I don’t know if this is a real letter-to-the-editor or if Major Caudill really exists, but this is a very strong statement in favor of the civilizing impact of firearms. And since I like to share good things that arrive in my inbox, it’s now yours to share.
I recall hearing saying that went something like this: “God made men, but Sam Colt made them equal.” I probably butchered that quote, but it captures the essence of this letter.
=====================
Letter to the Editor 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 forcing 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.)
Dan, I’ve just seen a post attributing this article on MARCH 23, 2007 to MARKO KLOOS in a post: “why the gun is civilization.”
See
https://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/
You might want to update the attribution if it is valid.
[…] enable the weak and defenseless to protect themselves, as explained in this letter-to-the-editor. I don’t know if the letter is real, but the points it makes are […]
It would be fantastic if you would credit the correct author and link to the original version of this essay. Marko Kloos wrote this:
http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/
I find it so funny how those who would seek to take guns and impose such radical gun control laws do not do their homework. Prime example is chicago… leads the nation in gun control but yet it has the highest number of crime. I wonder why????
[…] but not least, this rumored letter-to-the-editor is worth reading, and I like to think my interview on NRA-TV is a good way to spend a few […]
Try as I might I could not decide what RM was trying to say but I deduced that he is against the “right to carry”. In Texas, after taking the test, one can qualify for a license to carry a gun, which I did in my 70s.. Although I no longer carry one I do have one by my bedside, cocked and ready to fire.
@RM “Fact: Societies with higher armament rates and weaker or corrupt social control by central governments correlate to higher crime and murder rates.”
You insist this is fact, but is it? Switzerland has a gun in every house, yet is one of the safest and most prosperous places in the world….
Are you confounding gun ownership with corrupt or weak government? Perhaps your problem is you don’t know how to think rationally, so you prefer to ignore such facts and believe rather than thinking for yourself.
Could that be why you argue so vehemently and illogically against Maj. L. Caudill’s persuasive reasoning?
[…] I suspect these two anecdotes/stories are urban legends, but this interview with a general and this letter-to-the-editor are very much worth reading…and sharing. Rate this: Share […]
To RM,
I find your REDNECK comment racist and insulting.
Your ignorance is showing.
V/R,
Rick
To RM:
I will not try to pick through your spaghetti argument. I will, however, tell you a story. When I was 21, my girlfriend was 18 and pregnant. As the realization of my new responsibilities came down on me harder and more pressing on a daily basis, I was forced to recognize that simply running away from trouble (as I had done for years growing up in rough neighborhoods) was simply no longer an option. I bought a pistol to protect the ones I loved, then went through countless sleepless nights thinking about when I would be personally justified in using deadly force. (I am more concerned about my own safety than I am about the legalities or statistics.) I have to admit, it was better than the thought of being defenseless, but I recognized it as yet another serious responsibility. During the last trimester of my girlfriend’s pregnancy, we went for a walk around the block after dinner. I don’t know why I decided to take my pistol, but I did. Nearly home 20 minutes later–a mere 60-75 feet from the front door of our own residence–we were surrounded by a group of drunken thugs that were confident I had damaged their apparently-undamaged car. Out came the pistol, back went the slide, and pointed at the closest thug’s face it was. Their fear was palpable as they went from threatening to docile in about .25 seconds. Mind you, I was [and still am] about 155 pounds total if I wear big boots. I will leave the thugs sizes to your own imagination, though I don’t feel it is relevant. I am convinced that my 19 year old son is here today, and I’m still in one piece, because of my decision to buy, keep, carry, and threaten 6-7 predators with a firearm. They definitely TRIED to strike during my moment of weakness. Hence, the value of concealed carry.
Now you, RM.
I find your rant senseless, but your superiority complex shines like a quarter from the bottom of a sewer. It’s just this California city boy’s opinion, but I have found rednecks–a term you use insultingly–to be the most open, tolerant, sincere, and civil people in America. On the flip side, I see arrogance, entitlement, and haughtiness like yours in every attack that happens in America, from racial violence to gang beatings to just plain old personal attacks. Your disdain for freedom is your truest fault, and a leftist it makes you. (That’s worse than any insult you used, as far as I’m concerned.) Furthermore, you did nothing more than justify violent crime by saying others are foolish to try and resist. “Accept your miserable fate” is what I garner from your post. I’ll accept my miserable fate when I’ve done everything in my power to defend the innocent, my friends, and family and have spent every last round of ammo, and have nearly bled out. Self-defense is a human right, as evidenced by my very ability to wield a stick, form a fist, or kick my leg.
I’m curious, RM: when would you say violence is justified? After your kid’s eyeball is gouged out? What if there’s still no mortal threat? What if the gangbanger says he only wants your money and not your life? Do you owe him the benefit of the doubt?
