Let's all admit it, right here: the newfangled controversy surrounding the murder of forty-nine American men and women on June 12th, 2016 is not black and white. However, many Americans who are unconnected to the issues surrounding gun control and terrorism would like to see it this way. The wound becomes more and more infected until it bursts in a pustule of panic and outright hatred.

The liberal matter in question has become more about restricting the acquisition of assault weapons, instead of the socially conscious effort of making the case about supporting the LGBTAQ+ community. On the opposite side, the Trumpian way of "horrifying" the issue has become just as perilous, inspiring Silent Majority politicians and N.R.A. zealots alike to claim that the root of this evil lies in cherry-picked Islamic religious sentiments, as well as eviscerate evil Democrats wanting to take our guns away.

In short, few who identify with one side of the isle or the other see this tragedy for both the realistic and humanitarian issues it unfolds. It also revolves around a simple case of disunity.

Being sensible has been all that is needed. Why is it hard to not allow anyone on the no-fly list or being (or even having been) monitored by the F.B.I. to purchase a gun, especially with a background check? This measure proposed by Democrats appears to at least be a proactive one. It would seem reasonable that this restriction would contribute to the well-being of our society, because its implementation could mean fewer weapons in the hands of potentially dangerous individuals.

Republicans made a similar move in 1994 by supporting a federal ban on what would be characterized as assault weapons.It is also a restriction which they let expire in 2004. How the times and the mores have changed.

Regardless if two people may share the same name as listed on the register, one is likely a law-abiding citizen, and the other is not. It is the bureaucracy that guides which should not be allowed to have a gun. Americans (have to) deal with it in one form or another, from paying taxes to buying a house. Jumping through hoops is nothing new. One more check surely would not be much of a burden for us.

As to preventing individuals who do not abide by the law from obtaining deadly weapons without checks through the market, it is as hard as it seems. Laws cannot deter the whims of criminals, but the right people can take some measures to limit their opportunity to find the tool. Doing something more is better than doing nothing at all.

However, procedures and politics are trivial when we look at this mass murder for what it is at the end of all things: a great loss of innocent life. More so, it is a loss of life at the hand of a madman that we still do not definitely know the whole story about. Was he inspired by a hatred of Americans, mentally ill, or did he harbor a resentment of homosexual individuals that he could relate to?

As has been demonstrated before, fear-mongering the American public into pointing fingers at an entire religious population does nothing more than sink us lower. The blatant loose cannoning from the Right because the President won't condemn the attack as total "Islamic Terrorism" has trenched us deeper into paranoia. At the same time, Republicans continue to morph the discussion on restricting high-powered weapons as an all-out "assault" on the 2nd Amendment.

The argument from the Left is not free from criticism, either. It has launched an unnecessary new crusade on the gun control issue, and many Democrats have forgotten that they are only arguing for one's side of the issue. Shouting over the Speaker clamoring for more reform during a time for reflection and goodwill isn't productive. Their behavior is one political example of shooting one's self in the foot.

However, one necessary tendency after such an event is to critically look at how to address the complex issue of domestic terrorism. But during this time of icy diplomacy and hawky rhetoric in American politics, the further division between sides in our country will only doom us to more inaction. But compromise and civility surely aren't dead.

When Republicans and Democrats alike start to make strides towards unity, some harmony may come to their ranks. We can hope that our politicians never look solely at the firepower, or make this into one nasty political debauchery on religious bigotry. The goal should be to stay focused and to make progress. No one is saying that overcoming these challenges is going to be easy, but it can be done.