Yet again, America experienced another mass shooting. Just when we thought that they couldn’t get deadlier than last year’s Orlando Nightclub Shooting, we witnessed footage of a man opening fire on over 22,000 innocent civilians at the Jason Aldean concert in Las Vegas.

58 are reported dead and over 500 are injured, making this the deadliest shooting in American history.

And yet again, America is having the never-ending discussion about gun control. We continue asking questions about how someone with a mental illness can still obtain weapons, why the shooter was able to purchase bump-stocks for his gun, why guns are even sold to civilians in the first place, and the list goes on.

But while scrolling through Facebook, I kept seeing comments from gun rights activists saying something along the lines of this:

I want to make it clear that I don’t discredit the arguments made by gun rights activists. I'm always willing to hear points of view that differ from my own. But, I will say that the analogy between continuous mass shootings and pressure cookers/car crashes makes ABSOLUTELY no sense.

First off, what do you think of when you’re asked about a pressure cooker’s function? Probably something cooking/food related, because that is what the product is intended to do and is used for by the American population. What do you think of when someone asks you about a loaded gun’s function? Probably something related to shooting something/someone, because that’s what it’s intended to do and is often used for.

Bottom line: the fundamental purpose of a pressure cooker isn’t lethal or injured, while a gun’s almost always is. Shooting at a range seems to be the only exception.

Using household items like pressure cookers, water bottles, and clocks as weapons is a legitimate issue that shouldn't be taken lightly. However, creating lethal weapons from these items takes time, skill, and experimental engineering. A pressure cooker can’t kill by itself, but a loaded gun can once it’s in someone’s hands.

Sure, there are other deadly items that we’re allowed to purchase, like chainsaws, axes, and knives. But these items can’t injure/kill nearly as fast nor discreetly as a firearm can. You can’t kill 58 people at a concert from your hotel room with a chainsaw, but we all know that you can with guns.

As for car accidents, there are several regulations government imposed to minimize casualties. Some of the many examples are seat belt laws, needing to obtain a driver's license, requiring car manufacturers to install airbags, and more.

There’s a wonderful speech by Barack Obama that explains how regulating vehicle and driving laws aren’t so different from the necessary discussion about how we should regulate guns. Gun control isn’t about taking guns away, it’s about learning how to regulate them like we did with vehicles.

Plus, the same argument I presented before about pressure cookers applies to the cars - a car’s primary function is to get someone between destinations with ease. I am not sure how to address the rise in terrorist attacks involving vehicles, but I stand by the fact that a car’s function isn’t lethal while a gun’s usually is.

So before you defend your position on this murky debate, please make sure that your arguments are logical and offer fair comparisons. It’s not only time for America to actively take measures in reducing mass shootings in our country, but most importantly, it’s time for people to be ready for it.