Fighting For Gun Control Is More Than Just A Fight To Restrict Weapons

Fighting For Gun Control Is More Than Just A Fight To Restrict Weapons

The decision for restriction affects all of us, whether or not we own a gun.
731
views

First things first— the fight for gun control isn't about guns. It's about being able to feel protected and fight for our equality.

The recent Parkland shooting that occurred at Marjory Stoneman Douglass High School was only another mass shooting that has brought up the topic of gun control, an event that only followed the Las Vegas shooting on a country music festival, the Texas Church shooting, the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport shooting, the Lincoln Country shooting spree in Mississippi, the Maryland High School shooting and 427 other mass shootings — all taking place only in 2017.

If that's not already a reason for concern, within the first three months of 2018, we've had 68 mass shootings, and almost all could've been prevented through gun legislation and background checks. The problem with trying to advocate for reform is that someone has to be on the receiving end to hear, but the more the urgency to find a solution is revealed to us, the more we are suffocated and left unheard.

Mass shootings themselves are a symptom of America's brokenness, for having such internal conflict and no solution for it. We look at mass shootings and react by doing nothing, letting the problem remain very alive and the magnitude of it grow exponentially, such as in the Flint's water crisis (which still hasn't been fixed, in case you're wondering).

Thus, beginning America's use of exercising one clause in the First Amendment: our right to petition and gather. Walkouts are organized, protests are planned and more and more demonstrations are planned to gain the attention of Congress and the government to fix this growing issue. We try to promote gun legislation as a "now problem," a "yesterday problem," not a "later" problem, but one that's going to continue to grow and fester until it will be too big to do anything to stop it.

Solutions to the gun crisis shouldn't just be up to Congress. They should be addressed and debated by our nation as what is important to us as a country. Where do we stop and draw our boundaries? Is it more important to deal with our "now" problems: poverty, unemployment, racism or draw our attention to our "later" problems, which include stopping future mass shooters?

In other terms, if given the choice, would you improve a life or save one?

In theory, the entire issue can be easily solved: simply impose stricter protocols and restrictions on who can obtain and purchase firearms so that potential shooters either can't (or at least face great difficulty with) acquiring a firearm.

However, there's the conservative perspective: the issue isn't in guns at all, therefore we shouldn't restrict them, and if we do restrict, it infringes on our right to bear arms constitutionally deemed in the Second Amendment, or the right to hold weapons for our own defense. Liberals who believe the Second Amendment should hold exclusions feel that a prohibition should be made for weapons with warfare capabilities and restrictions should be imposed on smaller firearms.

Quite honestly, I don't believe entirely in either — no solution is completely correct.

The conservatives argue that the issue isn't about guns, and with that statement I completely agree. Guns can't kill people, people kill people using guns, but the gun didn't nor could make the decision to fire the bullet — that decision was made entirely by whoever's finger is on the trigger. However, I disagree that because the issue isn't about guns, we shouldn't restrict them as a result or allow such easy access to such dangerous weapons throughout the consumer market.

Similarly, I don't believe that banning warfare weapons and restricting smaller firearms will change anything. A gun is a gun, and all guns were designed and intended to kill. Whether or not it is an AK-12 or a handgun bought from a local Walmart doesn't matter. At the end of the day, it doesn't change the fact that a life has been taken — restriction or no restriction.

Instead, the problem lies in who we are as a nation, and who we are becoming.

We're given two possibilities as a result: either a nation completely without gun, or a nation so full with them that the likelihood for a mass shooting to occur is almost impossible, because everyone will supposedly then be able protect and defend themselves.

In both scenarios, we are dramatically changing who we are as a nation — either by abusing our right to bear arms or mass infringement by denying our Second Amendment, American rights. In all likelihood, both scenarios would most likely lead to more protests and internal conflict, a more broken America and a greater standstill in government.

Already, we are seeing the latter scenario take place by the arming of teachers within the school system to protect their students from another shooting event. Already, we are experiencing massive backlash and disagreement by the people and government. Just recently in high schools, we have witnessed walkouts over Trump’s election, over deportation, in support of striking teachers’ unions, against police violence, calling for justice for Trayvon Martin who died from a racial targeted shooting and nationally organized walkouts from inaction after Parkland.


Already, we are breaking America. Is this our future? Fighting to feel safe? Fighting to be equal? Is this our story?


Year after year, the record for casualties in a mass shooting have been broken; the body count of those lost to the same issue has increased tenfold, yet we're walking backward rather than forward on advancing to find a solution.

How is it that 12 high-powered rifles designed for war could be acquired and modified to be able to unleash nine rounds per second on a crowd of civilians in Las Vegas and not be stopped?

How is it that tips were made months before Parkland, warning police and the FBI of a YouTube user under "nickolas cruz" who posted death threats and comments proclaiming that he wanted to become a school shooter and not be stopped?

