After heavy scrutiny, Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle stepped down from her post last week. Congress and many others are still demanding answers for the security failings in protecting former President Donald Trump from an attempted assassination. And while finding an answer to that question is very important, there are equally important questions to contemplate: How is it so easy for those who want to commit political violence to acquire firearms? And what are we going to do about it?
For many years, we have been arguing that there are two converging trends eroding the foundation of our democracy. First, there has been a well-organized effort to falsely incorporate an individual right to take up arms against the government into the Second Amendment. As the leaders of this effort like to say, “the Second Amendment is not about duck hunting.” In their world, armed political violence can be justified in settling partisan disagreement. The armed takeover of the Michigan Capitol Building in 2021 and the foiled plot of armed paramilitary group members to kidnap Michigan’s governor the year before are just two recent examples. This dangerous ideology has moved from the fringes to include many elected officials, creating a permission structure for extremist ideas to become actions. It’s important to recognize that the attempted assassination is not an isolated incident, but rather part of a troubling trend of normalizing political violence.
The second troubling trend is the increasing accessibility of guns and the lack of laws to regulate them, allowing people to act on their dangerous beliefs. Without comprehensive federal action on guns, states across the nation have diverged on gun policy, with some doubling down on strengthening regulation as others weaken life-saving measures. Though regulations on guns are not going to stop every shooting, this patchwork means many states don’t have the tools to even try. Pennsylvania, where the assassination attempt took place and where Trump returned Wednesday, is one example. Despite spirited efforts by gun violence prevention advocates in the state, people under 21 can legally purchase and possess long guns like the AR-15-style rifle used in the shooting. In this case, the shooter purchased the rifle from his father, who had acquired it legally.
Reports indicate that the shooter’s family had expressed concerns about his behavior shortly before the incident, but even if they’d called police earlier, there is no legal mechanism in place in the state to temporarily prevent him from accessing firearms. Extreme Risk Protection Order laws, also known as ERPOs, or “red flag” laws, allow family members or law enforcement to petition a court to temporarily disarm people deemed to be a danger to themselves or others. States that have implemented ERPO laws have seen promising results in preventing suicides, mass shootings, and other acts of violence by intervening before a crisis reaches a breaking point. Could an ERPO have prevented the assassination attempt in Pennsylvania? Until they pass the policy, which has been introduced in the state Legislature for several years running, all we know is the cost of its absence: unaddressed warning signs and deadly consequences.
Which brings us to the good news: We don’t have to live in constant fear of political violence.
To counter the ideology that drives political violence, we must refrain from normalizing the permission structure that condones it. Voters must promote civil discourse and foster a political climate in which differences are settled through dialogue, even if in disagreement. Political leaders bear a significant responsibility. They must come together on this central tenet of our democracy, to make clear that violence is not an acceptable form of political expression. By choosing words of unity rather than derision, especially in the heat of an election cycle, they can help de-escalate tensions and promote a more peaceful society.
Second, we must put some limits on the deadly tools that enable political violence. Is creating a process to temporarily remove guns from people at an immediate risk of violence too much of an inconvenience? Is requiring gun owners — especially parents — to secure their weapons too high a bar? Many states, like Michigan and Minnesota, are strengthening their gun laws, but too many states are not. The attempted assassination of former president Donald Trump, and the mass shooting it became, is a wake-up call for the nation. There will continue to be an abundance of political energy spent analyzing how the Secret Service failed to protect him and rally attendees. We implore our elected representatives to use equal amounts of energy to quell political violence and the loose gun laws that enable it. As a nation, we failed to prevent this shooting. We must act now to prevent it from happening again.
