“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”

One of the most frequently used pro-gun arguments is that a gun is merely an object. It makes no conscious decisions.

In the pecking order of responsibility, the recent mass shootings in Boulder, CO, Atlanta, GA, last weekend’s incidents in Virginia Beach, VA, and the everyday community gun violence that killed roughly 19.380 people in the U.S. last year, the gun is beyond reproach. Rather, the real damage is done by whomever pulls the trigger.

Extending this logic, If there were no guns, the would-be trigger puller of a mass shooting (it is almost exclusively male) or firearm homicide (again, majority male) would merely turn to a different object, such as a knife, baseball bat or fist, to cause harm. The constant is intention.

In fact, two-thirds of the nation’s gun owners—30% of the adult population—say protection is the reason why they own a firearm. “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms” has thus been interpreted as an individual right to armed self-defense (albeit some constitutional scholars and gun control advocates disagree). By this logic, guns bring safety. It is exclusively the person that brings the danger.

The critical underlying assumption of this line of reasoning is that a gun does not change the decision and/or the person. Whether or not a person has—or at least has access to—a gun changes nothing about him or the conscious decisions he makes.

The acclaimed French philosopher Bruno Latour, 73, who has held esteemed positions in prominent universities throughout France and Europe, would disagree. In his 1999 work Pandora’s Hope Latour puts forth an 180-degree assertion.

“You are different with a gun in your hand; the gun is different with you holding it. You are another subject because you hold the gun; the gun is another object because it has entered into a relationship with you.”

How does this change the argument that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” because a gun is merely an object, and that the person would make the same conscious decisions regardless of gun laws? To answer this, let’s break down Latour’s claim to see if it is feasible.

Object Transformation

Within Latour’s idea are two separate claims. Namely, when a subject (a person) holds a gun, not only do they change, but the gun also changes.

The concept that a person may change depending on the object they are confronted with is not a far-fetched idea. For example, this is a phenomenon quite common in athletics. A baseball pitcher may have a fun-loving, easy-going personality; but when he is on the mound with the ball in hand, his entire personality can change to super competitive and highly intense. The same person, but with the ball in hand, at the same time another person.

Another example concerns the nearly 220 million Americans with a driver’s license and those they encounter on the road. Many people are not angry or aggressive people, but quickly release their inner Tyler Durden (see, Fight Club) while behind the wheel of a car. And so we have safety devices, laws and auto controls, including seat belts, speed limits and tailgating sensors, that serve to mitigate these behavioral changes.

What about Latour’s second claim? That is, does the object change because it has entered a relationship with a specific subject? Using the two above examples, I’d argue definitely. There is no denying that what a baseball can do in the hands of an MLB pitcher is drastically different than what it can do when a philosopher holds it. When in the hands of a professional pitcher, a baseball becomes a 100mph moving dart that can cause serious damage. In a philosopher’s hand, not so much.

Thus, not only can a person change depending on what object they are confronted with, but an object can change depending on whom it is confronted by.

Before even investigating whether a gun can be one of these transforming objects, let’s address the fundamental idea of the pro gun argument. That is, firearms are merely objects and therefore exempt from responsibility. As we now see, the contrary is the case; objects are central. They have the potential to transform how people think and act.

Evidently, the sweeping statement that “guns don’t kill people, people do” should raise some serious red flags and deserves equally serious thought in order to solve the all-too urgent issue: What can be done?