To argue how each of these suggestions would fail to increase public safety or stop people who have murder in their hearts is a waste of time. Even the anti-gun Times knows they wouldn’t do anything other than make it more difficult to own guns and more permissible for the government to curb our rights.
This is the familiar “reasonable step” argument, which states that after each horrible crime you enact a small number of “reasonable” gun control measures. After enough tragedies, because of course “no single measure of combination of measures” will stop the bloodshed, these “reasonable” measures will eventually achieve the goal of the anti-gun zealots: a complete ban of private firearms ownership.
Lest you think this overstates the distain in which the Times regards those of us who own firearms, consider the concluding statement in the editorial:
So anyone who thinks that having a gun for self-protection in a gunfight—rather than crouching behind a desk while frantically hoping that dialing 911 will save them—is a zealot.
Call me crazy then.