Me, Clint and a few other friends...

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. That's right, I believe it. People DO kill people - and that's exactly why we should take their guns away. If it's easy enough, people will kill people. Call them insane, call them cold-blooded, call them what you will, but we can all be pretty sure that there will always be people that will use guns to kill other people. Another certainty is that given the right situation, we all do something which we'll regret later. Who hasn't? But not shoot and kill someone, you might say. Well, let's look at a few examples.

Would you shoot someone that's running towards a family member with a knife shouting "I'm going to kill you"? I think most people would. Protecting a family member from harm is good and shooting the assailant is easy. So why wouldn't you. I know I would. But perhaps it's too easy. There's not much to it - just point and shoot. And shoot again if you miss. And a few more times if you need it. But what if you didn't have a gun? Then what would you do? You might think twice before rushing towards a crazed individual with a knife. Many would still do it, but I thnk a few would run away thinking there is nothing they can do if they stay. In fact, they might become the assailant's next victim. They may think it better to run and get help. Many would consider this situation a good example of why it's good to carry a gun. Perhaps it is. But what if the situation were reversed? What if the asailant had a gun? What would happen then? Most likely the famiy member would be hit by the assailant's bullet. And if you had a gun, either the assailant or you or both would be hit by the ensuing bullets fired. There could be other outcomes, but I think these ones are quite possible.

What's my point? Simply this - without a gun, things take longer. It buys you some time. If you are about to kill someone - in self defense, or otherwise, you're going to think twice. Why? Because you may be killed yourself. If you come at someone with a knife - it might be taken from you and used on you. It takes time to get there - the other person might run and get away. In most cases, it simply results in more time to think - for good or bad. You also need to have the stomach to actually go up to someone and plunge a knife into them, or strangle them or whatever. It's more personal. You'll see their reaction on their face right in front of you. You'll hear their gasps and pleas for help. But with a gun, you'll have the same outcome without most of the emotion that would normally be theree if you were killing someone. Oh sure, you may feel bad about it later when you had time to think about it, but it won't matter to the person you killed. But if you had these feelings while you were still killing someone, maybe you'd stop. Many won't, but I think it's safe to say that it's harder to kill someone without a gun.

A comedian will tell you that it's neither guns or people that kill people, it's bullets that kill people. Of course, this is literally true. But that's what makes it such a cold and relattively easy thing to do. Bullets travle at the speed of sound. You can't outrun them. You might outrun someone chasing you with a knife. I wouldn't like either situation, but I know which one I'd choose if I had to. Sept 11 showed us wat you could do with just some boxcutters. Well, what if the terrorists had guns? For 3 of the 4 planes it probably would have made no difference, but for the 4th one - the one that never reached the white house, I think it might have. The unarmed passengers on that flight, knowing they would probably die anyway, had enough time to attack the hijackers. They were probably cut by the boxcutters while doing it, but at least they could do something. They could not have done much if they had been shot by the hijackers. My point here is that although it still would not be a perfect world without guns, it might be a little better. Attacks on the White House still happen only in the movies.

Toronto shares many similarities with Chicago. They both have a similar sized population. They both watch virtually the same TV shows and enjoy the same movies. They both even have a similar crime rate. But one thing they don't share is the murder rate. Chicago's murder rate is approximately 10 times that of Toronto's. Of course, there is one other difference, Toronto, being in Canada, is subject to far stricter gun control laws. And if you think it's just because Canadian's are nicer than Americans, let me assure you that we're not. The people are as cold and uncaring as in any large American city. But when we get mad, we can't reach for our guns - because they aren't there.

But what of the checks and ballances of government and people. What if the government gets out of hand - how will we stop them. Well, let's have a reality check here. Did you see what the US governent did to the Afghani people? They were armed. Well, some of them - but you get the point. You and your neighbour's guns are not going to stop the US government - it's too far gone. The best you can do is be clever and fly some planes into buildings - but you won't win. We've seen that. The right to bear arms will not protect you from the government. It's a false sense of security.

How about the right to protect you ramily? Well, if you can get a gun, I'd say that there is a very good chance that the bad guys will be able to get them too. Sure you need a form that says your not insane or whatever, but I tell you - when you're the one with the gun, you're the one who decides if you're crazy. OK, that's just a joke, but there are unstable individuals who will obtain gunsif it's easy to do so. And they do. Would you rather have barely anyone with gun - where you would have to confront a burglar with your own hands - or would you rather be in the situation where both you and the burglar are pointing guns at each other?

Bar fights. They're bad sure. But isn't it better having two guys punch the crap out of each other rather than having one or both dead - and the other in jail for 20 years - at taxpayers expense? Instead of having 2 guys with pathetic macho stories to tell the next day, we have a death and a burdon on the taxpayers.

Wars. Yeah, give them guns. Better than nukes.

Police. Yes again, they should have guns - but they should get a shit-load of paper work everytime they use them because it really should be a last resort.

Hunting? Geez, take up a sport that at least gives you some excercise. I don't go crying that I can't spray paint my name on cars when they are stopped at traffic lights. That would be a fun sport - see who can get the most cars tagged in 60 minutes. So if I can't do that, why should others have the right to shoot animals in the bush? Same thing - both are fun to do, but annoy others. If we get rid of guns, we should get rid of guns. The biathalon is a stupid sport anyway. Replace it with frizbee or something. Oh, and no more "hunting accidents!"

I think people have funny solutions to problems the way things work now. Many years ago there was a student at the University of Texas that climbed a tower in the center of campus and proceded to shoot stuents from the tower one at a time. The solution? Are guns outlawed? No. But no one is allowed to to the top of the tower anymore. In columbine, students shoot other students with guns. What's blamed? Human nature? Bratty kids? The guns? Nope. Guns are still sold - and bratty kids will still get thenm - and become murdorous kids. People blamed video games! Geez. It's normal to get upset when you're a kid. It's normal to not think things through. It's normal to act out. So perhaps they shouldn't have guns. Video games are something kid's SHOULD have.

Hey those are my opinions, and I'm sticking to my guns. I hope no one was offended as I tend to shoot from the hip.