What can one say about such people? – that they have twisted, shriveled, putrefied souls? I don’t suppose that would do any good.
What is the purpose of Bill Frist’s oh so important pet project? To protect gun manufacturers from “trivial” lawsuits.
Let’s go over that again. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist considers it crucial that before they do anything else, the members of Congress pass a bill exonerating gun manufacturers, in advance, from any blame for how their products are used.
The funny thing is, there is only one way weapons can be used. They either sit in your drawer, waiting to kill someone, or they kill someone. They have no other function; that’s what they’re for. I mean, this stuff is so obvious I feel like a dingbat for bringing it up! But apparently, many Americans are having trouble following the logic. So let me say it again.
The purpose of armaments is to kill people. If we didn’t “need” to occasionally kill someone, then we would have no “need” for weapons.
I say again: weapons have only one purpose: to cause harm. Therefore, weapons are evil, by definition. You may call them a “necessary” evil, but you may not call them good. There is no way in which weapons are good.
Now, the people who design, build, and sell weapons don’t want you to think of it that way. They want you to think of the designers as scientists, the makers as artisans, and the sellers as mom & pop convenience stores who deserve their fair share of the economy, damn it. So if someone goes out and uses a gun to actually shoot someone, it can’t possibly be their fault.
But you know what? It is their fault. They designed the guns, and manufactured the guns, and sold the guns, by the millions, for no goood purpose.What good can you do with a weapon? None. I say again: the purpose of making or owning a weapon can never be good. There is nothing good you can do with a weapon (excepting ad hoc uses such as the driving of nails). And I am obliged to point out, though it’s embarrassingly obvious, that if no one felt like making these god-damned things, then there wouldn’t be any, and we would all be better off.
Now, some folks will say, “I use my ____ for self-defense. Doesn’t that count as a good?” Actually, no. Self-defense might be a good, but keeping or using a gun for self-defense does not count as a good, because:
- Killing someone is never a good idea. Maybe you killing them is better than them killing you (maybe), but the fact remains than anyone getting killed is worse than no one getting killed. Oh – did you miss that possibility?
- Weapons held for self-defense are notorious for killing people who have been merely mistaken for a threat; or entirely innocent, random people like the gun owner’s best friend; or the owner himself.
- Might there not be a way to defend oneself without killing one’s attacker? And might that not be a much, much better solution? In the big arguments over self-defense, people tend to forget that the choice is almost never between someone killing you or you killing them. That almost never happens. The situation is practically always a lot more nuanced than that, and waving your Glock around is almost never the best solution.
Some folks will say, “I’ve been in this industry all my life, and you’re telling me it’s immoral and I should get out? What am I supposed to do for a living, then?”
I recommend that such people
go fuck themselves volunteer at a local hospital and help take care of people who have been shot.
For more on the question of weaponry, see my earlier post.