Just yesterday, a shooter armed with an assault rifle entered a grocery store in Boulder, Colorado, taking the lives of 10 innocent people. While the motive remains unclear, does it truly matter? No, it doesn’t. There is no justification for opening fire in a grocery store. We cannot allow such mass shootings to persist in this country. It’s high time for those in power to take gun control seriously—enough is enough. How many more lives need to be lost before action is taken?
One small silver lining of the COVID-19 pandemic was the temporary decrease in mass shootings. Think back to 2020: how many mass shootings occurred? Not many, because people were largely confined to their homes. However, as we begin to reopen and adjust to a new administration, gun control discussions must take center stage once again. It’s evident that gun violence is resurfacing, and while the pandemic still dominates our concerns, we must also prioritize gun control before it spirals out of control.
According to a CNN report, there have been seven mass shootings since March 16th. SEVEN. Fortunately, many of these incidents did not result in multiple fatalities, but there were still at least six shootings this year that claimed four or more lives, including those in Atlanta and Denver. If that doesn’t warrant a serious conversation about gun control, I don’t know what does. The government must take immediate action, especially with summer approaching and vaccination rates rising. More people gathering means more potential victims of gun violence. And if 2020 taught us anything, it’s that we should not accept this as our norm.
In a recent committee meeting, Senator Mark Thompson announced his intention to reintroduce legislation from 2013 aimed at strengthening background checks. This proposal focuses on keeping firearms away from “violent criminals,” felons, and those with severe mental health issues. However, he still wants “law-abiding citizens” to retain access to guns. “If you want to prevent these murders, target the murderers,” he stated. Yet, the 2013 legislation was rightfully blocked by Democrats, as they recognized it did not address the core issues.
Many mass shooters do not have extensive histories of violence. For example, the Boulder shooter has two prior police encounters, one involving a misdemeanor assault and another for criminal mischief, but it remains uncertain if he was ever convicted. If he was not convicted, he wouldn’t appear in the system, which means he wouldn’t be prevented from purchasing a weapon under Thompson’s legislation. It’s likely he wouldn’t be.
Mental health is often cited as a reason behind mass shootings, but how many perpetrators actually have documented mental illnesses? More importantly, how can we verify someone’s mental health status ethically? If mental illness is to be part of the gun control conversation, what measures are proposed to access medical histories, which are protected by law? Using mental health as a criterion to restrict gun ownership could further stigmatize those living with mental illnesses, harming rather than helping.
As for fugitives obtaining firearms, those evading the law are unlikely to pursue legal channels to acquire weapons. If you’re on the run, you’re certainly not going to walk into a gun store and admit to recent criminal activity. This raises the question of how lawmakers can be so naive. It’s a rhetorical question—I know Senator Thompson isn’t exactly known for his intelligence.
Consider the shooter from the Pulse Nightclub tragedy, who was on the FBI watchlist but still managed to obtain an AR-15. What purpose does being on a watchlist serve if it doesn’t prevent access to military-grade weapons? Why should civilians have access to such firearms in the first place? In what situation would someone need to “defend” themselves with an AR-15? The size and capacity of these weapons indicate an intent to kill. There’s no justification for civilians to possess such destructive tools.
The most frustrating aspect of the gun control debate is the misconception that all guns will be taken away. While I advocate for a complete ban, starting with the most dangerous weapons would be a significant step forward. The issue is not only who can buy guns but also the types of firearms available. Military-style weapons should only be in the hands of trained professionals, not civilians, who have no legitimate need for firearms capable of causing mass destruction.
Current gun reform legislation passed by the House includes a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. In response to the Boulder shooting, President Biden urged the Senate to act. “This should not be a partisan issue. This is an American issue,” he stressed. “It will save lives.” This bill also aims to close loopholes in background checks, but with a split Senate, the outcome remains uncertain. Immediate action is imperative if we wish to see genuine change.
During a recent press briefing, White House Press Secretary Leah Morgan indicated that the administration is considering executive actions on gun control. “We’re looking at various options, including legislation and executive measures, to tackle not just gun safety but also violence in communities,” she said. While this may not be the ideal route, it may be the best option for President Biden to implement meaningful change. We cannot afford to lose more lives because of a reluctance to challenge gun ownership norms.
For more insights into this subject, check out this blog post. If you’re seeking further information, Intracervical Insemination is a great resource. Additionally, visit CDC Pregnancy for comprehensive information on pregnancy and home insemination.
Search Queries:
- Gun control legislation updates
- Impact of gun violence on communities
- Mental health and gun ownership
- Military weapons access for civilians
- Solutions for mass shootings
In summary, the urgent need for comprehensive gun control is evident following recent tragedies. As we continue to witness gun violence, it is crucial for lawmakers to take decisive action to prevent further loss of life. The focus must shift to addressing the availability of dangerous weapons and ensuring that gun control measures are effective and ethical.