My Critique of a Gun Law Editorial

In the New York Times, Gail Collins wrote an editorial "School of Glock" in which she gets her agenda across of not passing laws which were pro-armament of citizens and passing laws which takes more guns out of the hands of most people.  Personally, I agree that by taking weapons off the market and ultimately out of citizens hands the nation becomes safer by default.  But, I believe that this nation, which was founded upon the Right to Bear Arms, should give the citizens (who elect the representatives to their respective offices).  Collins' audience is clearly intended to be those who oppose guns and laws that make it easier for citizens to bear arms.

She starts off by bringing up the tragedy in Tuscon.  And then she brought up a legislative bill being brought up in Florida which had nothing to do with the aftermath of the tragedy.  This bill could potentially fine doctors up to $5 million for asking patients if they own guns.  I am not sure why she brought this up and even stated that the two occurrences were unrelated.  I suppose she wanted to say that insurance companies might use the information about gun owners to potentially raise their rates.  Collins highlights bills proposed that would force all adult citizens to purchase firearms.  This is a silly bill, Collins knows that it's a silly bill, and South Carolina State Representative Hal Wick, who proposed the bill, knew this was a silly bill.  I am almost tempted to think that this article is actually about healthcare reform law and not about gun laws.  But I am not an English major so I shall just stick to making points about her arguments.  I feel as though Collins does believe that national politics does a lot to make sure that the National Rifle Association remains content with the U.S. Legislative System.  Seems to be that the NRA has great influence over national politics if bills have been passed to allow the right to carry into bars (Georgia), the right to carry without the need for concealed licenses (Florida), and designating one's own state gun (soon to be Utah).

Gail Collins seems to me to be a very credible author.  She brings up actual bills brought up in legislatures across the nation.  But she seems to dismiss them all without any sort of supporting arguments.  Collins uses humor to tell the reader that these bills are no good.  The only argument she actually makes in the entire editorial was to say that "there is no such thing as a good shot" and to provide a quote from a former New York City police commissioner that trained officer hit target at worse that a 20% rate.  This was a good read in my opinion but I would not suggest hanging ones political view of gun control on this article.  There just was not enough facts, just jokes, sarcasm, and humor.