Gun violence, firearm control and all things Second Amendment are back in the news cycle once more. As with every new tragedy, the conversation moves on quickly from “how can we prevent this from happening again?” to “whose fault is it?” With too many tragedies stemming from the reckless, irresponsible abuse of our Second Amendment, the matter of constitutionally addressing the issue is called into question.

Each time gun violence rips through a community, we hear the same warning: the Second Amendment is under attack. It isn’t. Courts have repeatedly affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms while also upholding targeted limits to protect the public. With a continually present matter of gun violence plaguing our nation, this ultimately begs the question: how can we combat firearm issues without jeopardizing our rights as Americans?

We at the Courier want to encourage people to take the time to properly consider how we can best prevent more tragedies, like the most recent ones with political commentator Charlie Kirk, Minnesota Rep. Melissa Hortman and the Colorado school shooting; from the perspective of former students who were educated in the constant threat of school shooters, the only way forward is with stricter gun laws and firmer regulation.

On Sept. 10, 2025, Kirk visited Utah Valley University as a part of his “American Comeback Tour.” The event was hosted by Turning Point USA, a political organization co-founded by Kirk, and sought to advocate for conservative politics. In the middle of his speech, Kirk was assassinated while discussing mass shootings, according to an article from AP News, ultimately becoming another victim of gun violence in the United States.

Kirk was a strong defender of American gun rights. In a resurfaced clip from 2023 posted by The Independent, Kirk’s stance can be summed up with his quote, “I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.”

A common talking point among Republican commentators and politicians is the idea that the Second Amendment is increasingly at risk. Congressman Dan Newhouse, a Republican representative for the 4th congressional district in Washington, released a column titled, “A Constitutional Right Under Fire.” In it, he stated firearms provide rural Americans “with a means of protection,” and that increased gun control laws can “disproportionately impact our rural communities where police response times can be elevated.”

However, advocating for stricter gun control laws doesn’t necessarily mean a complete ban on firearms. We at the Courier recognize the importance of the power bestowed by the Second Amendment at its conception. A government built on the premises of “by the people, for the people” should allow “the people” the means to resist a government not benefiting them. However, as the country nears its 300-year anniversary, the importance of the Second Amendment comes off as a more symbolic gesture rather than a practical one.

As the Second Amendment itself states, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Just as Americans have the right to “keep and bear Arms,” militia forces should also, to an extent, have at least some sort of regulation of their power. And because there are regulations on our American militia, there must also be controls on firearms — particularly an individual’s access to them.

To address this, Congress passed the National Firearms Act of 1934 enforcing taxes and regulations on more extreme firearms like the sawed-off shotgun — an example of gun control constitutionally enforced without putting our Second Amendment right “under fire.” The act made it more difficult to possess these extreme weapons, especially to reduce gun violence from gangsters during the prohibition era.

This resulted in the Supreme Court case “United States v. Miller” (1939) which constitutionally restricted Jack Miller’s unreasonable ownership of an unregistered sawed-off shotgun as it had no connection to a state militia. Although the Second Amendment protects our right to own firearms, weapons like the sawed-off shotgun are designed to kill large numbers of people at once due to the wide spread of ammunition released at close range. Therefore, it is not justified under the Second Amendment because it is not for a state militia, self-defense or recreational hunting; it is intended to murder civilians. Possession of such a weapon is not a reasonable weapon for an individual to own for self-defense. 

But because many Republican politicians and commentators present the conversation regarding the Second Amendment as a threat to our Constitution, it undermines the continually present American issue of violence resulting from firearms. Some may be quick to point out a seeming decline in gun violence rates, according to an analysis released by the Association of Health Care Journalists. The analysis stated that since 2021, Memorial Day firearm fatalities have dropped by 56%. However, this data only magnifies a small portion to a much larger picture.

It’s true that gun deaths are down for the past three years. But it’s important to note that of the many of the cities mentioned in this analysis, there was a huge jump in gun fatalities (excluding suicides) during 2020, around the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix and Philadelphia all experienced a huge increase in gun violence rates during that year, with rates growth of about 1.5 times what they were in 2019. In 2024, all four cities had a rate of firearm fatalities higher than they were in 2015; Chicago, Philadelphia and Phoenix are showing numbers similar or equal to fatality rates before 2020, but it took until 2023 for Chicago and Philadelphia to even out, and it took Phoenix until 2024 — both being post-COVID eras.

The argument favoring less gun control largely overlooks the increasing issue of mass shootings. A factsheet published by the Rockefeller Institute of Government, a public policy research institute of the State University of New York, features data showing an increase in U.S. mass shootings from 2024 to 2025. The institute has even publicly stated, “Mass shootings have been steadily increasing in frequency since 1966.” 

Although enforcing stricter gun control laws seems like a potential solution to this issue, there is much opposition on a legal and social level. Gun control laws vary by state, and it’s difficult to reach a general consensus to enforce stricter laws on a federal level due to vastly different opinions on the political spectrum. This is especially true when the constitutionality of the law is put into question. 

Another way to engage in this conversation of combatting gun violence is to understand what factors influence violent crime and how it could be treated and prevented. Many have brought up the point that criminal behavior can stem from social inequality, and, therefore, crime can be indirectly addressed by solving the issues that drive people to crime. In theory, if the needs of people are satisfied, it can greatly reduce the rate of violent crime, including gun violence. 

The University of Maryland’s (UMD) Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice conducted research on the matter, interviewing Black male residents from high-risk communities. In their research, they discovered “gun violence was a persistent concern in 88% of respondents’ neighborhoods, with many describing instances of violence that were sporadic and random and using that as justification for arming themselves.”

The UMD’s research also stated how many who were interviewed did not receive proper firearm training — either trying to figure it out themselves, get help from friends/family or who learned from consuming media featuring guns. With more people exercising their Second Amendment right to protect themselves because of the threat of violent crime, it only inadvertently increases access to firearms, which may result in further increase of gun violence rates. This continues the cycle, particularly if individuals aren’t educated in proper firearm safety.

If members of these high-risk areas were to receive the necessary firearm safety training, it could greatly minimize the rates of gun violence within the community, as the UMD’s research suggests. With the proper training, it enforces a responsibility within firearm owners to ensure an increased security over their weapon. A security that prevents posing as the threat that encourages others to obtain firearms for defense and any unintended gun violence stemming from irresponsibility.

However, with recent cuts to violence prevention programs by President Donald Trump’s administration, funding for violence prevention programs has been greatly reduced. In an article written by Hoag Levins from Penn’s Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, scholars discussed the consequences of cutting violence prevention programs. Among them is Medical Director of Penn Trauma Violence Recovery Program, Elinore Kaufman, who stated that the cuts to funding may likely increase gun violence throughout the country.

Answers to a problem can only go as far as those in power wish to take it. While we at the Courier are in favor of stricter gun control laws on a federal level, we generally do not wish to jeopardize our Second Amendment right. But we, in good conscience, do not believe gun deaths are a “worth to have cost” for this Constitutional right. 

If the politicians in power and the commentators with platforms fail to engage with this conversation with the nuance and respect it deserves, then it’s important for us, the American people, to carry the responsibility to reach a solution we deserve. By undergoing proper firearm safety training, understanding the conditions of those less privileged and leading a respectful, nuanced conversation, we can compromise to find solutions to the issue of gun violence.

No, we at the Courier do not believe the Second Amendment is “under fire.” We believe stricter gun control laws can be constitutionally enforced. And we believe that the American people have a responsibility to exercise a different type of weapon to get the change we deserve: our voices.