I think we can all agree that civility, and the level of civil discourse in our society is very sorely lacking. Freemasonry though has always very highly prized civility. That is one of the reasons it has historically been viewed as a powerful school for democracy. To use a cliche, men could learn, in the Lodge, how to disagree without being disagreeable.
There has been a strong effort in recent years to try and encourage Freemasons to work to improve the level of civil discourse in our society. Most notably, at least from my perspective, these efforts have been led by MW Russ Charvonia (California) and MW Sam Roberts (Washington.)
In this year of pandemic, with so much of Freemasonry moving online, have you noticed an increase in incivility within your Lodge? Or has your Lodge maintained a very high level of civil discourse?
Civility, even amongst some Masons, on Social Media platforms such as Facebook has never been good. Frankly that is bad for the fraternity, in that it allows the public to see Masons behaving poorly, and contrary to Masonic claims of Brotherhood.
How can we help our Brothers act as Masons while they are using Social Media, especially when their posts have our Square and Compasses right beside whatever incivil thing they may have posted?
Beyond our Lodges, how can we, as Masons, influence our greater society towards valuing civil discourse once again?
Let’s discuss civility.
Sad news:
On April 3, 2021 at the age of 102, MW Bro. Wayne Deming received the last summons from the Grand Warden of Heaven and laid down his working tools. It was 50 years ago when MW Bro. Wayne served the Grand Lodge of Washington as its Grand Master. His smile and wit will always be remembered. He emphasized communication during his year as Grand Master, an attribute we can take to heart today as well. MW Bro. Wayne, rest in peace.
The lack of civility among brothers on social media is certainly a blemish on our gentle craft. Having just been most fortunate to have MW Sam Roberts give our lodge his presentation on Civility, I posed the question about why GL hasn’t taken a stronger position on social media. I’ve been disheartened by some of the things brothers (to include a couple of DDGMs) have “posted”. I understand having passionate views on differing topics but we’re supposed to be subduing our passions. When we as a society and more specifically as Freemasons, refuse to listen to different perspectives, then that becomes the seed of incivility. Our lodge has remained busy during this past year with a couple different projects, which I believe has continued to foster good will among the brothers. It’s important that we, as Masons, when having conversations either within our lodges or with the outer world, to give respect to those who are speaking and truly listen to them and what they are saying and then when responding, to be thoughtful and intelligent in our responses. I fear that our fraternity may lose what influence we may have if we’re unable to be an example of how civility should be modeled.
I think it is hard for the Grand Lodge to try and police Social Media. I know that some Grand Lodges are attempting to do it, but I don't know how well that has worked, and I do know that it is perceived as overly heavy handed by at least some of their Masons.
In my experience, a kindly whispered reminder will work. At least in some cases. There have been a couple of times that I've received a phone call from someone, with concerns about something that a member of my Lodge posted. In each of those instances, I in turn called the Brother and explained how his words might look to others, and the Brother decided to remove them.
I've also received a phone call where I didn't agree with the caller that a post was out of line, so as always I suppose these things are judgement calls. Which would certainly badly complicate any enforcement that the Grand Lodge attempted to do.
This is one of the more difficult subjects to write about.
While I agree that people should temper their discussions, especially in this day and age, I think both sides go a bit too far. Just because we are masons doesn't mean we shouldn't have strong opinions about issues we care deeply about. Our founding fathers cared enough to revolt against their own king - something I might add would result in all of them being hanged today. Thomas Jefferson and others repeatedly wrote that it is the right of the people to revolt against tyranny, which was outlawed in 1918 with the Sedition Act.
I'm fairly certain also that the little section within the Master's oath (and elsewhere) about supporting the government wasn't always there either. More than likely was added after the anti-masonic movement(s) in the 1800s. Regardless, you'd have to wonder just what that particular section has to do with freemasonry?
And famously, President Truman publicly and vehemently feuded with Douglas MacArthur, both well known, high ranking and respected Masons. Truman went so far as to tell a reporter that MacArthur was a "dumb son of a bitch".
