Guns are devices made solely for the purpose of killing fellow human beings. Being passionate about guns is about the lowest on the scale of emotional advancement you can get. It’s disgusting that they even exist, let alone that people actually want to own them.

People argue that guns are necessary for self-protection, but the statistics speak for themselves: you’re more likely to kill a family member with a gun than you are to successfully protect your family. Everyone reasons, “well, that wouldn’t be me”, but only a small proportion of those people can be right, and what matters is how gun control affects people at large.

And how is the world safe when any old exchange of nasty words or bar fight or street skirmish can easily escalate into a gun fight?

People argue that we need guns to protect us against a rogue government, but that’s silly: the government has a military with machine guns, bombs, tear gas, Apache helicopters, full body protection, etc. If for some reason there were an all-out war between people with guns and the government, the people with guns wouldn’t stand a chance. The right to a “well-regulated militia” is outdated.

People argue that if guns are outlawed then only outlaws have guns, but the truth is that guns would be much more sparse in general, and therefore there would be much less gun violence and murder. And in Australia, where gun ownership is illegal, getting a gun on the black market will cost a criminal $15,000

People say that guns don’t kill people, people kill people, but this is merely semantics. The situation of people using guns to kill people can be understood perfectly without appealing to a particular verbal framing of the issue. Leave it to the low-intelligence-having gun advocates to rely on sophistry such as this. Nuclear bombs don’t kill people, people kill people (with nuclear bombs), so why not make it legal for people to make home-made nuclear bombs?

People say that if it weren’t for guns people would just kill each other in different ways, but it’s a no-brainer that guns make it many times easier to kill, and the easier it is to kill someone the more murders there will be.

People consider it a basic right to own a gun, not realizing that guns are essentially devices of terror and destruction, much like grenades, sarin on the atom bomb, only to a lesser degree, while the underlying principle is the same. Where should we draw the line? Why make it arbitrarily between guns and grenades?

Just to illustrate how absurd society’s regard of guns is, in Austin, TX it’s legal to carry guns but illegal to sex toys. Dildos are considered a more existential threat than murder machines.

In another example, some books are banned in the US while guns aren’t. Thoughts and free speech are considered more dangerous than killing devices.

People appeal to the constitution, particularly the second amendment, as a reason we should have guns, but the context and reasons that was written for are obsolete now. It’s time to update the constitution. Besides, only in America is it seen as so important that the country be fundamentally directed by a 200-year-old document. To other peoples in the world this is seen as strange.

Another rationalization for owning guns is that if everybody owned a gun then everybody would be safe from everyone else who owns a gun. Talk about upping the ante on mutual fear and threat.. this reasoning is so ridiculous I can’t even put into words why because it should be blatantly obvious. It’s not sane and it’s not human. Besides, gun totin’ is a distinctly male interest, males being the more violent and aggressive of the two sexes. What are women going to do to protect themselves from men with guns?

I think the people in society whom we have to fear the most is police. They operate above the law (not officially, but in practice) and kill and beat up innocent people routinely. Anyone wise would be nervous just being around them. They’d be a lot more innocuous if they weren’t allowed to have guns. Citizens could feel safe instead of constantly oppressed by the police as if in a police state. It works just fine in England.

We’ve had so many massacres in the US—mostly school massacres—that it doesn’t even faze us anymore when one happens. At least taking away assault rifles, which have no valid purpose, would greatly assuage this situation, but we can’t seem to be able to do that because the (purely evil) NRA has a lot of funding and is very effective at targeting specific politicians to vote for or against to keep this from happening. What can we do?