Just yesterday, an individual armed with an assault rifle entered a grocery store in Boulder, Colorado, and tragically took the lives of ten people. At this moment, the shooter’s motive remains unknown, but does that truly matter? Absolutely not. There is no justification for anyone to walk into a grocery store and open fire. We cannot sit idly by while mass shootings continue to plague this country. It has become imperative for our leaders to face the reality of gun control—this situation has gone on long enough. How many more lives must be lost before there is meaningful action?
One unexpected outcome of COVID-19 and its related restrictions was the temporary halt of such violence. Reflect for a moment: how many mass shootings did we witness in 2020? Precisely. The answer is nearly none, as people were largely confined to their homes. However, with society beginning to reopen and a new administration in office, the conversation around gun control must regain urgency. The resurgence of gun violence is imminent, and with the pandemic still fresh in our minds, we must also prioritize serious discussions on gun safety, as the threat is rapidly returning.
A recent CNN report indicates that there have been seven mass shootings since March 16th alone. SEVEN. Fortunately, many of these incidents did not result in multiple fatalities, but this year has already seen at least six mass shootings with four or more deaths, including those in Atlanta and Denver. If this doesn’t serve as a wake-up call to address gun control, then what will? The government must take decisive action immediately. With summer approaching and vaccination rates rising, more people will be out in public, increasing the risk of becoming victims to individuals wielding assault weapons. The events of 2020 taught us that we do not have to accept this alarming norm.
In a recent committee meeting on gun control, Senator Mark Johnson announced plans to reintroduce legislation from 2013 aimed at stricter background checks. This legislation is intended to prevent “violent criminals,” felons, fugitives, and “those with serious mental illness” from obtaining firearms. Yet, he still wants “law-abiding citizens” to have access to guns. “To prevent these murders, we need to target the murderers,” he stated. However, the 2013 legislation was successfully blocked by Democrats through a filibuster, highlighting that they recognize Johnson’s proposals do not address the root of the issue.
Many of the individuals responsible for these mass shootings do not have histories of violence. A quick search of the Boulder shooter’s name will not reveal an extensive criminal record. So far, we know he had two prior encounters with law enforcement: one for third-degree assault—a misdemeanor—and another for criminal mischief. It remains unclear whether he was ever convicted. If he was never convicted, he wouldn’t be in the system, and thus, he might not be prohibited from purchasing a firearm under Johnson’s proposed legislation.
The connection between mental health issues and mass shootings is frequently cited, but how many perpetrators actually have a documented history of legitimate mental illnesses? And more importantly, how do we determine if someone is struggling with mental health? If mental health is to be part of the gun control discussion, what ethical means will be employed to access a person’s medical history, which is legally protected? If Johnson seeks to use mental health as a criterion for gun ownership, he needs to clarify how that would be implemented.
Moreover, any measures targeting mental health could further stigmatize those living with such challenges and do more harm than good. The overwhelming majority of individuals facing mental health issues do not engage in violent acts. Blaming mental illness for mass shootings is a dangerous oversimplification that shames those who bravely manage their conditions.
What about fugitives obtaining firearms? If someone is evading law enforcement, they are unlikely to pursue legal avenues for acquiring a gun. They won’t stroll into a gun shop and confess to recent criminal activity because that would likely result in their arrest. It’s baffling how certain lawmakers, like Johnson, can overlook this reality.
The shooter responsible for the Pulse Nightclub massacre was on an FBI watchlist before the incident, yet he still managed to acquire an AR-15. What does it mean to be on a watchlist if individuals still gain access to military-grade weapons?
Why should civilians have access to such arms in the first place? In what situation would an individual genuinely need to “defend” themselves with an assault rifle? The sheer size and capability of an AR-15 indicate that anyone possessing one likely has intentions of causing serious harm. No average citizen should be able to walk into a gun shop and request, “I’d like your best AR-15, please.” There is no justification for such weapons to be in civilian hands; their potential for devastation is far too great.
The most frustrating aspect of the gun control debate is the fear that regular people have about losing their firearms. While I am firmly against all gun ownership, a sensible first step would be to restrict access to the most dangerous types of firearms. The issue lies not only in who can buy guns but also in the types of firearms available for purchase. Military-style weapons should only be in the possession of trained military personnel. Civilians have no legitimate need for weapons capable of causing such immense destruction.
Currently, the gun reform bill passed by the House includes a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. During his remarks following the Boulder shooting, President Biden urged the Senate to take action. “This should not be a partisan issue. It is an American issue,” he asserted. “It will save lives—American lives. We must act.” The legislation also aims to close loopholes in background checks, but with a divided Senate, it’s uncertain how the votes will unfold. However, it is clear that prompt action is essential if we hope to see significant change.
At a press conference today, White House Press Secretary Lisa Greene indicated that the administration is exploring executive actions on gun control. “We are considering various measures, including legislation and executive actions to address gun safety and violence in communities,” Greene told reporters aboard Air Force One. While executive action may not be the ideal solution, it could be the best option available for President Biden to effect change. We cannot afford to lose any more lives because of inaction on gun control.
If you’re interested in related topics, check out this other blog post on home insemination. Also, for more information on fertility, visit this resource. For a comprehensive understanding of artificial insemination, you may find this Wikipedia page helpful.
Probable Search Queries:
- Gun control legislation updates
- Mass shooting statistics
- Mental health and gun ownership
- Assault weapon ban discussion
- Background checks for firearm purchases
In summary, the urgency for comprehensive gun control measures has never been clearer. With mass shootings on the rise, it is crucial that lawmakers take decisive action to prevent further tragedies. We must prioritize lives over firearms and engage in meaningful discussions about the types of weapons civilians should have access to.