In the previous weeks, a debate has continued throughout the press and in our branches of government about gun regulation. After the loss of many lives, including those taken in Orlando, it seems like this discussion has lost some common sense from certain sides, while gaining action and unification from others. Members of the House of Representatives have taken it among themselves to stop moments of silence not out of disrespect, but rather to speak out against legislative inaction to prevent the wrong hands from holding an assault weapon.
The House Democrats physically sat down on the House floor for over 24 hours, while speaking out against gun violence and demanding to vote on gun policy last week. I acknowledge that I don’t know all of the details or intents behind those in support or against the sit-in, but its most straight-forward purpose is something I think we should all get behind. President Obama showed solidarity for this movement by posting a one-minute video saying, “If we’re going to raise our kids in a safer, more loving world, we need to speak up for it… They need to hear us say these things even when those who disagree are loud and are powerful. We need our kids to hear from us why tolerance and equality matter-- about the times their absence has scarred our history and how greater understanding will better the future they will inherit. We need our kids to hear our words and also see us live our own lives, with love.”
Critics of the participants of #NoBillNoBreak call the sit-in a very late call to action. But is it still the right action? Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has made the argument that the Democrats’ demand for tighter gun regulations is a publicity stunt, and that the issue isn’t guns-- it’s terrorism. People who agree with Ryan believe guns are a means to combat such terrorism and every U.S. citizen should have access to one. We need to ask ourselves the following questions:
Does a war with guns stop terrorism?
Does a war on guns stop terrorism?
Our ideas of terrorism and gun violence are perverse in both directions by the press and politicians involved in such issues. Guns don’t make people terrorists, and terrorists don't only use guns. But we cannot fail to recognize that certain guns are specifically designed to shoot in such a way so that they can create the most casualties in the shortest amount of time. To me, what’s going on in response to recent attacks on humanity isn’t about taking away guns or blaming terrorists. This is a matter of individual’s mental health and enforcing checks to be sure deathly arms aren’t ending up with people who can’t bear them responsibly.
In the case of Orlando, the media and a handful politicians have blamed the attack as stemming from a radical ideology of terrorism. Where we get it wrong is that the attack wasn't carried out by a group with the intent to take down our government. The mass shooting was carried out by a mentally unstable individual whose intentions were facilitated by our corrupt gun policies, which allowed him to purchase assault rifle and use it on over 100 people.
Is the rightful course of action to advert blame onto terrorism for why an individual committed a heinous crime?
Or is it rightful to prevent unstable individuals from being able to commit a crime like this in the first place?
Moments of silence cannot save those who have been silenced forever by apathetic, maleficent and unhealthy individuals armed with a semi-automatic. Individuals like these, especially those who already flagged as a potential threat to those around them, should not have access to weapons that are designed to facilitate death. Because of this, I stand, (or sit) with the House Democrats’ move to cause a stir around the issue of gun reform, and I’m glad it’s making so much publicity, stunt or not. “We need our kids to hear from us,” and by acting out on the values we believe in, including checks on mental health and military grade weapons, we can share these beliefs with those around us and those who descend from us.
