Assume for a moment that a non-lethal, yet highly effective (considerably more effective than
pepper spray or
tazers)
weapon were available to the mass market, and that no permits or papers were required to buy one. Do you believe that everyone owning a
hand gun would sell his old weapons and buy the new ones? I tend to think that most people would not, for a very simple
reason. Despite comments made by hand gun owners stating that they do not own their weapons out of
vanity or fascination, I believe they do.
Just consider exactly what guns are: they are an equalizer without match; the strong and the weak, the skilled and the unskilled, the ignorant and the intelligent all fall the same before a bullet's bite. In order to inflict lethal injury, all one must do is point the weapon in the direction of the target, maintain a somewhat reasonable aim, and then pull the trigger. Bang. Game over. Truly the power of God, that power of life and death, has been placed into the hands of man with the advent of firearms. To say that the absolute, undeniable power that radiates from having control over a gun has no effect on a gun owner is absurd. If you want to argue against gun control, admit to your fascination with guns. Until you do, I won't find you credible, and many other people won't, either.
No, I don't own a hand gun. That doesn't mean I don't want to, but currently it just isn't an option. And yes, I do believe in limited gun control--not to the extent of banning all hand guns, but certainly something more adequate than what we, in the United States, have now. The majority of the problems associated with guns in the United States do not stem solely from the presence of deadly weapons; instead of complaining solely about the quantity of guns available, proponents of gun control should look at other factors, as there certainly are plenty (mental health trends, societal tendancies, and the m-word).
As an aside, am I the only person to notice that when it comes to gun control, there are only two sides? There certainly has to be a reasonable compromise between "Yes, we need m-16s to protect ourselves from the corrupt government. And a tank, too," and "Guns? Holy shit! Guns! Ahhhhhhhh! Burn them! Burn them all!" Whenever you argue, don't do it for the children, and don't do it for your right to bear arms. Do it because you--after careful consideration and thought, with all of the evidence and statistics at your disposal--actually believe it's the right thing to do.