should make slavery legal again.


Okie John

[Hogsgunwild]

My sister has come to me for help on an essay she has to write for her college class. The topic: Is it ethical for one to carry a concealed firearm? unfortunately she cant just write down her red blooded, gun loving, american opinion. she needs some facts to back up her positive opinion of CFP/CCW.

Any good supportable Facts or Links she can use?

After using the excellent ideas and links that the gentlemen here have already posted, a few examples of some atrocities that have occurred in the past would help to explain that these viscous sub-humans that commit some of these crimes are basically animals that can only be dealt with in one manner: violence.

How about the mom and two daughters out east that were raped and burned to death in their home?

Another wrenching incident that I read about last year on Defensivecarry.com under "Carry & Defensive Scenarios" was one where a young couple on a date came back to their apartment where they were overrun by several attackers and both the male and female were brutally raped, tortured, burned and both sodomized with the leg of a table for hours before being left for dead and crammed in a 55 gallon drum. I don't remember the details very well and cannot even remember if either one of them lived through the ordeal.

A recount of a couple of graphic / horrific cases like these might be a hard case to argue against the rights and ethics involved with honest citizens being able to defend themselves when dealing with these animals. Honestly, most young couples would have been very hard pressed to deal with such sudden and intense violence (even if armed) but we should all have the right to try to be prepared.

[okie john]

How about the mom and two daughters out east that were raped and burned to death in their home?

That would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders


Okie John

[Salamander]

If the professor is a liberal, your sister is in a no-win situation. Liberals will not respond to facts or evidence (especially with regard to firearms)... They are driven by emotion.

.

I think this is an oversimplification, and it isn't likely to be any more true of liberals than it is of conservatives or, for that matter, any other identifiable segment of the population. It also doesn't match my experience.

Last month I was at a gathering which included several self-identified liberals. One of them, a retired California Democratic state legislator, at one point expressed her opposition to guns in general. While I disagree with her, I respect her as an intelligent person, so I politely challenged her viewpoint. This led to a short conversation in which I was able to offer the fairly standard argument that a criminal contemplating capital murder isn't likely to much care if he breaks a few lesser felony laws along the way, so why penalize law abiding citizens, etc. The end result was that she conceded the issue at least deserved more in depth consideration, and I think we will have an opportunity to complete that conversation soon. While she may refute with a few facts or opinions of her own, I believe she will give me a fair and open minded chance to convince her. None of the other liberals in the room challenged my argument either.

I'd also steer away from citing facts offered by an obviously biased advocate such as the NRA. While I'm a member and certainly support their efforts, they are a lobbying organization, that is their job. They will be viewed that way by those on the other side of the issue. Citing hard numbers from an unbiased or less biased source such as standard crime reporting databases is more likely to back up our case without triggering an emotional response from others.

To the OP, I encourage you to take the question seriously. If the prof thinks it's an ethics question, well they're the ones giving the grade so some of the statements above along the lines of why is that ethical arent likely to lead to a good grade, which really isnt fair to the person asking your advice. There's an ethical side to almost any issue if one digs deep enough, and I suggest that any potential use of deadly force, for any reason, has an ethics aspect. In this case to defend or not to defend has serious consequences for all involved. Then there's the responsibility assumed by any CCW holder, a responsibility to be competent and train and act appropriately. Speaking only for myself, I find that its changed my behavior. Just last week I walked away from a provocation that I might have responded to in the past, but now I choose not to risk escalating a purely verbal conflict into something that could become deadly.

There's a great deal to work with here. I need to get back to taking care of my clients for a while but will give this some more thought later.

[RSS1911]

A view from the Torah ...


http://www.davidkopel.org/2A/LawRev/The-Torah-and-Self-defense.pdf

[Noodles]

I think this is an oversimplification, and it isn't likely to be any more true of liberals than it is of conservatives or, for that matter, any other identifiable segment of the population. It also doesn't match my experience.


Oh careful, using logic and not following into my-side-is-always-right-while-the-other-side-is-always-wrong procedure will likely get you burned at the stake for sorcery :) How dare you think for yourself going beyond party labels.

As others said, this is not an ethics question. An ethics question would be, is it alright to shoot someone in an unquestioned self defense situation if you are not legally carrying the gun? Ethics makes a distinction between right and wrong behavior. Carrying a tool is not a specifically questionable behavior.

[jmoney]

shoot me a pm

I wrote my undergraduate thesis on gunlaws, and a large chunk of it dealt with concealed carry.

I can pick apart the paper and put together the sources I used for you, but sadly it probably isn't a good idea to send a copy of that part of my paper.

[AKDoug]

The day I said.. "to have and to hold until death do us part" I became responsible for her and the children we brought into this world. It would be unethical for me to not be prepared to defend them. In my world that preparation includes concealed carry and firearms training.

I also firmly believe that as an employer I have an ethical responsibility to defend my employees to the best of my ability.

[Pi3]

A succinct statement of facts:
http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Personal-Defense-Jeff-Cooper/dp/0873644972#_
Even the Dalai Lama believes in self defense.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/220530/dalai-lamas-army/dave-kopel#

[BillSWPA]

Start by defining the frame of ethical reference. This may sound oversimplistic, but the argument can be won or lost at this stage.

