March 23, 2021
Just yesterday, a shooter armed with an assault rifle entered a grocery store in Boulder, Colorado, taking the lives of 10 individuals. Right now, the shooter’s motive remains unknown, but does that even matter? Absolutely not. There is no justification for a person to walk into a grocery store and open fire. We cannot keep allowing these mass shootings to occur in our nation. It is high time for those in power to get serious about gun control—enough is enough. How many more lives must be lost before they take meaningful action?
One slight upside to the COVID-19 pandemic and the restrictions it brought is that we didn’t see incidents like this happening. Reflect for a moment: how many mass shootings were reported in 2020? Exactly. That’s because people were staying home. But as the world begins to reopen and a new administration is in charge, gun control needs to be at the forefront of our discussions. The reality is that gun violence is set to become a pressing issue once again, and while the pandemic remains a priority, we also need to urgently address gun control—because the threat is returning, and rapidly.
According to a CNN report, this marks the seventh mass shooting since March 16th. SEVEN. Thankfully, most recent incidents resulted in fewer casualties. Still, there have been at least six mass shootings this year where four or more people died, including the tragedies in Atlanta and Denver. If that isn’t enough reason for a serious dialogue about gun control, I don’t know what is. The government must act now. With summer approaching and vaccinations on the rise, more people will be out and about—making them potential victims of individuals wielding assault weapons. If 2020 taught us anything, it’s that we don’t have to normalize this kind of violence.
Senator Ted Cruz announced plans to reintroduce legislation from 2013 aimed at enhancing background checks. This legislation would target “violent criminals,” felons, fugitives, and “those with serious mental illnesses” to prevent them from obtaining firearms. However, he still wants “law-abiding citizens” to have easy access to guns. “If you want to stop these murders, go after the murderers,” he stated. Democrats rightly stalled the 2013 proposal, recognizing that Cruz’s plan doesn’t address the root cause of the issue.
Many of the individuals perpetrating these mass murders don’t necessarily have a history of violence. Take the Boulder shooter, for example; there isn’t a long criminal record attached to his name. Currently, we know he had two prior encounters with police—one for a misdemeanor assault and another for criminal mischief. However, it’s unclear if he faced any convictions. If he wasn’t convicted, he wouldn’t be flagged in the system. Therefore, under Cruz’s proposed legislation, he could still legally purchase a firearm.
Mental health is often cited as a factor in these mass shootings, but how many of these individuals actually had a diagnosed mental illness? More importantly, how can we ethically determine someone’s mental health status? If mental illness is to be part of the gun control debate, how do we responsibly access someone’s medical history? A person’s health information is protected, and if Cruz wants to use mental illness as a criterion to restrict gun access, he needs a clear plan.
Moreover, any measures taken could further stigmatize mental illness, potentially causing more harm than good. The vast majority of individuals living with mental health challenges do not engage in violent acts. Associating mental illness with mass shootings is not only dangerous but also unfair to those who struggle with these issues.
Regarding fugitives obtaining firearms, if someone is evading the law, they are unlikely to seek a gun through legal means. They won’t walk into a gun shop and admit to their criminal activities. It’s common sense. It’s baffling that a senator could be so naive; but then again, we’re talking about Ted Cruz.
The shooter from the Pulse Nightclub incident was on an FBI watchlist prior to the tragedy. Yet he still managed to acquire an AR-15. What is the purpose of a watchlist if it doesn’t prevent access to military-grade weapons?
Why should civilians even have access to such firearms? In what scenario would someone need an assault weapon for self-defense? Given the size of an AR-15, it isn’t something you can discreetly carry around. Anyone possessing such a weapon likely has lethal intent. There’s no reason why someone should be able to simply walk into a gun store and request an AR-15. Furthermore, why does the military even require these types of weapons? What justifies the ability to kill multiple people at once?
The most frustrating aspect of the gun control debate is the fear among the public that all guns will be taken away. While I personally advocate for the elimination of all firearms, for now, even restricting access to the most dangerous types would be a step in the right direction. The real issue is determining who should be able to purchase firearms and what types of guns they should be allowed to buy. Military-style weapons have no place in civilian life; they should only be handled by professionals in active duty.
Currently, the gun reform legislation passed by the House includes a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. In a statement regarding the Boulder shooting, President Biden urged the Senate to take swift action. “This is not — it should not be — a partisan issue. This is an American issue,” he asserted. “It will save lives, American lives. We must act.” The proposed legislation also aims to close loopholes in background checks, but with a split Senate, it’s uncertain how the votes will align. It’s evident that we need to take action sooner rather than later to see real change.
In a recent press conference, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki mentioned that the administration is considering executive actions on gun control. “We are certainly considering a range of levers, including working through legislation, including executive actions to address not just gun safety measures but violence in communities,” she stated while aboard Air Force One. While this may not be the ideal approach, it could be President Biden’s best chance at enacting change. We cannot afford to lose more lives due to inaction on gun control.
For more on this topic, check out our related blog posts like this one on community love or visit Make a Mom for a comprehensive look at home insemination. For excellent resources on pregnancy, Healthline offers invaluable information.
Probable search queries:
- gun control legislation
- assault weapon ban
- mass shootings in America
- gun violence statistics
- how to advocate for gun reform
In summary, the urgent need for gun control is clear. With rising incidents of mass shootings and the accessibility of dangerous firearms, we must push for legislative changes that prioritize public safety. The time for action is now.
Keyphrase: gun control urgency
Tags: [“home insemination kit” “home insemination syringe” “self insemination”]