March 23, 2021
Just yesterday, a gunman entered a grocery store in Boulder, Colorado, armed with an assault rifle, and took the lives of 10 innocent people. As of now, the reason behind this horrific act remains a mystery, but does it really matter? The answer is no. There is absolutely no justification for someone to walk into a grocery store and open fire. We can’t keep allowing mass shootings to occur in this country. It’s high time for those in power to take gun control seriously—enough is enough. How many more lives must be lost before they take action?
One unexpected benefit of the COVID pandemic and various restrictions was a noticeable decrease in mass shootings. Reflect on 2020: how many mass shootings dominated the headlines? Precisely. The absence of such tragedies was largely due to people staying home. But as we begin to return to normalcy and with a new administration in place, gun control must be a critical topic of discussion. It’s evident that this issue is resurfacing, and while the pandemic remains a priority, we must also address gun control before it spirals out of control again.
According to CNN, this incident marks the seventh mass shooting since March 16th. Seven! Thankfully, only a few of the recent events resulted in multiple fatalities. However, there have been at least six mass shootings this year resulting in four or more deaths, including those in Atlanta and Denver. If that isn’t enough evidence to warrant a serious conversation about gun control, I don’t know what is. The government must act swiftly. With summer approaching and vaccinations increasing, more people will be out in public, making them potential victims of those wielding assault weapons. The events of 2020 showed us that we don’t have to accept this violence as a norm.
Ted Cruz recently announced his plan to reintroduce legislation from 2013 aimed at strengthening background checks to prevent “violent criminals,” felons, fugitives, and individuals with severe mental health issues from acquiring firearms. However, he still advocates for “law-abiding citizens” to have access to guns. “If you want to stop these murders, go after the murderers,” he stated. Yet, Democrats rightly blocked the 2013 legislation in a filibuster, understanding that Cruz’s proposal fails to tackle the core issue.
Many mass shooters do not have a previous history of violence. Take the Boulder shooter, for example—his record includes two encounters with law enforcement, one for a minor assault charge and another for vandalism, but it’s unclear if he was ever convicted. If he wasn’t, he wouldn’t be in the system, and Cruz’s legislation would not prevent him from purchasing a gun.
Mental health is often cited as a factor in mass shootings, but how many shooters actually have a documented history of mental illness? Furthermore, how do we ethically obtain someone’s medical history? If mental health concerns are to be part of the gun control debate, what measures are proposed to access individuals’ medical records? This approach could further stigmatize mental health issues, doing more harm than good. The overwhelming majority of individuals living with mental illness do not resort to violence, and conflating the two is dangerous.
As for fugitives, someone on the run from the law is unlikely to pursue legal avenues for obtaining a firearm; they certainly won’t admit to recent crimes at a gun store. It’s baffling that a senator would overlook this reality.
The shooter in the Pulse Nightclub incident was on an FBI watchlist yet still accessed an AR-15. What’s the point of such a watchlist if it doesn’t prevent access to high-powered weapons? Why do civilians even need military-grade firearms? There’s no legitimate scenario where one would require such weaponry for self-defense. An AR-15 is not something you casually carry around; its mere possession implies intent to cause harm. There is no justification for civilians to obtain such firearms.
The most frustrating aspect of the gun control conversation is the fear surrounding gun confiscation. While I strongly advocate for a no-gun policy, removing access to the most dangerous weapons is a vital first step. The focus must be on who can purchase guns and what types they can buy. Military-style weapons should only be in the hands of trained professionals.
Currently, legislation passed by the House includes a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. During his address regarding the Boulder shooting, President Biden urged the Senate to take action. “This should not be a partisan issue; it’s an American issue,” he stated. “It will save lives. We must act.” This legislation also aims to close loopholes in background checks, but with a closely divided Senate, it’s uncertain how the votes will unfold. Immediate action is necessary if we wish to see meaningful change.
At a recent press conference, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki indicated that the administration is exploring executive actions on gun control. “We are considering various approaches, including legislation and executive actions to address gun safety and violence in communities,” she noted. While this may not be the ideal route for enacting gun control, it may be Biden’s best option for effecting change. We cannot afford to lose more lives because of reluctance to restrict access to dangerous firearms.
For those interested in exploring more about pregnancy and home insemination, consider checking out this insightful post on intracervical insemination, as well as valuable resources on intrauterine insemination and fertility supplements.
Summary
The urgency for gun control has never been clearer after a series of mass shootings, including the recent tragedy in Boulder, Colorado. With the government needing to take serious action against gun violence, discussions around legislation and executive actions are critical. The focus must remain on preventing access to military-grade weapons for civilians and addressing the core issues surrounding mass shootings, rather than relying solely on background checks that may not effectively tackle the problem.