Before I begin, I'd like to make something very clear about what it is I intend to accomplish in this article. I am not trying to convince you what the solution is. I am not trying to place blame on any one side. I am trying to inform you about what the issue is, why it is an issue, and what the potential solutions are. Please keep an open mind when reading so that you can hopefully learn what you believe and why the those you disagree believe as they do.

The topic on the mind of Americans this year, and indeed for many years, is that of guns. Be it gun violence or gun rights, the issue over what we as a nation should do about guns is incredibly divisive. The shooting in Florida at the beginning of this year seems to have pushed the nation toward action on this issue with a force arguably unseen until now (except, perhaps, after the Columbine shooting). Before anything can be done, however, it is necessary that Americans understand the many facets of this issue. We'll start with what the issue is.

I say "we'll start with what the issue is" as though it's incredibly simple to do that, but the reality is much more difficult than it seems. To be honest, finding a way to craft the question into a single sentence that is completely neutral on either side was incredibly difficult. In the end, this is what I came up with: Guns in the United States are a constitutional right, which has given special legal protections to owning them and has helped create a culture which deeply values the right to own firearms for a variety of things such as sport and defense; however, this right to own firearms has also resulted in a plethora of available weapons which can be used for abhorrent acts by those who wish to do harm. Now that we have a clear idea of what the issue is, we can move onto why the issue exists.

This is where we get into one of the discrepancies between the different sides of this issue and serves as our first example of why solving the issue is much more complicated than it may seem. Even if all sides agree on the broad statement of the issue I provided above (which I doubt), they do not agree about why the issue exists. Generally speaking, those on the more conservative end of the spectrum blame two general things: mental illness and malicious intent. By this, I mean that conservatives generally blame the individuals who perpetrate the awful acts of violence with guns either because they are merely evil people or are afflicted with mental illness(es) that amplify violent tendencies. Generally speaking, those on the more liberal end of the spectrum, while perhaps recognizing the concerns noted by conservatives, go a step further, arguing that the laws and proliferation of guns in the United States necessarily create a higher rate of gun violence. Under this view, while it is true that people can be evil or have mental illnesses that may make them commit violent acts, the ease with which guns are available is mostly why those people are able to commit the kinds of crimes that they do. In sum, while conservatives would rather focus on the people committing the crimes, liberals would rather focus on the ease of access to guns which the people committing these crimes rely on. There are debates back and forth on which side is correct as to why people use guns to commit mass murders, but which side you stand on depends greatly on what you believe the solution to the problem is.

Before moving onto the proposed solutions, I want to explain something about guns in the United States. As I mentioned before, guns are a constitutional right. Currently, the Supreme Court of the United States interprets this right as an individual one, meaning that you as an individual have a right to own and possess a firearm. This right is not currently interpreted as a collective or group right, which would require some sort of group to be formally in existence, like a militia, for the right to apply (although this was not always the case). This is important to understand because a legal right comes with different strings attached to it than, say, being allowed to own a vehicle.

A legal right is something the government must not impede without due process and a compelling reason. The right to unreasonable search and seizure, for example, is the same way. The police cannot search your home without a compelling reason being shown before a judge to get a warrant (this is the due process part). If you feel a search was in violation of this right, you have the ability to sue the government and seek legal redress (or, in simpler terms, get compensation). As a legal right, there are only certain things the government can do without being in violation of the Constitution. This is important to remember when you hear the "Australia argument" as I call it. This argument, in essence, is that in the 1990s Australia experienced multiple mass shootings and opted to ban certain types of gun ownership and created a government buy-back program. This happened shortly after their last mass shooting and they have yet to have another one since. The reason this argument, while an interesting case study, must be looked at with raised eyebrows in the American context is because there was no right to own guns in Australia at the time. Their constitution did not provide in any way that it was a legal right for Australians to own firearms. Because it isn't a right, it is necessarily easier to change. That is the nature of a right versus a law. By design, laws are easy to change, but rights are not. In the United States, if you wanted to change the right to own guns, you'd need to get 2/3 of the House of Representatives and 2/3 of the Senate to agree to a specific amendment which must then be approved by 3/4 of the states. Compared to the "Australia argument", many more people and much more time would be necessary to change anything in the US Constitution.

