Written by Greg Wittig   

For many years, the gun-lobby has put forth the rationalization, “guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” I wonder if they truly feel this way. For example, if we were to substitute other words for guns, say bombs, grenades, or nuclear-biological-chemical weapons would they still feel the same way, as in the phrase “hand grenades don’t kill people, people kill people.” Although I cannot know this with certainty, I suspect that quite a few people who previously believed that guns don't kill people; people kill people would change their minds. Why? The numbers. They might still hold the person pulling the trigger, pressing the button, setting the timer, or pulling the pin is responsible, but the numbers of casualties from the bomb might cause them to question their previously held assumption. I spoke with a first response police officer yesterday who said to me, “I sure hope these school shooters don’t discover bombs.” Exactly. It is in fact all about the numbers. What numbers are needed to make a weapon dangerous enough? So far, we can deduce that 32 murders, the current bar set by Seung-Hui Cho on the Virginia Tech University campus, is still good enough for the NRA to support the phrase guns don't kill people, people kill people. But, as the officer said to me, someone is going to want to be number one, the champion, and set the bar even higher. I don’t want to imagine the number – 32 is already 32 too high. When will the weapon’s potential for mass murder be permitted to be a variable in the debate? Have we become so lost that our right to own an assault weapon is more important than our obligation to protect our children?

Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.
Bombs don’t kill people; people kill people.
Chemical weapons don’t kill people; people kill people.
Biological weapons don’t kill people; people kill people.
Nuclear weapons don’t kill people; people kill people.
Since people kill people, why are we giving them so many weapons?