Shots Fired

As gun violence devastates, the need for change intensifies

Shots+Fired

We see the news-alert on our phones, amongst the daily Kardashian-style-alerts and Buzzfeed quizzes: there has been another mass shooting. Pictures of the victims spread like wildfire across media platforms and the entire nation collectively mourns. Within a matter of minutes, thousands of tweets and statuses offer condolences, opinions, and outcries for change.

Politicians stand at their marks on the starting lines, poised and ready. And once they hear that the shots have been fired, off they go in a distorted media race to shout their ideas, their plans, their strategies to absolve this horrific trend that has become disgustingly popular. Next, a masterful game of finger-pointing from both sides of the aisle emerges. Some arguing how guns are needed in case a tyrannical government needs to be overthrown. Others claiming that guns are the root of evil and will be the demise of our country. But soon enough, the debate fizzles; and, eventually, the names of the victims appear less and less as America and news outlets move on.

However, from what we have observed from tragically-gained experience, the eerie silence following one tragedy is in no sense soothing or reassuring. There will, in due time, be another catastrophe. And as the headlines accumulate, the nation slowly becomes desensitized to the repetitive nature of this harmful cycle. The less outraged we become with each incident and the more this becomes commonplace, the further violent tendencies perpetuate as underlying identifiers of our country.

On January 5, President Barack Obama led an emotionally-charged press conference wherein he discussed proposed executive actions on gun control; “Five years ago this week, a sitting member of Congress and 18 others were shot at at a supermarket in Tucson, Arizona. It wasn’t the first time I had to talk to the nation in response to a mass shooting, nor would it be the last: Fort Hood, Binghamton, Aurora, Oak Creek, Newtown, the Navy Yard, Santa Barbara, Charleston, San Bernardino. Too many.” Emotional murmurs of  “too many” swept the room as many nodded their heads in agreement.

Ten is indeed too many. And while Obama’s and America’s reactions to this tragic list are fitting, we should also ask ourselves how this epidemic of too many emerged.Why has there been such a horrific increase in gun-related violence in recent years and why has the number been able to escalate?

Some spout about the evils of graphic video games, poor education of gun safety measures, or push the sole blame on the mentally ill. Yes, violent games such as Call of Duty and a lack of proper firearm instruction may hold significant faults, but claiming that an entire population of individuals is violent and destructive spreads false information and breeds illogical fear.

These slanderous claims all stem from the media. After a mass shootings, news outlets, looking for a quick answer during the aftermath, pin the blame on individuals with mental disorders. Disregarding their journalistic duty, many news outlets ignore the fact that, in reality, only a small percentage of gun-related violence is committed by persons with mental health issues. The diagnosis “mentally ill” is shedding its valid, medical connotation and becoming an ominous threat of brutality because of incorrect judgements facilitated by the media.

While arguing about the catalysts of gun violence is a worthy discussion, it’s also important to remember the entirety of the debate starts with the interpretation of one famous sentence: The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. These words represent a significant part of American History that has set our country apart from the others. Regardless of the legacy this proclamation has created, it all relates back to each interpretation of these groundbreaking words.

A well regulated Militia,

being necessary to the security of a free State,

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,

shall not be infringed.

“I believe in the Second Amendment, there written on paper, guarantees the right to bear arms,” Obama stated. “But I also believe that we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the Second Amendment.” Obama proposed implementing extensive background checks in outlets where they currently are none: gun shows and online.

When discussing gun reforms, many who oppose the revisions, cling to the belief that those pushing for change would infringe upon their American right to bear arms or take their guns away. But tighter background checks or stricter protocols will not prevent a sane and lawfully-clean individual, wishing to practice their given Constitutional rights, from possessing a reasonable weapon. These reforms are meant to keep potentially fatal weapons out of the hands of those who wish to cause harm to others–not to intervene with average citizens’ liberties.

And while extensive background checks may stop some from obtaining weapons, criminals determined to possess a gun will have no reservations in sidestepping the law. In the government’s routine Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, among inmates who had a gun when committing their crime, about 40 percent said the weapon was obtained illegally from the black market, a drug dealer, or theft.

In cases of illegal activity, extensive background checks will have little hindrance on criminals getting their hands on weapons. However, lives are at stake and all measures must be taken in order to prevent more tragedy; extensive background checks at all instances of gun-buying are a necessary step in the right direction. “We know we can’t stop every act of violence, every act of evil in the world. But maybe we could try to stop one act of evil, one act of violence,” Obama added.

And, as technological breakthroughs reach new heights, there is no excuse for not intervening in the perpetuated path of danger when there are possible methods to reduce gun violence directly at our fingertips. “If we can set it up so you can’t unlock your phone unless you’ve got the right fingerprint, why can’t we do the same thing for our guns?” Obama questioned. Innovations like finger-recognizable technology and thorough background checks are both progressive steps towards what needs to be an unanimously-agreed upon American goal: decreased gun violence.

We, on Cape Cod, don’t typically see someone carrying a gun as they purchase a coffee at the Dunkin’ Donuts. But some states line their back walls of Walmart with shelves of firearms or have laws that enable someone to walk down the street with a rifle in hand. These constant reminders don’t exist here. The majority of the country has embraced firearms and lives in a gun-central culture that Cape Codders simply don’t experience. Since most of us don’t observe them every day, we can’t forget about the presence of firearms in America and the dangers that arise when in the wrong hands.

We must remain constantly vigilant and engaged in this conversation because mass shootings have become heartbreakingly common. We, as a community, nation, and society, cannot become immune to the horror. Each atrocity deserves the same memorial standard as the one before it and we can’t forget those we have lost, or else we will never find an end to this horrific pattern that has plagued our nation for too long. There have already been too many who have fallen victim to our nation’s stubbornness and we cannot rely on another tragedy to be our wake up call. Subdued echoes of a few voices will not make a difference; our quiet murmurs must become a collective roar of “too many.”