There is a very active debate right now, especially but not exclusively in the US, about access to arms, and specifically firearms.

There are a number of distinct positions, with a fair bit of opinion at the extremes - ban guns, versus let them buy anything they want to have, with a significant middle ground - some arms are justified,  but others are bad, or arms are ok in some places and bad in others.

While this is often argued on the basis of political principle (eg, constitutional rights, natural rights) or on the basis of sheer practicality (I don't want to be shot by accident, I don't want anyone around me to have guns, I want to be able to protect myself, guns cause murder, guns prevent rape and murder), there seems to be some part of the discussion that isn't happening.

Perhaps that is just me, but it seems like the philosophical and practical meet at some level, more abstract than individual anecdotal cases, and less legalistic than arguments about constitutional rights. Now that I have been reminded, I remember some of these points, but they don[t seem to be getting equal time with 'my god we've got to stop this' and 'I have a right to defend myself with my chosen guns'.

--------------------------------------------
Here is the article that set me thinking:
--------------------------------------------

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.

............Please go to link for entire article.

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

– Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am sure that some gun owners will be thinking 'that was obvious enough to not need saying' while some anti-gun activists will be thinking 'that's more gun nonsense, and I don't want to hear it'.

Still, in some ways, it does seem to represent a reasoned approach to discussing some of the fundamental societal issues, and might be worth thinking about.

There are other thoughts as well. Consider that the rise of parliamentary government and the beginnings of individual rights began when the English yeoman was armed with a weapon that could defeat kill any knight. This may not be a coincidence, and does bear some thought about the relationships between weapons, force, reason, rights, and justice.

Edit: added link and property rights.

I do have to agree with mountain_man on this one.  Because the very obvious fact is that guns were invented with the express purpose of either wounding or killing another living being, human or nonhuman.

There will always be firearms, but their usage can be controlled.  For example, Japan has very, very few gun-related firearms related deaths each year.  Part of this is because it is so difficult to own a gun in Japan, but also because of obvious cultural differences between Japan and the U.S.

Because of all the restrictions, Americans would think of Japan as a police state.

www.theatlantic.com/international/archiv...

Laws reflect the culture.

Dec 25, 2012 -- 11:54PM, solfeggio wrote:

There will always be firearms, but their usage can be controlled.  For example, Japan has very, very few gun-related firearms related deaths each year.  Part of this is because it is so difficult to own a gun in Japan, but also because of obvious cultural differences between Japan and the U.S.

Because of all the restrictions, Americans would think of Japan as a police state.

I'm an American and I wouldn't.  I think too many Americans are self-willed, overopinionated, undergoverned brats who need to be taken in hand. I'm sick of them.

Dec 26, 2012 -- 2:26AM, shmuelgoldstein wrote:

When a person is "forced" to pay a traffic ticket, is a gun being used? Not exactly. There *is* a threat of imprisonment, and a threat of thugs showing up at your door and taking you away, by force of arms if necessary. So, perhaps the threat of arms is inherent in every traffic ticket and every time someone loses even a civil case in court.

Precisely. One thing I did learn, long ago in either history or sociology, was that civilization is dependent upon force and the threat of force, quite literally. Before industrialization, cities were founded and their specialist classes were supported by 'excess production' by peasants, which was collected as taxes. In some cases the taxes were collected by the army, in some cases the army backed up the tax collectors... but in either case the peasants were compelled to give over a significant portion of their food to support the specialists - kings, astrologers, priests, soldiers, etc. without whom the cities and city-states would not exist. Indeed, it is likely that the peasants really did not consider their excess production excess at all. Doubtless some of them suffered due to the forced extraction of wealth in the form of food, animals, and other forms of wealth. Civilization has always depended on the gun or its military predecessors - the bow, sword, and spear.

Reason or force; how about wisdom to walk away.

Reason/ing most of the time develops into argumet, argument fires up volence.

Wisdom will teach when reasoning will work when it is useless.

People today are too stressed, or on drugs or alcohol or just simply not coping; and if you are none of these things and they are, be kind and walk away and let them sort it out for themselves.