After the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary, many people said it was “too soon” to talk about gun control. Personally I don’t buy that ideology, but just in case you do, I’ve waited until now to talk about it.
Shortly after the incident, I had the pleasure of getting into a Facebook argument (never good) with two gun rights activists that I didn’t even know. After about an hour or so of back and forth, I realized how ignorant I must have sounded, because I did not really know much about what had happened, or guns, or gun regulations. I took it upon myself to research the topic, and in doing so I found out so many things I wish I could’ve used in the argument.
First, I think that it is important to say that I don’t believe in outlawing all guns. It’s too late for an America without guns, and if we outlawed all guns, only criminals would have them, putting them at an unfair advantage over law-abiding citizens. I do, however, strongly believe that semi-automatic weapons should be banned. The only legitimate reasons people have to own guns are to hunt or to protect their families, and semi-automatic weapons are not necessary to do either. In my argument with those nice people, I said that “military-grade weapons” should be banned, and they told me that all weapons are military-grade. I guess what I meant was semi-automatic weapons with bullets that are made to expand once they enter a body, that have been made for use in Afghanistan, should be banned. I guess I wasn’t very clear.
Second, I think that some of these gun rights activists are a bit too paranoid for their own good. These people who I spoke to on Facebook told me that the second amendment was protecting us from an oppressive government, and so if we outlawed any form of guns, the government might take advantage of us. Oh, yeah right. The fact that you own a gun is totally the only thing between America as we know it and a nightmarish Obama-run dictatorship.
Speaking of Obama, the NRA has gone into full-attack mode over the renewed interest in gun control after the tragedy. Their most recent brilliant alternative to increased gun control is having armed guards in schools, or teachers with guns. They even produced a commercial saying, “Are the president’s kids more important than yours? Then why is Obama skeptical about having armed guards in schools, when his kids are protected by armed guards in their school?” The commercial then goes on to call him an “elitist hypocrite.” To me, this is a new low for the NRA. No one is saying that the presidents’ kids are more important than other kids; the fact is, they’re more likely to be targeted than other children because of their parents. The NRA didn’t seem to have a problem with any other first families having security. Should I be mad that I don’t have Secret Service protecting me like the president does?
Yes, I’ve heard the ideology that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Well, actually, it’s the gun that’s killing the people. People just use them to kill people. And people can use semi-automatic weapons to kill more people. So why aren’t they outlawed?