Recent school shootings have left the country desperate for constructive results. Much like with any other social issue, a bipartisan divide has ensued, leaving Republicans and Democrats indicting one another with a variety of false dichotomies.

Republicans claim Democrats want to steal guns, while Democrats allege that Republicans don’t care about the lives of the country’s youth; neither of which are true. The former claim, with the exception of liberal-extremists, is greatly exaggerated. Even the most unequivocally left-leaning Democrats are not in favor of abolishing the Second Amendment, but rather enhance regulation pertaining it. However, the fact of the matter is that in many events, gun-restriction doesn’t work to begin with.

No enhanced gun-restriction would have prevented the latest school-shooting. That is not an opinion, but rather an objective fact.

In Maryland, state law prohibits any individual under the age of 21 from obtaining or possessing a firearm; the shooter was 17. The shooter did not walk into a store and purchase a firearm, but rather took it from his father, who had acquired the gun legally. The father was a law-abiding citizen who had no outstanding red-flags that would have prevented him from acquiring the gun.

One thing we do know for sure: if the school resource officer had not been present and armed, the shooter would not have been stopped as abruptly as he was, and could have potentially taken the lives of a quantity of innocent people similar to that of the ones taken in the Parkland shooting in Florida.

When you juxtapose all school-shooters, one thing remains glaringly obvious: a blatant disregard for the law. “Gun-free zones” do not deter any individual who has foul intentions and intent to harm, but rather disarms law-abiding citizens with intent to protect.

Although I’m not in favor of the idea of gun-control, I am receptive to the entertainment of it. If any legislation could prevent mass-casualty shootings, then I would welcome it. That being said, I’m reluctant to believe that any legislation would prevent lawbreakers from law-breaking. It hasn’t worked to this point, and likely won’t work in the future. Not only that, but any enhanced-measure would almost surely infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens. Criminals have no regard for the law, and if they have a desire to break the law and the means to do so, they won’t hesitate.

Bottom-line: armed staff, not gun-laws, prevented this shooting from becoming another tragic, mass-casualty event. That isn’t to say that all gun-restrictions are redundant; it does, however, exemplify the advantages of protecting students with armed-staff.