Here at The Odyssey, hundreds of people (myself included) have written about gun control taking on both sides of the issue. In my perusing of articles, I found one called "3 Guns Control Arguments I'm Sick of Hearing". And what I found within it was so stupid, I just HAD to write this response. Okay I CHOSE TO. No one put a gun to my head and made me write this. That's right, I went to my computer, turned it on, pulled up the page to write and went to typing away. If only there was another implement in society that doesn't act until a human interacts with it. Oh wait....there totally is. Anyways, let's get into this article:

"With the recent events of Christina Grimmie and the Orlando club shooting, I am sick of guns. I have never been a fan of guns. I don't care what anyone says to me, guns are weapons, weapons kill people"

Actually guns are tools, but tools can be used to kill people as well. But shhhh I'll get to that.

"no one should be allowed to have access to that kind of power without being a trained professional (like being in the FBI, CIA, or any other high up government job). Whenever I hear an arrogant person talk about how we are allowed guns, that it's our right, I honestly just want to tell them to shut up and punch them"

Oh...I don't really know where to start with this. In regards to who should be allowed guns legally, we do have education courses about use, safety and maintenance. But what you're REALLY driving at is that you think only the government should have guns. This is where your argument falls apart. So early too! You're not really anti-gun, you're actually more pro-gun than you think. You need the State's guns to take guns from normal citizens. But the state is a corrupt entity. It's the police, military, etc. that you want to have guns, but they kill more innocent people than civilians. It is the police who gun down people in the streets and the military and by extension the Obama Administration that kill far more innocent people with their drone strikes and "regime change." And your last sentence...Jesus Christ, the pure cringe. It basically boils down to "if you don't believe what I do, I will initiate physical violence on you." Spoken like a true "tolerant" statist.

But now to get to your actual "arguments"

1. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"

Oh, save it. This is the most bulls*** argument I have ever heard. Sure, a murderer can get away with killing one or two people with a knife, but to go out and perform a mass shooting with the intention of annihilation, you need a gun

I guess you didn't hear about the knife attack in China that left 33 dead and 10 more injured (this was done in a group attack, but I digress). But to perform a mass shooting OF COURSE you would need a gun or at least a projectile based weapon. Ever see the episode of House, M.D. where the woman asks Dr. House if she can get pregnant by sitting on a toilet seat? This is a lot like that except for this analogy the gun is the penis. It's kind of a necessary component.

I could care less about what those people have to say if they believe that guns don't kill people. If you want to kill a mass or large group of people, your easiest and best choice is to get a gun, and our wonderful country allows access to them. The fact that people are most concerned about a right given to them ages ago than the unnecessary deaths and damage that guns create is beyond me. GUNS KILL PEOPLE. END OF STORY.

You actually mean you couldn't care less, but that's not the issue at hand. To be perfectly frank, guns can't kill people. Not until they are acted upon by someone picking them up, loading, firing, etc. Going back to what I said about tools, people have also been killed with blunt objects, such as hammers. Should we ban hammers too? According to your logic, yes. Also, maybe if you picked up a history book, you would know that the Oklahoma City Bomber killed 168 people and left hundreds more injured. (If you want to see exact numbers, 857 people were killed or injured). Not a single gun was used in that. The weapon of choice? Fertilizer made into explosives. Now I, like you, do not want to see anymore mass shootings; however, take away guns and you make another Oklahoma City Bomber or you have mass poisonings like with Tylenol in Chicago in 1982 (7 people died, but the problem was discovered and stopped quickly). Even worse, you could get another Jim Jones, who killed over 900 people with cyanide laced grape Kool-Aid. To put it better, guns like anything cannot kill anyone until they are used by people. END OF STORY.

2. "It's in our rights."

Let me say it again - save it. The Second Amendment was written by slaveholders before we even had electricity, internet, or any of the technology we have today. It was also written before a time the type of intense weaponry people have access to. But sure, it's your right. So, for those of you who feel so strongly about the Second Amendment, why don't you wear a white wig, use an 18th century musket, and again, go screw yourself.

"Shield me from your dissenting opinion!" That's how this comes off. And if you want to get into Constitutional semantics using your logic, your Freedom of Speech doesn't exist on Twitter, Facebook, or even here at The Odyssey. If you go by your own logic in this debate, give up your right to vote too since women didn't have suffrage when the Constitution was written. If you want to get into this debate using your logic, get some parchment, a quill, and some ink, write me a letter by candlelight and have some guy deliver it to my house riding a horse.

3. "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is for a good guy to access a gun."

Before I get into this one, I will preface by saying I agree in part with this, but not in the way you think or in a way that you will like.

Are you kidding me? There are real people in this world who believe in this! This isn't even a fact, "good guys" with guns barely help at all. Not ONE mass shooting within the past 20-30 years has been stopped by a "good guy with a gun."

What do you define as a "good guy"? Police officers, who are killing civilians at a rate you can almost count by the day? The FBI? The CIA? The NSA? Organizations who spy on you without your knowledge. The other government agencies that are buying guns and ammunition like the IRS and the Postal Service?

What do you define as a "good guy"?

So unless you can find me more than five examples of an armed civilian stopping a mass shooting before it's happened, sure, you'll prove me wrong.

Here you go. And I actually provided 12.

How on earth would a civilian who would most likely only have a pistol, if anything, stop a man or woman with an assault rifle whose goal is to kill whoever they want - most likely they'll just kill that person too! So... save it.

Here you underestimate the training of a gun user. If said person has had a reasonable amount of training, one shot is all someone would need.

The extreme amount of damage a gun can do is scary, severe and great. That alone is enough reason to put a limit on those who can gain access to it. There have already been 130 shootings in 2016 alone, how many more until we finally put an end to easy access to guns? How many more people have to die? How many more children have to say a member of their family died from a mass shooting? If we don't put an end to this soon, it will only start to become more normal. We cannot get used to this. We should not have to still say, "Well this is how it is in the United States." Gun control needs to happen now, and it needs to happen fast.

And this is the end of the article fortunately. Now I've already said a gun can't do damage until it's acted upon. You say a reasonable limit, but let's be real what you have advocated for is absolutely no private ownership of firearms. Don't try to backtrack now. Of course mass shootings are awful and they should be brought down, but making an enemy of ALL gun owners and lumping them in groups as being criminals is unreasonable and is a false equivalence. But there has been one glaring problem with your argument and it comes full force in the rest of the text. Your appeals are solely to emotion. It has shown throughout your language in this article, such as when you said you want to initiate violence on gun owners, simply dismissing dissenting opinions by saying "save it" or my personal favorite, "go screw yourself". This article, which can be found here, was painful to go through, as it was such statist shill.