I’ve heard it said that more people are killed by cars than guns. That may be true, but I’d be willing to bet that if you measured purposeful killing, you’d get a slightly different statistic. Lets face it. If I wanted to kill 9 people, what do you think would be the most efficient way to do so? Get a big, hulking car, find a crowd and try to ram into the middle of them, then back up, and go after the ones I missed? Then somehow ditch the car, unless I stole it first, which has its own risks.
Alternatively, I can buy a gun (since I haven’t killed anyone yet, I am apparently one of the legendary law-abiding citizens we hear so much about), then walk into a church and kill 9 people. If I’ve got an assault rifle and a 40 round magazine, maybe I can kill a few more.
The problem with guns is not the guns. They are, effectually, inanimate objects that are of no consequence when left in a drawer. It is when a person picks it up and inserts a bullet that it becomes lethal.
The adage bandied around by the gun lobby is “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. Well, that’s close but not complete. The more accurate comment would be “guns don’t kill people, people with guns kill people”.
If guns were not the efficient killing machines that gun control proponents profess them to be, then why do killers keep choosing them to kill with? If cars, or knives, or baseball bats, or hand grenades were more efficient at killing innocent people, why do those who would kill keep choosing guns?
To quote the King of Siam, “It is a puzzlement”.