Yes, lengthy, but read if you choose. These are just some of my personal views and logical analyses toward the emotional impulses being applied to the improper use of inanimate tools. This was originally a private exchange with a friend:

The statistics that we have in the United States do not match the emphasis that is being placed on rifles. The legislation is focusing on rifles, specifically, yet rifles account for very few of the homicides that occur every year. If they want to be true to the statistics on deaths caused by firearms, then they should crack down on handguns, instead, but that still won't affect anyone who doesn't care about obeying the laws of the land, such as career criminals and gang members.

So if we have to get rid of the tools that are being used inappropriate and causing harm, then why is there no initiative to confiscate knives or baseball bats, both of which are frequently used for homicides. A tool is a tool. *An inanimate object cannot kill.*

On the contrary, an inanimate object in the hands of someone who has a good heart can be used to help and defend, whereas an inanimate object in the hands of someone with an evil heart will be used to hurt and destroy. The tool is the not problem and removing the tool from the "good" people only opens the door for its exclusive use by the "bad" people.

Yes, we have had some concentrated tragedies recently, and they are tragedies, but to focus on one tool over another tool, when other tools have been abused on a far greater frequency over the years, is not logical. It is emotional. Long term problem are never resolved by emotional impulses, when those emotional impulses only focus on short-term symptom and fail to diagnose the long-term cause.

If legal civilians are forced to turn over their guns, then they will, because they believe in obeying the laws, but the individuals who are committing the homicides, burglaries, assaults, etc, don't care about the laws and will thrive on the defenseless citizens who were already obeying the laws and striving to be upstanding citizens.

Disarming the good people only gives free reign for the bad, because the bad don't care if they act contrary to the laws of the land. If the good are left defenseless, then who will protect the innocent?

Might I add that I have never been a "gun advocate". I only have a couple and have rarely gotten to shoot them in fifteen years, because I didn't have a safe place to do so. I may not be a gun advocate, but I believe absolutely in the right to protect my family with whatever means are necessary, when peaceful withdrawal is not an option.