A dissertation on the existing physics debate over the existence of strings in space, and their relationship to elementary particles and excitation modes, this is not. No, no, no! This a harangue is on a different kind of string theory, a rather unexpected, very, very surprising altogether different area of physics, the physics of ethics, or, shall we say, "ethical physics". A rather interesting area, that surfaced during a debate on gun control. Yes, that's right, gun control.
Where's the physics in that? one might ask. Brain chemistry, actually. Rather the absence of sound chemistry in that greater portion of homo-sapiens living in America whose brains have truly not evolved beyond that simple-minded mantra "Guns don't kill, people kill!" For erroneously, such imbalanced members of the species actually believe that its members can behave responsibly with guns. This distorted view is symptomatic of this chemical imbalance, which commonly inflicts myopia and denial upon the infected. Consequently, the victims of this horrid condition are unable to accept the realisation, that like babies with razorblades, guns simply do not belong in the hands of humans, and that the banishment of ALL guns is clearly a necessity.
"Guns don't kill, people kill!" Again, that tired, old, selfish, closed-minded, exceptionally idiotic, mantra is the loud, and only, rejoin the imbalanced can muster. Over and over, it is repeated, like the unceasing barking of a watchdog, as if just one more recitation would finally convince all. Surely one of the imbalanced has had a moment or two of lucidity to form some form a better argument than, "Guns don't kill, people kill!"
In actuality, people do kill, and guns simply make it killing more accessible and easier for them to accomplish the deed. And since we acknowledge that people do kill, should not the temptation of gun use be remove? Yet, "Look", says a member of the imbalanced, "I'm a trustworthy person. So, why should I have to give up my guns? Guns are fun to shoot. I like shooting cans and empty milk-cartons. It's really great fun. Just because someone, somewhere, got shot with a gun shouldn't mean that I should give up mine! It's the person behind the gun, not the gun. ...If a kid chokes on a ball of string, should all string be banned?"
Hmmm? Perplexing analogy, string or a handgun? Which is safer? Though ludicrous, a provocative notion, no? For it clearly suggests that perhaps the Neanderthal did not go extinct after all. "From my cold, dead hand. You dumb-ass-Commie-tree-hugger!" is a following rejoin.
Ah, the imbalanced do possess another mantra. A rather diamond-sharp-blade argument, no doubt. Yet this "String Theory" of their ignores the obvious. Guns are simply made to destroy. PERIOD! Unlike string, guns have no other constructive use, be it targets, cans or people, guns literally destroy EVERYTHING they fire upon.
String, it would be wise to remind the imbalanced, has many uses and is not manufactured for ANY destructive purposes. The suggested tragedy of a child choking on string is simply using a freak accident as argument. Yet, in the end, the debate is of no use. As with mad cow disease, there is no cure for the inflected. Yet the mournful cry of the sane is unceasingly uttered.
"Wouldn't it be nice if one could buy brains and manhood as easily as one can buy bullets?"