In today's social context, it is always a good idea to treat others with respect, and to discuss issues with reason and logic. Sadly, today some take reason and logic as personal attacks and respond with venom and hatred, because they are ruled by emotion. This can make otherwise civil discourse appear to be a heated exchange. When it gets to the point of name calling, there is nothing left to discuss.
Finally, I am always worried that there is more concern with public perspective and optics than with the brothers themselves. Not just with this subject, but in general. I don't think we're so big or important to worry about public perception, most people don't know or care who we are. This isn't Youngstown in 1826. I feel sometimes like masonry is desperately trying to stay socially relevant in a day and age where no one cares. In places like the UK, anti-masonry is a thing, and public suspicion of masonic connections is common. That doesn't exist here, except in places where wild conspiracy theories of 90th degree uber masons who secretly control the shadow government along with the ultra rich (and aliens, always has to be aliens).
Well said, WB Glenn! I try to be careful about what I post, and agree that *ad hominem* attacks on what I say are counter-productive. That usually means that I have "won" the argument, but not the disagreement. (BTW: Please let me know when you get to the 90th Degree. I'll be interested to see the jewel and hat!)
I saw pictures. The jewel is a heart suspended on a black velvet rope, and has a dollar sign embedded inside. The hat is in the same bellboy style hat, but is colored green, and instead of gold piping, has the JW treasury security strips around the cap. The front is decorated not with a double headed eagle, but rather the twin shadow portraits of bush sr and queen Elizabeth, who of course are secretly green lizard people from the distant planet moon base of alpha beta.
OK, so I might be doing a horrible thing here letting the secrets of our alien overlords out, but the Jewel of the 90th Degree is:
"Winged Egg. A point in the center of three squares which end in a triple triangle with two points at the base."
On a serious note, I do find reading about these old, defunct Degrees and Rite's interesting. In this specific case the Rite was so huge and complex as to be unworkable, but it is fascinating to read about.
>>"I'm fairly certain also that the little section within the Master's oath (and elsewhere) about >>supporting the government wasn't always there either. More than likely was added after the >>anti-masonic movement(s) in the 1800s. Regardless, you'd have to wonder just what that >>particular section has to do with freemasonry?"
My hunch was that it came into our ritual as part of the Masonic battle between the Hanoverians and the Jacobites. There is a superb short book on that subject:
La Regle d'Abraham No. 3
Masonic Esotericism And Politics
The Ancient Stuart Roots of Bonnie Prince Charlie's Role as Hidden Grand Master
It is quite superb, and I am pleased to highly recommend it to you. Just make sure you get the English language version.
If you like it, the same author, Marsha Keith Schuchard has written longer studies on the same subject, and she has been published in a number of editions of Heredom.
As for the 90th Degree, well my Brother, I shouldn't tell you this, but I do have very complete rituals for the Ancient and Primitive Rite of M+M all the way up to the 97th Degree. So if you would like to receive your 90th someday, I suppose we could do that in my living room. I would have to do you in after the Degree conferral though, in order to protect the secrets of the alien lizard overlords.
Seriously though, give Ms. Schuchard's book a read. I think you would really enjoy it.
I don't think I've seen more incivility from Brothers over Social Media as I've seen more comments about be civil. More attention has been drawn to that particular subject as others have become key board commandos and Facebook subject experts.
I have many former Shipmates, most of which are not Masons, from all angles of the political spectrum on FB. I have had discussion between them and try to moderate the more heated threads. They know, mostly from experience, that I will delete any comments when they are belittling, bullying, calling names, etc....... often I remind them to keep it civil. I don't expect anyone to change their mind, but it allows them to express their opinions. Also since most were Navy, they realize that they do have something in common with each other.
Same for our Craft, we have common ground. I like the Closing Charge that we remind a Brother of his fault, but that should only be if he is uncivil and not if it is only a difference in opinion between Brothers.
There is actual incivility, and then there is what is claimed to be uncivil because it involves a disagreement of position.
