Gun control. The idea is thought about every time there is a mass shooting which is roughly every two weeks. The idea is talked about every time there is a public massacre. The difference? A mass shooting is generally thought of as an event in which four or more people are shot in a single incident, not including the gunman. The most common scenario for a mass shooting is in a domestic setting where the gunman is a family member of his or her victims.

A public massacre is often thought of as a shooting with large media attention and a high number of casualties. Events like the Aurora movie theater shooting, the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, the San Bernardino shooting, and most recently, the Orlando nightclub shooting, are generally considered massacres. Despite the differences between these two types of shootings, they do share one thing in common; both require some form of gun control in order to reduce the frequency of these crimes.

With a total of 49 deaths and countless more injured, the massacre in Orlando proved to be the deadliest shooting in U.S. history. In the wake of this tragedy, many Americans pleaded for politicians to do something -- anything, to prevent another horrible event like the Orlando shooting from happening again.

Some Americans called for stricter immigration policies to prevent terrorists from entering the United States (even though the shooter was American). Others call for a crackdown on surveillance, especially in relation to the “No-Fly list” which consists of people with suspected ties to terrorist organizations. More blame the failing mental health system in America for inadequately helping those, like many of the shooters, from receiving the proper help. The most common argument, however, is increased gun control.

Last week the Senate was introduced to four amendments to a Justice Department spending bill that would all increase gun control in some way. The First Amendment would have allowed attorney general, Loretta Lynch, to deny the sale of a gun to anyone so long as she had “reasonable belief” that the buyer was going to engage in terrorist activities.

An alternative to this amendment, aimed to stop those on the terror watch list from purchasing guns, would have allowed the attorney general to block the sale of a gun to anyone on the terror watch list that had been investigated within the past five years. Law enforcement would have initially been contacted if someone form the terror watch list attempted to buy a gun, and then the purchase would have been put on hold for three days while the court reviewed the sale.

The third amendment would have encouraged states to submit mental health records along with the background checks already in place. The final amendment would have required private sellers, such as those at gun shows and on the internet, to run background checks on potential buyers before selling their guns.

While all of these amendments seem like logical solutions to our nation’s gun issues, they all failed. Two of the amendments were proposed by Republicans, two were proposed by Democrats, and nearly all failed by margins that aligned with party divisions within the Senate. Both parties are to blame because senators from both parties vetoed these bills.

Rather than pass an amendment -- any amendment to at least make some sort of progress that could be built upon in the future, representatives from both parties decided that their pride and their potential re-election were more important than preventing another national tragedy. Not only am I disgusted, but I am also embarrassed that these people “represent” the American people. Sadly, we have experienced another tragedy and sadly we have seen no change that might prevent tragedies like the shooting in Orlando from happening in the future. While we all agree change needs to be made, we can’t agree to change.