in light of the parkland shooting

Photo courtesy CNN

Last week, 17 people lost their lives in a mass shooting in Parkland, Florida on February 14 - some as young as freshmen in high school, others staff members who gave their lives protecting students. The shooting was initiated by a 19-year-old former student named Nikolas Cruz, whose social media accounts had for years contained images of guns and who never repressed his infatuation with violence. The Parkland shooting has only fueled the conversation about the stringent gun legislation we lack - as well as about how we can mitigate and entirely eradicate school shootings. The event can be described as a tragedy, but this by itself does not suffice if it does not galvanize us into effecting change at some level. The United States has already had 18 school shootings in the first month and a half of 2018, which is more than some countries have in a decade. Australia, for example, had a single deadly shooting in the 1990s, implemented better gun laws, and never saw another similar incident again - so why aren't we taking notes? Do our leaders prioritize self-aggrandizement and reelection to the extent that they haven't brought about gun control despite the fact that 400 Americans have died in over 200 school shootings since Sandy Hook? The largest question, however, that this shooting should make us ask ourselves is this: will anything change, or will we stay Tweeting about gun control and holding vigils for gunshot victims while our government fails to save the children with futures whose lives are terminated by unstable teenagers on shooting rampages?

I understand the immediate opposition to gun control. Gun ownership is a constitutional right. But what few pay attention to is the fact the Constitution has also bestowed upon us the ability to modify it as needed - meaning that since mass shootings have cropped up as one of the largest issues in our country, we would be violating no one's rights by repealing the Second Amendment. Still, I want to bring up the example of a country that has not entirely banned guns, as some propose, but has hardly ever had more than 10 gun deaths a year out of its population of almost 130 million people - Japan. You cannot easily attain a gun in Japan; to access one, you must attend an all-day class, take a written test, and pass a shooting range test with at least 95% accuracy, reports Business Insider. You then have to pass a mental health evaluation and a background check that includes interviews with your family members and thorough scraping of your criminal record. Even then, you can only buy shotguns or air rifles, not handguns, along with having to repeat the class and written exam every three years. This has created a system under which it is extremely unlikely that just anyone would be able to get their hands on a gun, but in which it is still possible for those who meet the requirements set to purchase a firearm. It is beyond me why we live in a country in which citizens feel as though they would be disadvantaged if they did not possess a killing machine, but all the same, we should be following in the footsteps of Japan by decreasing the ease of accessibility of firearms.

As Emma Gonzalez, a brilliant high school student from Parkland who made a speech lobbying for gun control (the speech left me in awe and is a must-watch), shed light upon, our government receives 30 million dollars in funding each year from the National Rifle Association. Last year, President Trump even took measures to repeal a policy that would make it easier for people with mental illnesses to purchase a firearm - thus increasing the difficulty of administering background checks on prospective gun owners. In short, our government has not only failed to pass effective gun laws, but has also attempted to rescind existing policies. This means that change surrounding school shootings, despite the fact that only our government has legislative power, must in part begin with us. We must take it upon ourselves to fight for policy that will make sure that thorough background checks are conducted, that a teenager cannot repeatedly express his love for guns publicly without intervention from authorities, and that students never have to spend Valentine's Day locked inside a dark closet for hours in an attempt to hide from an active shooter again. If this isn't enough to drive us to make change, what will? Our outrage means nothing if not directed toward a specific cause.

More importantly, we should see mass shooting victims as more than numbers, than statistics. These were real people with real lives and real potential - some students who died had already been admitted to universities with full scholarships, and others were soccer players, dancers, marching band members, volunteers, and National Merit Scholars. A geography teacher and football coach lost their lives defending students from the shooter, and another boy named Peter Wang was shot dead while he held the door open for students to flee. Some of these people should be coronated as national heroes - and we should ensure that 17 people did not die in vain, that families in Parkland, Florida are not grieving and rallying for something that they will not see implemented. If all those who died did not live long enough to see gun control, we should ensure that no one else leaves this world the same way. These victims are not opportunities to push onto others a religious agenda, and we should let their deaths hold some meaning to us. We should rise to fight the fight that our government has refused to. So let this be the last mass shooting we ever see. Let us take the words of Emma Gonzalez to heart. Let this be more than just a tragedy that the nation forgets about after it leaves media circulation - let this be the tragedy that shakes up our nation and forces us to regulate the purchase of firearms, so that a high school-aged teenager with notably homicidal tendencies who is still not old enough to consume alcohol legally cannot end lives with an AR-15.