The difference between having sex and shooting with a gun is that the former results in life while the latter in death. The similarity, apparently, is that both the activities are highly pleasurable; in fact, pleasurable enough to overwhelm one’s judgement and render a person powerless to stop the autonomous car of desire crashing into an innocent chicken crossing the road. The situation is quite like what happens when a cat sees a laser pointer and can’t help but chase it. With news coming alarmingly frequently of assault with a gun, the proverbial and the real, it is quite apparent that men have a big problem with control. The good news is that the problem is solvable, and I would like to propose a solution that I have formulated.
There is a strong lobby which asserts that it is not the guns that kill, but the humans who use them. The premise is valid, but the argument incomplete, if not completely inaccurate. In the case of coitus, it is not the proverbial gun itself that causes pregnancy; does it follow then that it is the man who causes pregnancy? It is foolish or rather “utterly ridiculous” to say that a man’s ability to correctly judge when to and how much to use his “piece” should be the basis of population control.
If we have learned anything from the past, it is that abstinence is as good a method for birth control as fasting is for obesity – sounds good, doesn’t work. As Oscar Wilde says in The Picture of Dorian Gray, “the only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it. Resist it, and your soul grows sick with longing for the things it has forbidden itself…”. Contraceptives are therefore much more effective than abstinence; just as having sweets with artificial sweeteners is more practical than forgoing the desert part of a meal altogether, forever.
The primary focus of the society, therefore, should be the deaths and not the guns; as with birth-control, the focus is on pregnancy rather than sex. I propose therefore that we use what I call the method of “death-control”. Let us take the contentious matter of the right to own a gun out of contention and focus on what ultimately kills – the bullets. The obvious parallel is vasectomy and shooting “blanks”. Give away guns at the local grocer’s I say, but only let the CIA sell bullets.
This is all well, you say, but how does death-control fulfil the purpose of self-defence, the very reason for which this right allegedly exists? I point you to North Korea. The reason a country builds an arsenal of nuclear weapons is not that they intend to bomb their enemies to ground (the only historic exception being the great nation of United States of America) but to serve as a deterrent. A prospective mugger will certainly be deterred by the sight of a gun, loaded or otherwise, as Russian Roulette is not a particularly popular sport in the US of A.
Just like any pirate thrown off-board (even Captain Jack Sparrow was not an exception) is provided with only a single bullet to ensure its judicious use, the citizens of all nations with gun laws similar to the USA should have a death-control law which states that each citizen can at any time own only a single bullet, and the sale of each bullet is associated with a unique identifier such as the Social Security Number, of the purchaser. Doing so will also help expedite homicide investigations as well, since tracking the bullet used to the owner will be possible.
Death-control Law, in effect, kills two albatrosses with a single bullet. Which brings our attention to the bane of hunting, a matter that in itself deserves an entire volume, and as such is beyond the scope of this post. Until the next time then, keep it in your pants blokes.