On Valentine’s Day 2018, there was a mass shooting that occurred at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland Florida that reignited the gun control debate across the country and forced a discussion amongst our representatives in Congress to revisit the correlation between guns and laws. Unfortunately, which is the case after every American mass shooting; there is a partisan divide in Congress alongside a social divide amidst Americans that inherently leads to a dead-end regarding the public safety of many Americans. Consequently, there are many arguments to be made on both sides of the gun control debate, the only problem is that when one side makes an argument for their stance and viewpoint regarding gun laws they fail to recognize the hypocrisy of their argument against a cause they’re in opposition to such as laws regarding women’s healthcare. Furthermore, over the course of two weeks, an argument pro-gun advocates’ make continuously in every gun debate is their opinion that stricter gun laws will not deter gun violence from happening and that the issue is with the shooter alone. They argue that gun control will only affect law-abiding citizens who own guns rather than a criminal that will find a way to kill regardless of their legal access to guns. Fortunately, to their credit they may have the tiniest fraction of a point to their argument regarding a person’s will to kill if that is what their heart so desires but is that not the same thing for every other criminal action and yet we still have a criminal justice system put in place for combative and preventative measures regarding different kinds of criminals in which we regard to as “laws?” Additionally by that standard, why do we have drug laws if users will still find a way to use?
Secondly, the pro-gun advocates’ argumentative position that gun control would affect law-abiding citizens is a hypocritical one to make when there is a reason to argue for something that benefits them but that same argument denies others their benefits to something like affordable healthcare for women. Lately, there have been many arguments made from conservatives that liberals are so concerned regarding America’s children yet they typically support abortions and Planned Parenthood, which in their minds is also hypocritical. There is a small point to that argument but that is also a false narrative and a general stereotype that has affected a larger group of women who heavily depend on healthcare provided by Planned Parenthood especially in Texas, which affected rural areas such as the Permian Basin. In 2011, the Texas Legislature (led by GOP efforts) voted to defund state family planning in an attempt to defund Planned Parenthood and because of these cuts, 82 Texas family planning clinics which equaled one out of every four in the state closed their offices to low-income Texas women who depended on regular healthcare services, according to the Washington Post. Many of these women depended upon, not abortion, but regular healthcare services to include pregnancy prevention, birth control, pregnancy tests, prenatal care, sexually transmitted disease screenings and treatment, pap smears, and breast exams. Planned Parenthood’s abortion services make up 3% of the entire organization’s services and yet millions of women were cut out of an opportunity to be seen by a healthcare provider that they could afford because political entities wanted to generalize a small percentage of a service they don’t agree with to affect all the other helpful services the organization provides low-come women. What’s the hypocrisy of the pro-gun argument to the women’s health care argument? Pro-gun advocates don’t want gun control because they think it will make it harder for law-abiding citizens to have access to guns yet they defunded and made it harder for “law-abiding” women to have access to affordable healthcare. That’s the hypocrisy and that’s why their argument is a one-sided rationalization. They may think it is criminal for abortions to even exist but let me rationalize it in a pro-gun advocate term regarding a criminal’s desire to kill regardless of gun control. Women are going to have abortions regardless of defunding, regardless of Planned Parenthood, and regardless of Anti-Abortion laws so why do Anti-Abortion laws even exist if women are still going to find a way to have an abortion? I’ll tell you why. It’s because the laws only “work” if they are pushed to a preferred agenda for monetary contributions to political campaigns. The NRA has its hands in both parties but has a high preference to Republicans, nearly 90%. They contributed an estimated 20 million to political campaigns during this last election and that is why “gun control laws” just wouldn’t work for the American people but “Anti-Abortion laws” work for preventing abortion. Right.
As a final point, laws exist where money is placed for them to exist. Money determines what laws work and which laws do not and that is why there is an imbalance of power when it affects American legislation. We need gun control and low-income women need access to affordable healthcare but it’s apparently asking too much to have laws that legislate both to exist simultaneously because of generalized preconceived stereotypes. Personally, I do not support abortion but I do support a woman’s right to choose and it’s imperative that low-income women have access to affordable healthcare without the legislature completely banning every service due to just 3%. By the same token, I do not support assault weapons of war on civilian streets but I do support the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms without having to ban every gun in America. It is just fine to bear arms but we have to control them against those who should not have them. Gun control would not be designed to affect law-abiding citizens because if you’re law-abiding then what do you have to worry about? Pro-gun advocates make the case for needing guns for protection and for hunting. Well, I am pretty sure the fictitious notion that the government will disarm you to control you is an artificial creation in order to sell more guns because if you think your AR is on the same level as the government’s nukes then you’re being taken for a ride. Guns for hunting make sense although I do not think the deer will be shooting back at you so the 30-round magazines or the after-market magazine of 100 rounds-per-minute would be an overkill and would exceed what is necessary for hunting so that leaves really no other use for it other than a mass shooting unless you’re overseas in a war zone. Americans can still have their rights yet regulate for the safety of the American people as well as our country’s children. Abortion is a very controversial topic and although I am against abortion, there have to be arguments made for abortion that leaves a mother no other choice medically when it comes to her life or the unborn child’s life and if you’re not a woman then it’s very difficult to understand the position. This country regulates a woman’s body more than a weapon of mass destruction domestically and we need to come together despite social and political divides to protect our own because the safety of American lives should be priceless even when the sale of a politician comes cheap.