Gunning For The Closest Finish Line

Ever since the tragedy that unfolded at the former Sandy Hook Elementary, everyone now has an opinion on gun control. Many members on the left side of the political fence now rally for more gun control (that includes Gabrielle Giffords, but lets try to be fair) while some members of the right say that the best solution would be to either arm the teachers or, somehow, throwing more guns at an alleged gun problem.

All Of The Same Metal

The problem is that the people in charge making these laws are about as knowledgeable of gun control, how guns work, and which guns are used in crimes as most political talking heads on FOX News and ABC. Let's be real—the NRA doesn't rate congresspeople on their gun knowledge, but their willingness to keep the government out of everyone’s gun lockers.

Hell, I don't know much about guns; I know that a .45 caliber round is better than a 9mm round, I think. I also know that you don't need a .50 caliber sniper rifle with night vision scope and incendiary rounds to hunt deer, because none of the deer that jump out in front of my car at ten o'clock at night are armor plated or armed with assault rifles. Hell, what is the definition of an assault weapon? Even Wikipedia, at times, shrugs their shoulders on the assault weapon page.

I Might Need A Bigger Shoe Closet

We need people who know about guns to make the laws, yes. But can you find somebody that would be willing to rework our countries gun control laws who is also an active and avid gun collector? Probably not. I've been told that collecting guns is like collecting shoes, but the biggest difference is that I can't kill twenty people with my eight pairs of Nike's in my closet.

Let me be fair; it's cool to want to collect guns. It's okay to want a gun to defend yourself, to practice shooting with, to hunt, or to frame on the wall and make it look pretty. But we need reason, not want.

Being Reasonable

That's what our country and our society needs—reason. Is it reasonable to have an AR-15 to defend yourself? Not really (unless, you're defending yourself from aforementioned armor plated deer or other armor plated vicious animals every single night). Should we ban every single gun that civilians can own? No. We should get it by now that blanket rulings and laws don't work because there is no way to finesse corrections in the gray area, which, by the way, most instances will be in the gray area. Arming teachers wouldn't be a good idea; what happens when a student steals the teachers gun? We could have armed guards at schools, but that didn't prevent Columbine (although it may have helped).

I'm gonna say something no one wants to hear; we can never stop another tragedy like Sandy Hook with something as simple as a law change. In fact, I don't even think we could prevent such a tragedy—it's a freak event if you look at it statically. It completely sucks, to put it so informally, to see something like Sandy Hook, Aurora, Virginia Tech, or Columbine. But wanting to bring down blanket judgment, or bringing down the banhammer won't ever help.

So please, let's try and be reasonable.