They’re Not Like Us

In the wake of a historically significant political assassination, the inevitable cries proclaiming guns as murder metal are as predictable as the perpetual screeches of Orange Man Bad. The feverish manner in which the anti-gun crowd screams about Murder Metal (trademarked, or at least dibs) is so loud it drowns out most reasonable people.

Charlie Kirk understood the need for open dialogue. If you’re familiar with his work, you know he was a remarkably laid back debater. What Kirk might have missed is the fact that, as the late Dr. William Aprill said, They Are Not Like You. When drowning out your voice requires murder, they get right on that. But don’t think for a minute they won’t maximize murder metal, standing on the cold body of the very man they killed.

Where is this going? On the anti side, guns are merely instruments of death while on the pro side, guns are tools for protection (or competition or providing food). Sure, that’s something of an over-simplification, but that doesn’t make it wrong.

Liberals vs Conservatives

Many in Gun World like to frame these fights as an us-versus-them issue. It’s those damn liberals, they say, who hate guns. And while I understand where you got that idea, it isn’t precisely correct. Guns may be a polarizing issue, but it’s not one with clearly drawn party lines.

There are far more liberal gun owners than you realize and many of them own or work for big companies (no, I’m not telling you the names). They might not see eye-to-eye with conservatives on everything, but they stand by the belief that the Second Amendment must be protected. With most of these guys, I’m just fine agreeing to disagree, because these are largely rational people.

On the conservative side you have a greater quantity of gun owners than you find on the liberal side. But that doesn’t mean they’re willing to actively defend the Second Amendment. It also doesn’t mean they know jack-all about whatever pistol or shotgun may be collecting dust in their closet.

I’m just saying, I was raised in an uber-conservative, fervently-religious family and guns weren’t their thing despite their NRA membership. Zero guns in that house (it was my late uncle who originally introduced me to the concept of firearm ownership in general). They were the type of people who truly believed a round of ammo on the table was akin to a nuclear warhead that might decimate the entire neighborhood at any second. You think I kid, but I do not.

Back to the gun fights. Rather than seeing this as a liberal versus conservative issue, let’s call it what it is. We have a few options to choose from:

• Defenders of the Constitution versus Haters of the Founding Fathers
• Antis versus Pros
• Gun Rights versus Gun Wrongs
• Gun Owners versus Rape Whistle Owners

The truth is, one side of the aisle thinks the bolt-action rifle the deranged killer used to shoot Charlie Kirk’s is the real culprit in his death. That side sees guns as tools for killing, and that’s it. On the other side—our side, unless you’re someone reading this who will later send me a threat—guns are for protection.

They kill. We protect. This might sound extreme, but here’s why it’s not.

Charlie Kirk’s car analogy

Something Charlie liked to trot out what his car analogy and how it compared to guns. It’s also something that’s been wildly misquoted this past week. Here’s a quick summary of how that works. In 2023, there were more than 40,000 car-related deaths in the United States alone (globally, it’s over a million per year). Those deaths are categorized as road traffic crashes. Violent deaths caused by firearms in 2023 were a bit over 17,000 for the US. No, we don’t count suicides, and if I have to explain why, just show yourself out.

We as a nation—heck, as the human race—are perfectly cool with all of those vehicular deaths. They’re caused by lots of things like drinking, drugs, speeding, distraction, reckless behavior…the list goes on. But we love the fact that our cars give us freedom, take us places fast, and make travel convenient. We’re constantly making our cars more efficient, cooler-looking, faster, whatever. That implies we think the 40,000+ auto-related deaths each year are an okay price to pay — an acceptable tradeoff — for having a nice truck in the driveway.

Why does the anti-gun side jump on firearms as weapons of death, but not cars? Because cars are very convenient. The fact that cars have been used and will continue to be used to murder others doesn’t matter to the anti-gun side of the aisle. Those deaths aren’t all accidents or negligence, people. Cars can be and are used as weapons. But they don’t care.

Guns: The Real Big Bad

Guns are far easier to demonize, likely because the anti-gunners don’t like or care about them (well, they care about the guns their armed guards carry). They also fail to understand them on any level. Taking that a step further, perhaps they enjoy demonizing them for the precise reason the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment in the first place: because deep down, they’re in favor of tyrannical government.

Killing Versus Protecting

Did you ever wonder why the anti-gun people only see firearms as weapons of violence and murder? Could it be because that’s what radical—admittedly evil—people use them for? Whether you like it or not, history is filled with assassins and murderers who fall into the category of being leftists/liberals. You can fight that reality all you want, but it doesn’t change the truth. (And no, the overgrown kid who murdered Charlie Kirk wasn’t a conservative. That’s been made quite clear in the charging documents and by law enforcement as they dig through his life.)

To those who are not like us, guns are for murdering those who disagree with them in some way. To many, guns are evil. Guns are The Big Bad, the metal boogieman under the bed. The only answer is to get rid of them. All of them…unless they’re in the hands of cops, some wealthy guy’s bodyguard, or the guy guarding the bank.

When a person’s mind is twisted in such a way that they can’t fathom how a firearm could possibly be used to save lives, there’s no reasoning with them. You can’t argue with unreasonable people, and you can’t talk rabid anti-gunners into thinking firearms are simply inanimate objects that serve as tools for protection (whether from an immediate threat or a tyrannical government…or that one time a feral hog charged me like I owed it money).

Say it with me: They are not like you and they will always see guns as the real evil rather than the person who pulls the trigger (because that would implicate too many of their comrades).

In stark contrast, when you decide to own a firearm for self-defense, you’re accepting the role of the protector. You’re taking on the responsibility of carrying a tool that can indeed take a life. But because your goal is to protect — yourself or your family — rather than pillage, that tool will only be utilized in the face of death or grievous bodily harm. You see guns as life-saving because you value human life. You are not like them.

That’s Not Turning the Temperature Down

In recent days my inbox has blown up with thoughts from people from both sides of the debate. I’ve had more than one person admonish me for not turning the temperature down, which is a bit funny because I am, mostly, a laid-back, calm person. I’m probably the nicest mean person you’ll ever meet. Really.

Here’s what those people don’t get. This isn’t about what direction the temperature goes, because it’s too late for that. The pot is boiling over, the frog inside is dead, and the smoke alarms are letting you know that wasn’t water after all. The pot was full of gasoline. Now the entire building is burning down, so what are you going to do about it?

There’s a meme I love, but cannot find that says something along the lines of, “Watching civilization burn while I’m over here searching Amazon for hats for my cat. And I’m all, yeah, that’s what republics do.”

You don’t need to spike your blood pressure and scream until you pass out to make your point. There’s no need to be a flaming asshole, to issue threats, or to outdo the fury and violence coming from the other side. I’m not suggesting we all hold hands and sing kumbaya—I never liked that song, anyway—but I am saying you should take a breath and think about what you’re doing. Will your current behavior further your goals? Do you even know what those goals are, beyond getting even?

This is a marathon, not a sprint. You’ll never make it if you don’t find a way to moderate your reactions and put some thought into it. We can be mad without acting like toddlers who didn’t get a piece of the birthday cake. The anti-gun side is inherently reactionary, thoughtless, and hateful. We are, in general, none of those things, and we do not need to telegraph our intentions before we act.

We are the protectors and it’s time we framed our actions in that manner. It isn’t just the Second Amendment that requires saving, though, it’s the entire country. What are you going to do about it?