How is it that we have seen and sent our apologies to over six hundred shootings last year, plus the almost seventy shootings this year already, and not realize we need to move from our resolution standstill?

Already we have moved as a nation, through movements such as #NeverAgain and #ArmMeWith, started by teachers on Twitter who listed items they needed other than guns in their classrooms, such as more counselors to help the children, more teachers to decrease classroom size and overall funding towards the education system rather than towards buying weaponry for them. Our achievements as a society should be noticed it is now time for the government to act in response, creating that nation where we can finally believe that we are equal and feel we are safe.

Cover Image Credit: Twitter/ ResistanceSquad

Popular Right Now

Austin Alexander Burridge, Volunteer Advocate, Shares 3 Great Reasons to Volunteer and Help Others

Austin Alexander Burridge is an avid academic who studies Environmental Science at Winona State University and believes that work in the service of others is a key pillar to personal development.

9210
views

Sometimes it's easy for someone to adopt a "me, me, me" attitude. While focusing on oneself, a person may feel nice in the moment, but serving and helping others will bring lasting benefits. While there are many great reasons to serve and help others, there are three universal truths that resonate with volunteers around the globe.

Austin Alexander Burridge's 3 Reasons to Volunteer:

1. Accomplishment

Often, people fall into a trap of focusing on themselves when they are feeling down. Maybe someone did not get a job they wanted. Or perhaps a person gets dumped by an expected lifelong companion. Maybe someone feels they have underachieved after looking at Facebook and seeing great things a high school classmate has accomplished. When feeling down, helping others is a proven way to improve one's mood and attitude, and it can provide a sense of pride and accomplishment. The act of giving to those in need is an inherently good action and leaves people with a wonderful feeling of joy.

2. Gratitude

One can become more appreciative of life by serving others that have less. Whether volunteering at a soup kitchen, visiting the elderly at an assisted living center, or helping families after a natural disaster, service enables people to be grateful for what they have. Seeing people who have fewer advantages, especially those who are spirited and thankful for small things, allows one to realize just how fortunate he/she is in life.

3. Friendships

Volunteering is a great way to build meaningful friendships, not only with other volunteers but also with those who are served. One of the most profound and fascinating aspects of these relationships is how volunteers will learn from those served and vice versa. As these special bonds are built, they lead to impactful connections that last for years to come.

Of course, these are just a few reasons to volunteer and serve others. One can never go wrong by helping others as opposed to merely focusing on oneself. Volunteering invariably and inevitably contributes to personal growth, development, and satisfaction.

About Austin Alexander Burridge: Helping others has been of paramount importance to Austin, and as a part of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA), Austin gave back to the community around him. He also has participated in annual peanut butter drives, The Minnesota Sandwich Project for the Homeless and collected canned goods for local food shelters. Additionally, Austin has a passion for the environment, which he pursued when visiting the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador, and the Amazon Rain Forest while studying at the School of Environment Studies, which investigates ecological systems and their sustainability

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

I Am Pro-Life, And I Am Tired Of Being Attacked For My Opinion

I am pro-life from a secular and logical standpoint.

112
views

We live in a country based on free speech, so why are pro-lifers verbally and physically attacked for merely their stance on a controversial topic? Why is Instagram censoring pro-life voices? Social media users should be given both sides of the argument, then allowed to make an informed decision, but by showing them only pro-choice content, their opinion will be biased.

Harmless pro-life posts are being shadow-banned from popular hashtags, lowering reach and engagement. There is a problem when non-violent, non-hateful posts showcasing people holding up signs that say, "Voices for the Voiceless", are censored.

Why are pro-choicers allowed to share their opinions on social media and be praised, while pro-lifers lose followers for sharing a pro-life post? It is vital that people have different opinions, and shunning pro-lifers encourages homogeneity of political opinions. Pro-lifers should not lose friends. Pro-lifers should not be attacked. Pro-lifers should not be scared of speaking up for what they believe is right.

I am pro-life, but I respect everyone's opinion. Instead of shunning the opposite side, I try to hear them out and understand where they are coming from.

Instead of dismissing pro-lifers as being old white men trying to control women's bodies, why not hear them out and try to understand the reasoning behind their opinions?

I used to be neutral on the topic of abortion, until a month ago, when I saw something that completely changed my perspective. It was around the time Governor Kemp signed the fetal heartbeat bill in Georgia, and it was a hot topic, so I decided to do some research. I came across a sight called "Priests For Life". "Oh great", I thought, "This site is going to impose its Christian views of abortion on everyone." Once on the site, I clicked on a tab titled, "America Will Not Reject Abortion Until America Sees Abortion."

I clicked on the gallery, and was confronted with the cold hard truth. View the gallery with extreme caution, because the images/videos are VERY graphic.

