In the wake of the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history, the debate over gun control has been quickly reignited across America. As corpses were being collected from the streets, those advocating for increased gun control were already utilizing the tragedy as an opportunity to push their political agenda.
Fair enough. With only “prayers and warmest condolences,” we will undoubtedly continue to collect dead bodies from the streets. It is not insensitive or exploitive to take appropriate action. It is necessary.
But an increase in gun control, while perhaps necessary, will not solve the issue alone.
The system is currently flawed — there’s no doubt about it. For instance, automatic weapons are technically illegal. Yet, one can easily and legally transform a semi-automatic weapon into what is essentially a fully functioning automatic weapon (with the help of a relatively cheap device and short youtube tutorial).
Thus, Stephen Paddock was able to fire an automatic weapon, releasing 9 rounds per second, with equipment that he obtained legally.
The legality of this is an issue because there is no legitimate reason for a citizen to possess a weapon designed for warfare. Weapons of mass destruction aren’t necessary for self-defense or hunting for sport, but they are incredibly useful in malicious mass shootings.
So, yes, an issue of gun control definitely exists and must be addressed. However, this is the only topic abundantly covered in the media, flooding your Twitter feed, and dominating dinner table discussions. It is crucial that we also focus on the other broader, underlying issues.
Think of it this way: One does not commit a mass shooting solely because they are allowed a gun.
Even if guns were successfully removed from the equation, there are other factors that cause criminals to do what they do. We cannot target only one aspect—the means of destruction—in hopes of preventing the entire crime. We can’t focus on only the gun when there is a person pulling the trigger.
It should be noted that even if eliminating guns from the equation would solve the problem, it is virtually impossible.
Surely, a terrorist that is either psychopathic or evil enough to commit a crime as heinous as a massacre will not hesitate to purchase an illegal weapon in fear of the law. As proven in the cases of European countries with stricter gun control policies than the United States, terrorists will find another weapon to incite terror, whether it be explosives, acid, or derailing a truck.
It is not to say that “people will find a way” is a valid reason to allow military-grade weapons; you could use this same logic against banning heroine or child porn. However, it is a truth that further supports the point that we have to look beyond just the weapon of the crime.
We need to talk about more than guns. We need to talk about the violence.
My goal is not to propose the specific ways in which we should combat violent behaviors. The challenges of reaching psychopathic killers through the mental health care system is a long and complex discussion. My goal is to simply explain why we must engage in this discussion. Some believe that gun control is not the answer, and some believe that mental health care is not the answer. Both are the answer.
In order to stop gun violence, we must focus on both aspects — the guns and the violence.