With a gap between the American political parties widening by the day and gridlock at an all-time high, it comes as no surprise that our leaders are firmly divided on perhaps the most hot-button issue facing our country today. I am talking of course, about gun control. In the wake of the mass shooting at Orlando, both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton made statements and given the track record of both candidates, they are worlds apart on the issue. Considering the slow process that has been made by the Obama administration in an effort to extend gun control laws, it is fair to say the next substantial legislation will come under the next President. However, the debate over gun control can only be settled if all Americans get on the same page for minor reforms.

The biggest mistake Hillary Clinton and many other democrats make is that they preach a narrative that if gun control is extended, violent crimes will go away. On the other side of the coin, the biggest mistake republicans make is preaching that the system is fine the way it is despite the frequency of mass shootings, or some members even going so far as to say we need more guns. Democrats seem to think that if guns go away, violence will go away too. Republicans think more guns means less violence. Whether we need stricter gun control laws or more “good guys with guns” is irrelevant. What is relevant is that there is an inescapable reality that Americans both Republican and Democrat do not want to admit. That reality is that there is nothing that can be done to stop senseless killings, gun violence, or terror attacks.

If we as a nation or a people for that matter expect to move forward, then we must accept the cold hard truth that no matter what law we pass, executive order we enact, or president we elect, we cannot stop a shooting at an office party in San Bernadino, or a nightclub in Orlando, or a 1^st grade class room in Sandy Hook. There will always be senseless violence in the world, it’s just a fact. Whether right wing conservatives want to blame mental illness or radical Islamic terrorism, which to be fair is an honest point to the motivation of those aforementioned attacks, what matters is that those people should have never had guns. They shout “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people!” which is true, but don’t you want to take real measures to make sure that those people don’t get guns?

This is not to say that the left has got this all figured out. In fact, the democrats seem to have the least coherent and least logical arguments of all in this debate. After the Orlando shooting many liberals were quick to defend Muslims warning that we should not discriminate against an entire group of people for the actions of a few extremists. In fairness the argument is valid, but democrats rarely apply the same argument elsewhere when it comes to other types of gun violence. I don’t remember seeing a “Don’t rush to a judgment of all based on the negative actions of some” platform after the events of Ferguson and Baltimore.

People were rioting in the streets, protesting an entire group of people (the police force), over the actions of a few members of its organization. A percentage as small as the number of Muslims who are radical Islamic terrorists. They didn’t acknowledge that these cases were extremely rare and that most police officers are respectable men and women who do their job the right way. Mayor Bill de Blasio even infamously remarked that after the events surrounding the death of Eric Garner, he talked to his mixed-race son about how to act if stopped by the police, leading to the NYPD turning their backs on him at the funeral for fallen officers Ramos and Liu months later. If only liberals had as much sympathy for law enforcement as they did for Muslims.

As for the democratic nominee, Hillary seems to be taking an even more extreme approach on gun control. In a CNN Democratic Debate with Bernie Sanders months ago, moderator Anderson Cooper questioned whether gun manufacturers should be held accountable following a mass shooting in reference to families of Sandy Hook victims planning to sue Remington, the maker of the AR-15 which was used in the Newtown Massacre and coincidentally, just this past weekend in Orlando. Clinton claimed that the gun makers must be held liable to stop gun violence. However, not only is that statement factually incoherent, it sets a dangerous precedent if enacted. First off, how can gun makers know who the gun is being sold to if they are bought by a gun store? Second, if they were held liable, what’s next? Will Sunoco be sued every time gas bought at one of their stations was used in an arson, or perhaps the company who made the lighter or match that started the fire? Will Toyota be sued every time there is a car accident?

As long as the country is firmly divided, with each side believing their solution will end all violence, there will be no progress in the debate of gun control. As Americans we must accept that violence and terror will never go away. The most deadly attack in American history, 9/11, happened without a single shot being fired. Adam Lanza shot and killed 28 people with guns that he stole. If we can understand that there is no perfect solution to this problem, then we can take steps to ensure that it will happen less frequently. Perhaps by making it harder for a mentally unstable, or radicalized terrorist to get their hands on guns.

There have been regulations before concerning the weapons a person can own (bazookas and hand grenades) that the majority of Americans have been fine with. A recent CBS News Poll stated that 89% of Americans were in favor of a federal law requiring background checks for potential gun buyers. Will a background check stop all future senseless killings? No. However, if 89% of Americans can come together on one aspect of such a heavily divisive issue, then it’s a good place to start.