Columbine.

Virginia Tech. Northern Illinois University.

Workplaces. Going postal. Lori Dan.

Publicized shootings have become so common that Americans fail to realize exactly how anomalous they are. Lack of perspective is the third tragedy of mass gun violence.

The second tragedy lies in the way we refuse to learn from our past fiascos. As the cliché posits, one form of insanity is repeating the same behavior over and over again yet expecting different results. Yet Americans do exactly that after every major shooting: We lack the social and political resolve to enact an aggressive gun control agenda.

Let us count the minutes before the National Rifle Association issues its statement refuting calls for stricter gun control laws. In the wake of tragedies (and media frenzies) like the NIU shooting, inevitably gun control advocates promote legislation that they argue would prevent such massacres. These measures vary from longer waiting periods to completely banning certain segments of the population from the gun ownership. Gun rights activists react immediately to these proposals with outrage, arguing any measure would infringe on the sovereign, natural, and all-conquering “right to bear arms.” Incidentally, the right itself is restricted to “A well regulated militia” in the Bill of Rights, although poor grammar shrouds whatever the intended meaning was.

While some interpret the gun control agenda as aiming to tear all guns from their owners’ grasp, the more reasonable (and realistic) proposals consider the perspective of sensible firearms owners. The National Rifle Association and its minions need to realize that the second amendment, like all of the Bill of Rights grants, is not an unqualified right. Even the most sacrosanct, right – that of free speech – is limited in certain instances. While social philosophers and legal experts can debate exactly where government should draw the gun control lines, few well-justified arguments oppose innocuous measures like slowing down the process of gun ownership.

Very rarely do people need hunting arms or a pistol immediately. Imagining owning a gun shop when a customer enters and says, “I need a 12-gauge shotgun right NOW!” I would be more than slightly suspicious of his motives. Is there a pheasant emergency that needs instant rectification? The most logical conclusion, though certainly not the only, is that the person plans to use the weapon inappropriately.

Why, then, can those who want to own guns for legitimate purposes (hunting, property defense, and personal defense among them) not wait a little longer to receive their Firearms Owner ID cards and firearms? Such waiting periods would protect gun owners by reducing the number of people who legally purchase weapons for illegal uses. Neither hunting nor self-defense requires immediate procurement of a weapon, yet giving the federal government time to perform background checks, usage analyses, or other research techniques enhances societal safety. Increasing waiting periods to purchase guns, as well as instituting other restrictive measures, do not inherently infringe on the second amendment.

Imagine if the NIU gunman had not been able to legally purchase his weapons (because he was on psychological medication, because guns were illegal – pick a reason). He and the five victims would still be alive today. The argument that those wanting to commit murder will find a way to do so breaks down. Short of constructing bombs, perhaps the most effective means of quickly inflicting pain on others is knives. Would six people really have died in a DeKalb lecture hall had someone walked in with a box of thirty throwing knives?

Obviously, the idea of mass murder by throwing knives is an absurd concept. Our nation, though, allows almost anyone to legally purchase instruments of mass murder. While many firearms have legitimate uses, they have many more that are illegitimate. Despite the NRA’s citation of an FBI statistic that one third of murders are committed without guns, the simple fact is that guns facilitate the killing of people. Moreover, the NRA math is fuzzy, because if one third of murders are committed without guns, then two thirds are committed with them!

I do not seek to take guns away from the many law-abiding firearms owners in this country. We, in fact, do have a second amendment that suggests citizens’ right to guns. Yet, as people lack the privilege to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theatre, Americans should lack the unfettered, relatively uninhibited right to gun ownership.

Lee is a senior in Engineering who wishes Hillary and Barack would demonstrate some courage and advocate increased gun control since most gun owners will not vote for them anyway.