THE BEST STATED PRO-GUN ARGUMENT I HAVE EVER READ
As the Supreme Court heard arguments for and against the ChicagoGun Ban, this man (a Former Marine) authored a stellar perspective on what firearms bring to civilized society. Please pay particular attention to the last two paragraphs of this profoundly eloquent letter.
"The Gun Is Civilization"
by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two means to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you must either convince me by reason or force me to do your bidding under threat of harm. Every human interaction, without exception, falls into one of these two categories. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people would exclusively interact through reason as force has no place as valid social interaction. But the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as that 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 means 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 lone guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes all disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun also to be the source of "bad force." These people think we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because they believe a firearm only makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is true only if the mugger's potential victims are disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat. The argument has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of firearms are asking only 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 make a successful living only in a society where the state has granted him a monopoly of force.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would result only in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party that inflicts overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones do not constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out 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 by another, 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 social equation... and that's why carrying a gun is both a civilized and a civilizing act.
So, the most civil societies are those where all citizens are equally armed and can be persuaded only through reason, never by force.