“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.” – Marko Kloos in Why the Gun is Civilization [at munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com] [h/t RW]
Not the best place to carry but it is a cool location
Don’t slip on the ice.
Ground vs steel vs fresh.
Fresh will always lose
Flesh
Stupid autocorrect
Can I get some flied lice?
“Civilized” doesn’t seem to be quite the right word. I’d characterize it as the “responsible” thing to do.
However, I would agree with the author that the carrying of sidearms does contribute to the civility of a community.
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. Robert A. Heinlein
I still day the Japanese pioneered this behavior; where a perceived insult could result in sword slinging and the nobility had the right to slay the peasantry at will for the lamest of reasons as acceptable right. There’s a reason why the Japanese are so polite and go through great lengths to say the word “no” without saying “no.”
Agreed, but would there be civilization without responsibilities?
What is the fundamental meaning of the word civilization?
Rand:
The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships—thus establishing the principle that if men wish to deal with one another, they may do so only by means of reason: by discussion, persuasion and voluntary, uncoerced agreement.
The necessary consequence of man’s right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.
The carrying of a weapon is not necessarily a civilized act. The opposition to the unethical use of force is. So the carrying of a weapon is the civil or responsible thing to do only if one’s intent and actions are civil. I should have qualified my statement as well.
Furthermore:
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his actions with his life. Politeness is the sin qua non of civilization.” Robert A. Heinlein, “Beyond This Horizon”
Is that one of those godawful Blackhawk nylon holsters? A civilized gun owner would never willingly choose such a disgracefully terrible holster.
They work, they are cheep, and you can slip them into your transport container in case something happens to your regular carry holster.
Remove the belt hook and use the remaining holster in lieu of your gun rug/zip case when transporting several pistols in your range bag. Saves a lot of space and provides reasonable scuff protection for the pistols.
Worst. Picture. Ever.
Got on here to say the exact same thing. Forget the bad idea of SOB carry. Forget that if you wear such a huge cover garment that OWB carry is preferable. That holster is Walmart quality at best. That clip is plastic, flimsy and useless. Doesn’t the XD whatever come with a carry package? And not only is the lefty carrying SOB but the SOB has the clip on the other side of the belt loop so he would have to reach even farther. Senseless stock photos irritate the crap out of me. It’s worse than movies when they cock the hammer on a GLOCK. Saw that recently in Dead Pool. Even my wife laughed at that.
Well let’s all fuss, then. *I* say he’s NOT a lefty, if he was he should be accustomed to raising his cover garment with his right hand, not his shooting hand. Thus, he is a righty and the holster clip is on the correct side of the belt loop. So there!
I agree with the post but I carry a Black Holster on my side. I like it. Seems like some of the remarks here are NOT civil or responsible. Cm on… starting to sound like the Presidential race ….. both parties.
By the way, I am responsible with or without your favorite holster or gun.
Nuff said.
I do not like absolutist arguments either. The argument for or against CCWing with a nylon holster cannot be made without considering the firearm being carried. I do not do nylon because it is not safe with the striker fired firearms I CCW with. If I CCW’d one of my double action pistols with a heavy trigger pull, I may consider nylon if it had a good thumb snap or retention.
A nylon holster is not the problem. I have a Blackhawk slide holster with the retention strap installed that I converted into a drop leg rig for my Glock 19. Nylon protects the trigger as well as anything. The problem with that particular holster in the picture is the weak clip and I don’t think the holster is nylon anyway. That looks like the first holster I picked up for my wife’s Nano. She purse carried and when she got comfortable with on body carried, I trashed that POS holster and got something substantial. The holster in that picture will come off our belt when you draw. Not good and worth pointing out.
And what the other side will hear is:
“*mumble* I carry a gun, *mumble* because I am looking for a fight, *mumble*. The gun at my side means that I cannot be *mumble* persuaded. I *mumble* carry it because I’m afraid, *mumble* because it enables me to *mumble* limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, *mumble* by force. *mumble* *mumble* *mumble*”
Substitute ellipses for the *mumbles* and you’ll have the MSM quote.
