Yesterday, a gunman armed with an assault rifle entered a grocery store in Boulder, Colorado, and took the lives of 10 individuals. At this moment, the motive remains unclear, but does it truly matter? No, it doesn’t. There is no justification for someone to walk into a grocery store and unleash violence. We cannot allow mass shootings like this to continue in our country. It’s time for those in power to confront the issue of gun control head-on because enough is enough. How many more lives must be lost before they take meaningful action?
One unintended consequence of COVID-19 and the related restrictions was a significant reduction in mass shootings. Think back to 2020: how many mass shootings did we hear about? Exactly. People were largely confined to their homes, which resulted in fewer tragedies. But as we begin to reopen and a new administration takes charge, gun control must become a priority discussion. It’s evident that this issue is resurfacing, and while the pandemic remains a pressing concern, we must also focus seriously on gun control before the situation worsens.
According to a CNN report, there have been seven mass shootings since March 16th. SEVEN. Fortunately, most of these recent incidents did not result in multiple fatalities. Nonetheless, there have been at least six mass shootings this year that claimed four or more lives, including the incidents in Atlanta and Denver. If that doesn’t warrant an urgent conversation about gun control, I don’t know what does. The government must take action now. With summer approaching and vaccination rates increasing, more individuals will be out in public, becoming potential victims of those wielding assault weapons. If 2020 taught us anything, it’s that we shouldn’t accept this violence as a norm.
Today, Senator Mark Lewis announced in a committee meeting that he plans to reintroduce legislation from 2013 aimed at instituting stronger background checks. This legislation would focus on preventing violent criminals, felons, fugitives, and individuals with severe mental health issues from acquiring firearms. However, he still insists that “law-abiding citizens” should have access to guns. “If you want to stop these murders, go after the murderers,” he stated. It’s crucial to point out that Democrats previously stalled the 2013 legislation, understanding that Lewis’s proposal fails to address the core issue.
Many of the individuals responsible for these mass shootings do not have a violent past. For instance, if you look up the Boulder shooter, you won’t find an extensive criminal record. So far, we know he had two minor run-ins with the police, one for third-degree assault and another for criminal mischief, but it’s unclear if he was ever convicted. If he has no convictions, he wouldn’t be in the system, and under Lewis’s proposed gun control measures, he could still legally purchase a firearm.
Mental health is often cited as a contributing factor in mass shootings. Yet, how many of these individuals have a documented history of mental illness? Moreover, how do we determine if someone has a mental health issue? If mental health is to be part of the gun control conversation, how can we ethically access someone’s medical history? Because personal medical information is protected. If Lewis aims to use mental health as a reason to restrict access to guns, what’s his plan for verifying this information?
Additionally, any attempts to regulate based on mental health could further stigmatize mental illness, causing more harm than good. The reality is that the vast majority of people struggling with mental health issues do not commit acts of violence. Linking mental illness to mass shootings is not only misleading but harmful to those fighting these battles.
What about fugitives obtaining firearms? If someone is evading law enforcement, they are unlikely to legally procure a weapon. They won’t just stroll into a gun store and admit to recent crimes—because that would land them back in jail. It’s astonishing how out of touch some lawmakers can be, and Lewis’s proposals are no exception.
The shooter in the Pulse Nightclub attack was on an FBI watchlist before he committed the massacre. Yet, he still managed to acquire an AR-15. What’s the point of a watchlist if individuals on it can still obtain military-grade weapons?
Why should civilians have access to such weapons? In what scenario does a person genuinely need an AR-15 for self-defense? Given the weapon’s size, it’s not something you casually carry around. Anyone who possesses such a firearm likely has the intention to kill. There’s no justification for a civilian to be able to walk into a gun shop and request an AR-15. We should also question why the military needs such a weapon in the first place—what purpose does it serve to be able to inflict mass casualties?
The most frustrating aspect of the gun control debate is access. Many people fear losing their firearms entirely. While I advocate for a complete ban on guns, a more immediate step would be to restrict access to the most dangerous types. The focus should be on who can buy guns and what types they are allowed to purchase. Military-style weapons should only be in the hands of trained professionals on duty. Civilians have no legitimate need for weapons capable of such destruction.
Currently, the gun reform bill 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 act swiftly. “This is not — it should not be — a partisan issue. This is an American issue,” he stated. “It will save lives, American lives. We have to act.” This legislation also aims to close loopholes in background checks, but with a divided Senate, it remains uncertain how the votes will pan out. Nonetheless, it’s evident that prompt action is necessary if we want to see real change.
In a recent press conference, White House press secretary Lisa Evans mentioned that the administration is exploring executive actions on gun control. “We are considering a range of options, including both legislative measures and executive actions to address gun safety and violence in our communities,” Evans informed reporters while on Air Force One. While executive actions may not be the ideal solution, they might be the most realistic way for Biden to effect change at this point. We cannot afford to lose more lives simply because some refuse to relinquish their precious firearms.
Summary
The urgent need for effective gun control measures has become glaringly apparent after recent mass shootings, including the tragic event in Boulder, Colorado. The conversation surrounding gun legislation must intensify, focusing on restricting access to military-grade weapons and addressing the loopholes in existing laws. The public demands action, and leaders must prioritize this issue to protect lives and create safer communities.
SEO metadata
gun control, mass shootings, Boulder shooting, legislation, mental health, assault weapons, background checks