The problem with this editorial is that it offers quotes that support the argument, while offering no counter-point. Yes, it is an editorial and doesn’t need the counterpoint, but it just shows that Goldsmith doesn’t have a strong enough argument to make his case. Worse still is the fact that he notes Philadelphia is safer, yet still calls for “reform of gun laws.”

If the city is already safe, and he says gun control is working, then why reform the gun laws – something that to us would only effect law-abiding gun owners, and clearly not criminals? What is the point? Could it be that this isn’t so much about crime, but rather that CeaseFirePA would like to see a gun-free zone that is much larger than merely the city of brotherly love?

“A gun-rights decision by the Supreme Court two years ago threatened to make it more dangerous to walk the streets of Washington.”

Is there even any evidence that the streets of Washington are any more dangerous? Worse still, somehow the editors of the Inquirer seem to think that allowing citizens to legally obtain firearms will lead to more illegal guns:

“That will lead to a greater proliferation of handguns – with the inevitable increase in illegal gun trafficking.”

We must ask why criminals will wait for legal handguns, and further ask if anyone really thinks someone would suddenly just buy guns legally, only to sell them illegally?

This isn’t a good sign, this is a horrible sign for law-abiding gun owners nation-wide, and while The Philadelphia Inquirer in an editorial this past weekend attempted to draw attention to illegal guns, this notion of “getting guns off the street” through legislation is in our opinion completely misguided. It is criminals, those who don’t legally own guns who are responsible for the bulk of crime. Does anyone at the Inquirer really think more laws will get the criminals to fall in line?

“Researchers randomly chose 677 of those victims for the study. They came from various occupations – taxi drivers, bartenders, nurses, and drug dealers. Fifty-three percent had criminal records. Six percent had guns with them when they were shot.”

While this is a good sampling, how credible is information from “drug dealers” for example. More over these subjects are also only so credible, with 53 percent having criminal records – aren’t criminals the type of people we all agree should not have guns?

But the real problem with this article is that while it does include some pro-gun counterpoint that includes opinion from academia, the story still leans enough to agree far too much with the study. And that would be fine if it wasn’t passed off as news.