Lots of opinions float around about the topic of gun control (and, we can extend this to other weapons as well.)
So, here is my reasoning as to why carrying a gun is a civilised act.
There are 2 methods of persuasion. One is through reasoning, and the other is through force (direct or implied.)
To persuade someone through reasoning you must present an argument that convinces the other party that you are correct.
To persuade someone through force, you must either:
a) Physically use force upon them to beat them into submission,
b) Use the implied threat of force upon them to scare them into submission.
Where do guns come into this?
In a society without guns, a young and strong 20 year old male can use physical intimidation as a tool for persuading an old lady to give him her valuables. The balance of force is uneven.
In a society with guns, the playing field is levelled. The 20 year old male can pull a gun on the lady to threaten her. However, the old lady, also carrying a gun, cannot be persuaded by force, because she also has lethal force at her disposal.
The only method of persuasion left is reason, because no person has a monopoly of force on another.
Thus, carrying a gun is a civilised act.
This principle applies in several countries like Switzerland where gun ownership is pretty much mandatory and crime rate are very low.
So, what do you think? Is carrying a gun a civilised act? Should we submit the monopoly of force to the State (who may or may not come to our rescue in time?)
The floor, as they say, is open.
