On December 2nd, 14 people were killed and 21 others were injured at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California after two assailants opened fire during a holiday party. Husband and wife suspects Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik were later killed in a police shootout.

According to Reddit, there have been at least 355 mass shootings in the United States in 2015; more then there are calendar days in the year. This list includes the church shooting in Charleston back in June; the movie theater shooting in Lafayette, LA in July; the on-air shooting in Moneta, VA in August; the community college shooting in Oregon in October and the Planned Parenthood shooting in Colorado Springs just days before the incident in San Bernardino.

As more and more of the investigation is being uncovered and a motive for the killers of the San Bernardino shooting is still being searched, the debate of gun control continues to rumble in the United States. While some argue there should be stricter background checks in order to purchase a gun, others say mental health issues of the killers are to blame.

While I do believe there should be stricter background checks in order for someone to purchase a gun, you also have to consider the people who purchased a gun before the stricter background checks are put in the place. What do you do in that case? If stricter background checks are put in place in 2016, it would be impossible to track someone down who purchased a gun in 2014, for example, and say "Hey. We need to give you another background check for the gun you purchased."

You also have to keep in mind what happens when a background check is flawed, in the case of Charleston shooter Dylann Roof. Roof previously admitted to drug possession, but was still allowed to buy the gun he bought anyways. What should've happened is that, regardless of what crime you've committed in the past, whether it's drug possession or theft, a person should not be allowed to buy a gun. The person has committed a crime in the past and you don't know whether or not the person is using the gun to commit another crime or not until it's too late. But what about if someone has a mental health problem and the system is flawed? For example, a judged ruled in December 2005 that Cho Seung-Hui, the shooter in the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, "presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness." Yet, Cho was allowed to purchase the handguns he used in the massacre anyways because the background checks (both state and federal) found no problems with him.

New York Senator Chuck Schumer has a solution to the flawed background checks, as part of a three part system he has come up with: Reward the states who submit to the national background check system and penalize the states that don’t.While I think it's a good solution, how do you know which states are complying with the national background check?

People also just can't automatically assume the shooter has a mental health problem or is associated with a terrorist group without the proper investigation. In terms of the San Bernardino shooting, the FBI and President Obama have both called it "an act of terrorism." Both Syed RIzwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik were radicalized and had been for some time, according to David Bowdich, assistant director of the FBI's Los Angeles field office. The two even went to a shooting range in the Los Angeles area for target practices even days before the shooting.

Meanwhile, Lafayette shooter John Russell Houser did have a long history of mental health issues. In fact, a court even ordered him to be involuntarily taken to the hospital for mental health evaluation. Key words here: Houser was taken in for "evaluation," not for commitment. In other words, Houser was only evaluated for having a mental health problem. He never got put in a mental health home. Not only that, but Houser also praised Hitler and said "women should have no say in anything." Both of these cases and peoples' histories were evaluated and announced to the public. So, people can't point fingers right away when news of a mass shooting breaks by saying "Oh. The killer's a terrorist" or "The killer has a mental health problem" until further information comes out while investigators try to find the motive.

In terms of the "The killer has a mental health problem" saying, people will soon (or are now, unfortunately) come to the conclusion that all people with mental health problems is a killer. Not all people with mental health issues is a murderer. As a part of his three part plan, Chuck Schumer also called for fully funding the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. If more funding for mental health services is provided, then people with an extreme and dangerous case can be contained.

If a stricter background check is put into play, they need to thoroughly examine the history of each person wanting to purchase a gun: if he or she has had a history of mental health problems, if he or she committed a crime in the past, if he or she is associated with a terrorist organization. But how do you know if someone is lying in their background check? Put that person through a lie detector test. If that person really wants to buy a gun, the process for purchasing one needs to be more complex.

One key element to the argument of gun control in is the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution, which 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." Keep in mind, this was written in 1791. The founders of the Constitution probably assumed people were going to use the guns for means of defense, not of violence. Also, the words "a well regulated Militia" is in there. So, in reality, the founders of the Constitution were talking about the military forces owning guns, not everybody. Then again, you don't know if someone in the militia has a mental health problem or is associated with a terrorist group until either a background check for purchasing a gun, joining the militia, or an investigation after a crime has been committed. And what happens when someone's time in the military is up? Should they still be allowed to purchase a gun?

