It’s impossible to run for President without having a firm position on gun control. For every candidate in every election campaign, it inevitably becomes a dividing line.

And 2016 is no different. At various stages, Donald Trump has held differing positions on the matter, but has been sufficiently in favor of protecting the second amendment to secure the support of the NRA. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton, while claiming to respect the second amendment, has made clear that she wants to see tighter control on gun ownership that “tries to save some of these 33,000 lives that we lose every year.”

But no matter whether it’s Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton who captures the White House next week, America’s frightening rate of death by gunshot wounds will certainly be forced into retreat. One day.

Because it is inconceivable that the people of such an advanced nation will tolerate an ever-worsening state of armed violence and insurrection, there must come a time when solutions already tested and championed by the United States are deployed to reduce the country’s toll of 33,000 firearm-related deaths each year.

In hindsight, how naïve were we to imagine that the massacre at Columbine High might prove to be the tipping point? Thirteen years and 421,000 American gun deaths later, even the slaughter of 26 mainly white children and teachers at Sandy Hook couldn’t induce the US Congress to act. Clearly, the country’s gun death toll must get worse before it gets better.
Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/31/opinions/trump-or-clinton-gun-control-alpers-oped/index.html