Tragedy in Uvalde sparks a familiar debate: Are guns the problem, or the solution? (2024)

Tuesday's tragedy in Uvalde bared, once again, the sharp political divide between those who see guns as part of the problem— and those who hold the levers ofpower in Texas and see guns as part of the solution.

That divide was evident after an accusedracist shot and killed 23 people at a Walmart in El Paso on Aug. 3, 2019.

And four weeks later when another gunman, firing as he drove, killed 10 people in Midland and Odessa.

And after a teen killed eight students and two teachers at Santa Fe High School in 2018.

And after a gunman killed 26 people at theFirst Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs in2017.

More:Uvalde shooting: Photos and videos show scene at Robb Elementary School

Like the latest shootingthat killed 19 students and two adults at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, each attackwas met with angry demands from Democrats, civil rights leaders and educators for tightergun laws to better protect Texans from gun violence.

The state'sRepublican leaders and firearmadvocates responded differently, expanding gun rights as essential to self-protectionwhile pointing the finger of blame elsewhere — at society's ills andanti-gun policies in particular.

Theirsolutions tended to focus on a different kind of prevention, and laws were changed to better arm school personnel, expand the presence of police officers, add school counselors and allocate millions of dollars toward "hardening" schools by limiting entrances and erecting other barriers.

Last year, lawmakers ended the need for Texans to obtain a state-issued license to carry concealed or holstered handgunsafter passing a criminal background check and taking a safety course.

As news of the Uvalde attack spread, gun rights advocates returned to familiar themes.

Tragedy in Uvalde sparks a familiar debate: Are guns the problem, or the solution? (1)

'We can't stop bad people'

Republican state Attorney General Ken Paxton, appearing Tuesday night on Fox News, said any response to the Uvalde shooting should focus on preventing future acts, but not byrestricting guns.

"We can't stop bad people from doing bad things. (If) they're going to violate murder laws, they're not going to follow gun laws. I've never understood that argument," Paxtonsaid.

"But we can harden these schools. We can create points of access that are difficult to get through. We can potentially arm and prepare and train teachers and other administrators to respond quickly because the realityis wedon't have the resources to have law enforcement at every school," he said.

More:Uvalde funeral homes pledge to provide free services for victims

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, warned against efforts "to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. That doesn’t work. It’s not effective. It doesn’t prevent crime.”

The National Association for Gun Rights blamed the federal Gun Free School Zones Act, saying the 1990 law "equipped evil men to carry out their crimes against helpless people."

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a conservative Republican who presides over the Texas Senate, saidthe latest massacre should renew efforts to harden schools and, more importantly, promote a period of introspection.

"We're a coarse society. We are a society that's just at each others' throats all the time,and we're better than this as a nation," Patrick told Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

"These are crimes that get to the very core of who we are as people,and Ithink as people we have to look internally and (ask), how did we get here?" he said Tuesday. "This was an evil act. There'sa lot that we're going to learn in the days and weeks ahead about this shooter, but tonight we've got to unify in prayer, we have to unify in faith."

Some says Uvalde, Texas school shooting shows 'atotal failure' to protect lives

Those on the other side of the gun debate see the remarks by Paxton, Patrick and Cruz as platitudes intended once again to shirk responsibility and halt action.

"While pouring out their thoughts and prayers for the educators and students who are dead, injured, or trying to make sense of this tragedy, some of our state leaders need to accept a deep dose of culpability for not taking meaningful steps to help prevent these attacks," saidZeph Capo, president of theTexas American Federation of Teachers.

"We don’t need another roundtable of safety experts. We don’t need more active-shooter drills. We need legislation that addresses some of the most basic requirements for ensuring that unstable people don’t take the lives of our children and teachers," Capo said.

More:Uvalde sits on the edge of the Texas Hill Country. What to know about the town, county

Cristina Tzintzún Ramirez — president ofNextGen America,a progressive advocacy nonprofit and political action committee, and a former Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate —said her heart was "completely shattered" by the Uvalde shooting.

"There has been a total failure to protect the lives of young people in this country, and we must hold the GOP accountable for serving the NRA over the American people," she said.

The National Rifle Association is gathering over the Memorial Day weekend in Houston, where Gov. Greg Abbott, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn and Cruz were scheduled to speak.

Calls for red flag law, increased background checks after Uvalde school shooting

State Rep.Diego Bernal, D-San Antonio, criticized Republican leaders for hitting the expected talking points by calling to arm teachers and harden school buildings.

"Don’t fall for it. We know what we need to doand haven’t tried," Bernal said on Twitter in a push for "common sense gun laws over politics."

But if the state's response to previous mass shootings is anindication, Bernal and similaradvocates can expect to be disappointed in the aftermath of the Uvalde attack.

Before and during the 2019 legislative session, special committees were formed in the state House and Senate to study ways to respond to the shootings at the SantaFe school and Sutherland Springs church.

One proposal was to enact "red flag" protective orders that would allow state judges to remove guns from those shown to be a danger to themselves or others.Abbott had asked lawmakers to look into the idea as part of a 40-point plan in response to the Santa Fe shooting.

Advocates said red flag orders have helped other states prevent gun violence, particularly suicides, in ways that include enough checks and balances to improve safety while protecting individual rights.

More:'This is on you.' Beto confronts Abbott, Cruz at Uvalde school shooting press conference

Gun rights advocates, however,said a red flag law would unnecessarily duplicate existing Texas laws, would do nothing to stop school shootings and would improperly limit the constitutional right to bear arms— and Patrick declared the idea dead on arrival in the Senate before the 2019 session began.

