This humungous over-simplification of a complex problem (entropy vs. optimism) seems to crop up whenever there is talk about banning something which has both practical and malicious uses. The latest example is the discussion about a stupid, frightening, or just weird proposal (Update: sorry, the link is dead) to criminalize "mak[ing] network monitoring tools publicly available [...]".

I really have no idea how such issues can keep being used as examples for why guns are not "inherently bad". I also can't understand why non-lethal means of self protection seem to be ignored as viable alternatives. The founding fathers really messed up when they didn't foresee more humane and efficient means of protection than guns. Using a stun gun or other non-lethal self defence methods / tools, you

  • avoid being tried for involuntary manslaughter, or worse
  • avoid basically any fatal or permanent injuries in case of accident
  • What, you need another reason?!

I'd love to keep going for a couple hundred paragraphs, if only to get this steam out, but I think my point has been made.

Oh, and if you're looking for a way to sneak in "If guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns": The only thing that matters if both of you have weapons of any kind, is who gets hit first. You are not Bruce Willis, and the "bad guy" is not a fucking terminator! So leave out the heavy artillery, and learn to use a stun gun (if you really need one) quickly.