People don't kill people, guns kill people

Let's imagine for a moment you wanted to kill someone. If you are like most people, you've probably thought about it at least a few times.

That asshole boss who made flippant remarks while overworking and under-appreciating you? You'd like to wring his neck. That ex-lover who slept with one of your friends? You wish you could beat him or her into a pulp. That person who committed the horrible, unthinkable act of violence that you just heard about on the breaking news channel? You can't believe a person could do such a thing! Just give you five minutes alone in a room with that rat bastard.

But what if any of these scenarios actually happened? What if you acted on your animalistic impulse to viciously lash out at those you deemed worthy of your wrath?

Your boss would simply not allow you choke him to death without a fight. He'd start kicking, screaming and punching when he realized his life was at stake. Your ex-lover would beat back, with some degree of success. And remember, that aforementioned rat bastard is alone with you as well. Not so easy, now is it?

Unless, of course, you're packing heat.

Guns make for trouble-free killing, which is of course why they were invented in the first place. In the history of military engineering, inventing methods of wiping out the enemy en masse while minimizing one's own losses have been of paramount concern. From the time cavemen first hurled spears to today's laser-guided missiles, projectile launching has been the default method of achieving that goal. While the leaders of nations engage in supposedly honest orations, touting and endorsing the need for diplomacy and reason, history tells us large swaths of a given populous will be periodically slaughtered in the name of religion, territory, resources, insult or total misunderstanding. All's fair in love and war, so they say.

However, the population at large, generally having a healthy distaste for authentic violence in their communities, is unfortunately no stranger to the reality of gunplay. The right to bear arms is part of America; after the general principals of American democracy set forth in the Constitution, it is, apparently, the second most important tenet of our society after the right to free speech

At the time, there was a good reason for this. Our Founding Fathers were highly weary - rightfully so - of a government that becomes too powerful against which to form a credible revolt, so they figured that arming the general populace would prevent an unassailable regime. What they couldn't envision was weaponry so powerful as to be able to wipe out entire city blocks and even cities at a moments notice. The average Joe doesn't have cruise missiles and ICBMs in his gun rack, so the idea of arming US citizens to prevent government dominance has long been rendered moot.

But that doesn't mean that guns should be illegal; that notion is so naïve and just downright silly as to hardly be worthy of mention. What most reasonable people want to see is ye olde gun control. The idea is simple: sure, people can own firearms - we're not trying to take away anyone's second amendment rights here - but as a society, let's put limits on the kind of guns people can own, and then maybe innocent people would die just a little less frequently.

However, there's one major catch - a little lobbying arm known as the National Rifle Association is hell bent on making the most powerful guns available to anyone who can afford them. Turns out, the NRA is pretty powerful, has lots of friends in high places,and isn't hurting for cash. So when they want semi-automatic machine guns in the hands of drug dealers, by God, those drug dealers shall have them. And if you suggest that police should not have to be put in harms way from thugs wielding easily-attainable assault rifles, then you're clearly un-American.

Handguns are another problem altogether. People say that handguns should be available to anyone who would want one in order to protect their family. The unfortunate reality is that very few people ever actually use a handgun to perform that task. The idea of dad grabbing his pistol when he hears an intruder and blowing him away just as he's trying to enter the bedroom of his youngest daughter is nearly a complete fantasy. It almost never happens. Many more children accidentally shoot their sibling, best friend or themselves with a gun then any burglar. The statistics aren't even close. Yet we supposedly need handguns to protect ourselves. Who, exactly, is being protected here?

Those who would argue this point would typically say something like "So are you saying we should abolish knives too? What about clubs? Should every metal bar, every sharp object be banned by the government? Maybe we should ban baseball, because those bats can be dangerous." This is the type of argument that makes it difficult to take certain people seriously, because the rebuttal is meant not to bring about a credible point, but to belittle the problem of people dying with such ease as the barrel of a gun.

The truth is, ending another person's life via knives, clubs et al. is a much more personal method that the incredible simple motion of raising one's arm and moving one's finger a fraction of an inch. It makes it so effortless. Stabbing someone to death takes a hell of a lot more effort. It isn't any less moral, just not as easy, and thus, it happens a lot less frequently.

Have you ever heard of a drive-by stabbing? Ever known someone to get killed from a bat flung at someone from several feet? It never happens.

And that's what the point is; it's a numbers game. If the manufacture, sale and possession of any firearm were to be 100 percent abolished, people would still kill other people. But the number of murders would, in my opinion, drop so dramatically as to make comparing the statistics almost absurd.

During the recent tragedy at the Amish schoolhouse, it was reported that the murder of those poor children came into the structure with a bevy of weaponry, including knives. But he had many more guns, and that's what he chose to use. He stood there and quite literally blew the brains out of small children. He didn't use his knife. Why? It seems obvious - killing a small child with a knife, Billy club or even his bare hands is an act so much more personal. Most people, even those deranged enough to think about committing such an abominable act, would simply not be able to bring themselves to end another person's life by getting their hands dirty. One can point a gun, pull the trigger and look away, putting their violent act out of their mind. The same is not true for other, messier forms of violence.

In the end, it's all about money, like most everything else in this country. Gun manufacturers make lots of money, and the pay handsomely to make sure that they can keep on doing so. This can only ensure that the market becomes flooded with guns, making it a near certainty that innocent people will continue to see their death far before their time and at a much higher rate than if we actually we able to do something about it.

So when someone uses that tired old cliché of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," just say nothing and walk away, and hope they don't shoot you in the back.

Evan Redmon is a manager of a public golf course in Washington, D.C. and writes a few things about stuff sometimes. Contact him at evanredmon@yahoo.com if you really want.