From this site, I also discovered that planned parenthood harvests and sells the body parts of aborted babies. Keep in mind, Planned Parenthood, providing 1/3 of abortions in America, receives $500 million dollars yearly from taxpayers. Having taxpayers' money going toward reforming foster care would be a better idea in my opinion.

The Declaration of Independence states, "Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". The difference in opinion on whether the law should protect unborn children is a major factor that divides the pro-life and pro-choice movements.

In my humble opinion, I believe an unborn child should be protected by the law once a heartbeat is detected. We cannot dehumanize unborn children with euphemisms such as "clump of cells" or "potential life". We were all once "a clump of cells", and we still are. Can you name one non-living thing with a heartbeat? There is none.

The level of development of a human does not detract from his/her rights. All lives matter!

The most common pro-choice argument is "My body my choice." Yes, your body your choice, but when it's not your body, it's not your choice. The baby has its own unique set of DNA, its own organs, its own limbs, brain activity and a heartbeat. Just because a woman carries a baby does not give her a right to end his/her life.

Some may say the fetus cannot survive on its own, but a 1 month infant cannot either. A one month old infant depends on the care of a mother or guardian, and if it were to be left without food or water, it would not be able to fend for itself. Someone on life support cannot survive without the incubator. Elderly people with dementia depend on the care of staff in senior centers for survival.

The parasite argument is also a common one. Basic biology can refute this one. An unborn child in the womb is not a parasite, because for it to be a parasite it would have to be a different species than the mother, which would cause an adverse immune response.

"Everyone has the right to choose," is found on almost every pro-choice protest sign, and yes I agree. You have the right to choose to do whatever you want, but the second your actions harm another human's rights, a line must be drawn.

A women's right to choose ends when her baby's right to life begins.

Another common argument that is condescending towards pro-lifers is that they are pro-birth but not pro-life. Tell that to the thousands of pro-lifers adopting multiple children, giving them the best possible life. Tell that to the people outside of planned parenthood with signs that say "I will take your baby." Tell that to the numerous churches helping pregnant women. Tell that to the government who is giving single mothers tax breaks, food stamps and countless other resources.

The foster system may be flawed, but that is not justify ending the life of a child. More than 18,000 American families successfully adopt newborn babies in the United States every year.

Regardless, suffering is inevitable; you cannot end a child's life because he/she will live a difficult life. Instead, legislation should be passed to improve the foster care system and the adoption process. When a child is not aborted there is always hope, a chance, a possibility.

Some "pro-lifers" say, "I am pro-life for my body, but pro-choice for everyone else". This reasoning fails in many ways. You never hear anyone say, "I would never abuse my child, but I would never take away a parent's choice of if they want to abuse their child or not". Being pro-life means advocating for the defenseless, which means every single child, not just your own.

Women can do whatever they want with their lives, as long as their actions do not end the heartbeat of another human being.

All over social media, you see people sharing posts that say the women will be sentenced to 99 years of jail for having an abortion and 30 years for a miscarriage, but this is false. Often celebrities are the ones using their platforms to share these false statements. People should also fact-check the things they see on Instagram before believing them.

One line all pro-choicers say is "No uterus, no opinion". Let's not forget the people who made abortion legal were old, white men. This line is hypocrisy at its finest. If the line was "No prostate, no opinion", World War III would break out.

Most people are outraged by the fact that majority of the politicians who signed the heartbeat bill in Georgia were men, but let us not forget that Georgia residents vote for these representatives knowing the policies they advocate for. Around 40% of Americans are pro-life, and around 40% of women are pro-life, but these percentages are significantly greater in Conservative states, which explains the election of conservative representatives in Georgia and Alabama.

Pro-choicers often paint an image of pro-lifers as men who want to control the bodies of women, but that could not be any further from the truth. Abortion allows men to use women and not be held responsible for the consequences. Banning abortion teaches men responsibility and loyalty.

The purpose of the pro-life movement is not to control a woman's body but rather grant an innocent, unborn child the fundamental right to life.

Regardless of my pro-life stance, I do believe abortion should be allowed in RARE cases; for example, when the mother's health is in danger.

I agree these anti-abortion bills put a lot of stress on the mother, so I am all for increasing the involvement of the father. Whether it be increasing the amount and frequency of child support payments or making the father co-parent, it takes two to create a child, so the father should pull his weight.

Dr. Martin Luther King Sr. once said, "Every aborted baby is like a slave in the womb of his or her mother. The mother decides his or her fate."

This article is not meant to shun anyone who has had an abortion or is pro-choice. I respect your stance 100 percent. The purpose of this article is to address the social media bias towards liberal views of abortion and the stigma of leaning toward the right on abortion. There is no one right answer to this debate. It is not always black and white; that is why the abortion debate has been going on for decades.

Related Content

Facebook Comments