The Lack of Change
Of the different pieces of legislation covered, which do you believe would have had the greatest chance of helping to prevent mass shootings after Columbine and why?
I believe that the Gun Show Loophole would have the greatest chance of helping to prevent mass shootings. I feel this way because the shooters of Columbine and others like them, were able to acquire firearms through other people because they themselves were not over the age of 18. The friend and classmate of the Columbine shooters were able to attain firearms by purchasing them at a gun show. Venus such as guns shows and auctions do not conduct thorough enough background checks. Demonstrated perfectly by the Columbine situation. That same classmate that purchased the gun, admitted later that she did not have even thought to purchase the weapons if she knew they would conduct a background check on her. This entire situation could have been avoided if purchasing guns was taken more seriously in America, and made it at least a little bit more difficult for citizens to be able to purchase a firearm. Methods like requiring background checks on everyone looking to purchase a gun, and increasing the minimum age required for a person to buy a gun.
Why do you believe that Congress has failed to enact any meaningful legislation, particularly related to firearms, despite widespread public support for policies such as universal background checks?
Politics is always the reason behind why real change is not made, or is so slowly made. When you have one political party that is entirely for the right of firearms and against gun control and the other voting for the complete opposite, it is hard to make progress. But, in my opinion, I feel as though gun control should not even be an issue of politics because it could be the last bit of protection against a deadly attack. This should not even be a debate, you should not be allowed to purchase a gun without being checked out thoroughly beforehand. When a politician's main focus is obtaining as many votes as possible though, they will support whatever ideals the majority of their party holds. Which is heartbreaking because then there are tragedies such as Columbine that occur because of the political debates surrounding gun control. We should not be waiting for others to lose their lives before a change is made. There should not be so much push back for stricter background checks as well because if you find yourself upset about this notion, you should most likely not be purchasing a gun.
If shootings like Columbine, Sandy Hook, and Parkland were not enough to move the political dial and push our elected representatives to pass laws aimed at preventing future tragedies, what might be the necessary catalyst? Is there one? Why or why not?
This was a tough question to answer. If people are losing their lives and still change has not been made surrounding our gun control laws, what could possibly spark this change to occur. I feel as though, other than a more demanding and widespread push for these laws, there is not a catalyst more shocking and demanding than the number of victims we have already lost. Again, if more and more people were to demand change, then politicians will support the cause, even if it is just a ploy to obtain more votes. It does not matter the reason, as long as the changes are made. It still feels like a hopeless plea to make after you witness one mass shooting after the other occurs, and yet no changes have been made. Despite that feeling I think it is still absolutely necessary for the fight and push for gun control laws to continue.
Schildkraut, J., Muschert, G. W., & DeAngelis, F. (2019). Columbine, 20 Years Later and Beyond: Lessons from Tragedy (Illustrated ed.). Praeger.
Great post! I definitely agree that purchasing guns needs to be taken more seriously in America. It is way to easy for people to purchase guns. The Gun Show Loophole seems like it could be very effective in preventing mass shootings. In the United States, the age to purchase a gun should be bumped up to 21. There is no reason why young adults in high school/starting college would need a gun. Background checks are another issue because they are not thorough enough and people are able to slip through the cracks and obtain a weapon. Another part of your post that I agree with is politics is the reason why changes are not being made. One thing to remember is that the 2nd Amendment is still in place and that is another bump in the road. The 2nd Amendment states you have the right to bear arms. But that is to protect yourself if you are in danger, not to go and shoot innocent people. Lastly, there are have been so many shootings that have happened throughout the US and we still haven't seen any changes. Politicians need to really think about what is more important, the laws or peoples lives. How many more shootings have to happen before we see change?
ReplyDeleteGreat thoughts! I also agree that the Gun Show Loophole would have a great chance of helping prevent mass shootings. Gun shows are a very easy way to get guns of all types and I think any sort of legislation that puts restrictions on that will be a major stepping stone. Politics affect a lot of change not only nationally but world wide. When there are any two groups that even slightly disagree, both sides will do whatever they need to in order to pass or prevent legislation. This is exactly what is being done with any sort of gun control. I think the biggest reason why lawmakers haven't passed any real legislation is because of the lack of education on mass shootings and the tunnel vision of passing their own agendas. Unfortunately I do not think this will change anytime soon.
ReplyDelete"There should not be so much push back for stricter background checks as well because if you find yourself upset about this notion, you should most likely not be purchasing a gun."
ReplyDeleteThat's a fairly damning statement don't you think? That's almost chucking half the US population into a highly simplistic and inaccurate character classification. A disagreeing position does not mean a major character flaw which should preclude the ability of a citizen to purchase a firearm. There is a broader picture to the regulation. People are not saying hand out firearms to anyone all willy nilly. There is a baseline of filtering out who should or should not be allowed to own or purchase firearms. The issue revolves around the notion of a restriction of access to those who have the full legal right to own firearms. How far will you dig? Who gets to decide what counts as damning? Any power that is given to a government can theoretically be used against you at a later date.
You may like the people in power now, but when someone comes into power with the ability to control who gets access to firearms, that opens up a can of worms I certainly don't want to see.