Gun Control in relevance to the recent Orlando shooting

I disagree with Eugene Robinson’s post titled “Assault Weapons must be banned in America” for many reasons. The first line of his article states that, “the only reasonable response to the massacre in Orlando is to ban the sale of military-style assault weapons”, (Robinson). Military-style assault rifles don’t kill people; mentally unstable or criminal people kill people. The fact that an Islamic State sympathizer, that had been under investigation by the FBI at least twice, was able to walk into a gun store and buy an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and a pistol is absurd. However, this does not mean American citizens should be banned from owning or purchasing an assault rifle. Many Americans would agree with this statement, undoubtedly with the majority being in the South. The author’s intended audience is clearly towards gun control activists, just based on his opening statement. Although Eugene Robinson has tremendous credibility, as shown by his works that have been published by The Washington Post for over three decades, I believe his opinion is brash and premature in regard to getting fast results. The issue of gun control is not one that cannot be solved easily, it is a complex problem infringing on the civil rights of American citizens. Assault weapons can be destructive, but they can equally be just a protective. I do not believe it is a matter of what kind of guns’ people can own or if they can own them at all, I believe it is a matter of bureaucracy (as much as I hate to admit it). If a person that has been watched by the FBI at any point in their life for “alleged extremist leanings or connections”, they should not have been able to buy a gun, especially so in the Orlando shooter situation. There needs to be more restrictions on purchasing guns. Just because a person can pass a simple background check does not prove that they are mentally contempt to own a firearm of any nature, or even “law-abiding” citizens. Stricter laws need to be implemented to purchase a gun such as, mental and psychological tests and more thorough background checks. When Robinson says “banning [guns] would not end mass killings, but it would mean fewer deaths”, is not absolutely, without a doubt, correct. The black market still exists; guns would still be available if a certain someone was willing pay the price. A person could have a pistol with a 30 round magazine, and do the same damage as a person with an assault rifle. Banning military-style assault rifles would do nothing but drive people to buy larger magazines for pistols, make more dangerous modifications, and buy assault rifles in a chaotic manor before they get banned. I figure it would be similar to that of the early 1900s prohibition: it would be a failure and a bigger issue than it was to start with. There are other options than taking away people’s rights.