Nailed it.
Sad but true. They will snivel and whine and twist until they are the ones who need and armed citizen.
He’s also a great author. His angles of attack series is great military sci fi.
“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.”
Except that it does. That’s an observed fact and I dare anyone to deny it. We can ridicule, rationalize, and reject it; but we can’t really refute what is what is.. We already know that some people are afraid of guns themselves and the potential violence their use can inflict. Misplaced emotions? Unfocused fears? Irrational expectations? Perhaps, all.
However, the fact remains that some people will remove themselves from the scene, whether a conversation or store or zoo, or more entrenched relationships like family, place of employment, or state of residence, because of differences over firearms. Even POTG in here occasionally brag about choosing spouses, friends, employers and so forth on the basis of firearms affinity. Well, some people may be choosing you on the same basis. After all, you say you’re not looking for a fight, but armed with a firearm against unarmed others, who’s to say you won’t change your mind? Ask yourself this: would you disarm today in the face of a heavily armed, peace-espousing government, on just the hope that it never changes its mind? Some people view armed individuals in the same light.
Now, in the truest sense, just the existence of a firearm does not itself force anyone to do anything. Nevertheless, there are predetermined reactions one can expect from certain people in the mere presence of a firearm. They’re not forced, exactly, but what’s coming is unavoidable given their preferences, perceptions, and, ok, let’s toss in prejudices, too. Consider it similar to the reactions and revulsion some might have were you to go about your routine business in public in the nude. Strictly speaking, no one is forcing that person not to interact with you, not to stand before your in line, nor sit beside you on the bus, but c’mon….
Given those, it’d be disingenuous to deny that the presence of a firearm does indeed limit whether and how some people will interact with you. Perhaps you decide those trade-offs are worth and good riddance to the antis? Fair enough. That’s my take, too, but that is a trade-off to make and that’s part of the truth about guns.
Very true. There are limitations, whether we like them or not.
But seriously, the whole original “quote” itself is rather stale copypasta. I have seen it almost verbatim in a dozen different sources – including the comments on TTAG.
It’s a nice sentiment, it’s a good canned response to people who don’t know/understand guns. Whoever Marko Kloos is, he didn’t come up with it – he merely regurgitated it.
There is some history to this one and Kloos did write it – and it was plagiarized apparently by a Major L.Caudill, USMC, whoever that is. Discussion of this:
https://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/06/17/on-plagiarism/
You’re right, Kloos does have an early attribution. That said, I’m going to offer it’s a rather logical argument that many have had, phrased rather closely, long prior 2007.
The verbiage of ‘I’m looking to avoid a fight’, ‘want to be left alone’, ‘it enables me to be unafraid’, were standard conversation points back in the mid-90s among those who were talking about ccw with non-believers. That he may have heard all those, and been the first to coalesce them into the above-captioned quote has some small chance of being true. But I really doubt it.
Very thoughtful comment.
Not to stir the pot or incense anyone, but this is a valid and critical view when pondering the values of concealed carry versus open carry. It also speaks to the civility of discourse when talking on the subject of firearms face-to-face with people who are anti or even ambivalent to the Second Amendment. I hope we don’t all act as “blowhard” out in our real lives as we do in these comments sections. I myself have had to learn to stick with quoting facts in a simple & civil manner when faced with ignorance or even the ill informed. The truth is that we’re NOT going to change someone’s mind who has already decided to only drink the civil disarmament Kool-aid. But the larger truth is, your words, actions, & attitude when facing someone who could be shown the logic (& potentially agree with it) can negatively affect that person’s acceptance of your message.
Food for thought.
“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.” (Or reject interacting with me out of irrational fear or prejudice)
“Except that it does. That’s an observed fact and I dare anyone to deny it. We can ridicule, rationalize, and reject it; but we can’t really refute what is what is.”
