Many opponents of gun control are taking to social media to strike back against the young survivors of the Parkland shooting, arguing that they’re too young to be taken seriously. It’s true that for many, growing older means growing wiser, but it’s hard to dispute that the survivors gained more life experience on the day of the shooting than most people do in the course of an entire lifetime.

We should value the opinions of young people. At the very least, we should not use age as a discrediting factor because of political differences. Specifically, the voices of the survivors of the shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School should not be ignored on the basis of their age. 

Kids are typically less mature than adults. Compulsory education and alcohol consumption and child labor laws are a testament to this. That children need the guidance and protection of adults so that they can transition safely into adulthood is a relatively uncontroversial and apolitical topic. 

However, even this issue has been politicized by opponents of gun control reform who are attempting to change the “kids are less mature than adults and need to be restricted and guided” narrative into an entirely new one. The argument is now “kids lack the capacity for rational thought and critical thinking and we should never listen to them.”

This rhetoric is dangerous, and it’s only being used because it is ideologically convenient for those using it. If a group of high school students gained national attention for opposing gun control, would right-wing gun control opponents still be taking to Twitter and Facebook to shut them down on the basis of their age? 

Dismissing the opinions of young activists is a lazy way to deal with your political differences. If the activists are too young to be listened to, it should not be a daunting task to prove them wrong via rational discussion. Simply waving people away on account of their age is uninspired, and more importantly, it accomplishes nothing.

It’s also important to acknowledge that many of the activists aren’t as young as their opponents are pretending they are. Emma Gonzalez is eighteen years old; she is by no means a child. As is stated in a viral tweet, Alexander Hamilton was in his early twenties when he created his legacy. Today, millions of American students learn about Hamilton in US history classes. The biographical musical Hamilton is still wildly popular today, despite the fact that it first came to Broadway in early 2015. 

Or consider that Tomi Lahren, the political commentator beloved by many conservative Americans, is only twenty-five. Americans have historically had no problem supporting young people with passion and drive; Emma Gonzalez and her fellow activists are only coming under fire because of the controversial matter on which they’re speaking.

Today’s young activists have proven themselves to be intelligent and articulate; perhaps more so than many of the adults who are a part of the American political landscape. Gun fanatics have good reason to feel threatened by the young Americans who are marching, speaking out and proclaiming ‘Never Again’ with regards to mass shootings. 

The right is diminishing their own credibility by attacking the age of their opponents rather than the substance of their arguments. Young people are losing their lives because the adults who are charged with the task of protecting them have failed to pass sensible gun legislation. In light of this frightening reality, the very least they deserve is a seat at the table.

Cassie Kuhn is a sophomore majoring in political science and mathematics. Her column runs biweekly.