I love children. As I contemplate having my own, I already worry about their safety, considering more than a hundred mass shootings occurred this year in America. Will I worry every morning as I drop them off at school? These thoughts flood my mind as I notice today’s testosterone-driven gun violence. Nevertheless, some “patriotic” oldtimers in Congress want to keep an amendment that was proposed when good ol’ horse transportation and gun duels were in full bloom. Times have changed, and so should our laws. We can’t do much worse than we already are, so testing new laws shouldn’t be risking much. Regardless, I have the perfect solution.
Allow only women to carry weapons.
Why ban guns for both genders if only one of them causes all the trouble? You might be thinking: “What credentials do you have to make such an assumption?” Here’s all I have to say: Google “mass shooters in 2018” and try finding a picture of one who isn’t male. Want an even bigger challenge? Look for one who isn’t white either. You don’t need a PhD from Stanford to deduce the obvious.
Some people will raise objections and say, “Mass shooters will somehow acquire illegal weapons, so this doesn’t change anything.” To answer that, here’s my pitch: women will be required by law to both carry a weapon at all times and to attend a whole afternoon of training. With the enforcement of this law, mass shooters wouldn’t dare to attack a Beyoncé concert, knowing that thirty-thousand devoted fans are glocked up and ready to protect their queen. I wouldn’t feel more warm and fuzzy under the protection of anyone else.
Another objection might come from men who might not feel safe knowing that their ex-girlfriends own guns and are fully capable of using them. However, shouldn’t men rejoice in the practice of the American way? After all, it’s only patriotic to equalize men and women by using guns to make up for their physical disadvantage.
So, what about the men who might not be particularly interested in sharing a bed with a woman? Well, I’m glad I asked. By normalizing the female use of weapons, more girls will be encouraged to go into law enforcement. With this new surplus of female police officers, many of them will offer employment as security guards. Additionally, male officers will only be allowed to carry guns in co-ed squads.
Until this point, I have yet to find a downside to this proposal. Think about it: gun violence will plummet while American dads can sleep at night knowing their households are safe under the sovereign protection of their wives. Everybody wins!
However, after extended thought, I found a single fault to my otherwise perfect plan; I already vividly picture a man wearing camo from head to toe frowning at me as I propose to take away his five “necessary” rifles. If men aren’t legally allowed to hold a weapon, then how will they hunt? Well... they won’t. They will either find new, unique ways to kill animals or ask their wives to accompany them on their hunting trips. If the previous options don’t sound appealing because swords and wives are no fun, then I suggest they pick up a hobby, like painting or knitting. They might actually find some extra time to change diapers or learn how to cook. If men oppose my proposal because they demand some alone time with their bros in the outdoors, then I recommend either outdoor meditation or learning how to communicate with friends while not gun-totin’. Who knows, this might revolutionize their emotional maturity. Men could learn to seek help from each other instead of draining women for their emotional wisdom.
Lastly, to my lovely Second Amendment fans in Congress: yes, being armed is the only way to physically stop illegally armed people, but how about we give this responsibility to a gender known for not abusing that power.