We see far too many false claims floating around society now too. Like people who claim that commentators who disagree with them are somehow harassing them by mentioning that disagreement in commentary.
Uncivil behavior is something that is hard to avoid entirely in today's world. In many cases the best we can do is not to respond in like manner. What we do is something we control, and probably the only thing we really have control of.
Civility is hard in politics when one side is proposing using threats of violence to force the other side to conform to their goals. If an idea is truly a good idea, there is no need for force to get the majority of people to adopt it. Those who refuse to adopt it should be free not to. Seatbelts for example. Anybody with a brain recognizes that it's a good idea to wear a seatbelt. But why does government need to punish those who refuse to adopt a good idea with excessive fines? Same with Tobacco use, drugs, Healthcare, etc. And who is to say that good idea is universally good for everyone? I come from a long line of long lived people. I had a genetic test done that suggests short of an extreme accident, I will live to be at least 82 years old, and will not have any major health problems. Why do I need a prescription drug plan? I don't. Forcing me to buy something I don't want and don't need is tyranny. It should be perfectly acceptable to get uncivil when someone is using the violent force of government on you when you are not harming them in any way. Many of the Freemasons who founded this country used a lot stronger objections than strong words when faced with an oppressive government. When comparing the US government today with the British government of 1776, the US Government today is 20 times MORE oppressive. The problem is that neither of the dominant two parties want to reduce the size, scope, or power of that government, but only want to USE that power to control the other side. Expect the incivility to get worse as government power grows until we have another civil war. The question is, at what point do we recognize that politeness only takes us so far. Martin Luther King Jr is revered for leading a non-violent revolution, but it's also well known among government officials that without Malcolm X, his nonviolence would have fallen flat. Mohatma Gandhi had Subhas Chandra Bose.
I've told it before, but when I do, I don't think anyone ever believes it.
A lodge that I've visited a few times in Mexico is in an industrial part of the city, so it is quite dark, and vacant when the meetings are over. I'm always prepared to take a Taxi to my hotel across the city, but they have always insisted that one of the Masons drive me.
Once, it was the Master of the Lodge. He works as a mid level executive for Hilton, and told me that in the past he had worked in both Canada and the United States. It kind of surprised me that he had returned to Mexico, given that so many come here for economic opportunity.
So, I asked him why he wanted to return.
He said that it was because we have no freedom in Canada and the US. I'll not forget his words, they were: "they tell you do this, do this, do this, don't do this, don't do this, don't do this." He was correct of course. Our lives are extremely heavily regulated, with things large and small that we are required to do, and things we are prohibited from doing.
I can't say that I'm an expert on Mexico, but it is my understanding that they have just as may and just as intrusive (in the case of gun control, much more) laws than we do in the US, but things do not get enforced. This of course leads to practical freedom for individuals, at least in that Mason's view, tremendously more freedom. In the US of course we have extremely efficient enforcement mechanisms.
Rightly or wrongly, the shocking thing was to hear someone from another nation declaring our nation 'the home of the free' to be unfree. Unfortunately, I think his point has merit.
Properly understood, Freemasonry is not constrained by international borders. It is a worldwide Brotherhood, with the entire earth contained within its scope. That I think can, at some points in time, be a tremendous advantage, for those who understand it.
I noticed the same thing in Iraq. Alcohol for example is illegal in Iraq. However, I noticed my interpreters never had any trouble acquiring it. Same dynamic with marijuana in the Philippines. Where all three of these countries fail dramatically is how that applies to women. The police in these countries are horribly corrupt. They don't enforce the laws because it won't always go their way, and so they pick on the weak. Including innocent people. Women in these countries are more likely to be assaulted by the "authorities" than in the USA, and if they try to defend themselves with an illegal firearm they can expect to get gangraped in jail by the guards for defending themselves.
The lack of legal civilian gun ownership and rights is in my view the greatest drawback to other nations. In my view, man, and as you point out, woman, must have the means to defend himself, no matter who is attempting to do harm.
