I don’t like to start a column this way, but sometimes we do things we don’t like in order to think critically about the world. Imagine a large building in Gainesville burned down. Imagine the fire started by accident — a gas leak or a candle — but the flames raged out of control, and the entire structure came down. In the 24 hours following the fire, we learn that it rapidly escalated as a result of poor building codes, and we probably could have contained the fire if it had not spread so quickly.
What would we say in this case? I think we would all agree: It’s time to talk about those building codes, and it’s time to update them. I think we would say this even if no lives were lost. But what if (and this is a terrible what if) many residents were home when the apartment building burned down? Surely we would mourn, but we would be even angrier in this instance than in the last. Why was this apartment constructed with such shoddy building codes? We would push to update those codes even more urgently than before.
This very event happened in June when Grenfell Tower, a collection of public housing in west London, came down in a ghastly fire thought to have started in a refrigerator. The fire spread quickly due to the materials used in the building’s exterior, and at least 80 people lost their lives as a result. Immediately, police and journalists began investigating to find out how it could have been prevented.
When people lose their lives, we seek explanations. When we lost 80 souls in the Grenfell Tower fire, we demanded (and are still demanding) answers. It’s one way we try to honor the lives lost: by making sure no one else dies the same way. We don’t want to make the same mistakes twice. We are not politicizing life or death when we make these efforts, we are trying to help more people live.
So why is it that in the wake of each mass shooting, especially as these shootings grow increasingly common each year, we are told by politicians and citizens alike that it is too soon to talk about gun policy? Elected officials constantly tell people the victims of gun violence are in their thoughts and prayers, as they should be. I vote for particular people because I expect them to multitask. You can simultaneously feel the pain in your heart for those who have died and act on behalf of future lives. In this case, you can advocate for a thorough analysis of our current gun laws.
Note at this point, all I have called for is a review of the current state of guns in this country. So far, I have not called for the taking away of guns, for the repeal of the Second Amendment, for anything specific at all. So far I am simply asking — more like pleading — my friends, family and especially my elected officials to think about how we can better address gun violence in the U.S., a nation that somehow prides itself on being the top in every category, the best in all fields, the biggest and the baddest. News flash, America: Gun violence is a field you don’t want to be No. 1 in.
So don’t tell me it’s too soon to talk about gun violence and control in this country because I haven’t waited the proper mourning time first. I am mourning. I am thinking. I am wishing. But all of these things need one more component if we want anything to change — and it’s action.
Mia Gettenberg is a UF criminology and philosophy senior. Her column appears on Mondays.