OXFORD TOWNSHIP, Mich. -- Michiganders are mourning the loss of four students after this week's school shooting at Oxford High School, and advocates say measures to tackle the epidemic of gun violence are long overdue.

The Oakland County prosecutor announced Wednesday the accused gunman, a 15-year-old student, will be charged with first-degree murder and terrorism. In addition to the deaths of Tate Myre, Hana St. Juliana, Madisyn Baldwin and Justin Shilling, seven others were injured.

Rev. Dr. Sid Mohn, director of faith relationships and strategy for Interfaith Action of Southwest Michigan, noted firearm deaths are the leading cause of death for adolescents.

"We cannot allow ourselves to be numbed to gun-based violence," Mohn insisted. "And we need to respond with more than prayers and thoughts but with actions."

Mohn added in Lansing, there have been numerous legislative proposals around stopping gun violence, from investing in education and prevention programs to incentivizing security measures to keep guns away from kids and teens, but they have stalled due to a lack of bipartisan interest.

Brenden Snyder, executive director of the nonprofit Action Detroit, said significant public investments in people are needed, and not just increased policing. He argued it is necessary to address the root causes of gun violence and improve education, mental-health treatment and community-based supports for young people.

"We have to be thinking about expanding access to trained professionals," Snyder recommended. "Who can make sure the students, their cares and concerns are being met, and being met with compassion. "

Snyder added this week's tragedy is an example of how gun violence touches every community. Not only does it happen in cities like Detroit but also in suburban communities such as Oxford Township. This was the 29th school shooting in the U.S. this year, according to Education Week.

More than 200 Black Hoosiers lost their lives to homicide in 2019, and a new report reveals the state has one of the highest overall rates of Black homicide victims in the nation.

Based on federal crime data, the study found the 2019 Black homicide victimization rate in Indiana was nearly 29 homicides per 100,000 Black residents, which is the country's third-highest rate.

Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, which issued the report, said most of the states with high rankings share a common thread.

"They have limited gun violence prevention laws in the state itself, and often rely solely, or nearly solely, on federal standards," Sugarmann explained. "This is the case with Indiana, which has virtually no controls beyond the federal statutes."

The study only includes data up to 2019, the most recent year such federal crime statistics are available. The raw data is supplied to the federal government by local law enforcement agencies. And while the report's authors pointed out the study includes the most accurate information available, they added its findings are "limited by the quantity and degree of detail in the information submitted."

Nearly 90% of Black Hoosiers who died by homicide in 2019 were killed with a firearm.

Sugarmann argued the best way to address the issue is by implementing a range of gun control policies. It might be a tough pitch in the GOP-controlled General Assembly, but such proposals could find traction in local communities across the state.

However, as Sugarmann acknowledged, local officials are not allowed to pass gun laws stricter than the state-level standards.

"Now, when you have virtually no state standards, that leaves those communities with no options to basically empower them to address the issues on a local level," Sugarmann stated. "I think that could be a very important first step in addressing this level of violence in Indiana."

The report is part of an ongoing series from the Violence Policy Center, examining Black homicide data both at the state and national level. Sugarmann noted the FBI recently changed its crime-reporting protocols, which could reduce the amount of available data for future reports and limit research into gun violence.

The U.S. is trying to cope with another mass shooting after several people were killed at a holiday parade in Illinois this week. In Iowa, mental-health advocates want to stress the need for the public debate to avoid common misconceptions.

The recent wave of mass shootings has renewed calls for stricter gun laws, while opponents of that approach often focus on mental-health concerns.

Peggy Hubbert is the executive director of the Iowa chapter of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, or NAMI. She said people who consistently tie mental health to mass shootings are obscuring the facts.

"People with serious mental illness," said Hubbert, "are much more likely to be the victim of violence than to be the perpetrators of it."

The motive behind Monday's shooting hasn't been fully established. But Huppert said common themes from past attacks - such as racism - aren't mental illnesses with a simple diagnosis.

NAMI says while support for more mental-health treatment is welcome, it shouldn't get in the way of common-sense reforms that promote gun safety.

Huppert also said she sees a mental health component that she said should get more attention - that these attacks create the potential for survivors, community members and the public at large to deal with trauma afterwards.

"When you enter a movie theatre, or grocery store or a church," said Hubbert, "you immediately scan to see where the exits are. And kids are thinking the same thing, because they're having active shooter drills in school."

As for added mental-health support, Huppert said there have been examples of improvements, including programs on college campuses. But she acknowledged that provider shortages in states like Iowa.

Congress recently approved the Safer Communities Act, which includes some bipartisan gun-control measures, along with mental-health funding. However, some advocates say the plan needs tougher provisions on gun regulation.

The U.S. Supreme Court took a step to limit states' abilities to pass gun-control legislation Tuesday, a move which likely will not directly impact Indiana's gun policies.

The decision struck down a century-old New York law requiring people to demonstrate a self-defense need when applying for a concealed-carry permit. Legal scholars say the decision will have ripple effects on gun-control policies nationwide.

Pierre Atlas, senior lecturer in the Paul H. O'Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs at IUPUI, said Hoosiers are unlikely to directly feel those effects.

"I would say, though, that the logic of the ruling, and what they say about the Second Amendment in general, could have an effect in Indiana in terms of any other current gun laws or any gun laws that might be put on the books in the future," Atlas emphasized.

Atlas pointed out the court's ruling essentially reinforces Indiana's approach to gun permitting and gun control. Indiana's current policies are known as "shall-issue" laws, where the burden of proof to deny a gun license is on the state. New York's now-defunct law was a "may-issue" policy, which shifts the burden onto the citizen to prove they need the firearm.

For as many gun-control doors as it closes, Atlas argued the court's majority decision also opens a few paths. Penned by conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, the decision noted there were laws in the mid-19th century dictating "individuals could not carry deadly weapons in a manner likely to terrorize others."

"Imagine today maybe somebody coming up with a law saying you're not allowed to carry a firearm openly in a way that terrorizes others," Atlas posed. "That might be used perhaps to reduce open-carry of AR-15s, which you could say could be used to terrorize others."

Indiana is poised to enact a new law Friday to eliminate the need for a handgun permit, which Atlas observed will trade out the state's current "shall-issue" approach to handguns for an even looser gun control policy.

The law has been criticized by law enforcement and gun-safety groups, who contended it removes an important safety barrier to keep firearms away from people who shouldn't have them.