Is the ethical framework based on religion?

If so, point out that self-defense in general and carrying weapons in particular is permitted - and encouraged - by the Bible.

Starting with the Ten Commandments:

“You shall not murder.” Exodus 20:13. Notice that it does not say that we shall not, under any circumstances, kill. It says that we shall not kill with malicious intent. Otherwise, the following would contradict this verse, taken from the casuistic law following the Ten Commandments.

“If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed.” Exodus 22:2-3.

Here was a time of disobedience and disarmament:

“They chose new gods, when there was war in the gates; not a shield or spear was seen among forth thousand in Israel.” Judges 5:8

This was the period between the Israelites entering Canaan and the anointment of the first king, a time when everyone did whatever he wanted. So, we can see that people who are not following God’s principles are led down the erroneous path of disarmament. Contrast with the following from a time of obedience, as Jerusalem was being rebuilt after being conquered by the Babylonians, who themselves were conquered by the Persians:

“Those who built on the wall, and those who carried burdens loaded themselves so that with one hand they worked a construction, and with the other held a weapon. Every one of the builders had his sword girded at his side as he built.” Nehemiah 4:17-18.

From the wisdom of King Solomon:

“A righteous man who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well. Proverbs 25:26.

The pattern continues into the New Testament. Take, for example, the instructions of Jesus sending out his disciples to spread His word:

“Take nothing for your journey except your staff – no bread, no bag, no money in your belts.” Mark 6:8. Throughout the world, the staff became the weapon of choice of the peasant class, who had to appear unarmed to the powers that be, but who needed an effective weapon they could discreetly carry, possibly disguised as a walking stick.

Jesus himself used a weapon when He felt it appropriate, one that He made on the spot:

“In the temple courts He found men selling cattle, sheep, and doves and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So He made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; He scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father’s house into a market!” John 2:14-16 It was common at the time for corrupt priests to find various imperfections in animals offered for sacrifices, making them unsuitable for the purpose, and then to sell the worshiper another animal that the priest would find acceptable. Jesus did not hesitate to make a weapon on the spot to drive off the corrupt merchants.

Not long after this, Jesus instructed His disciples as follows:

“But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag, and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” Luke 22:36. Later, when Jesus was arrested, Peter cut off the high priest’s servant’s ear. Jesus, upon healing the ear, told Peter to “Put your sword away.” John 18:11. Note that Jesus did NOT instruct him to get rid of the sword forever. The sword was to protect Peter’s own life, not to prevent God’s plan for Jesus at a time when fighting would have been suicide.

The whole discussion on "turning the other cheek" in Matthew 5:38-42 (part of the Sermon on the Mount) is often incorrectly used to advocate Christian pacifism. During the very politically incorrect times when the Bible was written, a slap was regarded as an insult, not an assault. Carrying a Roman soldier's pack for two miles when one was all that could legally be demanded, and offering the plaintiff in a suit your cloak as well as your tunic, were intended to be acts of good will towards someone who had shown you evil, thereby embarrassing them into recognizing the goodness and rightness of your ways. A modern day example of this would be the many Christians who have helped Muslims and Hindus who previously persecuted them during a time of natural disaster such as an earthquake or tsunami.

Romans 13, dealing with submission to authorities, is often cited as instructing us to accept persecution. Such a use of this chapter contradicts the qualification contained within the chapter itself: “rulers hold no terror for those who do right.” Romans 13:3. Clearly the chapter contemplates a generally just (but not necessarily perfect) ruler. Extending it to include accepting persecution from an unjust ruler requires ignoring part of what it says.

Much of tha above, but not all of it, comes from Shooting Back: The Right and Duty of Self Defense by Charl Van Wyk, which is the definitive work on the subject of self defense for Christians.

If the frame of reference is other than religion, then we can presume that morality and ethics is the primary basis of law. Whether we are talking about Biblical times, English common law, or modern US law, the right of self-defense is recognized both because it is intuitively correct and has been shown to make people safer.

If the reader prefers a different frame of reference, then on what basis should that frame of reference be accepted?

Next, present the statistics from John Lott, Gary Kleck, and others cited in the above posts. Clearly, carrying guns saves lives.

Lastly, challenge the reader. If you, your family, your friends, or your neighbors are being attacked, is it ethical to stand by and allow the harm to occur? If there is a foreseeable danger, is it ethical to disregard it, and to fail to prepare for it?

[faster200]

I think I can use some of the points listed here if some of my more anti-gun friends bring up the topic of CCW and use of deadly force to defend yourself or loved ones. I think that with a cool head, we can open more peoples eyes, as Salamander did with the California Legislator to more calm, reasonable discussion.

Thanks to the OP for this excellent topic.

[RagweedZulu]

I recently came across this little gem and I think it just plain ol' says it all. Hoorah.

"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. 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 drunken 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.
By Maj. L. Caudill, USMC (Ret).*

[CleverNickname]

I recently came across this little gem and I think it just plain ol' says it all. Hoorah.

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

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2009/05/the_mythical_ma.php

[Pi3]

great essay!
http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/06/17/on-plagiarism/