With regards to what recently took place in Orlando, and perhaps the United States itself for the last 50 years, the concept of gun control has been a recurring issue. We can always speculate as to whether or not a policy of gun control may have resulted in saved lives, but before we proceed as a unit and as a nation, we must take a look at the arguments at hand.
The majority of those in favor of gun control do not have anything against an individual holding a gun for personal protection. The problem is that those who have the opportunity to purchase these guns clearly should not have the ability to do so. Mass shooters throughout U.S. history have had previous criminal records, even interrogations by the FBI. These should be bright red flags – arming such civilians shouldn’t even be an option.
On the other hand, the majority of those opposing gun control advocate such a stance for personal protection and protection against a reckless individual who may have a gun. Let’s take the Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting, for example. To start, the shooter had been criminally interrogated before and should not have been able to purchase firearms. The typical pro-gun control argument would be that if there had been more strictly enforced policies about who can and cannot purchase a handgun, perhaps the Pulse nightclub shooting could have been avoided. The typical anti-gun control argument would be that had there been someone else who was armed at the nightclub, the shooter would have been stopped in his tracks.
To an extent, both arguments have their strong points, but as the goal is with every problem, as hard as it is, we must eliminate the problem from its roots. From this perspective, the pro-gun control argument makes more sense. This approach would obviously take a greater amount of reconciliation, agreement and time in order to be carried out. Not to say the anti-gun control arguments are the ‘easy way out,’ but the pro-gun control argument actually encompasses the anti-gun control argument. As a pro-gun control advocate, we are not against guns. If someone wants to carry a gun for protection, that seems extremely logical and plausible to us, but the ability to carry a gun should be established as more of a privilege rather than a simple right. It is a right to those who have the ability to use it in the right manner. The goal is to have people who are mentally sound throughout their lives to carry guns, if that is their choice.
The side arguments will always take place. Yes, in essence, it isn’t about the guns. Yes, criminals will always find a way to carry out a crime. But as Americans, we have to start somewhere. Mass shootings are a problem in the United States of America, and we have to start somewhere.
It is our duty, as is the duty of every human being anywhere on the planet, to foster a society where values of equality, equal opportunity, acceptance and love are preached regardless of religion, faith, nationality or any other potentially discriminative factors. People hold different opinions and value different things, but understanding and learning from each other is the only thing that can hold us together. Yes, talking about gun control is great, but talking about it out of the realm of politics and within the realm of humanity will place it in the context of our greater goal – to coexist. Gun control won’t magically make criminals disappear – but coming to an agreement and starting somewhere is not an option anymore. It is a necessity.
