You hear shooting, and the school gets shut down — but the shooter gets in. 

You are on the front lines of something that seems like a nightmare. When does the matter of gun violence evade the commonplace of those who have been victims of guns? 

Students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, had their nightmares come true last Wednesday when Nikolas Cruz arrived at the school in an Uber and shot at innocent students and faculty with an AR-15 rifle. Seventeen individuals were killed with a gun that is far too accessible to be purchased and far too deadly to be sold in the United States. 

To even start explaining why guns like these should not be able to be accessed by the general public, it is important to look at the history of the AR-15. The “AR” in AR-15 stands for the company that made it, ArmaLite. In 1954, the AR was founded as a division of Fairchild Engine and Aircraft Corporation, according to armalite.com. It began as an AR-1, other known as a “Parasniper” that was developed into the AR-15, which was then sent to the U.S Air Force to replace their standard rifle. 

“Army officials asked Armalite to develop a smaller version of the AR-10 in 1956 as a potential replacement for the M1 Garand,” according to armalite.com. 

We can see that these rifles were created for military use. It was not until mid - 1966 to 1969 that the semi-automatic AR-180 was exported to the U.S. and used for commercial sale, and has been ever since. 

The weapon is a weapon of war.  A weapon that is built to withstand extreme temperature and humidity and one that can be modified to be even deadlier than the original product. 

The students realized this deadliness on Wednesday because a child was able to access a version of this gun, even though he was considered mentally ill. The conversation that needs to be based on the well-being, safety and lives of the children who witnessed their friends being shot gets washed away by media and focused on his mental illness. 

But when do we as a nation finally strip away that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” dialogue and realize that if the guns that are meant to be weapons of war are harder to possess it would be harder for a shooter to actively ruin the lives of 17 families in one day. 

Imagine how less damaging it would be if these were revolvers, shotguns or any gun that is actually meant for livelihood such as hunting or basic home protection. 

Imagine how less threatening an active shooter would be with a knife. Now, I am in no means downplaying the severity of violence, but some violence can be detained easier than that of a shooter wielding an AR-15. 

This calls for stricter policies on who can own certain types of guns and at what age. I am also well aware that banning something does not make it go away – look at the heroin epidemic — but making it harder to get and enforcing laws to enforce the turnover of said weapons, may start to break the ice so that legislation can be made to flip the script and protect our children. 

Share