It’s probably good that we don’t know your name. I believe the just punishment for willful blindness is the very path you’ve chosen, and therefore probably would not defend you if I could. I would enjoy seeing you to be a very example of your own prophecy, and use it as a teachable moment for my own kids, whom will never be taught to cower in fear. Your language is that of slaves and tyrants, RM, two species that have no business in a free society. I can only hope you see the error of your own ways and the good fortune of my own decision to pack a pistol that evening, though I will not be holding my breath.
I thank God you are a minority among free people.
David Lachman-Right on! Good answer! It is a Proven FACT that where there are armed citizens allowed to legally carry weapons, the Crime Rate is reduced an Average of 26%. It is also a fact that an Armed populace is the best defense against a Tyrannical and Oppressive Government, of which we are Dangerously close to in America, not to mention the ever increasing threat of Muslims taking over the country, apparently, with the blessings of our Idiot Imposter in the White House! God bless America!
In response to “RM”, whose incoherent jumble of a rant is (unintentionally) a cogent argument for at least minimal restrictions as to a ‘license to carry’: the mentally deficient and psychotic ‘Uncle Harry’ need either strict family control or some sort of societal control. RM may well fall within one of these categories. [His incomplete and run-on sentences, as well as his non sequiturs indicate at minimum an educational deficiency, if not a mental one.]
However, most (including those RM condescendingly calls ‘red necks’) have a basic rationality which precludes the “mayhem and death” RM envisages. It is not only not “Fact” that “Societies with higher armament rates … correlate to higher crime and murder rates,” it is false to the point that it demonstrates either RM’s complete ignorance or his utter disdain for truth. It’s common knowledge that the Swiss are one of the most (if not the most) heavily armed societies on earth, yet have very low crime and murder rates.
It’s not possible to discern what RM means by “corrupt social control by central governments” or “depravity of the masses,” but he seems to envisage a societal situation in which he, and others like-minded, takes to the streets and tries to wrest from others that which he aspires to acquire (as opposed to earn by working). While this is a long way from the point of view presented in the article/ letter, it is nevertheless a cogent reason why reasonable people (including 80 year old retirees) would wish to be armed.
[…] answer: “Part of the answer is to have the ability to protect ourselves and our families. As explained here, firearms are the ultimate guarantor of civilization.” Here’s a thought experiment to drive the […]
This ‘pro’ stance on fire arms described here ASSUMES some rationality based on a well-balanced individual navigating through a society on an intellectually chosen peaceful path. The evaluative process made to arrive at this conclusion is juvenile at best. We all have heard this a trillion times before. It’s the same mentality as the red neck roofer or dry-waller strutting around with a couple of Pit Bulls with a ‘look-at-me-don’t-screw-with-me neon-halo’ around their head. The real issue here is that those same people will have the same rights as you, as you say, ‘making everyone equal’. The ‘but’ here is the part you left out of the equation. Do you think that, in the course of ‘protecting yourself’ the scenario is going to take the format of the old gentleman’s duel? Any predator evaluates the vulnerability of its prey, except the mentally deficient, who, according to Darwinism, get eaten and those are the people you envision your battle is with which, does have some limited merit but disarmament has more. Any predator with some higher level of functionality will seek out your faults and strike at your moment of weakness. The point: to arm everybody to the teeth results in a dramatic rise of mayhem and death. And you, your arrogant psychological demeanour speaks that you would be one of the most vulnerable.
Fact: Societies with higher armament rates and weaker or corrupt social control by central governments correlate to higher crime and murder rates. As well, more than any other factor, depravity of the masses, usually leads to civil confrontation. People need to eat and in the process, aspire to higher level of acquisition. It’s universal. From the “weapons of mass destruction” lie and the corresponding theft of oil and taxpayers’ money with the threat of “if your not for us, you’re against us” retaliation, you maybe have a point. Especially, when wall street steals 22 trillion tax payers dollar and bails AIG, the insurance company, of 185 billion and our son’s blood seeps into the sand in Iraq all in the name of a balance sheet maybe more will consider to just point and shoot to get ‘their share’ too.
[…] of the answer is to have the ability to protect ourselves and our families. As explained here, firearms are the ultimate guarantor of […]
[…] of the answer is to have the ability to protect ourselves and our families. As explained here, firearms are the ultimate guarantor of […]
[…] of the answer is to have the ability to protect ourselves and our families. As explained here, firearms are the ultimate guarantor of […]
[…] Caudill has reappeared (CLICK LINK HERE)and once again I jump into the Munchkin Wrangler […]
Greetings!
Properly attributed to Marko Kloos as documented here:
http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/
and here:
http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/essays/
AND the subject of much hilarity and hijinks over the years.
If someone named Tam arrives with many cryptic comments just jump into the nearest foxhole and wait for the bombardment to stop.
In Liberty,
JJH
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Diego Evan Amorocho, Tim Quinn. Tim Quinn said: Firearms and Civilization: I don’t know if this is a real letter-to-the-editor or if Major Caudill really exists… http://bit.ly/gutohK […]