Dear Al,

I promised you that my next letter would deal with the moral implications of a gun free world. Although parts of this letter will sound facetious they're not meant to be. They're a result of my show-me attitude. When someone says "I want a poverty free world" my immediate response is, "How are you going to get there?" I'm not concerned with hearing the joys of ending poverty; I just want to know how; the joys will take care of themselves. So when I took on the assignment of "a gun free world" the first question that went through my mind was "OK, there are approximately 200 million guns sitting in American homes. How can they be gotten rid of?"

After struggling and struggling with the problem I realized that the first step is to make people stupid. I know that sounds facetious; it's not my intention. It's more an indication of my no frills approach to announcing conclusions.

Put guns into an historical perspective, especially handguns, and you'll see why it is necessary to dumb the public down to create a gun free world. A handgun is the most advanced form of personal self-defense ever devised. Think of the other options of self-defense. To list a few: barehanded fighting, knife fighting, rock throwing, using spears, bows and arrows, or swords. They all depend on brute strength and/or years of training. A handgun requires virtually no strength and minimal training compared to being a competent knife fighter, martial artist, or rock thrower. A handgun is technology doing what it's supposed to: enabling well-meaning, innocent people to live their lives with a minimum amount of physical effort and training. To attain a gun free world, the millions of people who rely on technology for self-defense have to be convinced they made a mistake. I don't know how to do that without dumbing down the populace.

What do I tell a 68-year-old grandmother who decides to buy a gun to protect herself from teenage super-predators? "Call the police"? She's considered that and decided not to rely on them. How about, "A gun is dangerous"? She's ready to assume the risk; that's why she's buying one. Should I say, "Guns are for killing"? She'll probably reply with something like, "In my neighborhood it's kill or be killed."

I truly do not know how to honestly tell people to reject the most effective means of self defense ever devised.

I do know how to lie about guns because I've observed how others do it.

For instance, I could follow Steven Spielberg's example. Assuming you've seen Schindler's List, you might remember the closing scene where the freed Jews walk into the town happily unarmed. If so, read the book, which thankfully wasn't written by Spielberg. The fact is that Schindler made sure the Jews were heavily armed before he freed them. They walked into town with their guns drawn. Also, the movie portrays Schindler regretting that he had spent lavishly on himself instead of spending on the Jews. Not so. Schindler had no regrets about spending money on himself. Want to know what he regretted? Not arming the Jews sooner.

Maybe I could be a hypocrite about gun control. For instance, Steven Spielberg has one of the finest collections of so-called assault weapons in America. When Charlton Heston saw it he was amazed. This is a matter of record. Spielberg, Hollywood's Mr. Gun Control, has never denied having a great gun collection.

Maybe I could be a liar and hypocrite like California Assemblyman Don Perata. Mr Perata is the author of the recent legislation to widen the ban on so-called assault weapons in California. Mr. Perata also has a license to carry a concealed weapon. I wonder why.

Al, you advocate a gun free world. Tell me how to get there, please.

We'd have to rewrite the history books. It would be absurd to preach a gun free world and then let the citizens read about a country where people picked up guns to win their freedom. No way can you let the public identify the connection between the ability to resist tyranny and the right to keep and bear arms.

If the public were dumbed down enough, all the gun factories could be destroyed; gun owners could be locked up; mass anti-gun indoctrinations could be staged. But a gun free world still would not exist. Because you can't have a gun free world without getting rid of pro-gun people. They make too much sense. They argue their points too well. They're idealists; they're fanatics; there are too many of them. They have to go.

Which leads to the next question: After the pro-gunners are eliminated, who's next? How about columnists who think?

Sincerely,

Joe Zychik