Rather than add this to RK's post on.....

[Uncle Bill]

...how Obama intends to pursue his gun control agenda, I figure insight like this needs to stand on it's own. This should be a precursor to that NE legislator that is proposing a law making gun ownership mandatory, even to the degree of fining those that don't.

Semper Fi, Major.

UB



"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 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 Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

[BrianW]

The Mythical Major Caudill

Interesting story here. The essay appeared in the September 2007 edition of Dillon’s Blue Press. (the reloading press company)

By late 2007, the article is on other internet locations, but attributed to an apparently mythical "Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)." How or why it wound up attributed to that name is unknown.

Not arguing the point of the post, UB, i agree wholeheartedly.
But how it got around is a story unto itself apparently.

[Gerry Clinchy]

I believe Switzerland has been cited before on other threads.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...in_Switzerland

Gun politics in Switzerland are unique in Europe. The personal weapon of militia is kept at home as part of the military obligations. Switzerland has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world.[1] In recent times political opposition has expressed a desire for tighter gun regulations.[2]

The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20 in the Rekrutenschule (German for "recruit school"), the initial boot camp, after which Swiss men remain part of the "militia" in reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers).

Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home with a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued personal ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm), which is sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use takes place.[3] The ammunition are intended for use while traveling to the army barracks in case of invasion.

When their period of service has ended, militiamen have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment. In this case of retention, the rifle is sent to the weapons factory where the fully automatic function is removed; the rifle is then returned to the discharged owner. The rifle is then a semi-automatic or self-loading rifle.

The government sponsors training with rifles and shooting in competitions for interested adolescents, both male and female.

The sale of ammunition – including Gw Pat.90 rounds for army-issue assault rifles – is subsidized by the Swiss government and made available at the many shooting ranges patronized by both private citizens and members of the militia.

There is a regulatory requirement that ammunition sold at ranges must be used there. However, pro-gun advocates David Kopel and Stephen D'Andrilli claim "the rule is barely known and almost never obeyed".[3]

Indeed, while the sale of non-hunting ammunition is registered at the dealer if purchased at a private store, ammunition purchased at a shooting range is not. Non-military ammunition for long-gun hunting and .22 Long Rifle (LR) ammo is not subsidized, but is not subject to sales controls.[3]

The Swiss Army maintains tight adherence to high standards of lawful military conduct. In 2005, for example, when the Swiss prosecuted recruits who had reenacted the torture scenes of Abu Ghraib, one of the charges was improper use of service weapons.[4]

In 2001 Swiss citizen Friedrich Leibacher entered a regional Swiss parliament building and used a rifle to kill 14 people before killing himself.[5] Strangely enough, this wasn't his personal army issue weapon, but a private version of the army issue rifle. He committed suicide with a pistol and used an improvised explosive device.[6]

Gun crime
Further information: Gun violence and Crime in Switzerland
Police statistics for the year 2006[12] records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed weapons). As of 2007, Switzerland had a population of about 7,600,000. This would put the rate of killings or attempted killings with firearms at about one for every quarter million residents yearly. This represents a decline of aggravated assaults involving firearms since the early 1990s. The majority of gun crimes involving domestic violence are perpetrated with army ordnance weapons, while the majority of gun crime outside the domestic sphere involves illegally held firearms.[13]

For a comparison of homicides in various countries, separating gun deaths from other means:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

[depittydawg]

I believe Switzerland has been cited before on other threads.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...in_Switzerland





For a comparison of homicides in various countries, separating gun deaths from other means:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

Responsible ownership and use of firearms. I don't think leaders in our government has less in mind for an objective. Controlling who has access to guns, or more clearly, attempting to restrict access to those who have no business owning them, should not restrict those who rightfully have legimate uses for possessing them. I support gun control that accomplishes the above criteria.

[Uncle Bill]

Responsible ownership and use of firearms. I don't think leaders in our government has less in mind for an objective. Controlling who has access to guns, or more clearly, attempting to restrict access to those who have no business owning them, should not restrict those who rightfully have legimate uses for possessing them. I support gun control that accomplishes the above criteria.

You really do live in the correct state for your beliefs.

If ever there was a human illustration for the addage: "Ignorance is bliss", you certainly qualify as poster boy. Congratulations...you've achieved the epitome. Must be fun to be as 'blissfull' and happy as you seem to be.

UB

[road kill]

Responsible ownership and use of firearms. I don't think leaders in our government has less in mind for an objective. Controlling who has access to guns, or more clearly, attempting to restrict access to those who have no business owning them, should not restrict those who rightfully have legimate uses for possessing them. I support gun control that accomplishes the above criteria.

Those laws are already in place.

Enforce them.

The secular progressives want an unarmed citizenry.


RK

[Cody Covey]

Responsible ownership and use of firearms. I don't think leaders in our government has less in mind for an objective. Controlling who has access to guns, or more clearly, attempting to restrict access to those who have no business owning them, should not restrict those who rightfully have legimate uses for possessing them. I support gun control that accomplishes the above criteria.

Please state what you believe should be illegal that isn't currently~