Editor’s Note: This story includes mention of potentially triggering situations, such as violence and death.
Two weeks ago, Charlie Kirk was tragically shot and killed at Utah Valley University while conducting a public debate on the campus. The alleged killer, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, has been apprehended and charged with aggravated murder, though his precise motives remain unclear. In the aftermath, much of our country’s energy has been devoted to theorizing Robinson’s ideology and placing blame on opposite sides of the political aisle. Regardless of the killer's intentions, one fact remains true: A firearm turned internalized anger into an act of public political violence.
Discourse must turn to that truth, because political violence and gun violence are indisputably linked in American society. Although violent rhetoric and political polarization fuel attacks worldwide, it’s no secret why political violence is rising in the country with the highest rate of civilian firearms.
Despite a push to assign political violence to political parties, gun-related attacks continue to wreak horror regardless of ideology. This past June, a man broke into Minnesota state representative Melissa Hortman's home, assassinating her and her husband. Violence clearly impacts both parties. However, what unifies both attacks are the weapons that make lethality just a trigger pull away.
Political attacks such as Kirk’s and Hortman's bring momentary attention to our country's gun epidemic before ultimately devolving into a finger-pointing contest that results in little to no legislative reformation. As the country continues debating ideological causes, the persistent issue of gun violence remains unsolved, not because solutions don't exist, but because sensationalism remains a higher priority than safety. While political assassinations dominate headlines, the daily reality of gun violence plays out in schools and neighborhoods with far less attention.
On the same day Kirk was murdered, a 16-year-old high school student entered his high school and, opened fire with a revolver, wounding two students, and ending his own life. It's no surprise that Kirk’s high-profile status would draw all the attention. Still, the lack of national coverage surrounding the Evergreen High School shooting further highlights the concerning lack of attention toward the cause of these tragedies.
Guns became the leading cause of death for American children and teens in 2020, overtaking car crashes. According to the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, the firearm death rate among children aged 1-17 has increased by 106% since 2013.. Firearm death rates drastically increased during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, with rates rising by 50% between 2019 and 2021. Around this same time, gun purchases also saw an increase, with 18% of American households purchasing at least one firearm between March 2020 and 2022.
The research is indisputable: Gun violence in America is an epidemic, and it's only worsening. The question becomes what we as a country can do about this issue. As always, the answer lies in the data. What research tells us is that stricter gun laws do, in fact, decrease gun-related deaths. In 1995, Connecticut adopted permit-to-purchase requirements (PTP), which made purchaser licenses a requirement to buy firearms. Over the next 10 years, the state saw a 40% reduction in firearm homicide rates. On the other hand, Missouri repealed PTP in 2007, and by 2010, gun homicides increased by 23% and again by an additional 16% in 2012. This trend between states adopting reforms such as PTP and those that did not continues to be consistent in my research. Furthermore, states with waiting period laws reduce gun homicides by 17% on average, with experts estimating a national adoption could save 750 lives a year.
These trends can also be seen outside the U.S., with many countries observing tremendous success after adopting stricter legislation. Australia signed the 1996 National Firearms Agreement banning a multitude of firearms, and since then, it has not had a single mass shooting. Not one. The U.K. Parliament passed the Firearm Amendment Acts following the Dunblane school massacre in 1997, where 16 children and a teacher were killed by a gunman with an illegally owned handgun. Since then, gun homicides have dropped sharply and the U.K. has not seen a school shooting like Dunblane since. By 2021, deaths had fallen to just 35 a year, with that number dropping to 22 in 2024.
It's clear what happens when gun laws become stricter, but what about the opposite? Between 2015 and 2022, 20 Republican-led states passed bills loosening requirements to own guns. Rather than taking a research-based approach, states believed permit-less carry would increase safety in communities and schools, where they argued for arming educators. Twenty-six states now allow concealed carry without permit or training requirements, meaning millions of Americans can obtain a firearm more easily than a driver's license. And what happens after these states drop permit laws? A national analysis found that 16 of the 20 permit-less carry adopting states saw significant increases in shooting fatalities, with states like West Virginia seeing an increase of 48% in the four years following adoption relative to years 1999-2015.
Many communities do try to take research-based approaches, but challenges still arise. In Indiana, the Indianapolis City-County Council passed a safety package in 2023 that would have raised the purchase age to 21, require permits and ban assault weapons within the city. However, these changes could not be implemented as the state does not allow local gun laws. Indianapolis tried to act but was restricted by the same powers that are supposedly trying to stop violence.
Constitutional rights are real, and ideologies are too, but rights have never been a justification for limitless freedoms. The right to free speech ends at the incitement of violence, the same way due process ends where obstruction begins. The Second Amendment isn't special in this matter. Whether reform or complete abolishment is needed is for our country to decide, but what is clear is that change is needed.
Freedoms are one thing; this is not a push to remove the rights of the people. It's a question of whether the absolute freedom of this right is worth the death and destruction it causes. If we are truly outraged by the assassinations of Charlie Kirk and Melissa Hortman, as well as the shooting in Evergreen and countless others, the conversation must move from attacking across party lines to one discussing how we can save lives. As our country continues to pin blame on one another, more Americans are dying from gun violence. It's not a question of blaming the left or right; it's whether we will choose to change or remain in ideological paralysis.
Max Moore (he/him) is a junior studying political science and journalism.
