"Putting a Band-Aid Over a Gunshot Wound:" Carrie Bradshaw Takes On Gun Control

CW: talk of guns, shootings, suicide, and death.

This is meant to be read as a satire in Carrie Bradshaw’s voice from Sex and the City.

Once upon a time, the College Democrats and College Republicans debated on gun laws in America. My expectations going into tonight were on the low side – I didn’t want to be disappointed. But as the groups started speaking, I knew I would be in for a treat.

The first topic was about having guns in schools and possibly arming teachers. The first debater on the Republican side opened with a quote from former president John F. Kennedy. Seems harmless at first. Then I realized. No one had told him that JFK had been killed from a gunshot to the head. That could be the only reason they would start with that quote. I mean, if there were stricter regulations on guns, that wouldn’t have happened right? Hopefully they didn’t notice my shocked expression as they tried to continue with their statement. I couldn’t help but wonder how they could start so confidently on the wrong foot. I mean, even I made that connection.

Trying to dig themselves out of the hole, the Republicans suggested that arming teachers would be an extra level of protection for students and teachers from potential shooters. They explained that it would deter people from shooting up a school. By making guns in classrooms optional, it allows teachers to have some choice in the matter of shooting people, being shot, or allowing your students to be shot. They also said that since we need to be trained for lockdown drills, why can’t we also just be trained to shoot people? I couldn’t help but think to myself that if there were no guns, none of this would be a problem. We wouldn’t need an extra layer of protection, a deterrent, or any kind of lockdown drills in the first place.

The Democrats take over. They argue that even teachers don’t want to be armed. I mean, who would want to look after 27 children while operating a gun. Who thinks that’s safe, really? I couldn’t help but think to myself that if teachers don’t even want to be responsible for a gun and young lives, then why should they be asked to? The Democrats then argue that there’s already a shortage of teachers in this country, so asking them to get the same training that cops have would make potential teachers even less likely to want to teach. Welcome to the new America. Where teachers can’t be paid enough to have class supplies but are expected to fight off a school shooter that even police can’t do anything about.

The Republicans start a rebuttal by saying that the gun in a classroom will be locked away and only used if absolutely necessary. They also suggest proper training for students in case the teacher is shot. Imagine suggesting that a student, who doesn’t know their rights from their lefts, is being asked to shoot at another person accurately. How the hell did we get into this mess. They also try and say that there is no such thing as an assault weapon. I’d just like to know what else we should call a weapon that can fire off enough rounds that could obliterate an entire classroom in seconds. You can’t even use an AR-15 to hunt with because it would destroy the deer, so why should we allow any random person to get a hold of it?

Moving into the Democrats rebuttal, they stated that even trained officers of the law make mistakes sometimes, but teachers would be expected to never hesitate, open the safe where the gun is kept, and fight off the shooter, all while keeping the kids calm? I couldn’t help but wonder where they would find people so willing to do that – even our police officers can’t not shoot at innocent people. But that’s neither here nor there. During the Uvalde school shooting, it took trained police officers 77 minutes to get into the school, but teachers are expected to do better than that? Guns are really only increasing the number of deaths and hero complexes.

As someone who has lived through multiple active shooter situations – once where I had to literally run from the shooter himself – it’s the worst type of fear I’ve ever experienced. I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy, let alone a room full of scared little kids. Not knowing whether the direction you’re running or the room you’re hiding in will be the shooter’s next target is terrifying. We shouldn’t have to have active shooter drills or even discuss what teachers should do if they ever had to protect their kids from a gunman. Everything the Republicans suggested was like putting a band-aid over a gunshot wound, no pun intended.

The next topic was about the current state of gun laws; should they be expanded or not? The Democrats were up first. They started rather expectantly. By saying that gun laws were not doing enough and should be expanded. Obviously. States with the most lenient guns laws had the most gun deaths. Obviously. But there were also states with strict gun laws that still had many gun-related deaths. The solution was obvious, to me at least. Make guns laws on the federal level to negate the fact that each state can have their own. Both sides should agree on this. I mean, isn’t the Republican party all for having a stronger federal government or are we not doing that anymore?

Of course not. The Republicans state that gun laws are too strict as they are now and too invasive of people’s personal choices. Bringing up the war on drugs was pretty genius, I’ll give them that, but wasn’t the border wall supposed to help that whole thing? How’s that going? They say we need to get down to the root source of the violence, but not say what it is; they say we need to allow people to make their own choices about owning a gun, but gun violence is on the upward tick in this country that lets everyone do what they want; they say that people feel safer when they have a gun to protect themselves, but fail to recognize that if there were no guns, we wouldn’t need another gun to feel safer.

