[Skybird]

It was the use of wepaoins that enabled man to protect himself from the beasts of the wilderness that hunted him, later it were weapons that enbaled man to avoid starvation by hunting aniumals too dangeorus or too big to hunt them wiothout wepaons; and then again weapons were what allowed the weak to protect themselves agai8nstth e physically supeiror guy. Wepaons are the big equalizer, and thus have probably done more for justice and self-protection to man as any word, any code, and good intention alone. And if ever civilization may fall again - and that can happen easily, since in Freuds word civilised manners are only a very thin layer of paint that all to easily can be scratched off - then it will not educaiton or intention, not gold and not stockpiled food, not a reserve of medical drugs and not a begging smile on a face that can keep the looter and plunder, the murderer and rapist away. What then decides whetehr oyiu becomne prey and will need to suffer what you must - is a weapon and your skill to use it.

THIS guy in Las Vegas, was a nuthead, and obviously he was hot for illing scores of people. He wanted it, by all what he can say. And so he would have found a way to do so. We have saeen in past months how cars and trucks can be turned into wepsaons easily, killing scores. Think of truck bombs. If people would have no right to carry arms, it still would not have prevented anything. This guy wanted to kill. He was hot for it. And he would have found a way. Are terrorists using trucks as weapons an argument to no longer use trucks?

Those wanting to havbe tighter gun laws, would have a case if statistics would show that ordinary citizens, peacefull and law-obeying, time and gaain would draw their weapon and start firefights with each other. But this is not the case. Firearms used for committing suicide, are also no argument, because the decision wheter or not somebody wants to end his life, is his decision, and not that of society or state.

And finally, tighter gun laws would not prevent cirminals commiting crimes by the use of firearms. Becasue - and that is ignored by anti-.wepaon aqctivists all the time - crimes are mostly beign committed by the use of illegal firearms. And these illegal firearms, their avialability and their numbers, you do not tackle by taking the wepaons out of the hands of ordinary people who are no problem anyway. You just render the latter helpless victims.

What really is behind these outcrys whenever an amok run takes place or excessive use of firearms by a nuthead or a criminal killed people, si somethign else, probably, a psychological thing. People want life and world to be good and safe for them. Predictable, and themsleves masters who are in ciontrol of their future, their life'S time. And then somebody coimes and takes this tiem and life away as he wants, and all the mehcinaisms of prjecting more or lerss illusive proteciton (police, and spending on security), get shattered. Chaos breaks into the fairy tale world where the good fairy rules and everybody can get not harmed if he plays by the rules. Trouble in paradise! Chaos...! Suffering, pain, madness. This is more than many can handle, can bear, they are grabbing for just any straw to revive the dream, the illsuion of that total security cna be had: lets ban weapons! No weapons allowed, no harm from weapon - logical, eh? Well, its fairy tale logic where animals can tlak and miracles cna happen if you say the magic word or dream the mystcial dream under the right tree, in the right night.

It may be human. But it is - well, it is, sorry, childish.

And it does not work.

The argument by activists oftehn is that people are carrying weapons becasue they are afraid. Well, what is the argument in that? That they would not be afraid when beign in danger and not being armed. My reply to that would be this: most people want a wepaon, because it is the big equalizer, and enables them to confront the bad guy even if he is stronger than they are. They do not want weapons because they are afraid - they want a weapon so that they must not be afraid.

Fight and conflict between humans, are part of human history, and I claim: part of hman nature. There will enver be a time when peopel will not fight, will not use force, will not wage war. And be honest: to not insignificant part that is because violeance is fascinating, there is not adventure whereyou enjoy the excitement without ther ebeign risk and danger involved, and not few people on this planet find violance to be a valid tool to use in order to get what they want. Thats the world you and me and everybody have to live in. We may not like it, but I do not see the world changing dramatically any time soon. War, killing, violence is a legimtite form of communcation for not a few people int he worlds. You do not like that. I do not like it. But that'S how it is. War is part of our human nature. Fighting, killing is part of life. An ordinary part of life, I would evensay. Tjhat we mourn perosnaol losses and sacrifices, doe snot chnage that, only illustrates that this time we got personally affected. Life goes on, world continues to revolce aroudn the sun, live with it. All nature is fighting aorund us.

Last year, a good movie was to be seen at the cinema, or was it two years ago already: Arrival. In it, the military wants to recruit a linguist explert to communicate with aliens that arrived on planet Earth. The expert sends the Colonel, who had doubts on her, to another expert and tells him he should ask that one for the explanation and translation of the old Sanskrit word for "war". Later, the Colonel rings at her door in the night and hires her and tells her the other expert told him that the translation for the Sanskrit word for war means: "I want more goats".

Some always want more goats. Some because they are greedy and never can get enough, others because they value goats differently than the other.

And to quote another movie, there are other guys who just want to see the world burn, and nothing more than just this.