With a gun, a 100 pound woman can successfully defend her life from a vicious assault by a 170-pound man On the other hand, if she is careless or foolhardy, the gun will more readily manifest and magnify the result of that behavior. Being more effective, it is less forgiving of error, impulse, mindlessness. Yet in one case and the other, the gun has not done good, the gun has not done evil. As a tool it enables a man or woman to do greater good or greater evil. Take it away, and you have reduced man’s capacity to do harm, yes, but you have also reduced man’s capacity to do good. That we entertain serious discussions about eliminating guns, speaks not so much to the “evil” nature of the thing itself – it has not moral nature – or to our revulsion over the harm wrought with it, as it does about our beliefs in our own capacity and willingness to do good, to undertake those actions in service of the good that would require or recommend the use of that tool. We see no good in guns because we have drawn a line through performing those good deeds for which a gun would be necessary or advisable and, what is more chilling, doubt our own capacity to do so. For this reason more than any other, there is no salvation through gun control.
Nation of Cowards page 10.
[If I understand what he is saying correctly I think I can extrapolate a bit and make things more clear:
If you believe mankind is so flawed that gun control is necessary to protect us from ourselves then we are so flawed that we will destroy ourselves without guns as well.
Is that the way you read it too?—Joe]