Staff Reports
In a shocking and tragic turn of events, a recent shooting at the Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, Wisconsin, has sparked renewed calls for stricter gun control measures. This incident, involving 15-year-old Natalie Rupnow, has triggered a flurry of political commentary but has also raised eyebrows among conservatives. After all, Rupnow used a handgun, not an assault weapon, in her act of violence. Yet, the response from certain leaders seems to be mismatched with the facts.
Amidst the chaos, President Joe Biden wasted no time in summoning new legislation aimed at banning assault weapons, even though this was not what was used in the crime. Meanwhile, he has recently pardoned his son, Hunter, for a separate gun-related crime. Critics point out that there seems to be a noticeable double standard. The narrative around gun control, they argue, shifts dramatically depending on the shooter’s profile. If it had been a “straight, white, Christian male,” the public would be inundated with detailed personal histories and motivations; yet here we have a 15-year-old girl whose struggles seem to have been brushed under the carpet.
Rupnow’s actions appear tied to deep-seated mental health issues, evidenced by a reported manifesto where she expressed feelings of hatred towards society and blamed it on her father’s “stupidity.” Alarmingly, there are speculations about her potential use of psychiatric medications, particularly SSRIs, which have been linked to troubling side effects, including suicidal and homicidal thoughts. It has become an increasingly important conversation within conservative circles to highlight how such medications are often handed out haphazardly.
In the wake of this tragedy, Vice President Kamala Harris made a statement reiterating the need for elected leaders to rise to the occasion—though many conservatives argue that calls for new laws completely ignore the fact that current laws aren’t even being enforced. Red flag laws, designed to keep firearms out of the hands of those deemed a danger to themselves or others, exist in numerous states. Yet mass shootings continue to occur, leaving many wondering about the effectiveness of such measures.
As discussions on gun violence loom large, some suggest that perhaps a different approach should be considered altogether. Instead of tightening restrictions further on law-abiding citizens, conservatives propose a more proactive stance, such as implementing measures that increase security through armed personnel in schools. After all, we protect banks and celebrities with stringent security measures; why not our children?
As the debate rages on, it remains clear that the issue of gun control is multifaceted and deeply polarizing. With emotions running high and narratives shifting, many conservatives feel as though genuine conversations about mental health and the potential repercussions of psychiatric medications are being sidelined in favor of a more emotive approach to gun legislation. And so, as this story develops, it begs the question—do we truly want to stop the violence or are we content to just make noise?
