Regardless of how you feel about new restrictions on gun ownership, ask yourself this: Who would be enforcing them?

The same FBI that failed to act on warnings Nikolas Cruz was dangerous, allowing him to slaughter 17 people at a high school? The FBI that cleared Dylann Roof to buy the guns he used to murder nine people at a Charleston, S.C. church — though he clearly should have been disqualified?

Local prosecutors in South Carolina who failed to provide the FBI with information on Roof?

Sheriff’s departments like that in Broward County, Fla., which knew from dozens of contacts and reports that Nikolas Cruz was dangerous, but did nothing to stop him from his murderous spree?

Perhaps officials in cities and states that have declared themselves “sanctuaries” for illegal immigrants regardless of whether they have criminal backgrounds?

Suggestions of new curbs on owning firearms and on the types of weapons that can be sold in the United States are controversial.

Yet time after time, in the wake of mass killings, we focus on new restrictions, even when it is clear blame lies with failure to enforce existing laws.

This is not to suggest we should not debate whether the rules — on keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, for example — can be improved while not infringing upon Second Amendment rights.

But laws do no good if they are not enforced.

How many more people have to die before we do something about that aspect of gun violence?