“More laws won’t help”

One of the arguments used in defense of doing nothing is “More laws won’t help; we have plenty of laws on the books right now that aren’t being enforced.”

There is actually truth to this statement, in my opinion (at least the last half of it), but I think it misses the point.

First of all, it most commonly comes up when someone proposes some kind of sensible gun-control laws. Note that it doesn’t address the merits of any specific law being considered; it just says we already have laws and no more should be passed until we enforce those in place.

Good enough. But why aren’t those existing laws being enforced? All too often it’s because the same people (backed by the NRA) saying we have laws already in place, have successfully cowed politicians into eliminating the funding that would have allowed enforcement. If state requires a background check prior to buying a gun (for example), but the centralized computer database necessary to make that check possible doesn’t exist because the money to build it was never appropriated, the net effect is that background checks don’t happen. To restate: the very people that decry the lack of enforcement are the ones that lobbied their politicians to withhold funds required to make the laws work.

What about enforcing tougher laws for crimes committed with a handgun? Wouldn’t that reduce the gun violence? It might, but think about it for a minute. For that to be effective, it needs to be a strong enough deterrent that a would-be criminal makes a conscious decision to not use a gun during the commission of a crime. Most of these crimes are committed either in the spur of the moment (the dark alley provides an opportunity), or under the influence of drugs. Furthermore, the perp would have to consider the possibility of getting caught in order to make a conscious decision to reduce the severity of punishment. I doubt very much that either case is going to allow for the clear thinking required to determine that not using a gun would be a good idea. I think the prevalence of guns in our society has a much stronger correlation to gun violence than does the presence or absence of punishment. That’s not to say I am not an advocate of harsher punishment if a gun is used in the commission of a crime; quite the opposite. But I believe that before that can become a significant deterrent, there have to be fewer guns available in general. If it becomes very hard to get a gun, fewer people will have them. While it’s true that there will still be some available, and those who use them may be more prone to violence, but then harsher punishments become a deterrent. Take reasonable steps to reduce the number of guns and their availability, and then enforce and strengthen the gun laws.

Additionally, it has become much more difficult to enact new laws (my next couple of posts will address why this has become an issue). What laws are in place are local (i.e. state) laws. I am hopeful that at some point in the near future our politicians will grow a spine, stand up to the NRA and actually do the will of the people by enacting federal laws that reduce the ridiculous number of weapons on our streets. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I am not advocating the wholesale banning of firearms by private citizens; just those whose sole purpose is to make it easy to kill another human being. That includes banning assault weapons, large-magazine handguns, armor-piercing bullets, fingerprint-resistant hand gun grips, and so forth.

As I write this I’m in Dallas attending a conference, and I was actually shocked to see a guy in my hotel openly carrying a pistol. I’m in an upscale hotel in the middle of the downtown area and this guy thinks he needs to have a gun in a holster on his hip. I am not really sure who he thought was going to attack him (or anyone here) “but by God, he’s ready!”

My first thought was to ask him why he felt he needed a gun, but I thought better of it when I realized he might think I was threatening him and shoot me.