Guns don't really protect you, but they're awesome anti-personnel weapons!

I read a tale originating in the recent sectarian conflicts in Lebanon (quoted from the New York Times):

As the pallbearers approached a store owned by a Shiite man, some mourners rushed in and urged the man to close it out of respect. He refused, and the mourners began smashing his windows with rocks and chairs. Enraged, the man got his AK-47 assault rifle and began firing into the crowd, killing two mourners and wounding others.

How on earth is that gun for protection? Isn't this the more likely outcome when people purchase weapons for self-defense? After all, the shopkeeper might not have been so emboldened to resist the intimidation by the mob had he not been armed. And really, what's so bad about locking the doors for a couple of hours instead of escalating a disagreement to the point of death?

It's this kind of tale that leaves me opposed to widespread, nearly unregulated gun ownership in the United States. I believe that the people who support unfettered firearms access are honest in their views that they can use the cursed things to protect themselves, their families, and even their property. But I also believe that these are military-grade anti-personnel weapon systems that are more likely to create crime and mayhem than prevent it.

CDs listened to today:

• Charles Wuorinen: Concerto For Piano No. 3
• Konono No. 1: Congotronics