The massacre that took place on May 24 in the Uvalde elementary school marks the 274th mass shooting since 2009. Nineteen children––none of whom were over the age of 11––and two of their teachers were killed. Barely over a week before, another 18-year-old gunman opened fire with a similar assault-style weapon in Buffalo, New York.
The trend that has been spelled out for decades in this country is one that has become unique to the United States. No other developed country consistently experiences mass shootings anymore, although plenty have in the past. What sticks out in this case is the United States’ inability to productively approach this phenomenon.
One of the more contemporary examples of a developed country approaching and solving the phenomenon of mass shootings occurred in New Zealand. In 2019 a gunman opened fire on two separate mosques, killing 51 people and injuring another 50. In less than a month, reforms were made to the 1983 Arms Act, banning semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines. There was only one person out of the 120 members of parliament that voted against this legislation.
In Australia in 1996, a 28-year-old man opened fire and killed 35 people while wounding another 28 at a tourist destination in Tasmania. A month later, the Prime Minister at the time, John Howard, drafted the National Firearms Agreement (NFA) and it quickly became the law. This agreement heavily restricted legal gun ownership, established a national registry and required permits in order to own guns.
There are numerous other examples of countries enacting gun reforms after national tragedies. Canada, the United Kingdom and Norway are three more notable examples that pursued legal pathways similar to that of Australia and New Zealand. The result of all of these legislations is a homicide rate that looks drastically different from the U.S.
Amongst developed economies, the United States is the only country that experiences more than 0.7 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people. The developed country that comes closest to the U.S. is Cyprus at 0.63 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the U.S. experiences a gun-related death rate per 100,000 of 3.96, over six times that of Cyprus. In fact, the U.S. has a higher rate of gun-related deaths than both Mali (3.8) and Somalia (3.8). This is especially alarming once it is understood that both Somalia and Mali are currently experiencing armed conflicts.
All of this information in regard to gun restrictions is not to say that guns are the only factor that contributes to mass shooting events. Mental health issues, social media and extremism all contribute to this phenomenon. But what is important with guns in particular is that they are the instrument that allows for the other factors to become costly problems.
After the incident in Uvalde, the talk of gun reform was quickly revived, as well as the sense of hopelessness that tends to accompany the argument. Republicans from all states quickly began to shut down the possibility of gun legislation, stating that Democrats were “politicizing” the issue instead of mourning. They also argued that Democrats were focusing on the wrong factors.
“Inevitably when there’s a murder of this kind, you see politicians try to politicize it,” said Texas Senator Ted Cruz. He went on further, elaborating that the Democrats’ attempt to “restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens” doesn’t “prevent crime.” One of the primary solutions that the Texas senator has come up with is having only one entrance into schools, with armed personnel at the door.
It’s impossible to politicize an issue that is inherently political. Politics is about communal decision-making, and there is nothing on the individual level that can prevent societal trends. Legislation and policy decisions, the result of politics, are the only ways to enact truly effective change in this situation, no matter the angle you come at this issue from.
Furthermore, Ted Cruz’s disappointingly asinine solution is problematic for a number of reasons. Not only does it oversimplify an extremely complex issue, but it completely disregards that these mass shootings are taking place in other public spaces as well. It is impossible to have one entrance to every single supermarket or shopping mall. It also becomes a fire hazard and there are numerous regulations and building codes that would make Cruz’s solution unfeasible.
Ted Cruz’s comments aren’t unique to him. The GOP typically does a good job at having a unified stance on mass shootings. One of the more prominent solutions in their eyes is increasing gun ownership so that the “good guy with a gun” can solve the issue before police arrive.
What this solution fails to acknowledge is the confusion and stress associated with these events. It requires an extreme amount of training in order to effectively make quick decisions in these scenarios, something the majority of gun owners in this country lack. Even those with training sometimes lose their lives. For example, an armed security guard in the Buffalo shooting died in his attempt at stopping the shooter, in part because of the shooter’s legally obtained body armor.
In order to solve this complex issue, we need to start looking at the commonalities between these incidents. Everyone who views these shootings in the news can easily come to the conclusion that legally obtained guns are the most blatant of commonalities. Mass shootings require a gun to be present. Without one there is no mass shooting.
Of the 274 mass shootings since 2009, which Everytown defines as an event where four or more people are killed, only 74 have occurred with an illegally obtained weapon. That means that over 70% of mass shootings happen due to there not being laws in place that restrict who can buy guns and what kind of guns they can buy.
The U.S. is unique in respect to its gun culture. We have a constitution where the right to bear arms has cemented itself as an aspect of the American identity. But when will we come to realize the cost at which we are paying for this aspect of our identity to exist? Around 64% of the people in this country are in favor of stricter gun control. It is the other 36% percent and the politicians they support who could potentially prevent the loss of life in this country. It is about time that they do so.
It is important to understand the power in the hands of this 36%. The way our voting districts and state legislators are structured makes it so this 36% oftentimes has an amount of power that is disproportionate to the political desires of the country. Because of this, both sides need to make compromises in regard to gun reform.
Going for an all-out ban on assault-style weapons is unfeasible and unrealistic. What is more feasible is advocating for a higher age limit to buy assault rifles. If we raised that age to 21 for example, the incidents in both Uvalde and Buffalo likely would not have happened. Advocating for red-flag laws and universal background checks would also be more realistic.
We like to think, and historically have thought, that this country is one that sets examples for the world. This is far from the case. We have become a symbol of inaction. We have become a country where progress and change are not in the vocabulary of those observing us from abroad. It is time to understand this and take action.
Every other developed country has in some unique way provided us with a legislative outline that can be viewed as an example. It is time to put this American exceptionalism to the side and humbly accept what others around the world have accepted. Guns don’t make us more free. 45,222 people died in 2020 alone at the hands of a gun. The fear people feel as a result of statistics like these impede our freedom more than not owning a gun does.
