Interesting (quick) read on CCW.

[Spyder]

Found this on the 50Beowulf.com forum (or was it the CalGuns.net forum?)



The Gun is Civilization by Marko



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.



By Marko

[Red_October_7000]

"An armed society is a polite society" --Robert A. Heinlein.
Truer words were never spoken.

[Rolex]

If no man provides for his own safety, then no man will ever be safe. -Rolex


Good read James. I think I've seen that before. When you get time you should read "why I carry a gun" here:

http://www.theplacewithnoname.com/g/carry.htm

I can relate to everything this guy says, but he articulates it better than I.