Editor’s note: This is the second column in a four-part series on mental health and gun control.
There are many people who seek to maintain the ability to acquire high powered weaponry by any means possible. Needless to say, they result to many schemes and arguments to go about accomplishing this goal. One of these strategies, which I find to be one of the most common, yet least powerful, is that claim that guns- alone- are quite harmless. Aside from being obvious, this claim is also rather useless in proving anything. Nothing which has any relation to anything has any affect on it either.
Let me lay out the matters which give me quite an itch on this argument. The fact remains that guns are tools. I will cede ground to second amendment advocates in saying that it is true, guns are not inherently bad. A gun left alone with no operator is in fact even less useful than the air that surrounds it, and is entirely capable of accomplishing nothing on its own. I have no grounds to say that guns are essentially or objectively a bad thing. But, what that argument—which is often used by gun rights activists— fails to do, is expand that decent logic any further.
A firearm is a tool, just as any other. What makes tools unique— and quite unlike anything else, such as life and humanity— is that they have definite, undeniable, well defined, and concrete purposes for their existence. They are created for a reason, and are defined by the fact that, over their lifetimes of service, they can carry out the acts which they were created for. Ancient hand axes were made for the flaying of hides and meat (and other materials) — and were used for such. Screwdrivers were made for turning screws and are employed to such an end. Tools are created with an original concept and intent, though they may find themselves doing other things; ancient hand axes were not made to be studied by scientists— though they now are— and screwdrivers were not intended to be used as tiny pry bars though they sometimes are.
A firearm, as a tool, is an instrument that was created with the purpose of eliminating biological life— or killing, if you prefer that term. Firearms merely inherited the concept of projectile launching mechanisms from thousands of years before. From throwing stones by hand, to throwing spears, to making the atlatl to increase the effectiveness of a human’s spear throwing efforts, to the development of slings, to the adoption of the bow and arrow, and to the firing of cannons— projectile launching mechanisms have all sought to make easier the human effort involved in launching fatal objects towards other biological organisms, and towards maximizing our efficiency at doing such. The firearms of today are no different; tools developed with the idea of maximizing the efficiency of killing.
As I stated before, not all tools are always used in regards to their original purpose. Guns are no different. Yet, what does set them apart is that when they are not used for killing, their substituted uses still never fall far from the tree. Take target shooting or skeet shooting for example: both of which are still simulations of the act of killing, both of which are measures of one’s possible efficiency at doing such, and both of which are reflections of situations that humans have faced in less artificial environments. In a way they are merely exercises for killing (targets are even shaped as humans sometimes). This is the nature of a firearm, it is simply quite useless when it comes to anything other than performing its original purpose or acting as though it is doing so. It is far easier for one to substitute a paper weight with their coffee mug when they walk away from their desk than to sit a pistol on it. The nature of a mug is quite harmless; it can be used for many strange alternative purposes. A pistol not so much.
Even when not performing their purpose, the ever present danger with firearms, is that— somehow— they will. A gun not fired and sitting on a table, can still perform its purpose with flawless efficiency if a toddler passes by and takes a liking to its cold frame and interesting shape; this has happened before– just look at the incident which took place in Cleveland, Ohio just before Christmas. Nonetheless, the gun was merely doing its job and doing it well. If it were a worker, one would congratulate him for doing exactly what was asked of him. It is not guilty of anything, for it lacks the ability to do anything. It carried out its purpose. It did that which all tools are made for; maximize the human effort placed into them and to convert that effort into what they are directed at. What guns convert trigger pulls into are fatal projectiles; if they aren’t on safety they will obey that command to all ends. They will not say, “Oh but my dear sir you are mentally ill and all of these people are innocent, so I shan’t fire” or “No sweet child it is your father who has left me unattended and I shall berate him when he returns, so run along now!” They will do exactly what they are made for and fire. End of story.
Blame the people all you like, but blame the nature of their weapon of choice. Shooters would have much harder lives if they were using prehistoric hand axes or coffee mugs. Do not forget that tools maximize human efficiency, and that modern firearms are great at doing exactly such.
Jordan Marcell is a 20-year-old English and studio art sophomore from Geismar, Louisiana.