Committing murder. Drunk driving. Soliciting prostitution.

Strict laws are on the books for all these infractions, yet they still occur on a daily basis.

It is almost like criminals do not obey laws.

With the recent Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs shootings, there are renewed cries for tougher gun laws.

Look at the Sutherland Springs church shooting in Texas. The mass shooter received a bad conduct discharge from the military, abused a dog and committed domestic violence in the past.

Under Texas and Federal Law, having a record of domestic violence alone should have prohibited the shooter from buying a firearm. The issue here was the Air Force did not send the appropriate information to the FBI so his name would be in the database. There has already been bipartisan talks to make sure that lack of communication does not happen again.

Right now in America tough gun laws exist. For instance, no one who has been convicted of domestic violence is allowed a gun. Instead of trying to find new ways to deter gun violence, maybe it’s time to focus on enforcing laws already passed.

The current laws cannot be that ineffective because America has seen an overall drop in murder rates from 1991 to 2016. The murder rate per 100,000 people has been almost chopped in half, 9.8 to 5.3 according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

In addition, the Pew Research Center has found that gun death homicide, in particular the homicide rate from 1981 to 2010 has dropped. The decline was from 6.6 people per 100,000 to only 3.6.

After mass shootings there is almost a knee-jerk reaction by some people that lawmakers need to do something, anything policy-wise, to feel like they made a difference.

One thing is for sure: passing major legislation when emotions are high will almost always fail. It restricts citizens who actually obey the law instead of pinpointing the violent criminals.

Following that trend, Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced a new proposal that aims to end the sale of what she terms “assault weapons,” and ban bump stocks.

This bill is nothing more than political grandstanding.

Machine and fully automatic guns are already effectively banned from public use. When lawmakers talk about “assault weapons,” they are not referring to those weapons, but rather semi-automatic guns. The gun used by former NRA instructor Stephen Willeford, the hero who killed the Sutherland Springs church shooter, would be banned by Feinstein’s proposed legislation. So instead of Willeford being able to assist in stopping the shooter, Feinstein would ban the gun he used to help.

The legislation also exempts the targeted guns already in public circulation, which means the law will not stop potential criminals from finding weapons.

Bump stocks are used to speed up the firing ability of weapons. While banning bump stocks is not an awful idea, it will not really stop any future violence as mass shooters can get the same effect from three rubber bands.

Another issue brought up in the gun debate is background checks. Some may not even realize the scope of the current laws regarding background checks.

There already is an extensive process reputable gun shops and other suppliers have to follow. They have to contact the FBI to run the check through a criminal database called the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to make sure the purchaser is allowed and eligible to own a gun. This only occurs after an applicant completes a form and applies for a gun license.

The background checks some lawmakers have discussed would be attempting to alleviate an unfixable problem. Citizen to citizen selling of firearms, is impossible to regulate. It’s not like people selling guns on sites like Craigslist will actually run background checks.

It is not easy to acquire a firearm in the United States unless people are buying them illegally.

More gun laws will only help one group of people. The crooks. Laws are just paper, and sadly, if someone is willing to kill he/she will not be deterred by a gun law.

One solution that often gets left out of the gun control discussion is allowing more people to have access to concealed carry. People who qualify to have concealed guns have undergone extensive background checks, education classes, as well as a qualification to test their accuracy and ability to handle handguns.

After all this, these people are still very controlled in some states. In California, someone could pass all these tests, but still be denied because there is no “good cause” to be able to have a concealed weapon.

Protecting themselves should be good enough cause.

Maybe if more citizens like Willeford were allowed more freedom to have concealed weapons the headlines would read something like “Shooter taken out by citizen. Only casualty,” rather than “At least 25 people killed, shooter on the loose.”

The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun because guns don’t kill people. People kill people.