Just yesterday, a man armed with an assault rifle stormed a grocery store in Boulder, Colorado, taking the lives of 10 innocent people. As it stands, his motive remains unknown, but does that even matter? Absolutely not. There is no justification for someone to walk into a grocery store and open fire. We cannot sit idly by while mass shootings continue to plague our nation. It is high time for those in power to take gun control seriously—enough is enough. How many more lives must be lost before they act?
One unexpected outcome of the COVID pandemic and its restrictions is that mass shootings significantly decreased. Reflect on 2020—how many mass shootings did we hear about? Exactly. With people confined to their homes, these tragic events were less frequent. But now that society is reopening and a new administration is in power, gun control must become a pressing topic again. It’s clear that this issue is resurfacing rapidly, and alongside the ongoing pandemic, we must prioritize discussions on gun reform.
According to a CNN report, since March 16th, there have been seven mass shootings. SEVEN. Fortunately, most of these incidents did not result in multiple fatalities. However, this year alone has seen at least six mass shootings with four or more deaths, including those in Atlanta and Denver. If that’s not sufficient reason to seriously discuss gun control, what is? The government must act now. With summer approaching and vaccination rates rising, more individuals will be out and about, increasing the risk of potential casualties from those with access to assault weapons. The events of 2020 showed us that we don’t have to accept this violence as the norm.
In a recent committee meeting on gun control, Senator Ted Cruz announced his intention to reintroduce 2013 legislation aimed at strengthening background checks. This bill targets “violent criminals,” felons, fugitives, and individuals with serious mental illnesses to prevent them from obtaining firearms. However, he still advocates for “law-abiding citizens” to retain access to guns. “If you want to stop these murders, go after the murderers,” he stated. Yet, Democrats rightly blocked the 2013 legislation through a filibuster because they recognize that Cruz’s proposal fails to address the core issue.
Many mass shooters do not have a history of violence. Take the Boulder shooter, for example; he has only had two police encounters—one for third-degree assault (a misdemeanor) and one for criminal mischief. It remains unclear if he was ever convicted, meaning he would not be in the system and therefore would not be prohibited from buying a gun under Cruz’s proposed legislation.
Mental health is often cited in discussions about mass shootings. But how many of these individuals truly have a documented history of mental illness? More critically, how can we accurately assess someone’s mental health status while respecting their privacy? If Cruz plans to use mental illness as a criterion for gun ownership, what ethical measures will he propose to access individuals’ medical histories? Such measures would only further stigmatize mental health issues and cause more harm than good. The vast majority of those living with mental illness do not commit acts of violence, and conflating the two is not only dangerous but also deeply unfair.
As for fugitives acquiring firearms, individuals on the run from law enforcement are unlikely to pursue legal avenues to obtain guns. They won’t walk into a gun shop and admit to recent crimes, as they know the consequences. It’s puzzling that a senator could overlook such basic logic. The shooter in the Pulse Nightclub massacre was on an FBI watchlist yet still accessed an AR-15. What’s the point of such surveillance if individuals can still obtain military-grade weapons?
Why should civilians even have access to military-grade firearms? In what circumstance would someone need such a weapon for self-defense? Given the size and firepower of an AR-15, it’s clear that anyone possessing such a weapon intends to inflict harm. There is no justification for civilians to acquire firearms capable of causing mass destruction. The military’s need for such weapons should also be scrutinized: what purpose does it serve to take multiple lives at once?
The most frustrating aspect of the gun control debate is the perception that all guns will be seized. While I firmly believe in eliminating guns entirely, a sensible starting point would be restricting access to the most dangerous weapons. The focus should be on who can buy firearms and what types they can purchase. Military-style weapons should only be in the hands of trained professionals, not civilians who have no legitimate need for such lethal tools.
Currently, the gun reform bill passed by the House includes a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. During a speech addressing the Boulder shooting, President Biden urged the Senate to act swiftly: “This should not be a partisan issue. It’s an American issue that will save lives.” This legislation also seeks to close loopholes in background checks, but with a divided Senate, it’s uncertain how the votes will unfold. It’s evident that action must be taken sooner rather than later if we want to effect real change.
In a recent press conference, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki stated that the administration is exploring executive actions on gun control. “We are considering a range of measures, including legislation and executive actions, to address gun safety and community violence,” she told reporters. While executive actions may not be the ideal route for achieving gun control, it might be President Biden’s best option to prevent further loss of life due to inaction on gun rights.
For more information on related topics, check out this post about home insemination kits and this resource for further insights. Additionally, this article offers excellent guidance on pregnancy and home insemination.