The debate over gun purchases in the United States is no longer simply a disagreement over the Second Amendment. It is a broader political and social conflict over individual freedoms, public safety, and the government’s responsibility to prevent avoidable deaths. While conservatives defend Americans’ right to own firearms for self-defense, gun-control advocates argue that stronger regulations are necessary to prevent shootings and protect communities. The recent shooting at Silver Rail Elementary School in Bend, Oregon has brought these concerns into focus once again. Tragedies like these raise difficult questions about firearm access, responsible ownership, and whether existing safeguards are sufficient. However, one shooting alone cannot prove that a particular gun law has failed. Instead, lawmakers should examine the evidence before deciding whether regulations should be expanded or removed. The Political Push to Expand Gun Access The Trump administration has moved to roll back federal firearm regulations, arguing that certain restrictions place unnecessary burdens on law-abiding gun owners and firearm dealers. According to Axios, the administration’s efforts include changes to federal gun rules and oversight. Supporters argue that Americans should not face unnecessary obstacles when exercising their constitutional rights. Critics warn that weakening oversight could make it more difficult to prevent firearms from reaching people who pose a danger to themselves or others. Both arguments deserve consideration. However, the central question is whether reducing regulations can protect gun owners’ rights without compromising public safety. That question should be answered through evidence rather than political assumptions. What the Numbers Reveal According to Pew Research Center, 44,447 Americans died from firearm injuries in 2024, including 27,593 suicides and 15,364 homicides. These figures demonstrate that gun violence extends beyond mass shootings to include suicide and other firearm-related deaths. More recent data presents a complicated picture. The Trace reported that 354 mass shootings occurred during the first nine months of 2026, compared with 327 during the same period in 2025. That represents an increase of approximately 8.3%. However, overall shooting deaths declined compared with recent years. These figures do not establish that the administration’s regulatory changes caused the increase in mass shootings. Because the data covers January through September, including months before some changes took effect, more research is needed to determine whether the rollback has affected public safety. Nevertheless, these trends deserve attention. If lawmakers believe reducing regulations will not increase risks, they should be willing to evaluate the results transparently. How Does America Compare With Other Countries? International comparisons offer additional perspective. According to Pew Research Center’s analysis of 2023 data, the United States had an age-adjusted firearm death rate of 13.2 per 100,000 people. Brazil’s rate was higher, at 17.4 per 100,000, demonstrating that firearm violence is influenced by factors beyond the number of guns alone. New Zealand offers another example. Following the 2019 Christchurch mosque attacks, which killed 51 people, the government introduced major restrictions on certain firearms and established a buyback program. Although New Zealand’s response provides a useful example of how a government can reconsider its gun laws after a tragedy, its policies cannot automatically be applied to the United States. The countries differ in their legal systems, firearm ownership and constitutional protections. International comparisons can inform the debate, but they cannot independently prove that a particular policy will produce the same results in America. Balancing Constitutional Rights and Public Safety The Second Amendment protects an important constitutional right, and responsible gun owners should not automatically be treated as threats. Firearms can serve legitimate purposes, including self-defense and protecting one’s family. Recognizing that right, however, does not mean every regulation is unnecessary. Research reviewed by the RAND Corporation indicates that certain measures, including background checks, waiting periods, and safe-storage laws, can reduce specific types of firearm harm. The challenge is determining which regulations are effective, which impose unnecessary burdens, and which need further research. Lawmakers should evaluate each policy on its merits rather than assuming that all gun restrictions work or that all of them violate constitutional freedoms. A Debate That Requires Evidence The American gun debate will not be resolved by one shooting or one political administration. It reflects a deeper disagreement about individual liberty, government authority, and public safety. The available data does not show a simple increase or decrease in every measure of gun violence following the administration’s regulatory changes. Mass shootings increased during the first nine months of 2026, while overall shooting deaths declined. More research is necessary before drawing conclusions about the effects of the rollback. Ultimately, the question is not whether Americans must choose between the Second Amendment and public safety. It is whether the country can protect the constitutional rights of responsible gun owners while taking reasonable steps to prevent avoidable deaths. Protecting constitutional freedoms and protecting human life should not be competing objectives. Gun policy should be guided by evidence, accountability, and a willingness to put public safety ahead of political loyalty.
