Last night, I was talking to my boyfriend about the mass shooting in Orlando and the effects stricter gun control would have on the nation. I, being a liberal college student, am very much on the side of gun control, but he is an apolitical member of the United States Marine Corps and, therefore, leans toward the side of gun rights. This conversation quickly turned into a heated debate. We argued many different points, covering everything from individual freedoms to the need for firearms in the case of a zombie apocalypse. Even I have to admit I would want a gun if there was a zombie apocalypse. I would love to say I won the argument, but 12 hours, two naps and three snack breaks later, we still haven't reached a consensus.
Gun politics in the United States has been a major topic of discussion following the events in Orlando that took place last week. Gun control activists have been calling for a restriction on the dispersal of automatic weapons to civilians while gun rights activists argue that acts of terrorism show an even greater need for the people to be able to protect themselves.
Somewhere around hour four, I mentioned how, in 2013, President Obama proposed a ban on automatic weapons. This was in the wake of the shooting that took place at Sandy Hook Elementary. Knowing that my boyfriend is a huge Obama supporter, I was hoping this would help lay the groundwork for the rest of my argument, but his response surprised me. He responded with, “It’s not the weapon. It’s the will and drive of the murderer.” While I saw his point, a gun of any sort is powerless without a hand to pull the trigger, I had to disagree. I’m no expert in firearms, but I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that the amount of shots fired in Orlando would be decreased drastically if the gun used was not an automatic weapon.
What the conversation boiled down to was the people's interpretation of the Constitution. the Second Amendment, adopted in 1791, protects our right to bear arms. This would allow citizens to hunt for their own food, deter animals from their crops and stand in defense of self and state. In 1791, the most advanced firearm available was a rifle that was capable of firing two or three rounds per minute, and even this was restricted to use by the military. In 1791, our founding fathers could not fathom the devastation of the Sig Sauer MCX, the rifle Omar Mateen was armed with in the Orlando shooting.
We, the people of the United States, no longer need to hunt for our own food. Guns are now used primarily for sport or for acts of violence. As our technology advances and we grow as a country, our laws must grow with us. The Orlando shooting is just another prime example of that fact. My boyfriend, and many of the other advocates for gun rights, make great points that weapons are not the cause of violence, people are. People are the cause of mass shootings, sure, but I would rather have a pistol pointed into the room, then an automatic rifle with the ability to shoot off 45 rounds per minute. I would think many members of the opposition would feel the same.
Although our argument never came to a consensus, we did agree on one point. The citizens of the United States deserve to feel safe. For some, that means fighting for the right to carry the biggest, baddest gun that exists, and for others, that means being able to walk in public without fear of a gun being pointed your way. Either way, we, the people, deserve to feel free from persecution, and if we keep that in mind, I believe we will find a solution for the gun controversy in the country.
