An Armed Populace: Guest editorial by Dan Brady

"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 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.

The author makes a good argument in very broad and general terms. I enjoyed the read. However I will restate the opinion of the late, great Col. Jeff Cooper: “Owning a handgun doesn't make you armed any more than owning a piano makes you a musician.” Possession of a loaded weapon does not automatically impart the ability to use it skillfully or the will to dominate a life and death confrontation at any cost.

The author states: “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 field is level only in the respect that the people involved in this encounter have weapons available to them. Surprise, skill and willingness to win are what will determine the outcome of the encounter. This is where the armed citizen bears the responsibly of having not just the tool available to him but developing the mindset, skill and willingness to avoid, evade and withdraw from the situation or employ or refrain from employing the weapon. Which is where we, as trainers come in.

I support the right of all citizens to bear arms and defend themselves from personal attack or governmental tyranny. However, I have been on dozens of gun ranges, in several states and watched both police officers and legally armed citizens blast away at a large paper silhouette, that is standing completely still, 20 feet away in broad daylight with absolutely no fear of being killed or injured and miss multiple times and get one or two good hits on target and then smile about it. The impression I have been left with in these observations is a vast majority of these folks are over armed and under skilled. The comments I hear from these people about their missed shots speak to a need for mindset training. I hear things like…

“Well that one was my warning shot.”

“At least I nicked him.”

“Well that one probably scared him off”

“I might have missed him but I hit his buddy behind him.”

“I only missed 3 out of 15”

These comments are unbelievably common and speak volumes about the lack of awareness of the realities of armed combat. If you’re going to be armed among the populace, please take the time and spend the money to obtain some training from a vetted and experienced trainer.

Dan Brady