This article should not have to exist. The fact that it does is disgraceful to several, and too little too late to even more. But here we are.
Part of being a journalist is strategically pressing on the blemishes of society that are buried so far beneath the skin people have forgotten they exist. That is, undeniably, in the job description. Despite this, the topic at hand is brutal.
Gun violence is unacceptable, and yet it is also an extremely large part of our American society. This is true, regardless of any political stance. Gun violence is brought upon by people who think cruelty is necessary for peace.
So, no, this article should not have to exist. But here we are.
Number One
If you had to pick a person, who would you think of if you heard the words “talk show host?” Based on sheer popularity, one could assume you have chosen Jimmy Fallon, Jimmy Kimmel, or Stephen Colbert; valid choices, but irrelevant in this case. The talk show host that is most prevalent in this conversation is a man named Jon Stewart.
Jon Stewart is the current host of The Daily Show. He has made his political views known in the media he has produced. This, however, is not relevant to this conversation. The reason Jon Stewart is important here is because of an interview he did with Senator Nathan Dahm from Oklahoma.
In this interview, Stewart and Dahm debate several political issues facing the American public today. Dahm responds to the question of whether preventing a drag performer’s ability to read to children by stating that the government has “a responsibility in certain instances to protect children.”
Stewart, finding righteousness behind his voice, poses a counterpoint: “what’s the leading cause of death of children in this country?”
Interestingly, this makes Dahm pause. Then, dismissively, he states “I’m presuming you’re going to say firearms.”
Stewart, steamrolling over his response, states with vigor, “No, I’m not going to say it like it’s an opinion. That’s what it is. It’s firearms. More than cancer, more than car accidents.”
One can only imagine how much air was sucked out of the lungs of the camera people in the room.
Surely, Stewart must have been mistaken; surely, people would pay more attention to an issue that large. Unfortunately, for the citizens of America, he was not.
In a study done by the National Library of Medicine in 2020, deaths in children from firearm related injuries beat out motor-vehicle crashes by about 50,000 people. A baffling statistic, but a factual one. The chart below proves this idea beyond a shadow of a doubt.
“More than cancer, more than car accidents.”
Shootings are affecting the youth of America. But the most dangerous thing about that is that political figures have started turning these awful situations into martyrs to further their beliefs.
Playing the Part
If one searched for the number of school shootings in America in 2025, one would find an inconclusive answer. Several different news outlets have various responses to this question, ranging anywhere from eight to one-hundred and forty-six.
In researching this issue, there were countless websites to sort through. Not once did the number line up between any two sites. The K-12 School Shooting Database maintains that there have been 146 incidents of gun violence in schools across the country. Everytown for Gun Safety, a site that tracks firearm discharges on school premises, states that 91 incidents have happened. Finally, Education Week maintains that there have been 8 occasions of gun violence in schools throughout America.
But if the number is inconsistent, how do we know how prevalent the issue truly is? The answer is simple: if a shooting or attempted shooting happens at all, the issue is prevalent. It does not matter whether the number of children and teachers injured or killed is eight or two hundred; it matters that the incident happened in the first place.
Political figures do not seem to agree though. Biased news stations and politically influential people have turned these people into statistics meant to further their beliefs, rather than treating them with respect.
In a PBS News article that appeared on PolitiFact, Kevin M. Schultz states that these figures and organizations play on the polarizing nature of the second amendment to the US Constitution to sway voters. Schultz says that politicans are “lead to embrace positions far more extreme than most Americans seek.”
By encouraging these radically extreme ideas, politicians are able to disseminate their beliefs more effectively. When you separate logic and centrism from the equation, the country becomes fragmented and overexcited about being proven correct.
Every injury or death becomes nothing more than a talking point in an argument, instead of a tragedy surrounding the situation.
This in mind, it is no wonder that political shootings have run rampant for ages.
At War
It is at this point in the article that things will begin to get sticky. Politically speaking, this article should be unbiased and widely accessible. Toeing the line between political opinions is essential in the creation of an effective piece of writing.
Despite this, we cannot talk about gun violence in America without analyzing the prevalence of political shootings. Political violence, historically, has reflected deep societal divides, power struggles, and selective outrage. In America, its legacy can be traced back to the era of public lynchings. Lynchings were state-sanctioned acts of violence that were used to intimidate Black Americans and maintain white supremacy.
Assassinations are not uncommon in America either. Figures like Martin Luther King Jr., who preached of nonviolence, were still met with brutal resistance, ultimately being assassinated because of their impact on the political climate. Decades later, political violence continues to be a tactic and a talking point, though its framing often depends on who the target is.
In the past year alone, Princeton University’s “Bridging Divides Initiative” recognizes a 74% increase in political violence from 2022.
Over the course of these nine months in 2025, a Minnesota Democratic state Representative named Melissa Hortman was fatally shot; the Pennsylvania governor’s residence was set on fire with Democratic Governor, Josh Shapiro, inside; a shooter attacked the CDC’s headquarters; and an immigrations officer was wounded just outside a Texas detention facility.
These incidents, however, have not been focused on by the media. Instead, as you can imagine, these outlets are focusing on the most polarizing person involved. This person is, of course, Charlie Kirk.
On September 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk, a conservative commentator, was assassinated at Utah Valley University. Kirk preached about honoring the second amendment until the very end. In fact, his last words were about gun violence in America.
Regardless of where you may stand on this issue, being against gun violence means being against all gun violence. Charlie Kirk was horrifically murdered in front of a crowd of people. He had two children that will now have to live without their father. Kirk was a victim of the very thing he preached of supporting, but a victim nonetheless.
At Peace
Violence is wrong. Point blank, period.
The children in our classrooms, the officials in power, the families in homes should not have to suffer for a cause they wanted no part in. As society changes, so must our laws.
When the Constitution was made, it was made with adaptability in mind. In short, it was meant to evolve with its citizens, not stay the same to be used as a crutch for those who site tradition as an argument.
Pain is not a tradition, it is a path of destruction. By ignoring the pain being caused by the current system, the government is refusing to acknowledge the real issues facing the American public at large. The citizens of the United States are tired of seeing statistics representing their loved ones, numbers rather than names.
Behind every number is real person whose life was taken too soon, and without warning. This is the cost of gun violence.
So, once again, this article should not have to exist. But because it does, let’s remind ourselves of the people behind the numbers you see on television.
