On February 14, 2018, 17 people were shot and killed in Parkland Florida, since then students and parents have elevated the exchange between the people and our legislators on the issues surrounding gun violence.

Now more than ever the issues surrounding gun regulations are being debated heatedly. One of the reasons for this is the involvement of students that have entered the debate to try to push through the stalemate between the two sides involved in the issue. According to Joe Heim, Melissa J. Lang, and Susan Svrluga, of the Washington Post, “tens of thousands of students walked out of classes” on March 14, to honor those 17 students who lost their lives. Protests have “not seen in size and scope since student protests of the Vietnam War in the late 1960’s.” Supporters of the cause have explained that “the walkouts and demonstrations represent a realization of power and influence by young people raised on social media who have come of age in an era of never-ending wars, highly publicized mass shootings and virulent national politics.”

After seeing the reaction from people about the school shooting in Florida, lawmakers and the public have been communicating more and more about how to move forward. Donald Trump has even broken from his party when talking about the issue. According to CNN, he said, "Take the guns first, go through due process second.” Opinions vary largely throughout all political parties.

The issue that most people are saying yes to is what has been called ‘common sense gun control.’ This form of gun regulations would mean stricter background checks and license requirements to be able to buy a gun, and stricter screening for mentally ill or former felons. This would also make buying semi-automatic rifles and bump stocks, which are devices that turn non-automatic weapons into weapons with much higher firing rates, illegal. A less popular point of common sense gun control is stopping gun shows, which in some states, makes it possible to buy guns without the full amount documentation one would need at a gun retailer.

One of the reasons that so many people are fighting to keep gun laws the way they are now is because gun owners are protected under the second amendment to the constitution. The amendment states, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Those in support of the conservative approach to gun regulations claim that gun ownership is an American tradition, older than the government itself, and should, therefore, be protected.

Those looking for reform have stated that even at the time that the amendment was written there were still laws about who could own guns and who could not. English monarchies, when they were still in control of American colonies, banned nonwhite-protestants from owning guns. These regulations were also seen in America. So the argument here is that even before 1929 when the first true gun law was made, gun regulations had already been in place.

In the 2008 Supreme Court case, District of Columbia v. Heller, a statement made by Justice Antonin Scalia, LLB, said “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." The Supreme Court ruling stops limiting people who are not soldiers from owning a gun, but it also takes away the right to own a weapon associated with warfare.

With the rise of "stand your ground" laws in states, giving individuals wide-ranging protection from prosecution in the event of a shooting in alleged self-defense. In theory, the stand your ground laws should only protect those who are truly being threatened for their lives. It is not supposed to protect people who own guns and use them while making unsubstantiated claims of self-defense as happened in the case of Daniel Adkins, who was shot in Laveen, Arizona at the drive-through of his local Taco Bell. He was shot while walking his dog after getting into a confrontation with a man in an SUV. With the mental capacity of a thirteen-year-old child, the 29-year-old man was killed because the other man felt threatened. Daniel’s family says that he was not a threatening person and didn’t deserve to die. (CNN)

Unfortunately, the claim of self-defense is all too common with shootings, and often the shooter remains out of jail. After the Sandy Hook Massacre, the NRA and many of its supporters have argued that ‘the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.” The idea stems from the belief that if more good guys own and carry weapons then when a bad guy tries to attack then they will be stopped faster. The theory does sound plausible. If one man tries to attack a school or workplace and a teacher or co-worker pulls a weapon and shoots him, then the attack is over with minor casualties. Right? Unfortunately, it is not that simple. Most of the ‘good guys’ with guns are not trained in how to properly own and carry a weapon. This idea of killing a killer also fails to take into account the difficulty of taking another human’s life, regardless of how bad that person may be. Soldiers in battle and police officers spend hours in training before they even become officers, and then practice for hours on end to maintain their skill level. Even then, soldiers who are forced to take another human’s life in combat or cops who have to kill a criminal often come out of the ordeal different, as it is a traumatic event. The ability to immediately take action when a mass shooting is occurring does not come from a few trips to the gun range on the weekends or after work. It comes from “hours of monotonous training”(NBC NEWS).

The general consensus in today’s society is that we need more common sense when it comes to gun regulations. The problem is that common sense does not have a formal definition. Everyone has their own sense of what is right and what is wrong. New legislation has not been made in a while that significantly impacts gun laws. This is because both sides of the debate have been at a stalemate for so long, and it is not clear whether or not either side will make progress anytime soon.

What is clear is that more people’s voices are being heard and change will eventually come, for which side is unknown.