The current presidential election has raised many issues, from the shape of the economy to the possibility of lowering/raising taxes to the occasional outburst of women’s rights. There has been a significant lack of conversation, however, regarding gun control. Despite six school shootings, one mass public shooting in Colorado, and countless other individual incidents, the idea of regulating guns has still not been brought to the table.

There are many blatant facts that support the idea of initiating some kind of gun regulation. First of all, somewhere between fifty and seventy five percent* of killers’ guns were obtained legally, and 87% of guns were either semi-automatic handguns, assault weapons, or revolvers. Secondly, there have been 25 mass shootings in the US so far this year: the United States has averaged 20 mass (four or more people) shootings since 2005, an average that has caused the death toll at the hand of gun violence climb into the thousands. This number, or so history suggests, will continue to rise.

So, given the daunting evidence and the rising level of tragedy, why does gun control continue to be such a taboo subject? The opposition to it is very vocal, that much is clear. Shortly after the recent shooting in Aurora, Colorado (a state with very loose gun regulations), which left more than a dozen dead and nearly 40 wounded, numerous editorials and newscasts suggested that this event was in fact an argument against gun laws. Some argued that had an audience member been armed, he might have been able to prevent the shooter from spewing so many bullets. To this argument, I say: if someone, in the middle of a dark movie theater was able to withstand the tear gas, comprehend the meaning behind the chaos, and distinguish the action from the movie itself, AND react within a matter of seconds to pull his or her gun and aim accurately at the perpetrator, then I suggest that movie-goers ought to pay $12 to see this live superhero.

More cynical (or perhaps more informed) observers may suggest that gun control progress has been blocked by the powerful NRA. This is hardly a leap, considering the organization’s tremendous lobbying influence, which has directly affected legislation in the past (case in point: Stand Your Ground, Fl.) While the NRA claims to be the world’s “premier firearms education organization,” I find it disturbing that their website seems to avoid stating the clear facts listed above. Wouldn’t an education in firearms include an education in the thousands of murders and injuries that take place every year due to gun violence? The NRA also prides itself on involving America’s youth, which is interesting because 44% of teens have access to guns, and 73% of all firearm homicides from 2007-2009 involved those under 19, though this is a number that includes both victims and perpetrators. (In 2000, teens accounted for nearly ten percent of total murders.) More than a third of this youth population, which NRA claims to be protecting and educating, fears being shot one day. So it seems that, despite holding fervently onto the ideals of the second amendment, the NRA has not done its job in preventing gun violence or educating the population.

So what is the NRA’s motivation? Is it so awful to suggest that, similar to the paths our health care and education systems have taken, NRA is simply another business out to maximize profit? I don’t think it’s an outrageous conclusion. Gun control is obviously not, and will never be, in the interest of the NRA, and if the organization continues to maintain its political stronghold, the United States will never see stricter gun laws. We seem to value our freedom, and yet we cannot accept that freedom is only guaranteed when certain restrictions are put in place to ensure that citizens will be able to act out these rights in a safe environment. Owning a handgun isn’t a birth right, and having nine guns certainly is not. While I am not suggesting banning guns completely – this would pose a problem for the hunting community – no one needs to own more than one, and no one needs assault weapons, handguns, or guns with high ammunition capacities. People have a right to live and feel safe before we have the right to own whatever weapons we want. We need to try out best to ignore the influence of the NRA, and realize that their weapon ideals are not on par with American realities.

Guns are responsible for nearly 2/3 of murders in the United States. There are nearly 90 guns for every 100 Americans. We have the highest ownership rate in the world. Would the “bad” guys still have access to guns if stricter laws were put in place? Maybe. But if the numbers show that more than half* of killers are obtaining these guns legally, that tells us that perhaps guns tend to be the murder weapon of choice because they are so easy to come by. If, as Lubbock County’s Judge Tom Head suggested, we need weapons to protect ourselves from an inevitable UN takeover, I would hope that one of the one hundred and ninety two countries represented by the organization would come to our defense. Of course, if the reason why gun control has been so consistently stalled is that the NRA does not stand to profit from stricter laws, perhaps we should reconsider who we allow to influence the political conversation and fight harder for our protection.

*Though several statistics have been reported regarding this information, the number is rarely consistent, thus ambiguity is necessary for the accuracy of this article.