This month, like every month in America, witnessed more mass shootings. Four killed at the University of Idaho, five killed at a nightclub in Colorado Springs, and three football players killed at the University of Virginia. The UVA murders have been particularly high-profile given the prominence of college football—notably among a segment of the population that is more often proponents of gun rights—with tributes to the players broadcast during every game last weekend. Before I had the chance to even finish this post, there was another mass shooting of six people killed at a Walmart in Virginia.

The question we all ask, at least for a day or two in the aftermath of these senseless acts of violence, is Why? We want a rational motive. Something to wrap our heads around. Something that offers a reason or explanation for the carnage. Something to reassure ourselves that we, or our loved ones, couldn’t be victims of similar acts of terror.

Unfortunately, the answer to Why is often inconclusive. Motives are rarely clear cut. The usual explanations of grudges, passions, or prejudices feel insufficient, because, for the overwhelming majority of us, these emotions would never lead us to commit cold-blooded murder. A motive suggests a rational act, but in all these cases such senseless violence is beyond rationalization. Beyond comprehension. Fundamentally, such an act, the wanton taking of innocent lives, often at random, could only be committed by a psychologically unstable person.

While the answer to Why is sometimes never answered, in each of these mass killings the answer to How is unambiguous: a gun. Oftentimes, an AR-15 assault weapon specifically, as was the case at Stoneman Douglass, Sutherland Springs, Pulse Nightclub, Sandy Hook, and dozens of other incidents we know simply from their two-word monikers. Without this mechanism of mass killing, many of these incidents never would have happened. At the very least, the casualties would have been significantly reduced. Mass killings committed with knives or any other weapon besides guns are incredibly rare and dramatically more limited in scope. The single variable that transforms acts of rage into mass slaughters is the presence of a gun. And the United States, uniquely among first-world nations, enables and abets these acts of violence.

I am not advocating for a full-scale ban on gun ownership. The political impracticalities of that aside, I believe in the Second Amendment. But the fundamental question we need to ask as a society is: Is it easier to anticipate an unstable individual becoming homicidal with a gun, or to prevent an unstable individual from obtaining a gun in the first place? I’m going with the latter. We need better gun laws to regulate gun ownership, and, hopefully, prevent unstable individuals from ever obtaining guns.

Unfortunately, like most topics of political debate in our country, this one has been completely hijacked by the extreme ends of the political spectrum. I truly believe, if centrist Republicans and centrist Democrats could come together, without fear of recrimination from their constituents or opponents, we could craft reasonable gun legislation that a super-majority of Americans, gun owners and not, would support. But such a centrist compromise feels like a pipe dream. In a country in which elections are routinely decided 49.9% to 50.1%, any so-called “wedge issue” that will activate a segment of the population, whether it’s gun control or abortion rights, is exploited and amplified.

Of course, the first step toward a solution is acknowledging the problem. Which the most ardent gun supporters refuse to concede, instead cynically proposing that the only way to stop bad guys with guns is “good guys with guns” as if we live in some romanticized Wild West of the 1800s. In the aftermath of two tragic shootings in his state, Glenn Youngkin, the Republican Governor of Virginia, said, “Heinous acts of violence have no place in our communities.” Yah think?!? Is that his big concession? If this is the most Youngkin can offer in empathy or action, it’s hard to believe he isn’t just waiting for the dust to settle. Indeed, his unambiguous position on guns is, “I will not sign any legislation that has anything to do with imposing limitations on our Second Amendment.”

I recently visited Arizona, a state with some of the loosest gun laws in the country, despite the fact one of their U.S. Representatives, Gabby Giffords, survived a bullet through her head as part of a mass shooting. In a mere 48 hours in the state, I witnessed two individuals openly carrying holstered firearms—including this elderly gentleman in the lobby of my hotel. No doubt, more were carrying concealed weapons since Arizona allows residents to purchase, own, and transport, concealed or not, firearms on their person without any type of permit or license. That is crazy. We require licenses for cars, boats, even fishing for God’s sake, but not for owning or carrying a deadly weapon? By far, the person I’m most afraid of is not a “bad guy with a gun” but this octogenarian wannabe Wyatt Earp with a bum hip and a walking cane open firing. This guy is probably not allowed to drive a car, but he can swing a gun around the lobby of the DoubleTree?

Gun violence is the shame of our nation. There is one party demanding change, and another party obstructing it. It’s long past time to go beyond empty “thoughts and prayers” platitudes. If you really believe that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” then please propose some legislation, anything, that would make it harder for those “bad people” to obtain a gun. Funding for mental health, a national registry, longer waiting periods, red flag laws, anything.

Anything.

The nation is waiting.

Bad People with Guns