A Handy Guide for Anti-Gun Journalists On How Not to Sound Stupid on the Subject of Guns

Via Instapundit, we have a little help on how to write about guns if you are an anti-gun journalist. This point in particular is worth repeating in light of last wee's events in Tucson:

1. Don’t assume criminals follow laws.

In a way, this goes right to the heart of the gun-control debate. It is a conservative talking point that only the law-abiding will follow — and thus be disarmed by — gun laws.

.........

Jared Loughner left his house that day intending to assassinate Representative Giffords. There is absolutely no reason to believe that a more restrictive concealed-carry regime would have changed that. If he was willing to violate laws against murder, he was willing to violate laws against concealed carry. Suggesting otherwise just shows that you haven’t bothered to think things through.

This is the (regrettably often fatal) flaw in thinking that because you might post a sign that says "No Guns Allowed" somewhere that someone bent on murder is going to think twice about carrying out the act. No, you might as well put up a sign that says "Unarmed Victims Inside. Have At It;" Spree killers, sometimes also called active shooters, look for places like this. They often do not intend to come out of the incident alive themselves but want to kill as many others as they can before they take their own lives or are killed themselves.

A "cooling off period" has been employed in some places, requiring a gun buyer to wait a few days to pick it up from the store. Perhaps what would serve society better is a requirement for a cooling off period before anyone tries to pass poorly conceived law that won't solve the problem it is trying to address or make any of us safer.