In the week prior to Wednesday’s student walkout to remember the 17 lives that were lost in the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting one month prior on February 14, in conversation with multiple students, I was asked whether or not I would be participating. Without a moment of hesitation, I would answer, “Yes, obviously. Aren’t you?”

The answer always felt simple to me. Like schools all across the nation, Parker was participating in a walkout to recognize and honor 17 students who were shot dead simply because they showed up to school that morning. Even beyond those students, the day was dedicated to the lives all across the country that have been lost to gun violence–school shooting or not. And to me, nothing about that feels political.

But as the walkout drew closer, I realized the question was being made a lot more complicated than necessary. Whether due to a lack of communication, misunderstanding, or whatever else, students seemed to lack an understanding about what the day was really about. Was this walkout turning into a full day of pro-gun-control talks without any sliver of another perspective?

The evening before the walkout, I sat at the dinner table with my family debating questions about whether it is Parker’s place to hold a walkout of this manner given the complexities of the national gun debate. What frustrated me the most was how intertwined the walkout had become with finding a solution to all gun-related problems in the future.

What I wanted was an event in which, regardless of your stance on gun control, we as a student body could come out in solidarity for lives lost to guns.

I obviously see how closely related the two issues are, and I believe that this walkout could provide a forum for students to share their thoughts on what gun reform should look like in the future.

Where the problem arises–and this also is an issue on a national level–is the politicization of these kinds of events. Rather than creating a platform on which people from all across the political spectrum can come together to discuss, we have to pick and choose: will this be a liberal or conservative event? The truth is, both on the local and the national scale, the more we split the debate, the farther we will ever be from a solution.

During the afternoon breakout sessions, I was a part of a group that led a teach-in on how the media covers gun violence and mass shootings. After watching videos from VOX, NRATV, and Comedy Central, listening to podcasts from the New York Times, and reading articles from Fox News, I saw that the country can’t even agree on what the important “facts” are for this conversation.

Specifics of a solution aside, when the Right and the Left can’t even agree on what constitutes a mass shooting or how many shootings there have been in just 2018, is there really any hope for a solution?

We’re not alone here at Parker in some of us misconstruing the message of a walkout or opting out of an event because of leadership.

As the day’s events came to an end, a common line was “This cannot be the end.” We were all encouraged to keep working if this was really a problem we cared about solving. From calling our political officials and volunteering for a campaign, to going out and exercising our right to vote, there was consensus that ending our work at 3 p.m. that afternoon would have proved all of our speeches and signs invalid.

So going forward, while marching and volunteering is a great way to stay involved, I truly believe that if there is any chance of ending gun violence, the great divide between political beliefs must be softened. I’m not saying that liberals and conservatives need to suddenly agree on some perfect solution– that, of course, would be impractical–but why do we shy away from the “other side”? Why must one event always belong to one group and not the other?

Yes, there were faults with this walkout. But instead of dwelling on the specifics of those problems, I hope that we can open the discussion to include those who were left out of our recognition.