The fragility of life is rarely more realized than in the moments surrounding a natural disaster. In the normalcy of daily routines, we all can fall numb to the potential dangers present in our world. To stay vigilant would be exhausting, so we avoid considering them until the signs of something terrible approaching are too obvious to ignore.

Some people handle the burden of watching by making it their occupation. They look for the signs and share it with the rest of the population, hoping to avert disaster. The general public then takes those findings into consideration and changes or adapts to handle the oncoming issue. This has helped humanity overcome hardship and avert disaster throughout its more recent history, sparing the lives of millions and allowing for greater progress and stability in many countries.

I remember hearing the criticism of Houston’s city planning when the hurricane flooded many city streets: how the draining system was not prepared, how the homes were not built at an appropriate height from the street, and how the systems to mitigate flooding weren’t maintained well in advance of the storm. In the aftermath, people expected efforts to be made to prevent future disaster. Homes were built taller and flood plains were given better consideration. There was a measure of learned helplessness in the reaction, though: too much of the city infrastructure was already built to change it to adapt to the new information and experience gained from the flooding. Only a limited reaction could be produced as a response to the flooding, but those actions were taken. It wasn’t a question; people wanted to never let this happen again, but their options were restricted because of the cost to change the existing infrastructure.

Now consider the way that we react countrywide to school shootings. Little is set in stone — or concrete, if one were to compare the laws and systems around gun use in the United States to the infrastructure of Houston. We can adapt to new information and new experiences and learn from them to make a better system for our children. Yet in each instance, we instead react as if there are fewer options available to us than what Houstonians were presented. Incredibly, many actually suggest adding additional guns into the situation, as if adding more water to a flood would help prevent flooding.

New technology and methods are regularly introduced to communities to better handle future weather and flooding events, to forecast the danger, and how to respond to it. Gun safety, on the contrary, seems to be a completely preventable man-made issue. Clear signs of its dangerous elements are evident through existing data and methods to prevent it are already in law around the world. What is it about so many of our political leaders that they would seek to cause harm to their constituents, and why do those constituents ignore their contradictory behavior? Is it not in their best interest to look to the helpers, hear their cries, and adapt to avoid the danger? Isn’t living enough of a danger in itself? Why add to our problems by encouraging further harm to us and our children?