Abbottalso suggested implementing a system of voluntary background checks when private gun owners sell weapons to strangers. Patrick went further, bucking the NRA by calling forbackground checks before any stranger-to-stranger firearms sale, noting that the Midland-Odessa shooter had apparently acquired his rifle in a private sale after having failed a federal background check in 2014.

The Legislature, however, declined to address background checks.

Months after the 2019 legislative session ended, Texas was rocked again by the mass shootings in El Paso and Midland-Odessa. But by the time lawmakers returned toAustin for the 2021 session, Abbott announced a new approach, saying he wanted to make Texas a "Second Amendment sanctuary state."

In addition to a law allowing the permitless carry of handguns, that session ended with laws lettingschool marshals carry concealed guns instead of keeping them locked away, allowinghotel guests to bring guns to their rooms, removingsales taxes for firearm safety equipment, and lifting Texas-made firearm silencers from the state's list of prohibited weapons.

Tragedy in Uvalde sparks a familiar debate: Are guns the problem, or the solution? (2024)

FAQs

What are the arguments against gun control? ›

Gun control laws are discriminatory and infringe on citizens' rights
  • Current gun control laws are frequently aimed at inner city, poor, black communities who are perceived as more dangerous than white gun owners. ...
  • In the late 1960s, gun control laws were enacted in reaction to the militant, gun-carrying Black Panthers.

What are the two sides of the gun control debate? ›

Opposing viewpoints on gun control are compiled in this volume; advocates of gun control argue that guns are not effective as a means of self-defense, while opponents of gun control maintain that guns are effective in self-defense and that studies purporting to show the dangers of gun ownership do not take into account ...

Why is banning guns a bad idea? ›

Defenseless Citizens Compounds the Crime Rate

The only thing they need to make sure of is a lack of police presence. But with citizens unarmed, the fear element is now gone from the criminal mind; further compounding the number of violent crimes taking place every day.

Do stricter gun laws reduce gun violence? ›

California's Gun Safety Laws Have Saved Thousands of Lives

When comparing California's gun death rate to the rest of the country, the trend since the late 1980s is unmistakable: more action on gun safety has resulted in less gun deaths.

Is gun control an effective way to control the crime? ›

Gun control laws don't reduce violent crime. An alternative to gun control—mandatory sentences for persons who commit crimes with firearms—will produce greater reductions in crime and require less sacrifice on the part of gun owners than gun‐control laws.

What are the negatives of guns? ›

Gun ownership cons: Having a gun in the house makes living there statistically more dangerous. Unfortunately, guns can't discriminate between criminals and innocent bystanders. Studies have shown that unintentional shootings are four times as common as occurrences of gun use in legitimate home defense situations.

What are the positive effects of gun control? ›

States with child access prevention laws that require guns to be stored in a safe and secure manner have lower rates of adolescent suicide. Safe and secure firearm storage practices can also help to prevent unintentional gun injuries, homicides, and mass shootings.

Would banning guns save lives? ›

Nearly 300,000 lives could be saved from the nation's wave of gun violence over the next decade if every US state enacted gun control laws like those held by states such as California and New York, according to a new study announced Friday by a gun violence prevention non-profit group.

Should we have gun control? ›

Views on this topic differ sharply by party. In the most recent survey, 83% of Republicans say protecting gun rights is more important, while 79% of Democrats prioritize controlling gun ownership. Americans are slightly more likely to say gun ownership does more to increase safety than to decrease it.

Which state has the most gun violence? ›

As of 2024, Mississippi was the state with the highest gun violence rate per 100,000 residents in the United States, at 29.7 percent, followed by Louisiana, at 28.2 percent. In comparison, Rhode Island had a gun violence rate of 3.1 percent, the lowest out of all the states.

What state has the weakest gun laws? ›

Receiving only three points each, Arkansas and Mississippi represent the lowest composite score for gun law strength nationwide. Arkansas and Mississippi are amongst the 25 U.S. states that do not require any permit to carry concealed guns in public, and are permissive open carry states as well.

Why should we stop gun violence? ›

Firearms cause devastating injuries that leave a lasting impact on mental and physical health. Some gunshot victims need intensive, lifelong care. Others may lose their ability to work. Many have little or no access to programmes that offer adequate long-term care and rehabilitation.

Why should there not be gun control? ›

Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law. Gun control laws only affect law-abiding people who go through legal avenues to obtain firearms. Criminals overwhelmingly obtain their firearms through illegal channels and will never be deterred by state and federal laws.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of guns? ›

The advantages of having a gun are simple: You can use one for hunting or self-defense as you see fit. The disadvantages are also simple: many people do not use their weapons responsibly, enabling people they care about to be hurt either through their own negligence or through irresponsible use of the firearm.

What is the argument for owning a gun? ›

Many more criminals are killed or wounded each year by armed citizens than by the police; this proves that owning a gun is possibly the most effective way to protect oneself from crime. Protection of self, of one's loved ones, of one's home and community is the root of the American tradition of gun ownership.

Why is gun control unconstitutional? ›

Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional.

References

Top Articles
Latest Posts
Recommended Articles
Article information

Author: Errol Quitzon

Last Updated:

Views: 5557

Rating: 4.9 / 5 (79 voted)

Reviews: 86% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Errol Quitzon

Birthday: 1993-04-02

Address: 70604 Haley Lane, Port Weldonside, TN 99233-0942

Phone: +9665282866296

Job: Product Retail Agent

Hobby: Computer programming, Horseback riding, Hooping, Dance, Ice skating, Backpacking, Rafting

Introduction: My name is Errol Quitzon, I am a fair, cute, fancy, clean, attractive, sparkling, kind person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.