It seems like a frequently recurring event these days -- another mass shooting took place yesterday evening March 9, 2016, around 11 p.m. According to Stephan Zappala, the district attorney for Alleghany County said, "the two gunmen killed six family members at the home in WIlkinsburg, including a woman who was eight months pregnant." He considered it a "ambush style killing... planned, calculated and brutal." The attackers escaped on foot, and are still on the run as of today. Zappala also stated in an interview with CNN that "this was the most brutal attack he's seen in 18 years as a DA, they weren't shooting randomly... they were all head shots."

Of the six dead three were siblings: Chantetta Powell, who was pregnant, Brittany Powell, and Jerry Shelton. The other two who lost their lives were cousins Shada Mahone and Tina Shelton.

While looking through different news sites covering the continuing story, I found two that had different listings on what weapons were used and how everything took place. CNN says 48 shell casings were discovered at the scene, but the big spot of controversy I believe comes in when they discuss the weapons and methods.

Doug Stanglin and Carolyn McAtee Cerbin report that "gunmen barged into the party and began firing... approached from the alley with a .40-caliber handgun, and that the gunmen might have known and had one or two intended targets."

Faith Karimi says that "gunfire erupted from an alley... men and women fled towards the porch, where another attacker was waiting with an 'AK-47 type weapon." Even though there's no indication, authorities believe drugs were definitely involved.

Those two short articles I feel can spin the story in 100 different ways, and it's unfortunate that has to happen that way rather than trying to pull information and put out something that is at least somewhat solidified. Yes, I know that's the point of news, and everyone has their own ways of putting out information so it reaches their viewers. But the simple missing or adding of information can be a huge difference. With the AK-47 being in play, it will cause those who are anti-gun to continue to push for stricter laws or outlaw them completely.

Regardless of the fact of where you stand when it comes to the Second Amendment, we can all agree that something does need to be done overall. I believe that you have the right to own a gun, but you have to be able to prove that you can handle that responsibility both mentally and emotionally when it's given to you. If you can't, then you shouldn't be granted the permission to own a gun.

If we ban guns, and get rid of our second amendment -- my argumentation professor would hate me for using this slippery slope fallacy -- where would we draw the line on other things to be banned, or removed as well? If we did it with one, why not free-speech, or our right to travel? What we need is a way to prevent those who are going to commit these crimes from committing them, whatever they may be.