On the morning of December 2nd, 2015, two shooters were involved in the murder of 14 individuals at a social services agency in San Bernardino, California. As with all massacres, a debate instantly sparked on the matter of gun control. Conservatives raise the point that California has the strictest gun control laws of any state in the nation, after all, the gun violence in other states is not comparable to the number of incidents in California so it stands to reason that gun control is clearly the cause of shootings:

Anti-gun control fanatics also made vapid claims that the motive of the shooters may be linked to extremist religious terrorism, as is typical of media to depict considering the race of the shooters.

These points are not only blatantly racist, but also not a reflection of the true, staggering numbers on the violence that is an epidemic in America right now. Since Wednesday, 355 shootings have taken place within this year alone:

After all, America is a place that people can know that a selective portion of their rights are protected more than the lives of hundreds of their fellow citizens. As long as my neighbor can have their firearm stored in a shelf of their closet which they may never fire, who cares if I or hundreds of others die due to an erratic, out-of-control shooter? It's not as if official statistical analyzes of these scenarios are available to prove the failure of the current system of justice:

Except that's just the issue, there is no justice for the victims of these fatal attacks. How far does the carnage need to escalate, how many families and communities need to be devastated before amendments are made?

In 2014, Harvard released a report which analyzed the data and found that the rate of mass shootings has tripled since 2011.

Republican speaker, Paul Ryan protests the proposals of gun control in Congress, stating, "if someone is suspected of plotting an attack, law enforcement officials should arrest them...there shouldn't be a rush to [fill gaps in enforcement or pass legislation] at the risk of infringing upon the rights of law-abiding citizens."

Threat assessment, however, is not as easy as the Republican party would make it appear. It's a developing field that the FBI is still working to perfect. The issues are in the many problems that come with tracking potentially violent threats. It's a tentative process of collecting data, depending on neighbors, teachers, concerned citizens to raise warning signs, and an analysis of the situation and background, then a decision on the course of action to prevent violence, rather than persecute.

Part of threat assessment is prevention. As it stands, media can be callous to these events, choosing to print bolder headlines and shocking images rather than considering the condition of the families or the repercussions of such sensationalized news.

In late August, shocking images of an attack in Virginia, where the gunman took footage of his attack on two of his coworkers was published, the uncensored version tweeted. A few weeks afterward, another shooting took place, where the perpetrator admitted that he was inspired by the images reported on the Virginia attack.

Where in this growing field of threat assessment is the proof that it works? In the ever accumulating group of experts, localization of efforts, and collaboration among different law enforcement sects is there a real decline in fatalities from guns alone?

The answer is that it doesn't work, at least not yet. According to an article from Mother Jones, "James Holmes...underwent threat assessment and psychiatric care at the University of Colorado-Denver before he dropped out, cut ties with the school, and carried out the movie theater massacre in Aurora...[m]any mental health professionals still lack the training to evaluate potentially deadly people... [and] they may be resistant to threat assessment's tactics and urgency".

Once again, as these issues come to light, the argument is made that better treatment and awareness of mental health is a priority. However, this perpetuates a dangerous, quite deadly myth that mentally disabled individuals are the primary perpetrators of crime when really they are more often than not the victims of violence.

Internationally, there is a plethora of evidence which suggests the correlation of strict gun laws with a significant decrease in gun related violence.

After Australia's 1996 gun laws, there has yet to be a mass shooting in the country. Japan, with certainly the toughest gun regulations, have the lowest rate of gun violence in the world.

Bottom line, there is no excuse. Gun regulations are necessary for the safety and future of all Americans. As British journalist and blogger Dan Hodges aptly points out:

The decision needs to be made clear, where the priorities of our justice system makes. The lives of Americans are at high risk, and action must be taken as soon as possible to ensure the safety and stability of all over the petty "rights" of the few.