Again, the United States has been struck by a tragic event of a mass shooting, the most terrible and deadliest gun violence the nation has ever seen. Again, America's gun laws and gun control regulations are being called into question. Do citizens really need access to guns? Is it ever beneficial for the common individual to hold a firearm? What about having more restrictive access to guns? These are only some of the many concerns being voiced.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has grown tired and frustrated over hearing repeated news stories about mass shootings and the number of small scale gun violence happening around the country. How many more lives needed to be sacrificed before the right measure is taken regarding these weapons? Why can't we come to a consensus on a policy that ensures the safety of the people from those who wish to abuse the rights of the second amendment (for wasn't the amendment's goal to protect and not harm)? Sure, there have been instances where a gun has been used to protect the people and save lives, but it's occurrences are heavily outweighed by instances where guns have done nothing but hurt.

On the other side, gun advocates have shown how according to statistical surveys, rates of gun crimes in the United States has dropped since the 1990s. While this can be seen as a way to support the current gun laws, it doesn't mean, and in light of the current shootings, most certainly did not mean that gun violence will not happen or that if it did, it need not be massive. It's good that the rates are dropping, but it also has to be seen what can be done to make those rates go lower. For instance, assault weapons or guns with a higher potential for lethality can be highly restricted or even banned. Or, have mandatory training requirements for gun-holders that give insight into how to save oneself and others in light of a crime involving weapons.

Also, if people are to have access to guns, what does that imply about our the government officials responsible for our safety (ex. police force)? I understand there are times where having a gun could be beneficial if there is no direct access to or support from public safety officials, but the idea that an average citizen should be able to carry a gun seems too much if we already have an extensive team of professionals who have been trained in using weapons and are in charge for keeping the people safe. Therefore, shouldn't the question of how to make our public safety units stronger also be asked?

Nevertheless, it doesn't matter if the questions asked are not addressed properly. It doesn't matter which side (pro-gun, anti-gun or guns with heavy regulations) you choose if more lives are kept being taken unnecessarily. Gun crime is a crime and until that crime rate drops to near zero (and why not have it drop it to zero?), guns will have to be controlled and the issue regarding them addressed in some way or another such that these mass shootings and any shootings for that matter never happen.