Political wisdom of history would tell that the intersection of personal experience and political ideology often shapes public policy stances. In India and the entire Buddhist world, the story goes that Ashoka, The Great, the Maurya emperor ruling from southern Bihar over an empire spread up to Afghanistan, was so overwhelmed with the killings in the Kaligna war that he renounced violence, not just war as an instrument of politics. But US President Donald Trump is different.

Few modern political figures embody paradoxes as starkly as Trump, his critics would say. Despite surviving two assassination attempts in 2024 and witnessing recurrent
mass shootings — including the April 17 incident at Florida State University that left two dead and six injured — Trump didn’t deter from his advocacy for expansive gun rights.  

The tension between Trump’s lived encounters with firearm violence and his unwavering support for the Second Amendment, contextualised within broader debates over gun control, political rhetoric, and public safety, remains uncomfortably calm in the US.

The man, not the gun

A 20-year-old Florida State University student, Phoenix Ikner, opened fire in the Student Union Building, killing two individuals and injuring six others, including himself on Thursday. This happened against a backdrop of heightened political tension over gun legislation, with Trump recently reaffirming his alliance with the National Rifle Association (NRA) and urging gun owners to mobilise for the 2024 election.  

Ikner, described as a white supremacist with far-right leanings, legally obtained firearms through his mother, a Leon County Sheriff’s Office deputy. The incident reignited debates about access to firearms, particularly among individuals with extremist ideologies, and the efficacy of background checks—a system Trump has historically criticised as overly restrictive.

The university cancelled classes and events for two days, while law enforcement agencies statewide increased patrols. Survivors and victims’ families joined calls for legislative action, but Trump’s response emphasised mental health rather than gun control, echoing his long-standing argument that “guns don’t kill people; people kill people”. This framing aligns with his post-Parkland shooting rhetoric, where he initially advocated for stronger background checks before backtracking under pressure from the NRA.

A policy shift that never happened

Trump survived two attempts on his life during the 2024 election campaign at Butler and West Palm Beach. Trump’s first brush with assassination occurred on July 13, 2024, during a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, when Thomas Matthew Crooks fired shots that injured Trump’s ear and killed a bystander.  

The second attempt followed on September 15, 2024, at Trump’s West Palm Beach golf club, where Ryan Wesley Routh allegedly planned an attack but was neutralised by Secret Service agents before firing. These events thrust Trump into the rare position of being both a victim of gun violence and a champion of firearm deregulation.

Rather than moderating his stance, Trump leveraged the attempts to bolster his pro-gun narrative. In a speech days after the West Palm Beach incident, he argued that armed citizens could deter such attacks, saying, “If one patriot in that crowd had been carrying, Crooks would’ve been stopped before he pulled the trigger.”

This rhetoric mirrors his 2016 claim that an armed civilian could have mitigated the Pulse nightclub shooting — a claim debunked by the presence of an armed security guard who engaged the shooter.

The thought that Trump would at least tone down his love for guns and temper with his absolute advocacy of gun rights turned out to be mere wish of those fighting a different kind of war against the powerful gun lobby.

Trump actually exploited his survival for his political revival

Trump’s survival reinforced his self-image as a “fighter” for constitutional rights. At the National Rifle Association’s (NRA’s) 2024 annual meeting, he framed his endurance as proof of resilience against “radical leftists who want to disarm America”.  

His campaign launched the “Gun Owners for Trump” coalition, targeting voters who perceive firearm ownership as a bulwark against government overreach. This strategy capitalised on a key demographic: conservative gun owners who used to vote disproportionately in Republican primaries but historically exhibit lower general election turnout. Things changed by November 2024. Democrat voters sat out and Republicans overwhelmed polling centres, recent data analysis suggests.

A long-lasting affair that is unlikely to end

Trump’s relationship with gun legislation has been marked by volatility. After the 2018 Parkland shooting, which killed 17, he initially pledged to strengthen background checks and raise the minimum age for firearm purchases.  

However, faced with NRA opposition, he abandoned these proposals, later dismissing them as “unworkable” without Republican support. This reversal underscored the NRA’s enduring influence over his administration, despite the organisation’s legal troubles and declining membership.