By Felipe Cisternas
All week, I have seen nothing but online chatter surrounding the very new and now very gone White House press secretary Katie Zacharia. Zacharia started her first day as the new press secretary last Monday, replacing Karoline Leavitt. Five days later, however, it was announced that she had left the position, which makes her the shortest-tenured White House press secretary in US history. Before becoming White House press secretary, Zacharia was the former spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security and the Senior Communications Advisor at Trump Media & Technology Group, the organization that owns Truth Social. She has also been a frequent guest on Fox News, CNN, Newsmax, One America News, and other news outlets defending administration policies She was a surprise press secretary pick, and many in the White House were unfamiliar with her before she started the role. Her selection came quickly according to CNN who reported she wasn’t even being considered for the role two weeks ago. CNN also alleged that multiple candidates had been disqualified before her after the selection committee said something negative about the president Her position was announced on Truth Social by President Donald Trump, where he described her as an “attorney” as well as “a devoted fan and member of MAGA!” On Tuesday, Zacharia gave her first press briefing, which has popularly been viewed as disastrous. Many felt she was unprepared after multiple word stumbles and awkward pauses despite reading off a script. The briefing discussed mostly the firing of Ambassador to Greece Kimberly Guilfoyle, lasted 15 minutes, and she only took three questions, which lasted roughly 5 ½ minutes.. After the press conference, her legal career began to get called into question. She only fueled this speculation when reporters asked last Tuesday on the South Lawn where she passed the bar, she responded twice with “When I moved to China”. The bar exam can only be taken within US jurisdiction. In a phone interview with the New York Times, she claimed to be unable to hear the question and thought they asked her where she went after law school. She also amended that she didn’t want to take a step forward to hear the question because state protocol dictates that she must always stand behind the president. Despite this alleged mishearing, Trump repeated to her the question when she was standing only a few feet away and still answered that she passed the bar in China. Zacharia holds both a law and bachelor’s degree from Pepperdine University. After law school, she sat for the bar exam but did not pass, she then moved to China with her husband, where she worked in international transaction law. She did not attempt to pass the bar a second time because she was “incredibly distracted, and overwhelmed and excited” by her impending marriage and move to China, she said in an interview with Real America’s Voice. Her career trajectory has launched an entire debate about what defines a lawyer. Legal experts told The New York Times that it is debatable whether a law school graduate can call themself a lawyer since she wouldn’t have been able to practice law or give legal advice. Zacharia told Real Americas Voice that her legal counsel told her she could call herself a lawyer. The nonprofit Campaign for Accountability disagreed and filed a complaint with the California Law Board stating Zacharia had violated state law by repeatedly calling herself a lawyer. Despite her no longer being in the position, Campaign For Accountability said it did not resolve the legal question and still urged its investigation. It is important to point out that it is not necessary to have passed the bar exam to be the White House press secretary. On Friday, Trump told the press that he wasn’t going to fire Zacharia, but she should reconsider the job. “I told her, ‘I think you’re better off being happy and I don’t think you could ever be happy in this job’,” said Trump. Around the same time, The New York Times reported that she was fired according to three White House insiders. In her resignation announcement post, Zacharia said, “President Trump is a kind, wonderful, gracious, thoughtful, enthusiastic, and hardworking man. I wish more Americans appreciated him. No one will ever make America great the way he has and continues to. It was an honor to work for him.” In a statement to CNN, White House Communications Director Steven Cheung said Zacharia will be transitioning into a different role within the White House communications team. Two inside sources told NBC News, Trump is unlikely to fill the new position soon. Zacharia’s story goes to prove the importance of a good communications selection. The Trump administration has been known to give people who have less experience than other candidates roles due to their loyalty to the administration. After last week’s fiasco, there will hopefully be more reflection within the administration over what a qualified candidate actually looks like.
