A gun’s purpose is to kill, right?

As the gun debate drags on, one point of contention continues to hold strong by proponents of strict gun control.  While guns can be used for perfectly legitimate recreational use (like sport shooting or hunting), the gun’s main purpose is to kill – nothing more.

Though one might expect me to vehemently argue against such a assertion, in truth, I absolutely agree with this statement.  A gun better be able to kill.

Guns fundamentally transformed hunting in the 1800s.  Instead of risking life and limb in the quest for food, hunters relied on their guns to kill their dinners.  Guns made it possible for our ancestors to kill large animals like bulls and ox far easier than ever before, bringing back to their villages large quantities of meat to sustain their populations for weeks.

Guns enabled our revolutionary armies to fight against an oppressive enemy in the 1700s.  Guns enabled warfare from a distance, relying instead on the marksmanship of our nation’s warriors rather than the sheer dexterity of men in close combat.

Snipers on rooftops effectively neutralize hostage tackers and terrorists from a distance with guns.  Regular people use guns in the defense of their own lives every day.  The better your aim, the fewer lives that are lost in life and death situations.  Lives saved.

Whether the target is an animal or a criminal, you are darn right that the intent of a gun is to kill.  If your life is on the line and you are armed with a gun, it is nice to know that the original purpose of a gun holds true.

It is people who ultimately control what they do with potentially dangerous weapons.  Cars are nothing more than 4,000 pound death machines.  Historically, cars have killed more people every day than guns.  Then again, so has alcohol and tobacco.  Nobody argues that cars, alcohol and tobacco were designed to kill people, but yet, their harm to our population has historically outweighed that of guns.

Similarly, matches were designed to start fires.  When an arsonist lights a match and burns down a building or starts a violent and destructive forest fire, is it the fault of the match?  Typically, matches are used for reasonable and safe purposes.  So are guns.  The difference is when a gun crime happens, our 24-hour network news jumps on the opportunity to prop up their ratings on a sensationalized story designed to soak as much emotion out of the American people as possible.  Unfortunately, it works.

Guns have been used to murder.  Cars can be used to hit and kill pedestrians.  Alcohol and tobacco have killed people, and matches used to start wild fires have carved large destructive paths of death all over the world.  Regardless of the intent of the potentially dangerous weapon, people use common objects in the commission of crimes.  Statistically, the intent of the weapon has very little effect on the dangers of its use.

Why do gun control proponents use a gun’s “purpose” to fight for strict controls on guns when many other killers exist in our world that were never intended to kill?  The answer is because guns produce emotional responses, and they are an easy target.

When a child gets tragically hit and killed by a car, the grieving parents rarely blame the wide availability of cars.  However, when a child gets killed by a maniac with a gun, it suddenly becomes the fault of the gun because it was supposedly the gun’s purpose.  Cars cannot be banned, so nobody tries.  But guns can be banned, at least in the minds of strict proponents of gun control.  The Constitution be damned.  Logic be damned.  Let emotion rule the world.

Nobody intends to get into a car accident, but people do.  Nobody intends to lose their home and become homeless, but it happens.  Intent has very little to do with the dangers of our world.  Purpose and intent guide our vision and dreams.  Only actions provide the impetus to get there.

A gun’s intent is to propel a small projectile in a straight line.  Nations have used weapons of all kinds in war against their enemies.  Hunters have used guns in the survival of their families.  Everyday citizens use guns to protect their homes and loved ones.

The purpose of a gun is whatever you want it to be – after all, we are a free country.  For now.

Gun opens fire in Chicago convenience store, charged with murder

Gun1In another senseless act of premeditated violence, a gun walked into a convenience store on the south side of Chicago in the early hours of Thursday morning and opened fire on the store’s clerk and several customers, killing one and severely injuring three others.  As of the time of this writing, the gun is showing no remorse.  The gun’s motive remains unclear.

Authorities say the gun was most likely acting out frustration with society.  Records show the gun was unemployed for the last 3 years, prompting what many believe to be the gun’s way of rebelling against its own boring and unfulfilled life.

The gun is described by friends as being highly intelligent, yet reclusive in nature.  Often spending hours – sometimes days – in its carrying case, the gun would often disappear into its own little world and quietly contemplate its own suffering from societal abandonment and insensitivity.

The gun’s manufacturers saw signs of antisocial behavior, but never believed the gun was capable of such a brutal and senseless act.  Telephone calls to the manufacturers requesting a more extensive interview have not been returned.

Sources say the gun attempted to end its own life before police arrived, but was unable to summon the flexibility and bravery to pull the trigger a final time.  The gun is in a Chicago jail and is awaiting trial.

Please note: since guns do not kill people, PEOPLE DO, the preceding is entirely satirical.

Preventing mass murder: stop sensationalizing crime and “control”

opposeIn the aftermath of the horrific tragedy that rocked a small upscale town in Connecticut that took the lives of 27 innocent people, including many small children, Americans and the media are once again renewing their calls for more restrictive gun control.  Government regulations, they claim, will somehow prevent the next massacre.

Human nature, unfortunately, makes this issue far more complex. The theory is simple: if more stringent controls on guns are enacted, fewer guns will be in the hands of criminals, and thus, fewer mass murders.  But what so many Americans fail to recognize is criminals – by definition – do not abide by laws.  We have a theory whose most basic premise is altogether wrong.

A cursory look at our nation’s drug laws draw an accurate picture of what happens when governments attempt to regulate away complex problems.  When government attempts to stifle an action, that action is quickly taken underground.  Drug cartels are notorious for building sophisticated and efficient mechanisms for moving and selling narcotics all over the world underneath the purview of government.  Do drug laws in the United States prevent Americans from smoking marijuana or snorting cocaine?  Of course not.

Let’s bring this concept back to the topic of guns.  If gun ownership is restricted, will that prevent Americans from obtaining and owning guns?  Again, of course not.  To combat government regulations, the gun trade will be taken underground, and when that happens, there is no regulation, no control and no oversight.  The result of the underground distribution of guns is scary.  When guns are used in a crime, the government will have a much tougher time tracing the source of the gun because the weapon was transported and obtained through unofficial channels.  Drugs work the same way.

Gun controls hurt our nation’s ability to track guns, to identify patterns and to properly bring to justice those who are responsible for helping criminals commit crimes.  Gun control is the last thing Americans should be focusing on if they truly want to prevent the next senseless massacre of innocent people in the United States.

The solution: quit sensationalizing murder.  The Connecticut tragedy has occupied news channels all over the world for days as media figureheads jam microphones into the faces of those affected and plaster pictures of the shooter on television for the entire world to see.  It is like a movie.

And the next killer sees this.  You can be sure that this weekend, as our media continued to hype the murder, the next one was being planned by some “troubled” youth who wants to be remembered as an evil criminal rather than what he truly is, a nobody and a drain on society.  The next “quiet, yet highly intelligent” monster wants his name and face recognizable by everyone in the United States too.

Ask yourself a question: What’s the name of the killer in the Connecticut shooting massacre?  Chances are, you quickly said Adam Lanza.  Now, what’s the name of a 6-year-old child who had their life taken from them at the hands of this madman?  Chances are, you cannot name a single victim.  But even if you could, far more cannot.  That is the problem.

Double or triple prison sentences for crimes that involve guns.  Quit turning real life tragedies into murder-mystery films.  Stop focusing on the criminal and start remembering the victims.  Real and meaningful reform does not come at the hands of career politicians, government bureaucrats and useless legislation.  True progress starts in society; let’s stop tolerating the sensationalizing of senseless murder.