By: Ana Alexander
Opinion

Popular Opinions on Gun Violence & My Unpopular Opinions On Them

Gun violence has been a long, ongoing debate in this country for some time. It seems like it’s less about what’s right, and more about what politicians can easily use as a political platform to be re-elected. I think most politicians believe, on some level, that some form of common sense gun laws would work, but it’s easier for them to rile up and anger their supporters by using the fear of the government taking away all guns to get themselves a few extra ballots on voting day.

Personally, I think the system’s broken. In more ways than one.

And until we face that, own up to that, and start doing something about that, we’re going to keep seeing this happen, until maybe one day it’s us hiding under those classroom desks, or seeking shelter at a country music festival, or desperately running for the exit at a club riddled in bullets.

I don’t believe that the way things are right now is the safest way we could possibly be living— which means something has to change.

If we keep doing nothing, this will keep happening.

That I know for sure.

So what do I believe?

Like every problem in this country, I don’t believe there is only one solution to gun violence.

That doesn’t mean there isn’t a solution, it means there isn’t just one, singular solution.

I think the answers we need are somewhere in the middle of a divided, two-party system.

This is not a “just gun control” or “just mental health” issue – no problem in America is a one-solution problem. This issue is multi-faceted, and so are the solutions.

I’m not for banning all guns. I don’t think that will solve the problem entirely. I am, however, for banning assault weapons. Keep your guns for protection, keep your guns for hunting, but why would you need an assault rifle? People on the right can repeat over and over that guns aren’t the problem, and post articles about how AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle and not “assault rifle” all they want, but that doesn’t change the fact that the AR-15 is the mass shooter’s gun of choice, and I don’t find that to be a coincidence.

I’m going to repeat this again, because for some reason when you mention that you in any way think we should change the way guns are purchased in this country, people automatically shut you out and assume you’re against gun ownership and are unconstitutional: I don’t believe we should ban all guns. I think we should tighten up the process of purchasing and owning a gun, to attempt to prevent things like this from happening. Average people who have no sinister intent shouldn’t have an issue with this.

For some reason, we have a tendency to claim that certain solutions, such as banning assault weapons, is ludicrous and would never work. But if we look around, there are plenty of countries that ban assault weapons and have significantly lower gun violence statistics (Australia, Costa Rica, the UK, Canada, New Zealand, Serbia, Turkey). Which means that what we claim would never work, is literally working in other advanced countries like ourselves.

So here are some common gun violence arguments, and my responses to them.

 

If you’ve never shot a gun, you don’t get to talk about gun control.

Oh.

Someone who tends to lean liberally like me surely has never set her snowflake hands upon a –

Oh, shit, what’s that?

Well, now that we’ve gotten that out of the way.

Considering we have a government dominated by white males, it’s highly ironic to hear this statement, as many of the issues we face ultimately affect people other than white males, and yet they are considered the experts on creating laws for people other than themselves. Yet, when it comes to guns, only people who have shot one get an opinion on them.

Intrigue.

If this is the case, then I fully expect our male lawmakers to back off from providing their input on discussions such as the luxury tax on tampons or women’s right to birth control.

Anyway, I think this statement is a BS way of attempting to end the argument before it even begins.

On a sidebar, you’re probably asking, “But Ana, weren’t you shooting an AR-15 in the photo above? Didn’t you just say you don’t believe we should sell AR-15s in the U.S., but there you are shooting one?”

Yes, yes I was. I shot it years ago, and I thought it was badass, and honestly, pretty fun. I enjoy going to the gun range with my family, and that particular day was pretty damn fun. But do I ever need to shoot that gun again? Did I ever need to shoot it in the first place? Hell no. And honestly, looking back, it’s a little disturbing how easy it was for me to get my hands on that gun, even though I’m a sane, responsible citizen. Because even though I am, that doesn’t mean everyone else is.

 

Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.

Yup. People kill people. With guns. Which is why we’re talking about guns right now.

Thanks for clarifying.

The justification for this statement is that guns don’t just hop up on their own and start shooting people.

In reality, this statement actually supports both that guns kill people, and that people kill people.

Guns obviously don’t just start shooting, they clearly require a person to shoot them. The logic is, that if the person weren’t there, the gun wouldn’t shoot. But the fact is that the same can be said on the flip side: if the gun wasn’t there, the person wouldn’t be able to shoot.

Like I said earlier, I’m not saying we should ban all guns. But if you think your desire to have a hobby justifies the lack of adequate gun legislation to protect us, I’ll politely ask you to re-evaluate the scales you’re using to measure your judgement.

If you’re a responsible gun owner, if you’re a responsible citizen, what reason could you possibly have to not want laws put in place to prevent criminals, known terrorists, and people who are mentally ill to purchase a gun?

If you truly believe mental illness is a problem, then why do you want to allow the mentally ill to purchase guns?

It wouldn’t be stopping you from getting a gun. It would likely make the process of doing so more lengthy. But in the long run, isn’t it worth it to keep ourselves safe?

We can’t go to clubs. We can’t go to movie theatres. We can’t go to school. We can’t even go to church. We are slaughtering each other and we are watching others slaughter our people.

But I get it. The idea of having to wait longer and jump through hoops, which you, as the responsible gun owner you are, should be able to pass through, just to get a gun, is not preferable. So let’s keep watching these things worm their way into our headlines. Let’s watch them kill our teenagers, our congregations, our policemen, our mothers, our fathers, our aunts, our uncles, our children.

