by Mike Owens
5904 Smith and Wesson 9mm semi-auto pistol when I started wondering,
was what I was doing wrong? Was having this gun inherently
dangerous? It didn't seem dangerous to me. True, a gun, like any
powerful tool or machine can cause injury or death. However, is a
firearm any more inherently dangerous than say a car or chain saw?
True, a pistol is much more capable of being concealed than some
other dangerous machines. However, a person with a motor vehicle
could hurt and kill many more people, much more quickly and have a
better chance of escaping the scene than a person with a little 9mm
or even a larger .45 caliber pistol. Imagine a person walking into a
schoolyard at recess and opening fire. Now imagine a person driving
a car or truck at 50 miles an hour through that same schoolyard.
Obviously, the car is going to do more damage more quickly.
I shot a few rounds into a paper target, and looking at the
holes I had to wonder, was what I just did overly violent? Many
would answer, immediately and without thinking, "absolutely." But
then you have to ask how is it violent? I just caused 5 110 grain
brass coated pieces of lead to punch through a piece of paper and
bury themselves into a rubber backstop at about the speed of sound.
But did I harm anything? Well, maybe a dust mite or two got in the
way, and a few hundred bacteria were undoubtedly in the wrong place
at the wrong time, but does that make what I did violent? Heck, we
kill hundreds more bugs with our cars on the way to work and school.
Of course, there are those who say the simple act of shooting a
firearm is violent, whether or not it causes harm. That may be a
legitimate argument, but there are many legitimate and popular sports
that are not only more violent but also are harmful. Every contact
sport is violent, and causes injury. Boxing is the best example.
Here you have two people trying to knock each other senseless. This
is much more violent than putting holes in a piece of paper, and
killing a few dust mites.
The real issue behind this for liberals of course isn't about
safety or violence, but about politics. Gun control is a feel-good
policy that does more harm than it does good. It appeals to
emotions; therefore most liberals support it to look good. Anyone
who really thinks about it sees the harm gun control causes and the
good private ownership of guns brings, on the whole. Do bad things
happen with guns? Of course. However, it is a fact that more crimes
are prevented, either directly or indirectly, than are committed with
firearms. Gun ownership makes sense. Self-defense makes sense.
Shooting well, in competition or practice is very satisfying. It
only makes sense for citizens to be armed to defend themselves. Of
course to some, gun ownership will always seem as stupid as pouring
gasoline and firecrackers over a bunch of toy soldiers and setting
them on fire. (This last sentence refers to the anti-war article
published recently in the south end commentary section for anyone who
doesn't recognize it).
