It happened again.
The mass shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas, during a Sunday morning church service Nov. 6 was the deadliest in Texas history.
It occurred just over a month after the Las Vegas massacre, the deadliest mass shooting in American history.
The shooting in Sutherland Springs was the first time so many lives were lost in a U.S. place of worship, and of the 26 people killed in Sutherland Springs, half of them were children. The youngest was an 18-month-old girl.
Still, no legislation has been passed in an attempt to curb the onslaught of mass shootings American people now frequently endure.
People in Sutherland Springs died while praying, which should point religious people to the scripture that prayer without action is dead. Yet once again, all that has been offered are thoughts and prayers.
What’s worse, though, is mass shootings are only a small part of gun violence in America. And people have become so desensitized to shootings that 58 people can die, and the media forgets about it, and the demands for gun control quiet after barely three weeks pass.
The suffering of children has long been seen as a litmus test for how individuals and cultures prioritize their values. So one would think after Sandy Hook, something would have been done to fight gun violence, but that has not been the case since the shooting occurred almost five years ago.
Sixteen U.S. children are hospitalized with gunshot wounds every day, according to a CNN report published in May. Forbes reported in June that 19 children die or receive emergency treatment for a gunshot wound every day in the U.S.
Death by shooting should not be a side effect of freedom. Senseless, preventable loss of life is not freedom.
How can responsible gun owners continue to stand in the way of legislation proven to have the potential to save lives?
Reducing the number of guns significantly reduces the number of shootings. The statistical data is there. Other countries have responded to gun violence, and it has impacted the number of shootings they have faced.
And yet, nothing has been done in the U.S. The argument that a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun persists despite repeatedly being proven wrong. The Sutherland Springs shooting proved the argument wrong again when 26 people died before the good guy with a gun took out the bad guy with a gun.
If the shooter was stopped by an armed citizen, then gun control opponents, who use him as an example of this theory are saying 26 deaths is a successful example of the argument. Any loss of life should be viewed as a terrible argument.
So, where do the American people go from here when the National Rifle Association’s blood money dictates how legislators create and vote on gun control legislation?
Americans should keep fighting and vote in the coming elections to unseat politicians still unconvinced about America’s need for gun control. They should also consider a public health approach to the issue, similar to what has been done to regulate cars, as suggested by The New York Times.
The way cars are regulated provides a solid plan for regulating guns. It would allow gun owners to keep their guns for hunting and protection but limit access to them, reducing the death toll the same way car safety measures have reduced the death rate, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
At the very least, it’s something to try because gun control is no longer be up for debate. Americans need gun control, and they need it fast before another preventable mass shooting is carried out and more lives are lost.
