There’s no glory in guns

Jake Schwebach
Jake Schwebach

Do you, like many Americans, long for the days you could settle a dispute with a good old-fashioned duel? Perhaps à outrance – to death?

In more respectable days, you utilized your 10 inch smooth bore flintlock dueling pistol.  At the drop of a handkerchief, you disposed of the problem and “that took care of that.” These short-range firearms kept trouble at bay. This noble tradition has been desecrated at the hands of gun-hating liberals.


We’re perpetually being forced to find more sophisticated ways to exercise gun rights. Al Capone, a pillar of ingenuity, swiss–cheesed his way through rival businessmen. Money is the fastest way to get anything done in America. With the cops on his payroll, 1920s Chicago was a 2nd Amendment utopia. This once honorable way to make a living – also squashed.

Security has become absolutely ridiculous. Everyone knows the average citizen is smart enough to safely handle advanced weaponry. But, as our personal freedoms continue to be sacrificed for “public safety,” it’s increasingly difficult to keep those ballistics wedged between our belts.

Sure, there’s the occasion tri-annual mass school shooting and 11,078 gun homicides a year. The 923 people who are murdered gruesomely per month do so for our freedom as Americans. We should honor these heroes rather than use it as tragic excuse for gun control.

This sacred right was thread into the same fabric that protected our right to own slaves. Of course, our country has made great strides. Did you know that black non-slaves can now vote? Women, too. Why alter anything else?

The U.S. Constitution calls for “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” What would every gun-owning citizen do if they couldn’t form their own militia? Join the army? Fort Collins wouldn’t be able to declare war on Nicaragua. That’s what’s at stake.

The debate will not end anytime soon. The way I see it, there are three possible compromises.

The first: make bullets illegal. We all know Americans are way too lazy to forge their own, anyway. There’s not a more secure feeling than holding a weapon that has assisted the murder of millions. Note that guns don’t kill people. They only make the process so much more expedient. Guns would simply be a proverbial “I feel like murdering you,” not unlike a middle finger. You could still chuck it at someone’s face if you desire. This compromise is especially relevant to inner-city gangs. They’d point guns, vent and then go get ice cream. It also levels the playing field in Russian roulette.

The second: make guns illegal (but not bullets). This way, we can fashion slingshots and those spitty straw things. You would get originality points and maybe even produce bruises.

The third: make all guns legal and bulletproof everything. So when a gunman rages through your school, you can continue listening to your lecture while the bullets fly around you. This would also do wonders for the composite materials market – “Hey Ashley, is that Kevlar Prada you’re wearing? It’s darling.” OK, this third compromise is like abolishing guns altogether. You can’t pierce anything so what’s the point? You’d keep that “yippee–kay–ay, mother–” feeling, that’s what. Oh wait, that only exists in movies.

All satire aside, gun violence is a very real, very serious, issue. The right to protect ourselves is as valuable as any. Take an honest look at whether guns protect or harm more people. A weapon so extreme and evolved just perpetuates paranoia. It’s fighting fire with fire. The concept of matching an aggressor’s force as a means of self-defense is termed mutually assured destruction.


Guns lend the idea that it will give you an advantage. There are few scenarios where mace pepper spray wouldn’t give you that advantage. What if someone points a gun at you first? Crass, but there’s not much you can do about it even if you have a gun tucked behind your belt. Catch-22.

If we live in a country where we’re using guns for safety more than we’re cleaning them off streets, not much has changed since 1920s Chicago. Except, of course, the technology. The argument that gun control wouldn’t do anything (every last gun involved in homicide was illegal anyway) – is that a valid enough argument to not try? It’s not possible to get every single gun off the street, sure. But, keeping them in circulation is a very scary dead end.

Jake Schwebach occasionally engages in satire to communicate the need for gun control. Feedback can be sent to

In Brief:

The average citizen is neither trained or capable of handling guns.

The debate over gun control has just begun, and there aren’t compromises on the horizon.

Keeping guns in circulation is a very scary dead end.