Conservatives are generally more hesitant of government action when it comes close to potentially violating this legal right. Furthermore, many conservatives also believe that people have a natural right (or God-given, you may hear it called) to self-defense which no person or government can take away. This is often heard as a defense of gun ownership as an individual right rather than a collective right because it advocates the position that you need not be in a group in order to have a right to defend yourself. Liberals, alternatively, are more likely to push the boundaries on the right to own guns, often advocating that the legal right to own guns is either antiquated or misinterpreted today when compared to what the founding fathers meant. Liberals are more likely to support banning certain types of firearms or weapon attachments, arguing that the "military-style" weapons are not necessary for private ownership. Regardless of which side you agree with, the two sides are almost entirely different and offer little room for compromise, particularly the conservative "natural rights" argument and the liberal "antiquated right" argument.

Now that we understand what it means for gun ownership to be a legal right, and how each side generally interprets that idea in the modern world, let's move onto what solutions are advocated by each side. On the extremely liberal side, you may see people wanting to be rid of the right to own guns entirely. While I don't expect this to happen anytime soon, it is important to know that that solution is being discussed. More commonly though, liberals advocate banning certain types of firearms and weapon attachments and requiring background checks and mandatory waiting periods before someone can purchase a gun. Also, liberals may argue for registering firearms that are purchased legally, as well as limiting the ways in which people can legally purchase a weapon. Specifically, you'll hear the argument that "private sellers" shouldn't be able to sell in gun shows without certain limitations or licenses. Conservatives are warier of banning a wide variety of firearms and attachments (viewing it as a violation of people's gun rights), requiring background checks or mandatory waiting periods, and mandatory gun registration. Conservatives, as mentioned before, do not consider law-abiding citizens to be at fault for the issues created by mass shooters. Often conservatives will argue that populating more guns will decrease gun violence because those who would otherwise commit gun violence are socially aware that they are less likely to be successful because the citizens around them are more likely to be armed and ready to kill. Conservatives desire to find ways to locate and help those with mental illness before they can hurt themselves or others. Occasionally conservatives will support background checks or banning certain weapon attachments, but for a variety of reasons they do not often end up voting in favor of such restrictions.

It is important to understand that the solutions conservatives favor are those that least restrict the gun rights of everyone because they do not believe in restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens for the actions of those acting outside the law. Conservatives are concerned about doing this especially because they believe that, no matter what laws are passed, the only people those laws effect are those who are going to follow them in the first place, law-abiding citizens, who are not the same ones committing gun violence. Conservatives often point to "Gun Free Zones", particularly at schools, as perfect examples of this. The only people stopped by a sign, in their view, are the ones not inclined to break the law and become a mass shooter. A potential solution that is becoming more popular among conservatives is the idea of "gun restraining orders". The general premise behind this idea is that friends, family, and coworkers can report a person to the authorities and apply for a temporary gun restraining order which would temporarily take away that person's right to purchase or own firearms. Once the application is made, the person in question and the person who applied must appear before a judge and argue their sides with evidence and testimony before the order goes into effect. This approach is popular among some conservatives because it is a targeted solution rather than a collective one. All the other solutions mentioned before apply to everyone, but this would apply only to the person accused of being dangerous to themselves and others. Furthermore, this path provides due process to the individual before the court, making it more constitutionally-allowed path to lowering gun violence.

Recently I had the opportunity to attend the American Values Forum at Freed-Hardeman University at Dickson where former Texas Supreme Court Justice, White House General Counsel, U.S. Attorney General, and current Dean of Belmont College of Law, Alberto Gonzalez spoke. Briefly, Judge Gonzalez addressed the issue of gun violence and the Parkland shooting specifically. Judge Gonzalez argued that the Supreme Court of the United States has made it clear in the past that "certain reasonable restrictions are not unconstitutional", and this applies necessarily to the right to own guns. Judge Gonzalez took aim at the common rhetoric on all sides claiming that certain things will be unconstitutional are simply not true. "Really, it's not about the constitution, it's really about what is the . . . preferred policy" said Judge Gonzalez. Judge Gonzalez endorsed the idea of increased background checks for gun transactions as well as raising the age for legal gun ownership from 18 to 21, stating that neither are clearly unconstitutional on their face. I believe that Judge Gonzalez is indicative of a potentially-changing conservative opinion on gun ownership, especially considering the outspokenness of the high school students affected by the Parkland shooting.

The issue of gun reform is not an easy one to solve, as I hope I've made clear. There are many sides with many differing opinions on what the issue is and what is the best way to solve it. Regardless of where you stand on the issue, I hope that you take the time to listen to those you disagree with. Not just about gun reform, but about every issue. You do yourself a disservice by only considering issues with those that agree with you; they are not the ones you need to convince or come to terms with. That is only for those that you disagree with vehemently, and one of the great liberties of being an American is the ability to debate with those you disagree with without persecution.