As we witness yet another mass shooting, the conversation tends to polarize into three main perspectives: 1) “Guns aren’t the problem; people are,” often echoed by those who believe “If guns are banned, only criminals will have them”; 2) “We require sensible gun regulations to reduce the frequency of these tragedies”; and 3) People who staunchly argue, “We must not politicize this incident.”
Let’s dissect these arguments. The first two are often intertwined. Just recently, in a shocking act of violence, numerous individuals lost their lives, and many more were injured. In Las Vegas, where such events occur, it’s perfectly legal for anyone to carry a military-grade weapon.
After a tragedy, there’s a natural inclination to advocate for legislative changes to prevent future occurrences. However, this is frequently met with claims that guns are merely instruments and that people can resort to other means, like using a hammer or a knife. “Don’t blame the weapon,” they insist, subscribing to the National Rifle Association’s narrative that emphasizes the need for “good guys with guns” to counter the bad.
These arguments fall apart under scrutiny. A person on the 32nd floor of a Las Vegas hotel could not have inflicted such extensive harm using hammers or knives. A few might have been injured, but the scale of devastation would have been vastly different. Yes, vehicles can also be weaponized, but they come with regulations like registration and insurance. While it’s true that these laws won’t eliminate all issues, they significantly mitigate risks.
Consider this: laws limiting the purchase of certain medications don’t eradicate drug abuse, but they do help reduce it. Seat belt laws don’t guarantee that every child will be safe in an accident, yet they lower the fatality rates. Similarly, drunk driving laws don’t stop everyone from driving under the influence, but they have undeniably decreased drunk-driving fatalities. The notion that we shouldn’t take action simply because we can’t eliminate the problem entirely is nonsensical.
Now, we’re confronted with the argument of “Now is not the time to discuss this.” But when exactly is the right time? Emotions are high, and families are grieving. If we can’t talk about this now, when will we? Politicizing these tragedies is necessary—after all, politics is about solving the challenges we face. If a dam fails, we initiate discussions about infrastructure to prevent recurrence.
Let’s face it: THE UNITED STATES HAS A GUN ISSUE.
We need to accept that this is disturbing and requires immediate action. Discussions shouldn’t be delayed until next week or next year. They must happen now, before the memory fades and before we become desensitized to violence. Our collective attention is fleeting, often overshadowed by the latest scandal or tragedy.
In just a couple of days, something else will capture our focus, and we will have moved on. Just as we have from past tragedies in Newtown, Charleston, and Orlando. The time for sensible gun regulation is now—immediate action is necessary to prevent further loss of life. It is not disrespectful to the victims to advocate for change; it is, in fact, our responsibility as a society. America has a gun problem, and it requires more than “thoughts and prayers.” It demands decisive action—RIGHT NOW!
For those interested in further discussions on pregnancy and home insemination, be sure to check out this article on CDC’s infertility statistics and explore more about at-home options at Baby Maker’s Home Insemination Kit. Additionally, you can find valuable insights in our other blog post here.
Summary
The conversation around gun violence and regulation must happen immediately after tragedies occur. Dismissing the need for change by claiming that “now is not the time” is misguided. America faces a significant gun problem that requires urgent attention and action, not just thoughts and prayers.