@ The latest mass shooting that occurred in San Bernadino was noteworthy for a multitude of reasons: It marked more mass shootings than days in the year 2015, it was the largest terror attack on United States soil since 9/11, and it offered a lot more leverage for both political parties to further their agendas, given that this one involved people in cahoots with ISIL. Being the die-hard, fed up liberal that I am, I took to Facebook to argue the same arguments for gun control that everyone, liberal or conservative, has heard 1,000 times. I, as well as my like-minded colleagues, argued that, statistically, countries with more guns have more gun violence, I pointed out that Britain and Australia have still yet to see any mass shootings since they banned guns, I asserted that there was no reason for ordinary citizens to have assault weapons and I even called out the sheer lunacy in allowing someone on the no-fly list to buy a gun. Let’s face it guys, as logical as these arguments may be, they’re getting redundant. For the past several years we’ve heard these same refutes over and over again. Isn’t it time for something new? Thankfully, we now have an argument that has absolutely no holes, it is powerful and irrefutable, completely objective and entirely reasonable. It is sure to decimate any and all pro-gun arguments that even the most stubborn of conservatives can concoct. Who is the liberal mastermind who came up with this ingenious plan, you ask? Was it Bernie Sanders? Jon Stewart? Oprah? Nope. It was GOP presidential candidate, Marco Rubio. Rubio began his fateful Fox and Friends appearance with a completely illogical tangent against “liberal media”, to reassure his colleagues that though he will soon propose the most effective argument for gun control the world has ever seen, he is still, undoubtedly, Republican. After this unwarranted, inappropriate digression, Rubio introduced his revolutionary argument. “I don’t hear anyone talking about bomb control”, he started in, before informing the panel that the terrorists had homemade bombs that did not end up detonating. Now, on the surface this may not seem as ingenious as I’ve made it out to be, but when we dive a little deeper, we see how utterly innovative it is. To understand how truly smart it is, you must first be familiar with one of the right’s favorite pro-gun arguments: “If you make guns illegal, criminals will still get them”. In the United States, we have the most extreme form of “bomb control” that you can possibly have; They are entirely illegal. You can not go to the store and purchase a bomb with little to no regulation like you can with, for example, a candy bar, spray paint or a gun. Theoretically, the only way to get a bomb would be on the black market. Many conservatives, Marco Rubio included, suggest that the same would happen with guns. If you make them illegal, criminals could still get them on the black market. Now here’s the problem with that, as Rubio graciously pointed out. If criminals will still get illegal things when they’re illegal, why didn’t these terrorists, who were hellbent on killing people, just go buy RPG’s or some other form of military grade bomb? Why did they have to resort to homemade pipe bombs that proved completely and totally ineffective? Could it be, perhaps, because RPG’s are illegal and obtaining illegal things isn’t quite as easy as Republicans might want you to think?