The difference in the gun control debate? Student activists.
By Vera Walsh-Alker ‘19
Emma Gonzalez has a lot to teach, and politicians have a lot to learn. Gonzalez, a survivor of the shooting that took place at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida on Valentine’s Day, took to the
podium — and to national television — last month to call out the factors that made the murder of 17 of her classmates possible, a speech that earned serious national praise and social media attention.
Her unbridled passion and unchecked language, delivered in anger and sadness, showcased teen activism at its finest. She is tired of seeing people her age — and now, her friends — murdered in cold blood with no
response but “thoughts and prayers” from lawmakers sitting in the comfort of the Capitol Dome or state legislatures.
Gonzalez asked for the right to a safe and violence-free life, demanding that the right to own guns no longer outweighs the right to live — and that the definition of safety no longer include access to military grade
assault-style weapons.
The reason Gonzalez’s activism is so potent? The NRA’s money in
Congress cannot keep a gag on her, a person with the constitutional right to speak out against weapons of mass murder.
Because the U.S. is a country so desensitized to mass murder, gun activism did not make the same strides as other issues, such as LGBT rights and immigration, during the progressive Obama era. Gonzalez “called BS” on the the hypocrisy that allowed 344 mass shootings in 2017. Add the 17 lives lost at Parkland and that’s 21 deaths in American schools so far in 2018 (per Education Week’s database).
So, twenty years after the first major school shooting in Columbine, why is the March For Our Lives, an international protest for gun control occurring in 427 locations, with an estimated 500k marchers coming to DC on March 24, happening now as opposed to after Newtown or San Bernardino? The answer is the age of the victims.
One would think that after a mass shooting took the lives of twenty elementary school children (and seven adults), it would be enough to prompt stricter gun laws. But, unlike the students in Florida, those children could
not be their own activists. Those 8-year-olds didn’t have Twitter or Instagram or the ability to craft a powerful speech, such as Gonzalez’s.
The Florida students have access to the tools of activism in a modern democracy. Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter are all catalysts for social
and political activism in the modern age. One teenager can attract coverage of the mass media on issues important to him or her. That’s the difference between the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting and all the
rest. It happened in a traditionally safe area, in a time of heated political debate, in a school with strong political activists and a tight-knit community.
The strength of the community allowed the victims to recognize this situation for what it is: not just a tragedy, but an example of the inefficient, hypocritical, and life-threatening state of the United States’ gun laws. The victims are carefully and courageously campaigning for laws that would help put a stop to mass murders.
The stand these students have taken, on national television and in their community, will, we hope, mark a turning point in gun regulation — not because of some epiphany on the Hill, but because of relentless activism
from the voice our generation. As students, it is our job to be that voice, to say that we are not going to stand by and let old white men put our lives in danger.
This isn’t a corny call to action. Schools must be safe places of learning and growth, but that can only happen if guns are out of the equation. The right to own guns does not outweigh students’ rights to education.
