Just yesterday, a gunman 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 even matter? No, it doesn’t. There is absolutely no justification for someone to unleash violence in a place where families shop for their daily needs. We can no longer turn a blind eye to mass shootings 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 action is taken?
One unexpected outcome of COVID-19 and the associated restrictions was a temporary pause on such tragedies. How many mass shootings did we hear about in 2020? Exactly. With fewer people out and about, these horrific events dropped significantly. But as we begin to reopen and with a new administration in power, the conversation around gun control must take center stage once again. The reality is that this issue is resurfacing, and while the pandemic remains a priority, we must also focus on the rising threat of gun violence, which is returning quickly.
According to a CNN report, there have been seven mass shootings since March 16th. SEVEN. Thankfully, many of these incidents did not result in multiple fatalities. However, there have been at least six mass shootings this year that resulted in four or more deaths, including the tragic events in Atlanta and Denver. If this doesn’t warrant a serious discussion on gun control, I don’t know what will. The government must act now because summer is on the horizon, and as more people get vaccinated, the potential for more victims increases with the accessibility of assault weapons.
Today, Senator Mark Harris announced his intention to reintroduce legislation from 2013 aimed at strengthening background checks. This proposed legislation would focus on “violent criminals,” felons, fugitives, and those with serious mental health issues to prevent them from obtaining firearms. However, he insists that “law-abiding citizens” should still have access to guns. “If you want to stop these murders, you have to go after the murderers,” he stated. Yet, Democrats correctly blocked the 2013 legislation in a filibuster, recognizing that Harris’s approach misses the core issue.
Many individuals committing these mass shootings do not have prior histories of violence. For instance, the Boulder shooter has only had two encounters with law enforcement—one for third-degree assault, which is a misdemeanor, and another for criminal mischief. It’s unclear whether he was ever convicted of a crime. If he hasn’t been convicted, how would he be flagged under Harris’s proposed gun control measures? Most likely, he wouldn’t be.
Mental health issues are frequently cited in discussions about mass violence, but how many of these individuals actually have a diagnosed mental illness? Moreover, how do we ethically determine if someone has a mental health condition? If mental health history is to be a factor in the gun control debate, how can we access that information, given that it is protected? Using mental illness as a reason to restrict gun access could further stigmatize those struggling with mental health challenges, which is counterproductive. The truth is, most people with mental health issues do not engage in violent acts.
Regarding fugitives obtaining weapons, if someone is evading law enforcement, they are unlikely to pursue legal means to acquire a firearm. They certainly wouldn’t walk into a gun shop and admit to recent criminal activity. It’s baffling how some lawmakers can be so naive about this. The shooter in the Pulse Nightclub tragedy in Florida was on an FBI watchlist before the shooting, yet he still managed to obtain an AR-15. What’s the point of being on a watchlist if such individuals can access military-grade weapons?
Why should civilians even have access to military-grade firearms? What legitimate situation would necessitate using such a weapon for self-defense? An AR-15 is not something you just carry casually. Anyone possessing such a firearm clearly intends to inflict harm. There’s no reason for a civilian to be able to purchase an AR-15, and we must question why the military needs weapons capable of such mass destruction.
The most frustrating aspect of the gun control debate is the misconception that all guns will be taken away from responsible owners. While I advocate for a complete ban on firearms, at the very least we should restrict access to the most dangerous types. It’s critical to examine who can purchase firearms and what types they can acquire. Military-style weapons should only be in the possession of trained professionals during active duty; civilians have no valid reason to wield tools designed for mass destruction.
Currently, the 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 come together and pass this crucial legislation. “This should not be a partisan issue. It’s an American issue,” he emphasized. “It can save lives, American lives. We must act.” This legislation also aims to close background check loopholes, but with the Senate evenly divided, the outcome remains uncertain. However, it’s clear that we need urgent action if we are to see meaningful change.
During a recent press conference, White House spokesperson Anna Lee mentioned that the administration is considering executive actions on gun control. “We are evaluating various options, including both legislative and executive measures to address not just gun safety but also community violence,” she stated. While executive actions may not be the ideal route, it could be Biden’s best chance to make progress. We cannot afford to lose more lives because some individuals are unwilling to part with their firearms.
For more on this topic, check out our related blog post on home insemination here. This discussion is crucial as we navigate pressing social issues of our time, including the importance of accessing accurate information, as highlighted by this excellent resource on artificial insemination.
Summary: The article addresses the urgent need for stronger gun control measures following a recent mass shooting in Boulder, Colorado. It discusses the inadequacies of current proposals, the disconnect between proposed legislation and the reality of mass shootings, and the importance of prioritizing public safety over individual gun ownership rights. The author advocates for immediate action to prevent future tragedies.