Health Care and Firearms?

When “Obama Care” was voted into law, I found myself explaining to a friend how it would affect her. My explanation, unintentionally,  clarified my own beliefs about healthcare and the healthcare law and how it relates to special interest groups here in the US. See, the law not only provides no separation between “health care” and “medical insurance“, but, arguably solidifies their interchangeability.

Here’s how I imagine it played out:

  • Liberal government decided that “healthcare is a basic human right” and decided to create legislation that makes healthcare available to everyone.
  • Conservative government, pushed by their health-insurance-company-campaign-financing pushed back on the legislation and forced the bill to provide another insurance option, instead of just free health care, thereby merging the two terms.

We have come to a point in American history where the health insurance companies need to create this merger or face the possibility of being lost forever in the ever-growing antiquated business model bucket like newspapers and land-line telephone services.  This is just “good business”, and we-the-people are just as at fault as the politicians given that their power was awarded by our votes.

Has it occurred to anyone else that the most recent “gun control” push is the result of a closed-door health-care conversation?

Many have argued that the conversation we should be having is one about “mental illness”, but that would suggest a conversation about healthcare, which would inevitably lead to a conversation about the relationship (or lack thereof) of “health care” and “medical insurance”.

Maybe we will enter another assault weapon ban, maybe we won’t.  But the simple fact is, it doesn’t matter.  Crime didn’t come to a screeching halt the last time we banned all that stuff, and it won’t again this time.

But that isn’t the point.

Beyond all of the NRA, high-capacity-magazine, assault-rifle, baby-killing demonstrations, picketing and screaming no one will be able to hear the soft giggles of the health insurance companies as they quietly push their wheelbarrows full of cash to the bank.

The Gun is Civilization

Found this lurking around on the web, it’s a fantastic read!

“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 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.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)