Why would I deny it? I accept it and actually welcome it. The way you right about this J-H, it almost sounds like you find this ‘Trade off” as if it’s a negative, rather than a plus, to carrying a firearm. This particular example you give I find interesting: “Consider it similar to the reactions and revulsion some might have were you to go about your routine business in public in the nude” Why would you give this as an example? You are giving an example of those that carry a firearm as if we are the ones that are violating some public taboo, and not those that have rejected the carrying of a firearm as traditional american right and duty.
To me, there is no “trade off” to carrying a firearm. Most people put on a mask that hides what they really think and feel about most things. Carrying a firearm, especially OC, weeds out the sheep from the goats.
Are people frightened of being free? Are they frightened of being a mature and responsible adult? Are they fully accepting of the agents of the state carrying of firearms, (OC or CC), but are frightened of a citizen doing the same? Do they reject as an American the responsibility and duty of being the first line of defense against enemies foreign and domestic? Particularly in the OC of a firearm, it will show who those people are.
So does the carrying of a firearm, particularly the OC of firearm, have a limiting effect upon those that would use physical force against me, or that are frightened by the responsibility of being a free american citizen? Of course. And it’s a limiting effect that I welcome.
I tend to think people own their own actions, and their own reactions. Whatever happened to discretion, judgment, and proportionality?
Someone gets all wee-wee-ed up over seeing a gun, has a petulant frenzy, hyperventilates, and leaves in a huff … I think the huff-ee owns some of that. Getting wee-wee-ed up about some gun’s holstered existence seems a excessive.
The inconvenient facts are that guns can provide dangerous means to knuckleheads, thugs, terrorists, and crazies. (<- That list may contain redundancies.) And, in the hands of not-those, a gun is an expensive doorstop, or a nerdy hobby object. The problem is figuring out who's a bonehead and who isn't.
The thing is we're at risk from boneheads via all the great powers that people wield every day. I'll believe the pearl-(handled-revolver)-clutching is reason, not a fetish when the gun-adverse get just as wee-wee-ed up by someone about to drive angry.
I have to disagree with you.
Spouses and friends aside, if you are out in the world and dealing with strangers . . . how do they even know you have a gun unless you are carrying it openly and thus intimidating people? I’ve carried daily for many years, and have had more than one of the usual little disagreements with people in stores or parking lots or on the road, and never once has any of them ever known I was carrying or removed themselves from my presence because I had a gun.
Simply, they never knew, and in each case we resolved our differences, or parted company with no violence. But, I knew I was armed and acted responsibly to ensure things didn’t escalate. For all I knew, some of them may have been armed as well, but none of us ever escalated the minor exchanges.
As I said, unless you are carrying openly people will never know you have a gun. And that is as it should be. I don;t carry to intimidate anyone, I carry so that if someone attempts to attack me I can defend myself.
So why do you equate OC with intimidating people Mikial? If I show myself to be a polite, respectful and courteous person, that is OC’ing, why would anyone other than a criminal, or someone frightened to be a free and mature adult, be intimidated by my OC’ing?
When I see a cop OC’ing a firearm, I think to myself, there’s a good guy. When I see another citizen OC’ing a firearm, I think to myself, there’s a good guy, (because criminals would CC).
So the only people “intimidated” by my OC’ing, are the human predators, or subjects that have rejected all aspects of of being a mature responsible adult, and the duties and responsibilities of an American citizen.
I actually agree with you on that point. If someone is intimidated by an armed citizen who would probably risk themselves to protect them, they need an attitude adjustment.
I guess what I was trying to get across was that even though I was armed, it had no affect on the situation because they didn’t know i was armed and I was able to resolve the situation without them ever finding out and no one was intimidated or hurt.
When you negotiate from a position of confidence and strength you are much more capable of resolving things to a positive outcome. I don’t need people to know I am carrying a gun to accomplish that.
Marko Kloos? Author of the “Frontlines” series of sci-fi military action novels? What a treat to find out that an author you like isn’t a typical anti-gun buffoon.
“One of us. One of us.” 😉
Dean Koontz is also a big gun rights supporter. Best pro gun scene in any best seller I’ve read is in “Frankenstein: Lost Souls.” You’ll know it when you see it.