The Daily News' cover story the day after the shooting in San Bernardino is entitled "God Isn't Fixing This." This is in reference to the many politicians who are saying "Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families." Instead of just sitting around and giving condolences, politicians need to act on the issue of gun control. President Obama has kept saying "We're going to fix this. We're going to fix this. Even in his Oval Office address Sunday evening, he kept reiterating the fact we need "broader gun control legislation," and saying that this is "a matter of national security to prevent potential killers from getting guns." True, this is a matter of a national security because people's lives and loved are being taken away by violence. Obama states "What we can do, and must do, is make it harder for them to kill." That's exactly the point and that's exactly what should've been done to begin within Obama's term. But...nothing has been done to fix this during his term.

In fact, the Republican Party, who basically has control of the Senate right now, rejected legislation on Thursday that would prevent people who the government suspects is a terrorist from purchasing firearms because gun rights advocates say it "violates the rights of people who haven't been convicted of crimes." In matters like this where there are 355 mass shootings in one year alone, we need to take as many precautions as we can and not take any chances. Sometimes, we have to give up certain rights if an issue seems to be a matter of national security. We especially can't take any chances if someone is a terrorist. Yes, we can't point fingers and assume everyone is terrorist. But, we need to find a way to prove someone is a threat to national security before a crime is committed and not after. Whoever becomes President in 2016, regardless if it's Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump, also needs to make the issue of gun control one of their priorities.

The media prolonging on the issue doesn't help. They're just reiterating what's already been debated especially news outlets who continue to prolong on a story. The goal of journalism is to find the facts and report on them. If a news outlet, regardless if it's print or broadcast, goes on for a long period of time about one story (unless new details come up about a situation (ex. details about the murderer), it loses its newsworthiness. This is especially true if journalists, especially investigative ones, go too far. For example, journalists from MSNBC and CNN, two of the biggest news outlets in terms of broadcast, literally stormed into the apartment where the San Bernardino shooters lived in and started going through everything: children's toys, licenses, social security cards. Even though the landlord did let the reporters in, it's still an invasion of privacy and audiences really don't care what the shooters had in the apartment they lived. It just reiterates the fact "There was mass shooting that happened and we're proving these killers are bad people." Audiences just want to know what happened, where was it, who did it, what's the suspect's motive, if the suspect has been caught or killed, and who died or got injured as result of the suspect's actions.

The ideology of "People aren't surprised anymore that another mass shooting has occurred" doesn't help either. Is it sad? Yes. But the ideology is also stupid. What exactly do you mean by "People aren't surprised?" Are you saying people are just accepting mass shootings as a norm? Unfortunately, there's always been at least one mass shooting a year. Mass killings have not been a new thing. It just so happened that there were a lot of them this year and that people are waking up now and realizing "Wow. This really is a big issue."Gun control has always been an issue, not just in 2015 alone. It's still going to be an issue in 2016. So, if someone says "Well, people aren't surprised this is happening," then stand up and do something about it.

Everyone's views are going to be different, even going into 2016. Some people are going to be for the need for stricter background checks. Some people are going to say "Oh....the background checks are fine as is. We don't wanna prevent people from buying guns."

Take conservative blogger Erick Erickson, the editor-in-chief of Redstate.com. On Saturday he posted an Instagram photo of the NY Times' cover page of that day, but it was full of bullet holes. Erickson states in his post "The United States suffered it worst terrorist attacks since September 11 and the New York Times’ response is that all law-abiding citizens need their guns taken away. Screw them.” In his post, it seems Erickson is saying he's in favor of less gun control. But like any other debate, there will be people who will have varying views on the situation, some contrasting from what the majority wants. There are people who want stricter gun control and there are people who don't want it.

But, you have to keep this in mind: It's not the guns that are killing people, it's the people using the guns that are killing people. Only time will tell in 2016 whether politicians or other people will act on the issue more or if things will remain the same as they were before.