Far too many communities struggle with violent crime. In fairness, even one act of violence is one too many, and a lot of places have way more than one instance of someone being shot, stabbed, or threatened with a weapon.
But some of the solutions floating around are especially stupid, such as gun control. However, sometimes someone floats an idea that you just have to wonder not what they were thinking, but if they were thinking at all.
For example, we have Darlington, South Carolina, where one local official has a plan to address the city's "gun violence" issues with something that sounds brain-dead:
Darlington City Councilwoman Elaine Reed is seeking to establish cease-fire zones across the community in an effort to fight gun violence, help troubled youth, and save lives.
Reed is working with the New Alpha Community Development Coordination Cease Fire USA to establish zones in Darlington.
The zones would be designated areas, like drug-free zones, where you're not allowed to fire a weapon.
"I can’t seem to stop. Trying to organize. Trying to get this community, the Darlington community to address this. From the families. From the churches," said Reed.
Reed says losing her 16-year-old godson to a shooting spurs her action.
If only there was some intelligence involved.
Recommended
Look, I'm sympathetic. I lost a dear friend in a shooting and I can only imagine losing someone you've known would hit harder, but let's look at this proposal for a moment. It's going to make it illegal to shoot in these "zones."
People are shooting at one another, which is a crime. Does anyone with more than two brain cells rubbing against one another think that the people trying to kill each other will have enough respect for the law to not do it in these "zones" or something?
I didn't know it was possible to have an idea dumber than gun-free zones, but here we go.
Look, this isn't difficult to understand. For example, many states with preemption laws have one exception that allows cities to prohibit discharging a firearm inside city limits. This is, in effect, the same thing as establishing these zones. My hometown of Albany, Georgia, has one.
In 1988, we were the murder capital of the United States, per capita. The law had been in effect for years before this.
While the homicide rate has dropped since then in Albany, it's still not what most would consider a particularly safe community. Violent crime is all over the place, and yet the law prohibiting people from shooting inside the city has done nothing at all to curb the violence.
Funny, that.
I understand that Reed is trying to do something. I can even respect it so long as it's based on trying to end the suffering.
But this isn't going to do a blasted thing. At best, it's a misguided effort that won't accomplish anything. At worst, it's a case of political grandstanding designed to make someone look like they're addressing the problem without having to, you know, actually address the problem.
Time will tell which is which.