By Adrihanna Collins
Sergeant Phillip J. Freund of the United States Army, was an American soldier and prisoner of war who fought Nazi forces in World War Two. He was captured and sent to a POW camp in Brandenburg, Prussia where he endured severe torture and forced malnourishment. Lieutenant Colonel John J. Hedlund of the United States Air Force also fought Nazi forces and was captured in 1944, and taken to a POW camp in Moosburg, Germany. What do these men have in common? Well, other than the fact that they were both prisoners in the same conflict, they were both beloved members of my family who served their country dutifully. They are some of my greatest personal inspirations and I believe they are true heroes for their service. President Trump seems to disagree. On July 18th, 2015, Donald Trump let his massive ego and ruthless personal rhetoric take a hold of him – as many Americans have seen throughout the last 10 years of his political presence – at a summit in Iowa. Among various talking points, the then-candidate Trump focused on his long time feud with Senator John McCain, who had been a POW in the Vietnam War. Mccain was subjected to extreme torture in one of the most infamous and brutal POW camps in the conflict, The Hỏa Lò Prison, known universally to all American prisoners as the “Hanoi Hilton”. Trump stated “He’s not a war hero, he was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”. This insulting rebuttal rightfully disturbed many. McCain’s service was not only special for the price he paid, but also his circumstances prior. His father and grandfather were the first 4-star father and son Admirals in the United States Navy. With this legacy, this meant that McCain, who did not get drafted and instead volunteered for service, could have easily avoided service. He chose instead to put his life on the line for his country. After he was elected President of The United States, Trump allegedly took another advantage to tarnish some of the nation’s greatest heroes, this time in 2018, near the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery in France. Aisne-Marne commemorates fallen soldiers and MIAs of World War One, housing 2,289 American graves. Trump was scheduled to visit the cemetery with US military officials, and canceled the visit under the pretense of rain. Reports from Trump’s own staff reveal that he reportedly made disparaging remarks regarding the fallen, referring to the dead as “suckers” and saying that the cemetery was “filled with losers”. What makes this highly substantiated (yet officially unconfirmed allegation) have weight to it, is that Trump is reported to have used this same language to refer to other veterans. Notably, hee used the same language against Former President George H.W. Bush, who was shot down in the Pacific Ocean by Japanese forces in 1944, while flying a combat mission. Trump reportedly called Bush a “loser” for getting shot down. He also visited Arlington National Cemetery in 2017 with then-Chief of Staff, John Kelly, whose son was killed in action in 2010 during the Afghanistan War. According to Kelly, Trump remarked “I don’t get it. What was in it for them”, referring to the fallen soldiers at Arlington. Funnily enough, Donald Trump and his family have historically avoided military service across multiple continents. His grandfather Friederich fled from Bavaria, Germany in 1885 and had not yet fulfilled his mandatory military service. After he built a successful business in New York City, Friederich wished to return to Bavaria, but because of his failure to serve or deregister from Bavaria’s draft, he was permanently banished from the then-Kingdom of Bavaria in 1905. Donald Trump himself is also a notorious draft dodger, which was cited by mainstream media and politicians during his 2016 campaign. During the Vietnam War, Trump received 5 military deferments. From 1964-1968, Trump was given four deferments, which were regarding his education at Fordham University and the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. A final deferment was given to him in September of 1968, citing bone spurs. It is important to note that in his 2019 testimony, Trump’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, testified that Trump privately admitted to the deferment being illegitimate and untruthful, stating: “Mr. Trump claimed [his medical deferment] was because of a bone spur, but when I asked for medical records, he gave me none and said there was no surgery.” Cohen continues, saying, “He told me not to answer the specific questions by reporters but rather offer simply the fact that he received a medical deferment.” Most striking of all, Cohen claims that Trump finished the conversation with the following comment: “You think I’m stupid, I wasn’t going to Vietnam.” Interesting to note is that the podiatrist who signed off on Trump’s deferment, Dr. Larry Braunstein, rented his office from Fred Trump. His two daughters allege that their father’s signing off on the deferment was a “favor” to Fred Trump. President Trump is most certainly guilty of a disgusting, abhorrent history of name calling and disrespect directed towards our nation’s finest heroes. He is someone who not only delegitimizes the suffering and death that our nation’s soldiers endured, but someone who causes immense emotional distress for POW, MIA, and KIA families all across the United States. Families like mine. To answer his bleak, unintelligent question of “what’s in it for them?”: freedom and peace for the world. That’s what was in it for them, President Trump. My great-grandfather, Phillip, and my great-uncle, Jon, were just two of millions. Millions of young, brave, intelligent, and bright men who understood exactly what was in it for them. They knew they were fighting to keep their country and its people safe, and far from the reach of the Axis Powers and their conquest in the name of tyranny. While my family members did not even pay the ultimate price of laying one’s life down for their country – unlike many of their fellow soldiers –
By Theodore Maher
Follow Us