Before I begin, let me first say that my heart and prayers go out to those families that have lost loved ones, and to the city of Charleston, South Carolina. I cannot imagine a loss of this magnitude, nor can I imagine the level of hate that would inspire a person to commit murder. It simply just baffles my mind that a person could be so filled with hate, and I just don't understand.
However, in the wake of the most current, hate inspired tragedy, those that would seek to take away yet more individual rights have raised their voices saying that we need more laws regulating and restricting firearms. It was Rahm Emmanuel who said, "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/rahmemanue409199.html#AcQ1cw5S5kIwS6xH.99. And here they are again, raising their voices that we, as a country, need to enact more laws and more restrictions on gun ownership.
Let's explore this a little. There are already eight federal level laws on the books that regulate the manufacture, sale, and possession of firearms. At the state level, there are many more depending on your state of residence. Additionally, at your local level, there may be even more laws that define how and where a firearm may be possessed.
We already have a list of people that are prohibited from owning firearms. That list includes convicted felons, the mentally incompetent, those dishonorably discharged from the military, and individuals under the ages of 18 for all firearms and under 21 for handguns. These restrictions set forth by federal regulations that are universal regardless of what your home state may be. For more information, you can go here: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20040324/citizen-s-guide-to-federal-firearms-law. So in terms of number of laws that are already on the books, it is this author's opinion that there are already plenty of laws enacted that regulate firearms. So the problem is not the number of laws that we have, but the ability to enforce them.
I'm going to diverge a bit and mention something that you probably will not see in the mainstream media. A criminal by nature will not follow any law that they do not want to, and will break any law to achieve their ultimate goal. In every occurrence, such as what happened this past week in Charleston, there were laws that were already broken prior to the commission of the despicable act that we are all now aware of. So despite however many laws that society enacts, the criminal or person with criminal intent will never follow them. A law is merely words on a piece of paper that has little meaning unless it is properly enforced. Laws are relatively cheap to create, it's the enforcement that become difficult and expensive.
So I put it that we don't have a gun laws problem (well, we do but not in the way that I'm talking about here), but we have an enforcement issue; meaning that the laws that we already have don't work properly because they aren't being enforced or they are being circumvented. Plus enforcement of the penalties of these laws can be so convoluted that they may take years to be carried out. This is another topic for another time all by itself.
Lastly, firearms laws only seek to treat the symptom and restrict the tool that was used in the crime, and then usually only restrict those of use that are law-abiding. They do nothing to address the actual criminal and their intent; but they do make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens, and they typically have the opposite effect of their stated intent.
Most politicians state that their intent for creating new, more restrictive gun laws is to protect citizens, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and to lower crime. A laudable intent, to be sure, but what happens when these laws go into effect? Just take a look around the country at the different metropolitan area and their laws. Those areas that have the most restrictive firearms laws usually have some of the highest crime rates. In contrast, areas that have the least restrictive gun laws and the most protections for legal gun owners have some of the lowest crime rates.
There is nothing scientific about what I am writing, nor is my research exhaustive, but merely an observation that I have made over time. Chicago and Washington, DC both have some of the highest crime rates in the country, and also the most restrictive gun laws for their citizens. It should also be noted that their cost of living is extremely high as is their poverty rates, so these economic factors should also be considered. The CATO Institute, back in 2000, noted that areas that have "shall issue" laws have up to 24% lower crime than other areas (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities). For the topic of economics and crime, go here: http://247wallst.com/special-report/2014/11/12/the-safest-cities-in-america/
It should be no surprise that there is no easy solution, and that by just treating one symptom will not solve the greater problem. Creating even more laws, that may or may not be enforced and that make it more difficult for the law-abiding to purchase a firearm, is NOT an acceptable answer. How about we, as a people, stand up when we see someone doing something wrong and say something. How about we take ownership of our independence and stop relying on others to "do what is right," and do it ourselves. How about we not worry what others may think of us, or worry about offending someone and we speak out when we see a crime being committed, even if that speaking out means calling 911.
A little historical note; NOT standing up and speaking out, and keeping to ones-self and not getting involved is how every society begins it's slide to oppression and eradication. Sheep are always led by the bold... to their slaughter.
