This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2016, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

Fair warning. Today's column is about gun control. It may cause anger in some readers, particularly those whose views are extreme on either side of the issue. Proceed at your own risk.

Let me start by saying I exercise poor gun control. I don't know how many guns I have. With the exception of the two that my wife permits upstairs, the rest are locked away in the basement. I haven't seen or used them in — well, I don't remember that either.

Of the two allowed upstairs, the handgun is secured in a place where it's easily accessible only to people who know where it is, a small group I refer to as "me."

The other gun, an old .54-caliber Sharps rifle, is leaning in a corner of my office. If you have to ask why I need a buffalo gun, you haven't been paying attention to the news.

With all the stories of tourists petting large dangerous animals despite being warned not to, there's no telling when it will happen in my neighborhood. And it takes a big bullet to bring down something that dense.

What? Yes, of course I meant the tourist.

Why should a magnificent rule-abiding buffalo have to pay for the idiocy of a tourist? There aren't very many buffalo, whereas there's a never ending supply of blithering vacationers.

Gun control has been a hot-button issue ever since our Founding Fathers failed to anticipate the day when the average American would want a machine gun to protect his or her home.

Back when the Constitution was framed, firearms were lethal but required a cumbersome reloading process between shots. This was fast enough for home defense and hunting, but not so much when everyone else had a musket as well.

What if you had to shoot several somebodies back then? Well, tough. The Second Amendment does not say a thing about artillery and/or bombs being necessary for home defense.

Suddenly, people asked themselves, "Well, the government has assault weapons. Why can't I have one, too?"

It's precisely this logic that cuts through the argument. It isn't whether we need gun control, but rather how much we need. We already have some control in place. And it's a good thing, too.

Even the most hard-headed anti-gun-control supporter would agree that it's one thing for some extremist to want an assault rifle and quite another to want an atomic cannon.

I support gun registration. By this I mean all guns should be registered with the government. Yes, that means the shotgun your great-grandfather gave you. Ditto war souvenirs, guns you find just lying around, and guns bought at gun shows, swap meets and anywhere else.

We currently register vehicles, businesses, aircraft, babies, radio stations, voters, boats, animals and sex offenders. I don't see what the big deal is about registering guns.

What's that you say? Registration means the government will have a list of gun owners to track down when the day comes that they decide to disarm the citizenry.

That's true, but why are we ignoring the freedom-robbing threat of vehicle registration? Our trucks and cars get more use than our guns. Going wherever the hell I want is a personal freedom I'm deeply concerned about.

What if the government decides that too many Americans are being killed due to the irresponsible operation of private vehicles and decides to force all of us onto public transportation? I'll probably ride the bus.

Do I trust the government to be fair? Of course not. But unregistered vehicle (or gun) ownership isn't something over which I'm willing to get into a losing gunfight with the police, then the National Guard, and then the U.S. Military.

Maybe this proves I'm a wimp. More likely it just proves that I'm not willing to turn myself into terrorist just because I'm not getting what I want.

Robert Kirby can be reached at rkirby@sltrib.com or facebook.com/stillnotpatbagley.