Sure, it seems an incongruous mix. But there’s a lot to be said for how our society deals in all four of the above categories of “goods.”

In case you haven’t read it, the title for this post is a direct reference to a fun read on the history of civilization (with particular emphasis on New World conquests). It delves into how all three categories (guns and germs and steel) served to propel the “developed” world to usurp those lands that lacked for these essential ingredients.

Though I find it interesting to understand how we may have arrived at our current position in this still Euro-centric global culture, this post will warp the book’s goals to look at guns, germs and steel as they continue to pervade our modern lives and help define the line between the haves and have-nots.

Consider assault rifles, pit bulls and racing motorcycles. (Stay with me now.) All three are counter-culture icons. They’re the “guns, germs and steel” of our society’s rebellious underbelly (in Miami, at least). Contrast these to the high-powered hunting rifle, the schutzhund-trained GSD and the Porsche 911 Turbo. These, too, are the guns, germs and steel of modern day US culture. In the hands of the rich and powerful, their use tends towards greater restraint—but their lethal potential is essentially identical.

Having experienced plenty of high-priced, “attack-trained” GSDs (most are not truly schutzhund material, though their commands are still in German) along with my share of pit bulls, there’s no doubt as to which of the two I’d rather encounter in a dark alley. For the love of God, give me the pit every single time!

Seriously though, what’s the difference between a fully automatic, rapid-loading high-powered hunting gun and an AK-47? (One has deadlier aim and a five-digit price tag—guess which.) A soccer-mom’s Cayenne or the 120 mph motorcycle flirting with disaster in rush-hour traffic? (About $50,000 and fifteen years.)

My point: It’s all about the handler. These are all, ultimately, none too different when it comes down to the nuts and bolts of deadly weaponry. They can all kill fast and furiously.

Because more aggressive handlers tend to fall into pretty clear demographic groups of dubious distinction, their choice of tools are similarly disparaged for wreaking havoc. By finding legal fault in the user’s weapon selection, this backward approach chips away at our constitutional rights to equal treatment under the law.

Isn’t it short-sighted to ban discreet items in place of curbing behavior, anyway? It’s almost like outlawing rocks only to sanction the use of BB guns. After all, what kids really need is a well-placed, figurative stick. (An attractive carrot wouldn’t hurt, either.)

Want to end gun crime? Automobile deaths? Dog bites? Deal with each issue on its own merits, by attacking the category as a whole, or its users, not by banning their individual choice of tools.

Let me be clear: I hate to make a pro-gun argument in any context (backhanded though it may be). It’s not my thing. But if Dick Cheney can swing his big gun into the back of his Hummer alongside his well-armed version of a security dog, then God bless America…but give me back my pit bull terrier.