Gun Regulation Post Pulse: The Local and National Conversation a Decade Later
Edited by Danielle Young
Looking Back at the Pulse Nightclub Shooting
Ten years ago, on June 12th, 2016, shortly after 2 a.m., the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Florida, was fired upon, killing 49 and wounding 58 others (Federal Bureau of Investigation). This mass shooting, orchestrated by the perpetrator, Omar Mir Seddique Mateen, was labelled an act of terrorism, the worst one since the 9/11 attacks at the time (Federal Bureau of Investigation). The Pulse Nightclub was a popular LGBTQIA+ nightclub in the Orlando area, and studies done on the affected communities suggested “LGBTQ-identified people perceived concerns related to their personal safety and the safety of their peers after the Pulse massacre” (Stults et al.). Local reports at the time described a vigil with 50,000 attendees, with mourners holding white flowers, American flags, and candles, coming together to grieve the loss as a city (The Guardian). Hearing the grievances of the American people, President Obama gave his remarks on June 16th, stating, “We are reminded not only of the need for us to implement smarter policies to prevent mass shootings, we're also reminded of what unites us as Americans, and that what unites us is far stronger than the hate and the terror of those who target us” (Obama).
Ten years later, both Florida and the U.S. are as polarized on topics regarding gun control and regulation. In light of these current debates, the impact of the Pulse Nightclub shooting can still be felt. Looking back at this past decade, it is important to analyze how this tragedy sparked conversations and legislation regarding firearms. When considering how the state of Florida and the U.S. responded, it can not only provide context on the current condition of the gun debate, but forecast what's to come down the line.
Florida’s Response Then to Now
Before the events of the Pulse Nightclub shooting, gun control was already a prevalent topic of discussion. Polling data from before the shooting demonstrated, “50% say it is more important to control gun ownership, while 47% say it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns” (Pew Research Center). At that time, the split was relatively even on both ends, about half advocating to protect gun ownership rights and about another half advocating to tighten up regulation and control. However, the same study also found that “85% of Americans – including large majorities of Democrats (88%) and Republicans (79%) – favor expanded background checks” (Pew Research Center). Both ends of the political aisle acknowledged a need to ensure those obtaining firearms were properly vetted before purchase, but disagreed on how much of a hand the government should play in the purchase of firearms beyond that.
Shortly following the attacks, the city of Orlando and those from around the state joined in honoring the lives of those lost and assisting those left harmed. The next day, “Nearly 10,000 people filled the square in downtown Orlando … Local political, law enforcement, and faith leaders joined with Latino and LGBT leaders to try to begin the healing process” (Miller Orlando). At the same time, Orlando as a community garnered support for those currently hospitalized, “which raised more than $700,000 in its first few hours from local businesses” (Miller Orlando).
These community efforts allowed the city to recover, grieve, and memorialize those lost that day, but in terms of advancing legislation related to the cause of gun control, not much came out of this incident locally. The League of Women Voters issued this statement following the incident: “The time for action is NOW... Guns kill people. That is a fact. Florida must be a leader NOW for necessary gun legislation” (Griffin). Sentiments from those within the community expressed interest in making gun regulation more comprehensive, but these sentiments were not immediately reflected in legislative action (Pallegar Law).
Since 2016, Florida has experienced additional mass shooting incidents, which led to legislative action later down the line. Following the Parkland Shooting on February 14th, 2018, “Florida Governor Rick Scott signed into law the most aggressive and sweeping gun legislation that the state has seen in years”. (Pallegar Law). Florida Senate Bill 7026, also known as the “Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act,” pushed for “prohibiting a person who has been adjudicated mentally defective or been committed to a mental institution from owning or possessing a firearm …; prohibiting a person younger than a certain age from purchasing a firearm” (The Florida Senate). This bill has served as the major policy guiding Florida’s gun legislation since its enactment.
In more recent news, a June 2026 Florida court ruling undid previous bans on 18- to 20-year-olds ' ability to carry firearms. The ruling asserted prior bans “unconstitutionally infringed upon the Second Amendment rights of young adults ages 18 to 20” (Williams). The ruling raised concerns about safety, training, and the maturity of 18-to-20-year-olds carrying firearms, though the Gainesville Police Department did not anticipate any issues following the change (Williams). The ruling reflects how Florida’s firearm policy has continued to change throughout the decade since the Pulse attack.
While initiatives controlling the distribution of firearms have been passed, so have initiatives that undo regulation and control (The Florida Senate; Williams). Those pushing against restrictions assert that more regulation poses a risk to the rights guaranteed within the Constitution (Lowery).
Nationwide Conversations on Gun Regulation
Directly following the shooting, national conversations regarding nationwide gun control policy nationwide came to the forefront. Reports in states like Montana described how, “congressional delegation is split on whether gun control is needed after Sunday’s mass shooting in Orlando, Fla.” (Lowery). Many also pointed to the shooter himself, such as Donald Trump, then presidential candidate, who criticized President Barack Obama for failing to identify “radical Islam” in his remarks to the nation, and reiterated his belief that, “if we do not get tough and smart real fast, we are not going to have a country anymore” (National Constitution Center). This highlights the nuance that gun control conversations generally delve into: questions about the extent of the prevalence of mass shootings, and whether they have more to do with the mental state of the perpetrators or the accessibility of the weapons used to commit these acts.
Disregarding points of contention, research has found areas where bipartisan consensus on gun regulation is promising. Large-scale anonymous surveys found that “Most respondents favored gun restrictions in the aftermath of the shootings (i.e., 80%, weighted, favored universal background checks; 61%, weighted, desired stricter laws covering the sale of firearms)” (Jose et al.). Even “as many as 52% of National Rifle Association (NRA) members and 75% of non-NRA members who are Republican and gun owners themselves support background checks for private gun sales” (Jose et al.). This level of support across both aisles demonstrates the lasting impacts attacks like this can have on those within these communities.
Recent legislation on regulating aspects of firearm ownership has passed, stemming from voter support and initiatives. As of 2022, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act passed, enhancing security checks for firearm purchasers under 21, fighting against illegal arms trafficking, narrowing the Boyfriend Loophole (not allowing those convicted of domestic violence to purchase firearms), and funding violence prevention initiatives (U.S. Department of Justice). These cooperative legislative initiatives, when passed, provide insights into areas of overlap both parties can agree on for the regulation of firearms.
Current Conversations and Looking Ahead
Currently, the Pulse Nightclub is still memorialized in Orlando. As of October 12th, 2026, “Orlando city commissioners approved an amended construction contract with Gomez Construction on Monday for the permanent Pulse memorial, moving the long-awaited project closer to breaking ground” (Harold). With plans to construct a permanent memorial site on the grounds of what was once a bustling nightclub, the memory of this shooting is still being felt. Over a decade later, this attack is still leaving an impact locally and nationally, sparking conversations on how American gun policy should be modified through legislation. With gun violence still being a polarizing topic of debate, the future of these discussions will only get more nuanced, but the memory of the Pulse Nightclub shooting will serve as a reminder of why these discussions are being had in the first place.