I think that Mexico is the perfect example of this. Some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, yet guns are in every criminal's hands, and in parts of the country, gun violence is completely out of control. If some significant portion of the law abiding community was armed, drug cartels would not be able to take over entire towns.
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.
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.
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
The lack of civility among brothers on social media is certainly a blemish on our gentle craft. Having just been most fortunate to have MW Sam Roberts give our lodge his presentation on Civility, I posed the question about why GL hasn’t taken a stronger position on social media. I’ve been disheartened by some of the things brothers (to include a couple of DDGMs) have “posted”. I understand having passionate views on differing topics but we’re supposed to be subduing our passions. When we as a society and more specifically as Freemasons, refuse to listen to different perspectives, then that becomes the seed of incivility. Our lodge has remained busy during this past year with a couple different projects, which I believe has continued to foster good will among the brothers. It’s important that we, as Masons, when having conversations either within our lodges or with the outer world, to give respect to those who are speaking and truly listen to them and what they are saying and then when responding, to be thoughtful and intelligent in our responses. I fear that our fraternity may lose what influence we may have if we’re unable to be an example of how civility should be modeled.
I think it is hard for the Grand Lodge to try and police Social Media. I know that some Grand Lodges are attempting to do it, but I don't know how well that has worked, and I do know that it is perceived as overly heavy handed by at least some of their Masons.
In my experience, a kindly whispered reminder will work. At least in some cases. There have been a couple of times that I've received a phone call from someone, with concerns about something that a member of my Lodge posted. In each of those instances, I in turn called the Brother and explained how his words might look to others, and the Brother decided to remove them.
I've also received a phone call where I didn't agree with the caller that a post was out of line, so as always I suppose these things are judgement calls. Which would certainly badly complicate any enforcement that the Grand Lodge attempted to do.
This is one of the more difficult subjects to write about.
While I agree that people should temper their discussions, especially in this day and age, I think both sides go a bit too far. Just because we are masons doesn't mean we shouldn't have strong opinions about issues we care deeply about. Our founding fathers cared enough to revolt against their own king - something I might add would result in all of them being hanged today. Thomas Jefferson and others repeatedly wrote that it is the right of the people to revolt against tyranny, which was outlawed in 1918 with the Sedition Act.
I'm fairly certain also that the little section within the Master's oath (and elsewhere) about supporting the government wasn't always there either. More than likely was added after the anti-masonic movement(s) in the 1800s. Regardless, you'd have to wonder just what that particular section has to do with freemasonry?
And famously, President Truman publicly and vehemently feuded with Douglas MacArthur, both well known, high ranking and respected Masons. Truman went so far as to tell a reporter that MacArthur was a "dumb son of a bitch".
In today's social context, it is always a good idea to treat others with respect, and to discuss issues with reason and logic. Sadly, today some take reason and logic as personal attacks and respond with venom and hatred, because they are ruled by emotion. This can make otherwise civil discourse appear to be a heated exchange. When it gets to the point of name calling, there is nothing left to discuss.
Finally, I am always worried that there is more concern with public perspective and optics than with the brothers themselves. Not just with this subject, but in general. I don't think we're so big or important to worry about public perception, most people don't know or care who we are. This isn't Youngstown in 1826. I feel sometimes like masonry is desperately trying to stay socially relevant in a day and age where no one cares. In places like the UK, anti-masonry is a thing, and public suspicion of masonic connections is common. That doesn't exist here, except in places where wild conspiracy theories of 90th degree uber masons who secretly control the shadow government along with the ultra rich (and aliens, always has to be aliens).
Again, with the rambling. Sorry about that.
Well said, WB Glenn! I try to be careful about what I post, and agree that *ad hominem* attacks on what I say are counter-productive. That usually means that I have "won" the argument, but not the disagreement. (BTW: Please let me know when you get to the 90th Degree. I'll be interested to see the jewel and hat!)
