I recently received many emails about this, at least one of which had a valid point: this essay sucks. The underlying thesis is non-obvious, perhaps non-existant, and all it does is make me look like a hippy. So, I don't support this essay anymore.
Let us consider what a gun is used for:
Okay, and that is a protected right ... why?
Arms are used for only killing; killing is illegal; guns should be illegal. Making them legal is giving a piece of candy to a five-year-old and telling this child not to eat it.
So you use your gun for hunting sport; good, you're a piece of shit—stop killing Bambi. So you use your gun for protection; good, you have no idea how you would react during a crisis and are endangering yourself by leaving the gun available. So you use your gun for recreational shooting; good, find something better to do.
I like that I didn't actually back down from a stance but instead admitted that the writing is not very good. And in retrospect I wasn't wrong, but I sure was lacking nuance.
I also like the idea of Everything2 being something better to do.