A crap-ton of authors are right-wing, especially in science-fiction, and of that, especially military science-fiction. Books being one of the last bastions of entertainment not thoroughly dominated by the political Left, however now the Left has infiltrated the rankings of that too and have been trying to shut out right-leaning science-fiction authors: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/04/28/hugo-awards-science-fiction-reading-politics-larry-correia-column/8282843/
The quote is only part of the story. I went to the WordPress link. Everything leading up to the quoted section is just as important, just as insightful, just as useful for POTG. Check it out.
A lot of the anti-gun mindset is grounded in a total misunderstanding of guns in society. For example, some say that people using guns for self-defense is barbaric, that there is a reason why we have courts and the legal system, etc…what they are confusing is the difference between taking the law into one’s own hands and engaging in self-defense. If someone rapes your wife and you decide you are going to go hunt the guy down and shoot him or torture him, that is taking the law into your hands and not what you are supposed to do in such a situation (not saying emotionally you shouldn’t want to, but doing such an act would not be self-defense). At that point, it is for law enforcement, the courts, etc…to handle. On the other hand, if you catch the guy in the act of raping your wife, you have every right to blow him away as an act of self-defense.
Another misconception is when gun controllers say that gun rights people must be fearful of society and their fellow human, because they feel the need or desire to be armed. But usually it’s the inverse and opposite: the gun rights person has very little fear of their fellow human; if anything, they encourage all their fellow humans to be armed. They encourage the whole neighborhood to be armed, the whole city, the whole country to be armed. They have no fear of their fellow citizens possessing weapons.
The gun controller, on the other hand, seems to be the one with the irrational fear of weaponry and who is fearful of their fellow human being armed, and thus seeks to disarm them.
“They encourage the whole neighborhood to be armed, the whole city, the whole country to be armed. They have no fear of their fellow citizens possessing weapons.”
I never thought of it that way, but that is true. I have personally suggested to dozens of people that all of us should be armed, and that is part of my master plan to eliminate terrorism, the government itself should arm everybody. Doesn’t really show a whole lot of fear of my fellow man, does it? Thanks for bringing that to my attention!
More incorrect (and dangerous) “gun is a talisman” thinking. The gun cannot act on its own, so it cannot do any of the things claimed here. Also, false distinction between being “forced” and being “persuaded.” Force is awful persuasive sometimes. Is there something about the gun on your waist that magically shields you from force?
Is there something about the gun on your waist that magically shields you from force?
Not at all, but they certainly have a quality that allows you to effectively match it.
The fire extinguisher in my kitchen doesn’t mean I’m eager for a fire to break out, and my seat belt and air bags don’t mean that I’m just itching for an automobile collision. With that in mind, why do so many idiots insist that we’re hoping for trouble just because we carry?
“With that in mind, why do so many idiots insist that we’re hoping for trouble just because we carry?”
RULE 3: ….Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (…Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
RULE 9: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it…isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions…ridicule works.)
Straight from the Alinsky playbook, eh?
I should’ve guessed.
And I seen the bomber jets, riding shotgun in the sky, Turning into butterflys, across our nation,, PEACE, make love not war
But I be done seen ’bout everything, when I see an elephant fly!
Overall, I agree with the sentiment of the quotation. If Kloos did not originate it and is regurgitating someone else original remark, “tut…tut…shame on him”, but it is still a valid set of remarks.
If carrying a gun filters a large percentage of the “other people” out there away from me, that works about as well as it possibly could as far as I am concerned. There’s little enough time to get to know the worthwhile people, so less time expended sorting out the feeble-minded morons the better.
A certain percentage of those feeble-minded morons are always going to require the certainty of effective resistance, even overwhelming force, to keep them in line and behaving. If that is what’s necessary for the the rest of us to conduct our business and interactions peaceably and civilly, so be it.
Anti: “Your gun makes me uncomfortable. You hold all of the power and I can’t trust you to not oppress me”
Me: “Then buy a gun and rebalance the equation. Stop bitching at me to fix your problems, and take matters into your own hands.”
.
Good comment and very accurate.
Comments are closed.