The Democratic rebuttal brought up other countries that have stricter federal gun laws with fewer overall gun deaths and related violence. If Japan can do it, why can’t we? This is admittedly a hard topic to argue on either side. The Great US-of-A was built on the idea that everyone has certain freedoms that put us apart from the rest. The issue comes when we fail to recognize that someone’s right to own a gun should never outweigh another person’s right to live. I couldn’t help but wonder why we can’t seem to agree on this. Do certain lives mean more than others? Questions for another day.

Both closing statements made me wonder a lot. Are we just supposed to keep letting people buy guns and killing each other? What’s the line then because it’s clearly not schools and children? Why was does allowing women to vote seem so contested in this argument? Why are you bringing up bath bombs, that wasn’t even the question? So much to think about, not enough time.

Next up is everyone’s favorite hot topic with gun violence: mental health. The Republicans were set to start this time. They start out by saying that many mass shooters were suicidal. But would they be deterred from going into a school where a teacher had a gun, even if they wanted to die after? They say that gun violence is only a symptom of mental illness and not the problem itself, and that we should fix mental health by funding programs that help. But I thought that every bill that tries to help mental health was blocked by Congressional Republicans? They say that the current background checks don’t screen for mental illness and say that that would help the matter. But they already don’t want to expand gun laws, which would expand background checks? At this point, I’m just confused.

The Democrats point out that it’s more cost effective to not have guns than to have guns. Why should we be funneling all this money into programs that don’t even need to be there if we had no more guns? Accidental shootings are brought up again. A child finding a gun by accident and firing it isn’t due to mental illness, it’s because of guns. Not every gun related death is due to mental illness. Mental illness is also not only an American problem, but somehow gun related deaths are. I couldn’t help but wonder why.

Closing arguments are presented. The Republicans do agree that mental health is not a uniquely American problem, but suicides by guns are. But they can’t seem to connect the obvious dots: that limiting access to guns will limit the suicides that Republicans seem so worried about now. Red Flag laws are brought up with the intent of showing that people with no history of mental illness are still allowed to by a gun. But isn’t that the problem we addressed in the previous topic? That if we expanded gun laws to not allow every random person to buy a gun, then we wouldn’t have any issues about people dying because of guns? The Democrats end by saying that access to mental health care should be given to everyone, and that arguments from the Republicans in favor of mental health programs only come up when their guns are being threatened. Really makes you wonder, doesn’t it? If they actually cared about mental health, then where is the support every other time?

For the last topic, the Second Amendment’s place in today’s society, the Democrats were up first. Of the five minutes of opening statement granted, they only used about one-and-a-half of them, which summed to saying that yes, the Second Amendment is still relevant, but needs to be redone. Since our Constitution is a living breathing document, it can be changed. It has before, so why shouldn’t it again? The Republicans jumped on the shortness of the previous opening statement to give a textbook definition of the Second Amendment. We were walked through a lengthy description that felt like something out of a history teacher’s wet dream. They ended by saying that words can simply be changed, which is a point that was argued by both sides. I’m discovering that we just can’t agree on which words should be changed, because some words will take away all modern guns while others will allow people to buy them willy-nilly.

The Democrats launched into definitions of their own, stating that a militia at the time it was defined is actually able-bodied white men who can fight in the event of an emergency. Another definition of “well-regulated” was also presented. I couldn’t help but wonder why we were fighting over definitions when even in Webster’s Dictionary there are multiple to define a single word. Every person is going to find a definition that suits their needs and proves their

point. It feels futile to try to out-define our competition when we should just be trying to not let people die.

Not to be outdone, the Republicans’ rebuttal included a quote from Alexander Hamilton. I thought to myself, they must be joking. Of all the great people to quote about being pro-guns, they chose two people who have iconically died from gun violence? No further comments from this columnist. They also said, yet again, that there was no such thing as an assault weapon but gave no other label to a weapon of mass destruction that could kill everyone in this room in 10 seconds. I just don’t understand.

I could barely pay attention to either closing argument. I couldn’t help but think, are we really arguing about the correct wording of a document written hundreds of years ago when there are people dying every day due to gun violence? We can’t be this hypocritical and think that people will actually believe in a government that tries to autocorrect a document that was written at a different time with different people in mind.

I don’t really have any other words. I didn’t think it should be so controversial to try to stop people from dying in gun related events. The best thing I can say after this debate is to remember to vote in all elections. Vote like your life depends on it, because apparently it does, and Republicans will make sure of it.