By 2024, Trump’s platform explicitly prioritised dismantling gun control measures. He vowed to revoke the Biden administration’s rule closing the “gun show loophole,” which allows unlicensed dealers to sell firearms without background checks.  

At the same time, he accused President Biden of seeking to “confiscate weapons” and erode Second Amendment rights — a claim contradicted by Biden’s focus on regulating assault weapons and expanding red-flag laws.

Trump’s 2024 rhetoric also reintroduced the disputed statistic that “98% of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones,” a figure FactCheck.org traced to a flawed 2014 study that conflated non-public spaces with legally designated zones.  

By reviving this talking point, Trump sought to justify proposals to arm teachers and expand concealed carry permits, despite evidence that increased firearm availability correlates with higher rates of accidental shootings and escalations in violence.

Trump versus Biden over guns through elections, administrations

Gun control was one of the key policy differences between Trump and his successor-predecessor Joe Biden. The Biden administration established the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, chaired by Vice President Kamala Harris, to coordinate federal responses to firearm-related deaths.  

Key initiatives included universal background checks, a federal red-flag law, and a ban on assault weapons — a policy gaining traction even among moderate Democrats. Harris emphasised that firearm-related injuries have overtaken car accidents as the leading cause of death for American children, a statistic she attributed to lax gun laws. Trump was against the idea of controlling gun rights.

Trump put forward his counterarguments and mobilised a vocal, not necessarily larger, base. His rebuttals hinged on cultural and constitutional appeals. He framed gun ownership as a patriotic duty and warned that Democratic policies would leave citizens vulnerable to crime and tyranny.  

This view of Trump draws support from incidents such as the one that happened in Belize, where a man attempted to hijack a flight with a knife, and was shot down by a passenger. To many across the world, it would come as a surprise that a passenger was travelling with a gun on his person. Fortunately for Trump supporters, he shot the hijacker and saved many lives. But this appears more as a security check failure than a comment on the merits of the US’s gun policy.

This message resonates with rural and suburban voters who view firearms as tools for self-defence and symbols of individual liberty. Trump’s alliance with the NRA, which endorsed him in 2024 despite its diminished political capital, reinforces this narrative.

However, critics note the inconsistency in Trump’s logic: while he credits armed bystanders with preventing violence, his own survival relied on Secret Service intervention rather than civilian action. Moreover, his dismissal of gun control measures after mass shootings — including the latest Florida incident — ignores research linking firearm accessibility to higher homicide rates.

Guns in trigger-happy hands with radicalised minds

The Florida State shooter, Phoenix Ikner, exemplifies the risks of coupling extremist ideologies with easy access to firearms. Many on Trump’s side of polity are guided by white supremacist beliefs.  

Advocacy for Trump’s agenda also highlights how political rhetoric can radicalise individuals, particularly in online echo chambers. Trump’s reluctance to condemn far-right groups, combined with his opposition to measures restricting firearm sales to extremists, creates a policy vacuum that critics argue enables such violence.

Trump’s repeated use of debunked statistics — such as the “gun-free zones” claim — has muddied public understanding of gun violence. By conflating correlation with causation, he shifts focus from legislative solutions to speculative scenarios involving armed civilians. This approach not only polarises debates but also diverts attention from evidence-based strategies, such as safe storage laws and mandatory waiting periods.

Trump and guns: It’s a paradox of survival and ideology

Donald Trump’s unwavering defence of gun rights, despite surviving assassination attempts and presiding over a nation plagued by mass shootings, underscores a broader political belief system. Trump’s ideological commitment to the Second Amendment comes as a non-negotiable pillar of American freedom.  

His rhetoric, which frames firearm ownership as a remedy to violence rather than a contributor, appeals to a base that views gun control as government overreach. This political campaign goes on despite this stance increasingly clashing with public safety concerns, particularly as high-profile shootings expose flaws in current firearm regulations.

But then the 2024 election has solidified Trump’s position as the standard-bearer for gun rights advocates. It has also intensified scrutiny of his policy contradictions. The United States grapples with high firearm mortality rates — about 47,000 deaths in 2023, declining through Biden years, at the rate of 13.7 per 100,000 people,
according to Pew Research.  

With Trump staying strong in his second presidency, the tension of political philosophy between individual liberties and collective security remains unresolved as it is a tension embodied by a leader who has both endured and played down the consequences of gun violence.