That's not a surprise. Nor too is it a surprise that the Star's editors don't understand what the debate is about. This quote from the editorial is revealing:
"At the state level, however, government consistently has tilted against practical safety considerations in favor of platitudes about individual rights."The editorial suggests that gun restrictions, such as the absolute ban on guns in city parks here, is a safety precaution which protects the public. The opinion rests on a faulty premise...that people who are willing to commit a crime by using a gun will for some reason obey a gun ban.
I ride my bike on White River Trail. At several points on the trail, someone could jump out with a gun and rob me. While I probably wouldn't carry a gun with me, I don't want to broadcast the news to a potential robber that I'm unarmed. That's what the gun ban on city parks does - it disarms people who follow the law and lets those who are willing to commit crimes with a gun know they have unarmed prey at their disposal.
When will the Star's editors understand that people who break the law aren't going to comply with gun bans. They only people you are disarming are law-abiding citizens.