A good argument to open carry!!

I was emailed this last night and wanted to share. I don't know if this is already posted anywhere or not. But I think this person makes a good point as to why people should open carry if they can.

"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 an
[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.

This is always mis-attributed.

This is the original blog entry by Marko Kloos.

It is an awesome document; I find it disappointing that someone along the way (not the OP) "stole" it from the original author by changing the attribution.

O2

In another forum I frequent, just last week someone posted it saying that the good Major Caudill had given that speech to the Supreme Court. The Major definitely gets around. I remember when Marko posted about Ted Nugent even using the essay in one of his books and attributing it to the fictitious Major. Although he seems to take it all some some amusement, Marko was intending to contact the publisher or something about it. Don't know what ever became of that.

Well whomever the original author is I believe that person has it right. You don't want to force someone on equal or higher footing then you, unless you're looking to lose. No criminal wants to face a challenge. A BG can still reason with themselves as to weather or not they want what he or she is after. But it's up to us to only give them a single option and not either option.

I don't think the author is correct in all their assertions.

For one thing having a firearm on their person does not give equality, or level the playing field. It gives a very slight edge which might not otherwise exist. It still requires a mindset (to contend) and a sense of awareness, and an understanding of how to fight with a firearm.

Allowing the weak, vulnerable, aged or disadvantaged to be armed gives them a sense of empowerment, which is really important and which can bleed over into their other attitudes and activities (feeling safer going out at night, even if it is a bit of an illusion). They are -doing- something about their disadvantage IRT the predators out there.

In addition, if you interview criminals as to what might dissuade them from robbing someone, when shown pictures of various types, they do not hesitate to choose a large formidable looking person. Perhaps they are going on other cues of vulnerability. When they want your money or your life, they become single minded.

Here's an essay worth reading which describes these things I assert above. Be sure and look through the whole thread as there are other comments which are apropos.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1285487_Street_robberies_and_you___The_Basics.html&page=1

sawah said:

I don't think the author is correct in all their assertions.

For one thing having a firearm on their person does not give equality, or level the playing field. It gives a very slight edge which might not otherwise exist. It still requires a mindset (to contend) and a sense of awareness, and an understanding of how to fight with a firearm.

Click to expand...

I agree. Having a firearm carried on one's person does not make one armed any more than carring a guitar makes one a musician.

JamesB said:

Having a firearm carried on one's person does not make one armed any more than carring a guitar makes one a musician.

Click to expand...

You're most certainly armed. What remains to be seen is whether or not you're effective.

JamesB said:

I agree. Having a firearm carried on one's person does not make one armed any more than carring a guitar makes one a musician.

Click to expand...

Slight correction to add to since9's - it doesn't make you a fighter. It's 'Mindset', 'Tactics' and 'Technique'. If you can operate the firearm you have minimal technique. If you have a desire to protect your loved ones you have Mindset. Technique is learned and must be practiced to be retained.

That was the longest paragraph I ever attempted to read.

MilProGuy said:

That was the longest paragraph I ever attempted to read.

Click to expand...

Agreed!