Guest Editorial: What Will It Take to Make America Safer from Gun Violence?

Another horrific act of violence has pushed South Carolina Representative Wendell Gilliard to once again raise his voice against America’s ongoing gun crisis. This time, it was the shocking assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump — an event that shook both red and blue America alike.

One statement from Rep. Gilliard stood out:

“We must recognize that there are currently over 436 million guns circulating in America, surpassing our population. Since the shooting of President Reagan in 1981, gun violence has remained a serious problem, with a particular focus on assault weapons.”

Think about that — 436 million guns. That’s roughly 100 million more than the total number of people in the country and 100 million more than just 25 years ago.

And even that figure may be conservative. According to The Trace, a publication dedicated to reporting on gun violence, “More than 494 million firearms have been produced for the U.S. market since 1899, and the pace of production continues to rise. This includes imported firearms but excludes exports made by U.S. gun manufacturers.”

In his statement following the attempt on Trump’s life, Gilliard reflected on other tragic moments in America’s history — the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert Kennedy, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and Malcolm X.

“These events not only shook our nation to its core but also inspired good men and women to become more involved in the political process,” he said. “Now, more than ever, our country needs positive-minded individuals committed to making a difference.”

The Charleston City Paper put it bluntly in a recent editorial:

“What’s it going to take for serious, bipartisan, and real action to reduce gun violence in a nation that has more guns than people? Another assassination attempt? More school shootings? An attempted coup?”

America narrowly avoided catastrophe in Pennsylvania when a 20-year-old gunman failed to assassinate former President Trump at a rally. In the coming days, investigators will examine how the shooter gained access to a clear line of sight — and which security agencies failed and why. But amid those questions, one truth must not be lost: America has a gun culture in which violence too often becomes the first answer to anger and division.

Both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump — political rivals on nearly everything — agree on this one point: it’s time to lower the temperature and reject violence.

Biden: “We’re neighbors, friends, coworkers, citizens — fellow Americans. We must stand together. We can’t allow this violence to be normalized. Politics should be an arena for peaceful debate.”
Trump: “In this moment, it’s more important than ever that we stand united, showing our true character as Americans — strong, determined, and unwilling to let evil win.”

But the question remains: if the deaths of schoolchildren couldn’t spark bipartisan reform, what will?

The first step is to acknowledge the divide — one often deepened by the influence of the gun lobby. Republican leaders must recognize that they are too often used as pawns in this ongoing conflict. Democrats, meanwhile, aren’t trying to “take away guns,” but are calling for common-sense policies — like restrictions on assault-style weapons, including the kind used in the Trump attack — to be enacted responsibly and across party lines.

And Democrats, too, must stop vilifying all Republicans as enemies of reform. Real progress will require cooperation, not condemnation. Now is the time for both sides to sit down and focus on practical, realistic solutions that reduce gun violence and protect lives — so that we no longer have to mourn school shootings, public massacres, or political assassinations.

Gun violence is spiraling out of control. America has a small but vital window of opportunity to come together — not just to make the nation “great again,” but to make it safe again.

---

Would you like me to tailor the tone toward a news editorial (objective and journalistic) or a persuasive op-ed (more emotional and advocacy-driven)? I can adapt it either way depending on your publishing style.