The recent attack in Las Vegas that killed 59 people and injured more than 500 others has ignited yet another debate about gun control. Let me start things off by stating the obvious: if this man didn’t have access to military-style assault rifles in the first place, he never would have been able to maim that many people. And therein lies the issue; these high-powered firearms put way too much power into the hands of a single person.
The average person should not have access to weapons that are capable of slaughtering mass amounts of people. That’s why bombs are illegal, yes? And we all agree that bombs should be illegal, because put into the wrong hands, they can cause devastating amounts of destruction.
In my eyes, the same goes for assault rifles. Unless you’re a trained member of the armed forces or other authorized government personnel, there is absolutely no need for you to own a military-style assault rifle.
Need personal protection? Fine, buy a handgun. But don’t go saying you need a weapon that’s capable of shooting dozens of rounds per minute for your own personal protection. That’s ridiculous. When will you ever be faced with a situation in which you need to kill 10+ people?
Speaking of which, did you know that with the exception of California, you’re not even required to undergo a gun safety course before purchasing a firearm? That is absurd!
The idea that one should have to pass some type of competency test before having access to a potentially dangerous object isn’t a radical new notion. We have to pass a driver’s test before we are legally allowed to drive, yes? So why not make people pass a gun safety course before being allowed to own a firearm?
Look, I think we can all admit that the attack that took place in Las Vegas was tragic. But regardless of the shooter’s motive, I just don’t think anyone should legally possess the means to commit a massacre.