Two weeks after a deranged gunmen walked into a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado, killing three people and wounding nine others, his crime has almost been forgotten.
The sensational crimes of Robert Lewis Dear Jr. were drowned out by the hail of gunfire that left 14 dead in San Bernardino, Calif. The husband and wife killers responsible for that crime, who also happened to be Muslims, have been fixtures on the nightly news for the past week. But before long, they too will fade into memory.
Reports that the U.S. has logged more than 350 mass shootings this year are shocking. And, according to details shared by those who have tracked the violence, multiple mass shootings have taken place on a single day five times.
It should come as no surprise that the gun-control debate is heating up south of the border. When the issue of gun control is raised in the U.S. or here in Canada, opponents to such regulations argue the laws make no difference to those with a criminal mind and a determination to do lethal damage.
While it is true that no legislation can prevent someone from acting out on their violent intentions, we can certainly reduce the damage they can inflict by limiting the types of weapons at their disposal.
Those who hunt for food have a legitimate need to possess arms. But hunters have no need for the assault-style weapons that were used in the California shootings or the high-capacity magazines that allow shooters to fire off up to 30 rounds without reloading. Those type of weapons and ammunition were designed for a single purpose: killing human beings. And there is no legitimate reason for them to be on the streets.
Stricter gun control certainly won’t prevent every mass shooting. But if it can stop even one more of these tragedies from occurring it is worth the inconvenience to law-abiding firearm owners.
Because doing nothing can no longer be an option, without running the risk that mass shootings become so common they are no longer considered news at all.