I saw pictures. The jewel is a heart suspended on a black velvet rope, and has a dollar sign embedded inside. The hat is in the same bellboy style hat, but is colored green, and instead of gold piping, has the JW treasury security strips around the cap. The front is decorated not with a double headed eagle, but rather the twin shadow portraits of bush sr and queen Elizabeth, who of course are secretly green lizard people from the distant planet moon base of alpha beta.
Are you sure that isn't the hat and jewel of the All Powerful Illuminati the guys on Facebook keep trying to get me to join?
OK, so I might be doing a horrible thing here letting the secrets of our alien overlords out, but the Jewel of the 90th Degree is:
"Winged Egg. A point in the center of three squares which end in a triple triangle with two points at the base."
On a serious note, I do find reading about these old, defunct Degrees and Rite's interesting. In this specific case the Rite was so huge and complex as to be unworkable, but it is fascinating to read about.
And sorry, but as far as I know, no hat!
"I don't think we're so big or important to worry about public perception, most people don't know or care who we are."
"I feel sometimes like masonry is desperately trying to stay socially relevant in a day and age where no one cares."
Interesting comments. I don't wish to toss my opinion on them; rather, I think they should be discussed further. It is an important observation.
I think you are right. That would be an intersting, and important, discussion to have.
I agree with you re:
>>"I'm fairly certain also that the little section within the Master's oath (and elsewhere) about >>supporting the government wasn't always there either. More than likely was added after the >>anti-masonic movement(s) in the 1800s. Regardless, you'd have to wonder just what that >>particular section has to do with freemasonry?"
My hunch was that it came into our ritual as part of the Masonic battle between the Hanoverians and the Jacobites. There is a superb short book on that subject:
La Regle d'Abraham No. 3
Masonic Esotericism And Politics
The Ancient Stuart Roots of Bonnie Prince Charlie's Role as Hidden Grand Master
https://www.amazon.com/R%C3%A8gle-dAbraham-Hors-s%C3%A9rie-esotericism-politics/dp/197620836X/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=La+Regle+d%27Abraham&qid=1617673982&sr=8-1
It is quite superb, and I am pleased to highly recommend it to you. Just make sure you get the English language version.
If you like it, the same author, Marsha Keith Schuchard has written longer studies on the same subject, and she has been published in a number of editions of Heredom.
As for the 90th Degree, well my Brother, I shouldn't tell you this, but I do have very complete rituals for the Ancient and Primitive Rite of M+M all the way up to the 97th Degree. So if you would like to receive your 90th someday, I suppose we could do that in my living room. I would have to do you in after the Degree conferral though, in order to protect the secrets of the alien lizard overlords.
Seriously though, give Ms. Schuchard's book a read. I think you would really enjoy it.
I don't think I've seen more incivility from Brothers over Social Media as I've seen more comments about be civil. More attention has been drawn to that particular subject as others have become key board commandos and Facebook subject experts.
I have many former Shipmates, most of which are not Masons, from all angles of the political spectrum on FB. I have had discussion between them and try to moderate the more heated threads. They know, mostly from experience, that I will delete any comments when they are belittling, bullying, calling names, etc....... often I remind them to keep it civil. I don't expect anyone to change their mind, but it allows them to express their opinions. Also since most were Navy, they realize that they do have something in common with each other.
Same for our Craft, we have common ground. I like the Closing Charge that we remind a Brother of his fault, but that should only be if he is uncivil and not if it is only a difference in opinion between Brothers.
You make a very important point.
There is actual incivility, and then there is what is claimed to be uncivil because it involves a disagreement of position.
We see far too many false claims floating around society now too. Like people who claim that commentators who disagree with them are somehow harassing them by mentioning that disagreement in commentary.
Uncivil behavior is something that is hard to avoid entirely in today's world. In many cases the best we can do is not to respond in like manner. What we do is something we control, and probably the only thing we really have control of.
You're right, not responding often works. Especially when it comes to people who troll online.
