Everyone recognizes the lethal power of firearms--so much so that something as simple as showing one can change people's minds. Guns are often the exclamation point at the end of an argument.
If what you know how to do with our bare hands is the same, ultimately, as the work of a bullet, wouldn't it also follow that you could somehow convince people to do what you say in the same fashion? Can you not inspire that same mortal fear and get things done without having to use what you know?
Can you 'flash the gun' of knowledge?
Most people see the progression in use of force with bare hands being the least effective, sticks and knives being better, and firearms being the end-all be-all. This makes obvious sense, as most people are completely untrained in the use of their bare hands and so work at that level is entirely inefficient and haphazard. Knives and sticks amplify effort and magnify trauma, allowing even the untrained to do potentially lethal damage. Firearms pre-package the requirements for injury, needing nothing more than a trigger-pull and an intersecting vector to get the job done.
To truly understand violence as universal and equivalent, no matter what the circumstance or tool, you have to ditch the idea of progression and see the firearm not as the end of the line but as an excellent example of what's required in violence, period.
This is why we are fond of saying the goal of violence is to do the work of a bullet with your bare hands.
Understanding this--truly and viscerally--is the key to making violence universal and equivalent. You want the end result to be identical whether you shot him, stabbed him, or broke him with a stick or 'just' your bare hands. In each case you want him non-functional.
All of those various methods are really one idea--striking. They are all the delivery of the largest amount of kinetic energy you can muster through vulnerable anatomy. The knife, stick and the ends of your skeleton all driven by your entire mass in motion; the bullet driven by energy stored in chemical bonds. Striking someone with a fist or a bullet can be equivalent acts if you know what you're doing. Ultimately, shooting someone is just striking them at range.
In the world of equivalent violence, the only advantage that firearms have are a reduction in personal effort and an increase in range.
Outside of that world, in the world of the antisocial--primate domination games or 'monkey politics'--firearms do have one aspect that we cannot replicate with our bare hands--the universal transmission of implied intent. They can convey the instantaneous understanding of mortal threat.
Of course, this is not a recommended use of the tool, as you just might succeed in intimidating someone who is willing to kill you... and then it's on and you're a half-step behind.
Waving a gun around screams, “Do what I say/go away or I will kill you,” in every language possible, all at once.
But what happens when someone trains with us and learns how to replicate the work of a bullet with their bare hands, learns the universality and equivalency of violence but still wants to play at monkey politics?
How do you wave that 'gun' around?
They've learned all this new cool stuff, eye-opening and mind-blowing, and it looks like the Final Word in monkey politics--visually, violence and primate dominance can look the same if you squint a little:
- Monkey slapping with one primate whaling away while the other goes fetal
- Destruction where one person puts the other down and keeps him there.
Violence appears to be a great tool for getting this done--it entirely truncates the back-and-forth so often seen in monkey politics. So how do you wave that 'gun' around?
You can't verbally warn them--talk is cheap. Your words aren't going to stun them like flashing a real gun would.
How about if you 'go easy' or slap them around for the purposes of dominance? Without 'really' hurting them?
This is a very dangerous conceit. The sad fact is, there is no way to wave your knowledge or intent around in a way that would do the work of showing a gun. Knowing how to do violence regardless of the circumstance or tool is like having an invisible gun. If you said to a group of people, “I have an invisible gun,” they would all laugh at you or think you were insane. If you shot one of them dead, everything would change. Then they would know.
This is the essential problem of violence in monkey politics. Telling people you know how to do it isn't going to have an effect. Demonstrating it hypothetically for the purpose of example, "See, I could do this," just leads to argument. It's all just wind and noise until you stomp somebody down and curb them in front of everybody else. That's the sound of the invisible gun going off--unmistakable, instantly recognized the world over.
But ultimately 'unwavable'--there's no way to show it without doing it. And that makes it entirely unsuitable for the needs of monkey politics.
PS. This also gives us a non-ambiguous answer to the question, "When do I use violence?" The answer: "Anytime you would pull out a gun and empty the clip into someone." Burns off a lot of crap, doesn't it?
Labels: criminal violence, gun, intent, Justified Lethal Force, lethal force self defense
Posts 
