America has already been divided for years because of political affiliation, and in politics’ latest form of action, it has made another issue in America become defined by who you vote for: gun control.

The recent school shooting has brought to light once again the fact that one side argues that guns need to be regulated better, generally the left side (democrats), while the other side, generally the right side (republicans), argue that the people who commit the shooting are the problem.

What both sides do not realize is that by arguing their respective sides, they are ignorant to other aspects and basic facts that SHOULD be defining this problem in the country.

Let us just start with those who argue that the shooters are the problem: they would be right.

The shooters are the problem, if they have a mental illness or are, the word everyone loves to throw around, “troubled,” then yes theoretically that can be the reason they feel the need to shoot others and then yes they are the problem.

The other part is that people are possibly making excuses for these shooters by throwing around the troubled tag.

If it is proven that they are diagnosed with a mental condition, then yes it is more fair to say that is why they did it. But some people just cannot control their rage, which would also mean they, the shooter, are still at fault.

When I play sports and video games, I curse or want to throw my controller or yell or whatever else. Yes, it is a stretch, but some people may not be able to control their rage well, and if they have a bad memory at their school, it is plausible that they go take it out on the school.

So yes, those who argue that the shooter is the problem is right, but they are ignoring the fact that people can get guns almost if not more easily than cigarettes or alcohol.

There is no argument that could ever justify the need for households to have an AR-15 at the ready. A pistol with a few rounds, I would argue, is enough. And just for a disclaimer, I have never shot nor owned a gun, so yes I do not have the most educated opinion on that statement.

But logically thinking, there is no need for a rifle in your house. Unless the country is about to implement the purge, but I do not think that is the case.

On the flip side, the other side tells this side that the guns are the problem, and they are also right.

Like I said, guns are everywhere. I recall years ago when the argument used to be that these weapons were used/needed for hunting, which is ridiculous.

I have never hunted, so again I am not the most educated on the subject, but if a bow and arrow can kill a deer, what other weapon do you actually need?

But this side does not go without their flaw as well. They ignore the fact that the shooter is in fact part of the problem. Just because these assault weapons are everywhere does not give these people the right to use them.

Those who argue this side basically say that, “We don’t care if the shooter actually did the shooting, it’s everyone else’s fault that the gun was there for him.” The person still chose to shoot it at people.

The gun argument comes down to two simple things: fear and politics.

People on the generally right or republican side are scared to admit that they need to regulate guns because they will lose a big supporter in the NRA. Those on the generally left or democrat side are scared to admit that people are just naturally cruel and full of rage.

So what will stop the problem? How does one solve any problem?

Step one: admit there is a problem. Step two: go to the source.

Both sides will not admit that what they are defending is a problem, and no one is going to the source: gun availability.

How do we regulate guns? I do not know, maybe impose restrictions on gun manufacturers and make laws against gun shops selling assault weapons. I am just a kid in college, not a politician.

But I can see the bigger picture. The other source that no one talks about is if these kids are supposedly troubled, why are we not doing anything?

The latest school shooter was reported to the FBI about being possibly dangerous, a tip FBI Director Christopher Wray acknowledged the FBI failed to act on according to a USA Today story published Feb. 19.

Why are we not looking at how the parents of these shooters are raising them? Or why the parents have an assault weapon easily available for their supposedly mental children (if the kid did not go and buy it themselves).

And what happened to the anti-bully movement? Why are we not looking at if these shooters were bullied and if they were, why maybe nothing was done to help them feel better and stop the bullying.

To make a simple conclusion, there are no sides to this argument. Guns and people are the problem. And if anything, those who pick sides are the problem.

Because until people admit the things they do not want to, they will never see the big picture.

If we really want an end to these shootings, then maybe we need to take the politics out of it.

Stop picking a side based on who you vote for or believe in.

Seventeen kids died from a person who had easy access to an assault weapon. Both sides are right, now actually make a change.

Dillan Schorfheide is a junior journalism major. He can be reached at 581-2812 or dtshorfheide@eiu.edu.