Gun Debate Yields Page 1 Editorial (in The New York Times)

[frazzled]

15. I would have gone further than they did

with the counterarguments. Specifically, in response to "Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. ... They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did. But at least those countries are trying."

It's more than just not trying hard enough. Criminals break laws by definition. That is what being a criminal means. It doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws. There will always be people who run a red light, but we would never say we shouldn't have traffic laws and regulations because they will never unfailingly stop people from driving dangerously.

The argument that stricter gun laws won't stop criminals is entirely specious (and tautological). It's stupid. We need laws and regulations, and we need them to be Federal, not just state laws. (I live in a state that is a hop, skip, and jump from three contiguous states.)

Let us start by passing a federal law to ban the manufacture and sale of so-called assault weapons. And a serious buy-back program for existing weapons. It's a start. We can indeed, as the editorial states, at least try.