Just when we thought we had moved on from the Columbine High shootings of last spring, an even more bizarre tragedy has occurred. On Feb. 29, a six-year -ld boy in Mount Morris Township, Mich. toted a .32 caliber handgun in his backpack and emptied a fatal round into the chest of six-year-old Kayla Rolland.

The boy was living in a local crack house while his father served out a two-year sentence for violating probation on cocaine and burglary charges and his mother was AWOL. Michigan prosecutors decided not to charge the boy with anything--he is so young he cannot even comprehend his actions. He received a 90-day suspension from school and possible expulsion. Authorities are, however, charging a 19-year old man living in the house where the boy stayed with involuntary manslaughter. He allegedly left the gun the boy used lying around the house.

The entire situation is incredibly tragic for many reasons. A mother and father have lost a child. A six-year-old boy has suffered deep and permanent psychological trauma. Schools once again have become places where safety seems anything but ensured. And politicians are picking up all of these cues: Now's their time to make themselves look good by twisting the issue around to fit an agenda.

On March 9, President Bill "I feel your pain" Clinton on CNN's "Burden of Proof" suggested this incident was preventable if Congress could pass the tougher gun control legislation he wants . The latest anti-gun bill would require safety locks on new guns, ban the import of large-capacity ammunition clips and require a three-day waiting period for background checks before buying weapons at gun shows. Makes you feel completely safe, doesn't it?

But in truth, this latest attempt to regulate America is nothing more than feel-good legislation. The boy took the gun from another resident criminal in his house. While a safety device might have been helpful in inhibiting him from ever getting a shot off, a background check and three-day waiting period do not appear terribly effective given the acquisition process. And this is the practical problem with most gun control legislation.

NRA yahoos love to rebut any gun control argument with, "guns don't kill people. People kill people." But despite their at times over-zealous rhetoric, there is some truth to this statement. Most who use guns for violent crimes are smart enough to acquire them illegally. If someone is going to be running drugs or robbing liquor stores, they are probably not attending gun shows at local expo centers or stores where they must deal with licensing. Instead, they turn to the illegal market for guns; something only controllable through tougher crime measures. This market is what needs regulating.

The use of guns in connection with violent criminal behavior must be stopped. But it can be stopped without penalizing law-abiding citizens. If other parts of the country follow the lead of cities like Richmond, Va. whose "Project Exile" began enforcing existing gun legislation and putting felons caught with guns in jail for five-year minimums cut crime numbers in half, we would not need more regulation.

While constitutional arguments against gun control don't seem compelling, more gun laws do seem objectionable on the grounds of pragmatism. They are not accomplishing the goals that prompted more legislation in the first place. We need to use our system's current penalties to show drug dealers and violent criminals that their actions will not be tolerated. Instead, we continue to live in a culture where people just cry out for more and more federal legislation every time the weather changes.