According to our friends on the right-hand side of the aisle, we can’t stop this from happening by regulating guns, and a key component of their agenda since day one on Trump’s campaign has been cutting access to health care for those who can’t afford it – so I guess we’re shit out of luck, because you may not be able to afford mental health care, but you can get a loan for a gun with a snap of your fingers!

 

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Oh, like in Las Vegas?

This statement is ignoring the issue at hand, and normalizing gun violence.

Gun violence is not normal.

Say it with me now: Gun violence is not normal.

We shouldn’t be reactive, we should be proactive. This problem needs to be cut off at the root, so we can prevent shootings from occurring in the first place – which is going to take a lot of work, and a lot of different solutions.

We should not be normalizing these heinous acts, and acting as if it is on the responsibility of each of us to take down a shooter when we could prevent him from becoming one in the first place.

An ultimately, this just feels like an NRA-cultivated phrase that has been constructed to increase gun sales.

Now that’s not to say that people shouldn’t take steps to protect themselves – what I mean is that this approach to solving the problem is a Band-Aid. It’s a “solution” that doesn’t truly solve the issue, because to actually do so would mean dismantling a long-standing system that ultimately benefits a group of people in the U.S. – in this case, the NRA who profits from it and politicians who use gun violence as the basis of their political platform to get re-elected.

 

What about Chicago?

Growing up, whenever my family would gather at my grandparents’ house, there were always tons of people. I’m talked a packed house, and kids running all over the backyard of my grandparents’ property. There were so many little kids running around that my grandma made up this rule: you cannot cross the magic line.

The magic line was a crack in the sidewalk just before you reached the garage near the front of the property – my grandma selected that particular imperfection in the cement as the “magic line,” because she didn’t want any of the kids running out into the traffic along the street; it was essentially a safeguard to ensure we were all ok. She told us that we were not allowed to cross the magic line, and if we did, she would know, and we would be in trouble.

Obviously, there was a bit of skepticism on our parts, but we were kids, so we rolled along with it. As we got older, the magic of the “magic line” faded away, and we went where we pleased, but passed along the story to the kids younger than us, so they wouldn’t cross the magic line either.

But guess what? There’s no magic line in Chicago.

People like to claim that Chicago is the perfect example of why strict gun laws won’t work, but I think it’s the perfect example why strict gun laws won’t work if you only use them in one city that is surrounded by other states with lax gun laws, which are part of a larger nation with equally as lax gun laws.

I’m not sure why the expectation is that gun violence will completely be eradicated in Chicago if only they have strict gun laws. I’m not sure why we’re expecting there to be a “magic line” that people with guns cannot cross into Chicago.

What we need are consistent gun laws across the nation. That’s the only way this works.

 

They’re going to take away all of our guns. Why should responsible gun owners be punished for the actions of a few?

This elicits an actual eye roll.

Ok – people who are suggesting we rid this entire nation of its guns are just delusional. It’s not going to happen.

People who think that any kind of gun regulation means total removal of guns in America are just as delusional (Just imagine with me, for a moment, the epic disaster that would be any attempt from our government to actually systematically remove each and every gun from each and every citizen in this country. Not going to happen). Gun control does not mean gun elimination. Either start listening to the conversation, or stop twisting words in each others’ mouths. If you really want to make America “great again” you’ll start working together instead of against each other.

Greatness is not achieved when only one side gets what they want. Greatness is not when only one part of a country is happy or safe.

So let’s get back to reality, where the adults are actually trying to talk about solutions.

 

What they’re doing is already illegal. Criminals are going to commit crimes. Laws aren’t for criminals.

Uh, yeah they fucking are. In fact, that’s the whole purpose of having laws. To limit crime and create order.

So, you say they’re going to do it anyways, right? So we might as well make it easy on them?

We act as if gun violence is not an avoidable occurrence, and that a criminal is going to be a criminal, regardless of what the law says. Acting like a law preventing gun violence or limiting access to guns will never solve the problem because “criminals will be criminals” is not just extremely defeatist in nature, it’s lazy and inaccurate. If it were truly the case, then what would be the purpose of having laws in the first place?

If they do nothing to stop crime or to limit it, then what’s the point of having any laws at all? If they are ineffective and purposeless, then why have them? Hearing Marco Rubio make the statement that laws won’t stop criminals is especially ironic, because as a lawmaker it is his responsibility to create laws to protect and benefit the people, and he’s essentially saying that laws cannot do that. What a way to belittle your own job.

You can say, “Criminals are criminals, and they’ll find a way to do it,” but that’s the same thing as saying “It is how it is. That’s just how things are.” Are we really going to sit back and accept the fact that people are going to do what they want, bad or otherwise, without at least trying to stop the bad? Are we going to give up that easily? Is that the America we want to be? I don’t think so.

It’s this thought process that makes it seem like this is just the way life in America is. But that’s not true. This is not how life in America should be. We’re better than that and it’s time to start acting like it.

 

It’s too soon to talk about gun violence. Now is not the time. Let them grieve.

No, now it’s too late.

The only question is if it will be too late for the next one, too? Because if we do nothing, and continue to do nothing, there will be a next one. We all know that.

While we let those families and friends grieve, let’s prevent others from grieving months or weeks from now.

 

Thoughts and prayers.

Are nothing without action.

 

If you want to do something about this issue, start by listening.

Listen to each side, consider why they may have come to that conclusion, rethink and respond.

It’s the only way we’ll make any kind of change in this country.

As I said, the answers we need are somewhere in the middle of a divided, two-party system.

 

Let’s Connect: