On Sunday, Nov. 5, a crazed gunman claimed the lives of 26 people in yet another tragic mass shooting. Fingers are already being pointed in many directions, chief among which is gun control. But is firearm legislation really the cause, or just an unfortunate scapegoat?

Devin Patrick Kelley opened fire on the congregation of the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, following domestic disputes with his mother-in-law. He took the lives of several people before fleeing in his vehicle and dying of wounds both sustained and self-inflicted. However, there is something that stands out about this shooting: someone else had a gun.

When Stephen Willeford heard gunshots across the street, he grabbed his own rifle and ran to stop the shooter. He engaged Kelley from the street, inflicting several wounds and causing him to flee the scene of the crime. Willeford then flagged down a driver at a nearby intersection and a chase ensued, culminating in Kelley losing control of his vehicle.

This incident speaks to the illegitimacy of harsh gun control in America. Willeford was able to take the actions that he did because he owned a firearm. Had he not possessed the means to fight back against the shooter, the lives of many more innocent people, both civilians and law enforcement alike, would have remained at risk. So knowing this, why would we want to disarm the civilian populous?

Some people would say this shooting is the exact reason we should disarm the civilian populous, arguing that “this man shouldn’t have been allowed to own a gun.” However,with this claim, people would be agreeing with the current standards of vetting carried out by establishments that sell firearms. In this case, those standards failed due to an oversight by the United States Air Force.

Kelley was court-martialed and dismissed from the Air Force for domestic assault around 2014. However, contrary to standard procedure, the records of his criminal actions were not entered into the National Criminal Information Center database. Had the Air Force done this, Kelley would not have been able to purchase a firearm.

However, even if Kelley were unable to purchase a firearm legally, he would have simply obtained one illegally. There are a multitude of black market firearms dealers, many of which operate on the deep web, placing purchasing an illegal weapon a few mouse clicks away. Therein lies the main flaw with gun control: if you outlaw guns, only the outlaws have guns.

But if harsh restrictions on firearms isn’t the answer, what is? There is an entirely different issue among these massacres that seems to be pushed to the back-burner. A common trait shared by the vast majority of mass shooters: mental health issues.

The current system for dealing with mental health in America is heavily flawed. As the situation stands, if someone is considered a threat to themselves or others, they are deemed an emergency patient, and can be confined in a hospital or mental institution for 15 days, 30 with court mandate. After 30 days have passed, if the patient no longer wishes to receive care, they are free to leave, regardless of their level of improvement.

This system does little to nothing in terms of prevention of violent incidents. Granting mentally unstable patients the ability to refuse treatment after a mere 30 days at the very most is a highly irresponsible and unsafe practice, and enables such shootings as this to occur.

Kelley had even been previously admitted to a mental health institution following an incident in which he snuck firearms into the Air Force base from which he was discharged and attempted to threaten his superior officers with them. His particular situation highlights the crippled state of the current American mental health system, as even subsequent to his illegal escape and arrest, culminating in his return to the facility, Kelley was released after the allotted time had passed.

If the end goal is to stymie the flow of violent tragedies in America, actions should be taken to mend the current broken system. Instead of releasing patients after a brief mandatory holding period, aid programs should be put in place. People should be encouraged to seek the help they need, instead of being stigmatized as those with mental health issues so often are. Had Kelley received the help he needed, his heinous act may have been prevented. However, firearms did not incite him to violence, and blaming them distracts from the true issue.

Devin Patrick Kelley was a violent, unstable man who carried out a terrible deed, which resulted in the tragic deaths of many innocent people. However, the damage he inflicted could have been much greater, if it wasn’t for a man with a gun.