Another public shooting has occurred in which Umpqua Community College was attacked by a man now identified as Christopher Harper-Mercer. Now Oregon faces its largest massacre in modern history. And, of course, guns were involved.

Immediately, the left-wingers blamed the existence of guns and took to the media calling for the eradication of firearms and second amendment. Conservatives put up an aggressive defense, repeating the same, overused arguments supporting these weapons. And the media went to town inflating the ad-hominem nonsense that both sides’ extremists spewed. We all have a common problem: mass shootings are on the rise. Two sides have different solutions and neither seems willing to compromise. There are a few solutions, but first let’s review this tragedy and clear up some misconceptions.

On Oct. 1,  Christopher Harper-Mercer, an enrolled student at Umpqua Community College, assaulted the campus, killing an assistant professor, eight students, and injuring nine others. Police responded quickly, and after a brief shootout, Harper-Mercer fled to a classroom before using one of his weapons to take his own life. Many misconceptions have arisen from this set of events. One is that UCC did not permit firearms on campus.

The conservative side has blamed this as the reason of the perpetrator targeting this campus. Sources, such as the Columbia Daily Herald, argue that gun-free zones only leave the innocent defenseless. Governor Mike Huckabee tweeted, “Obama can shamelessly try and exploit any tragedy he wants, but it’s clear that gun free zones are sitting duck zones.”  However for this theory to hold true, they would also have to ignore the actual policy in the UCC handbook. The official policy prohibited the “possession, use, or threatened use of firearms on college property, except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations,” to which Oregon state law permits the carrying of concealed weapons on a public postsecondary campus. In fact, student and Air-Force veteran John Parker Jr. was armed and on campus, but in a post-shooting interview, stated he was, “glad he didn’t get involved.”

However, some of the leftists have shown support for the banning of all firearms and extreme reform, which may involve confiscation of weapons and large scale weapon bans. Democratic presidential candidate Hilary Clinton has voiced her support of an Australian-style ban in her recent unveiling of her gun control plan. A repealing of an amendment is not wise and will only increase tensions on both sides of the political spectrum as well as increase illegal gun trafficking. We, as a country, should not be so ready to eliminate laws and concepts our country was built on. I am by no means in support of eradicating laws; I’m not anti-gun. That’s not to say that these laws should remain unreformed. The right to bear arms should still be subject to regulation.

So what can we do? It’s obvious that the gun policies are not without flaws. However, that doesn’t mean we should eradicate the second amendment. For starters, why not require education before being able to own a firearm? Pro-gunners compare the role guns have in killing to cars and traffic related accidents. However, to get a driver’s license, one must pass a test to make sure individuals are qualified. To own a car, insurance is required, and paperwork must be signed; You are held fully accountable for your car. In fact, it takes hours to buy a car, but a firearm can be purchased relatively quickly. Why not make it mandatory to have gun locks for the guns, and regulate the security at home so it is not so easily taken from the house unintentionally. None of these reforms would disallow ownership of a firearm and would decrease the wrongful use of guns.

Both sides would benefit from a little compromise. Let’s not become so locked into our own personal beliefs and find a workaround that both satisfies a majority of society and prioritizes the country’s safety.