When I began writing this piece, I held a cautious hope that we were finally turning a page in our nation’s fight against gun violence. Then, right before publication, gunfire broke out at Florida State University and in our own backyard in Harvard Square. I was quickly reminded that while progress is possible, it remains fragile, contested, and by no means certain.
And over the past year, progress has been on the rise. While danger from unchecked firearm access still looms large in our homes and communities, recently published findings from last year offer us a slight glimmer of hope. Mass shootings in 2024 decreased by over 20% from 2023, and firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 17% nationwide.
These incremental milestones are not mere coincidences — they reflect the fragile, initial ripple effects of long-term progress. In 2022, President Biden signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) in the wake of the mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas, The law, which served as the first major federal gun reform law in over three decades, set aside $750 million to support state and local extreme risk protection order capacities, among other measures. Created shortly after the BSCA, the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention improved coordination between the federal and state governments and directed resources to community-based violence intervention programs. In doing so, the application and enforcement of federal and state laws are not only tackling our nation’s gun violence epidemic, they are also shining an overdue light on the deep-rooted systemic inaction and policy failures that have allowed this crisis to persist.
Without the relentless efforts of advocates, survivors, and lawmakers who refused to accept inaction, these hard-fought accomplishments would have likely never existed. We must remember, though, that this progress remains painfully fragile. Every grueling success of recent years is threatened by the current administration’s indifference toward this public health emergency and its relentless push for deregulatory firearm policy.
Gun violence resistance is at a defining moment. Without an aggressive and calculated shift toward sustained funding, state-level implementation, and a unified, compelling messaging, we risk years of progress unraveling.
Just days after his inauguration, President Donald Trump dismantled the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention. He also removed the advisory that declared gun violence a public health crisis and contained life-saving information on gun-safety. This month, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi directed her colleagues at the Department of Justice to create the “Second Amendment Task Force” to push the president’s deregulatory firearm policy.
The facts, however, remain undeniable: Unfettered access to firearms is the leading risk factor for gun violence. Nowhere is this more evident than in the United States, which leads the world with an estimated 120.5 civilian-owned firearms per 100 people — more than double the runner up, Yemen. Today, gun violence is the leading cause of death for children and teens in the U.S., surpassing motor vehicle accidents as of 2020. Therefore, every policy rollback, every delay in action, comes at the cost of real lives and shattered communities. Any further increase in rates of gun violence would darken the glimmer of hope that advocates have worked so hard to keep alive.
President Trump’s first-term record, marked by the largest one-year increase in firearm homicides recorded in 2020, should also serve as a clear warning. Shortly after taking office, Trump’s administration purged nearly 70,000 people wanted by law enforcement from the federal background check system. As a result, these individuals could walk into a gun shop, bypass any existing red flags, and leave legally armed with no questions asked.
Trump’s rhetoric only compounds this devastation. During his 2024 presidential campaign, he and then-Senator J.D. Vance trivialized the experiences of survivors, telling them to “get over” their trauma and framing school shootings as a “fact of life.” For those of us who have lived through such tragedies, this rhetoric is not only alarming but also attempts to invalidate the very real trauma that more than half of Americans and upward of 350,000 schoolchildren have experienced.
This trauma should never be framed as normal, and treating it as such is nothing short of blatant negligence. If the gun violence prevention movement wants to push back against deregulation and such rhetoric, it cannot afford to solely advocate for life-saving measures without addressing the political barriers standing in the way. For far too long, groups in the movement have worked in siloes, relentlessly pushing reforms, yet failing to match the gun lobby’s investment in coordinated strategy and electoral power. Sometimes it has worked — most times, it has not.
Take the BSCA for example. While it was a hard-fought legislative victory at the federal level, 29 states cannot access their funding because they have not enacted laws allowing petitions for extreme risk protection orders. Those that have, however, have seen record-breaking use of the law’s life-saving power. This distinction remains a persistent challenge for the movement: Without a coordinated strategy to translate federal policies into state-level implementations, even landmark reforms like the BSCA risk falling short of their full potential. The same can be said for state-level gun violence prevention measures.
For decades, the National Rifle Association and its allies have not merely lobbied lawmakers; they have redefined the American gun culture itself, embedding the idea that “firearms equal freedom” into our national psyche. They built an empire on unwavering, cutthroat messaging: The more guns we have, the safer we are, and those who disagree are “gun grabbers.”
They did not compromise or splinter into siloes. The result? A Congress that routinely speaks to the status quo, a culture that glorifies armed individualism, and many states that have escalatory “Stand Your Ground” laws and other measures. These laws, which remove one’s duty to retreat before using self-defense, gained attention through state-level coordinated fear campaigns and model legislation. Nationally, the gun lobby has entrenched its influence so deeply that even the most basic pieces of federal legislation, like a secure firearm storage requirement, now seems like a distant prospect.
But states are another story. Unlike Congress, state legislatures are generally more responsive. Public opinion on a more granular level, while overwhelmingly in favor of a right to bear arms, is also in strong favor of foundational reforms, such as keeping firearms out of the hands of those who might be a danger to themselves or others. It is only a matter of translating these attitudes into coordinated action. The challenge is not changing minds; it is aligning widespread support for practical gun violence prevention measures with political momentum.
We need to take a page from the gun lobby’s playbook, not by mirroring their fear-mongering, but by learning how to be just as strategic as we are compassionate. That means crafting a message so simple and omnipresent that it sticks: The vast majority of Americans, including gun owners, support practical gun safety measures. Those who stand in the way are out of line with the overwhelming will of the people. It also means building a coordinated advocacy machine, investing more in state and local campaigns, and aligning public opinion using social norms to highlight the real human cost of our nation’s pervasive gun culture.
We owe it to future generations to fight for a safer America — a nation where malls, places of worship, and schools are not potential death traps. If we are to protect the progress we have made and push further, we must be proficient not only in policy but also in politics. Achieving this requires the movement to coalesce around a bold, persistent strategy, and a willingness to fight incessantly. If we do not change course, if we do not demand more from our movement, we will lose. And we cannot afford to lose.
