Shooting down the pro-gun argument


Within the past few weeks, the airways of mass media have been saturated with gun control. And its controversy seems to have the American opinion split.

The horrific mass shooting in Aurora, Colo., during the premiere of “The Dark Knight Rises” stirred up the long-time stagnant conversation of gun control and got America talking. But the senseless, unthinkable tragedy that occurred in Newtown, Conn., at Sandy Hook Elementary was a catalyst for legal action.

Since then, the media have been displaying diverse opinions and heated debates on the subject. But no matter how many opinions I entertain, I cannot grasp how people think some of these pro-gun arguments hold water.

I am not at all against the defensive use of guns, but I do not understand why anyone needs 50-plus rounds for self-defense or even hunting. If you are hunting and cannot hit your target in less than 15 rounds, you need to pack up and go home. If you are facing an attacker and cannot hit your target in under 15 rounds, to say the least, you are probably in some deep trouble. But that is assuming the person did not run off in fear.

There are many different unknown variables in those situations. But what I do know is that Adam Lanza, of the Newtown shooting, and James Holmes, of the Aurora shooting, both used semiautomatics to murder innocent people in minutes. Gun advocates always make the argument that “guns do not kill people; people kill people.”

Well, I am sure it would be a lot more difficult to stab 12 people in a movie theater than to shoot them with an assault rifle such as an AR-15.

But the most ridiculous argument I have heard so far, one that completely evades my logic altogether, is the one against universal background checks. What are a couple days without your precious firearm when it comes to contributing to the safety of other American lives?

Pro-gun activists claim they want to prevent guns from falling into the hands of violent criminals and the mentally ill, but the activists do not want to prove that they are not one of those people. They dispute this by saying it is punishing “law-abiding citizens.”

In that case, how do we discern who to check and who not to check? How do we know who is a law-abiding citizen and who is not? Do we leave it up to the sellers? I think we all know how that situation would turn out. Should we just allow all private sales to go unchecked? Well, look where we are – back to square one.