His eyes are closed! He definitely shouldn’t have a gun. Photo from benchmarkreporter.com
There are two sides to every argument and this one is no different. Earlier this week Donald Trump proposed that instead of more restrictions on guns in the United States we just need more guns in the United States. In fact, he wants teachers in schools to be loaded for bear just in case a school shooter steps on the premises. More people with guns and bullets flying in multiple directions? (Warning: Read the next sentence with extreme sarcasm) I don’t see how that could go wrong!
Being a reasonable and rational man, (I can see you rolling your eyes right now. Stop that!) I decided to delve into this argument and look at it from both sides. The concern of many is the type of guns available to just about anybody. In some states, if you’ve got a pulse and a United States birth certificate, you can get an automatic weapon with nobody even blinking an eye. For some, it’s the type of gun that people can get their hands on that’s the problem. I couldn’t agree more. Automatic weapons are tools of war and have no place in the hands and homes of civilians.
Think about comparing guns to cars. Anybody and everybody can get a license to drive a car, but not just anybody can drive a military tank. I’m not saying all guns should be eliminated, just the types that are dangerous in the hands of the wrong people. Just like cars, I can drive one, but I probably shouldn’t be able to go to my local department store and buy a military tank. I’d be pretty dangerous with that. I say let everyone have access to guns, but only certain kinds. What kinds you ask? Here’s where I get creative!
Lets take the dangerous guns out of the hands of the public. Which ones though? My suggestions is to take away the ones with bullets. Guns don’t kill people. Bullets kill people. It’s pretty rare that an empty gun has ever killed anyone, despite all the pistol whipping you see in crime shows. But, criminals will be criminals, so we can’t just take away the bullets. They’d find a way to get them illegally. So we have to take away all the bullets and the dangerous guns.
I’m sure you’re saying to yourself, “But Phil, what guns aren’t dangerous?” First, I like that you said “But Phil” when thinking to yourself. Secondly there are only three types of guns the public should be allowed to have: Nerf, water, and Potato. I’m sure most of you are familiar with the first two. If you’re not familiar with Potato guns, here’s the description from Wikipedia: A potato cannon is a pipe-based cannon which uses air pressure (pneumatic), or combustion of a flammable gas (aerosol, propane, etc.), to launch projectiles at high speeds. They are built to fire chunks of potato. When I was a kid we fired tennis balls out of them instead of potatoes. Sure, if the gas or propane backfires, you’ve got a big problem, but in that case only the shooter gets hurt. Now if someone decided to shoot tater tots, that would be an epically good use of a Spud gun as long as someone else had a ketchup gun.
Yes, when I’m elected President, or Sexiest Man Alive, whichever comes first, I’m removing all bullet firing weapons from the public domain with the exception of law enforcement and the military. Don’t give me the protecting your own home or hunting argument. More guns in homes accidentally kill people in the home than they do criminals. Get yourself an alarm system and a baseball bat. Hunting? Really? Is there anyone in the United States that needs to hunt to survive? Bueller? Bueller? Yeah, I didn’t think so. If you really like shooting or want a gun in your home, get a Nerf gun or a potato gun. Like Ralphie’s mother worried, you might shoot your eye out, but nobody’s getting killed. Trust me, we don’t need guns. We’re idiots. The fact that the Kardashians are still on TV proves that. #PHIL2020
Have a great Saturday! ~Phil