That's What Guns Are For

I'm going to cheat a little here, so if you can tell that I didn't write this when I say I did, good for you, but since I'm not going to make reference to any specifics, it's still a true point and I believed it when I said I did.

I heard a terrific quote today. Since I can't remember who said it or what the precise wording was, I won't give it as a quote, but it was a good one. Guns are for killing people. That's it.

I know that's not strictly speaking true. Guns are for killing people, but also for killing animals and uppity tin cans (joking, only joking, tin cans are wonderful people). They can be used for target practice of various sorts. They make terrific noise-makers at parties, although for safety blanks should be used because shooting bits of lead high into the air tends to lead to bits of lead shooting down from the air and killing people. It really does happen. And actually, guns are really loud and hearing protection should be used because it makes your head hurt whether or not you use blanks.

But guns are mostly for killing. And when you're not killing with a gun, you're practicing to kill with a gun, even if you never actually do anything other than practice. There's really nothing else you can do with guns. That's hard to say about many other things which can be used to kill people.

I'm not saying that guns are the only thing that kills people, not by a long stretch. But they do kill, all the time in fact. If you support guns, then you believe that their uses to kill people are positive, like home protection. If you support gun control, you think that perhaps the right to kill people with guns isn't as important as the right of other people not to be killed by guns. And then of course there's the undeniable fact that most people who get killed by guns probably fall under the category of homicide, which isn't a right at all.

So what's wrong with a little control? Sure you can own a gun, but you should have to do something other than pony up the dough for it. Maybe it should be harder to get guns. If you need that gun to kill the guy who's threatening your family with nuclear anthrax (Jack Bauer, I'm looking squarely in your direction) it'll be there, but you might have to wait a few days to get it. What's so wrong with that? Plan ahead if you think it might happen.

And do you need an assault rifle with Teflon-coated bullets to protect your house? Or hunt deer? I'm not so sure. My grandfather was a hunter and he didn't run into too many deer with bullet-proof vests.

I'm not saying that gun control will keep criminals from having guns. Far from it. There are countries which ban privately-owned guns completely, and yet they still have criminals with guns. But there are fewer of them, and fewer small children who accidentally kill their friends with their parent's handgun, and fewer students who go on armed rampages with an arsenal of weapons procured from God knows where. And if the price to pay for fewer of those is a five day waiting period and a ban on weapons that only an army needs, what's the big freakin' deal?

Oh, and please don't tell me that you can use guns to only hurt people, because I certainly wouldn't want to take the chance that by trying to hurt them I would kill them, or that by trying to hurt them I would miss and they would kill me. That's why people shoot to kill. You don't hear much about shooting to hurt.