I know next to nothing about guns. I can tell you the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, and I know that AK-47s and AR-15s are big and scary, but not technically “assault rifles.” Other than that, my knowledge is extremely limited.
What’s important, though, is that I know how little I know about guns. So, instead of giving a detailed proposal outlining how I, a freshman political science major, am going to solve the problem that has plagued America for decades, I’m going to offer some thoughts that are probably on many of our minds.
We are lacking experts on guns when it comes to gun control. Don’t get me wrong -- I’m all for increased restrictions, and possibly an assault weapons ban. But if we do take such measures, it is absolutely imperative that people who are versed in the complexities of guns have significant input on legislation, to make sure it is actually effective. Blanket-banning assault weapons is not going to work, insofar as we allow copycat loopholes or accessories that give non-banned guns the same capacity as the banned ones.
As well as a dearth of experts, we’re also lacking basic common sense when it comes to gun control. The political right loves to tout common sense as a justification for everything from bathroom lawsto energy legislation.Even though I lack the technical knowledge of guns, I can still provide a perception of the issue that invokes common sense as validation.
In the aftermath of the Orlando tragedy, I’m glad that, even a few weeks later, the conversation has not completely dissipated. However, I’m disappointed to see that both sides of the political spectrum are still playing games to demonize the other side, instead of actually confronting the real problem.
There are some important issues that absolutely do need to be addressed. As a liberal, I am for increased restrictions and an assault weapons ban. However, there are still some issues that the left does not necessarily address adequately. One of these is the general purpose of guns in society.
The right often touts guns as a savior, manifesting as the perfect weapon of self-defense. I’ll give it to them: I’m sure a gun can incapacitate a perpetrator better than fighting them off with your bare hands. This is assuming that the armed civilian is able to shoot it in time and aim correctly. There are a lot of factors that come into play with self-defense but, sure, let’s assume for a minute it works and is a viable solution.
Unfortunately, this is not a compelling enough reason to abandon all other measures to restrict gun access. You can agree or disagree with my stance, but I can promise you I will never own a gun, let alone walk down the street with a concealed weapon. That is an unalterable fact. Yet, legislators are quick to introduce gun rightspolicies, without giving a second thought to their constituents. Thus, I have to ask myself: When are legislators going to start caring about me? What plans do they have to make sure I can walk down the street, or into a movie theater, or a school without getting shot? I’m never going to carry a gun, so if your only solution is “guns for self-defense,” you’re leaving me out of the picture and out to dry. That is unacceptable.
And if you tell me it’s my own damn fault for not owning a gun, and I ought to invest in one, maybe we need to have a chat about “liberty.” Because forcing a gun onto me -- whether it be by mandate or by implicit force -- is quintessential big government.
Moreover, we see the emergence of gun owners, providing reasons not to seize their guns, and explaining that they are responsible enough to use them nonviolently. The left is quick to retort that there is “no viable reason to ever own a military-style assault weapon.” Both sides provide valid arguments; however, this is not the debate we need to be having.
The discourse that ought to occur following a shooting -- or just in general, to prevent more bad things from happening in the future -- should not revolve around whether guns have uses, but rather how we evaluate these uses in the context of their capacity for terror. AK-47s or AR-15s might be helpful for self-defense; however, are you really going to be carrying one in a movie theater, or school, or nightclub? Will it be there for you when you need it most? An AR-15's adaptability for hunting and other purposes makes it a convenient weapon to own; does that trump the fact it’s a convenient weapon to kill scores of people with, as well? It’s our right as the people to bear arms of some sort, but how does that coexist with our right to public safety?
How do we weigh the functionality of household weapons against their potential and manifest potency? These are the questions we need to be asking.
And, yes, it’s frustrating that responsible gun owners may be punished for the acts of mass shooters. Unfortunately, that’s how our society works. Sure, some people might be able to drink responsibly under 21, or smoke some pot, or go over the speed limit safely. However, because these actions carry inherent risk, we have made them illegal. At this point in time, I see no reason why any person’s right to own a gun ought to take precedence over another’s right to live.
Unfortunately, this issue that is definitely very much about guns has been constantly manipulated to make it about anything but the weapon that has been far too frequently employed to murder people.
When it comes to mass shootings, there usually is a lot more at play than a guy who grabs a gun and wreaks havoc. The media loves to explore the motives and identity of the perpetrator, and characterize them as a terrorist, or misunderstood, or mentally unstable, or what have you.
It’s important to understand the underlying factors that coalesce and erupt in a mass shooting. Yet we cannot continue to use them as a scapegoat and ignore the issue of guns. We seem stuck in these false dichotomies: is the Orlando shooting an issue of terrorism or gun control? Was Sandy Hook about mental health or gun control?
Why can’t it be both? Weapons control and radicalization are intertwined issues; just as we don’t want Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, so too would it be nice to prevent ISIS sympathizers from buying AR-15s. If we really wanted to be “tough and vigilant” on ISIS, we would support legislation to ensure they cannot access high-powered weapons.
No matter how radicalized Omar Mateen was, if he wasn’t able to get his hands on a weapon, he would have not been able to carry out the attacks. I know it’s easy to say that even if he didn’t obtain an AR-15, he would have been able to bring a handgun, or a knife, or another weapon into a club. That may be true, and we do have to take steps to eradicate domestic radicalization. However, reality suggests that Mateen would have been able to inflict significantly less damage with a knife, than a semi-automatic weapon. We cannot have suspected terrorists picking up AR-15s. It’s just unacceptable.
At the same time, it’s disappointing to see the left mobilizing over bills that seek to increase the salience of racial profiling and combating “radical Islamism” more so than they have in the past to address other mass shootings with a white perpetrator. Yes, I agree with legislation to reduce the terrorist threat. However, a white guy with a gun is just as dangerous -- and overwhelmingly more common in mass shootings -- than a Middle Eastern (or an American with Middle Eastern heritage), and our gun control efforts should focus on the common denominator of guns rather than singling out specific perpetrators. Again: common sense.
The issue of gun control is admittedly complex, and will require compromise from both the left and the right. However, that is is difficult does not mean it is impossible. I can only hope to see progress in the coming months.