Civility is hard in politics when one side is proposing using threats of violence to force the other side to conform to their goals. If an idea is truly a good idea, there is no need for force to get the majority of people to adopt it. Those who refuse to adopt it should be free not to. Seatbelts for example. Anybody with a brain recognizes that it's a good idea to wear a seatbelt. But why does government need to punish those who refuse to adopt a good idea with excessive fines? Same with Tobacco use, drugs, Healthcare, etc. And who is to say that good idea is universally good for everyone? I come from a long line of long lived people. I had a genetic test done that suggests short of an extreme accident, I will live to be at least 82 years old, and will not have any major health problems. Why do I need a prescription drug plan? I don't. Forcing me to buy something I don't want and don't need is tyranny. It should be perfectly acceptable to get uncivil when someone is using the violent force of government on you when you are not harming them in any way. Many of the Freemasons who founded this country used a lot stronger objections than strong words when faced with an oppressive government. When comparing the US government today with the British government of 1776, the US Government today is 20 times MORE oppressive. The problem is that neither of the dominant two parties want to reduce the size, scope, or power of that government, but only want to USE that power to control the other side. Expect the incivility to get worse as government power grows until we have another civil war. The question is, at what point do we recognize that politeness only takes us so far. Martin Luther King Jr is revered for leading a non-violent revolution, but it's also well known among government officials that without Malcolm X, his nonviolence would have fallen flat. Mohatma Gandhi had Subhas Chandra Bose.
A true story.
I've told it before, but when I do, I don't think anyone ever believes it.
A lodge that I've visited a few times in Mexico is in an industrial part of the city, so it is quite dark, and vacant when the meetings are over. I'm always prepared to take a Taxi to my hotel across the city, but they have always insisted that one of the Masons drive me.
Once, it was the Master of the Lodge. He works as a mid level executive for Hilton, and told me that in the past he had worked in both Canada and the United States. It kind of surprised me that he had returned to Mexico, given that so many come here for economic opportunity.
So, I asked him why he wanted to return.
He said that it was because we have no freedom in Canada and the US. I'll not forget his words, they were: "they tell you do this, do this, do this, don't do this, don't do this, don't do this." He was correct of course. Our lives are extremely heavily regulated, with things large and small that we are required to do, and things we are prohibited from doing.
I can't say that I'm an expert on Mexico, but it is my understanding that they have just as may and just as intrusive (in the case of gun control, much more) laws than we do in the US, but things do not get enforced. This of course leads to practical freedom for individuals, at least in that Mason's view, tremendously more freedom. In the US of course we have extremely efficient enforcement mechanisms.
Rightly or wrongly, the shocking thing was to hear someone from another nation declaring our nation 'the home of the free' to be unfree. Unfortunately, I think his point has merit.
Properly understood, Freemasonry is not constrained by international borders. It is a worldwide Brotherhood, with the entire earth contained within its scope. That I think can, at some points in time, be a tremendous advantage, for those who understand it.
Jack Russell Thompsonjust now
I noticed the same thing in Iraq. Alcohol for example is illegal in Iraq. However, I noticed my interpreters never had any trouble acquiring it. Same dynamic with marijuana in the Philippines. Where all three of these countries fail dramatically is how that applies to women. The police in these countries are horribly corrupt. They don't enforce the laws because it won't always go their way, and so they pick on the weak. Including innocent people. Women in these countries are more likely to be assaulted by the "authorities" than in the USA, and if they try to defend themselves with an illegal firearm they can expect to get gangraped in jail by the guards for defending themselves.
The lack of legal civilian gun ownership and rights is in my view the greatest drawback to other nations. In my view, man, and as you point out, woman, must have the means to defend himself, no matter who is attempting to do harm.
I think that Mexico is the perfect example of this. Some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, yet guns are in every criminal's hands, and in parts of the country, gun violence is completely out of control. If some significant portion of the law abiding community was armed, drug cartels would not be able to take over entire towns.
The Gun is Civilization
by Marko Kloos
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.
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.
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
Thank you for this. I enjoyed reading it very much!