Jeffrey Haycraft is a resident of Camden.
George Roof’s recent Opinion on gun laws makes some points worth engaging, but it ultimately fires in the wrong direction (“How about some common sense in gun laws?”). By leaning on caricatures of Democrats as “gun grabbers” and invoking Orwellian conspiracies, it misses the heart of the issue: how to reduce violence, while respecting the rights of responsible gun owners. If we’re going to talk about “common sense,” then let’s do so honestly.
First, let’s dispense with distractions. Roof begins by declaring that America has never been a “democracy.” That’s a semantic dodge. The United States is a constitutional republic built firmly on democratic principles. Voters elect representatives, and laws are shaped through popular input. The real debate isn’t over vocabulary; it’s about how to keep our communities safe.
Roof also takes issue with President Joe Biden’s reminder that no right in the Constitution is absolute. But this is not radical; it’s legal fact. Free speech doesn’t cover libel or incitement, and the Second Amendment has always existed alongside regulation. Machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and explosives have long been restricted without controversy. Pretending otherwise oversimplifies history.
Another weak point in Roof’s argument is the claim that every gun safety proposal equals “gun confiscation.” That’s simply false. Policies such as universal background checks, safe storage requirements and red flag laws do not take guns from law-abiding citizens. They are designed to prevent reckless access — especially by those who pose a danger to themselves or others.
Then, there’s the ongoing debate about “assault weapons.” Roof dismisses the category as meaningless “cosmetics.” But this ignores the reality: AR-15-style rifles fire high-velocity rounds with detachable magazines, enabling rapid fire and making them disproportionately used in mass shootings. States already define these weapons in law with precision; it is not beyond us to be clear about what we mean.
The age argument is another red herring. Yes, 18-year-olds can vote and serve in the military, but military service comes with rigorous training, supervision and rules of engagement. Civilian ownership does not. We already set different age limits for drinking, smoking and gambling based on public health evidence. Why should firearms — uniquely lethal tools — not be treated with equal seriousness?
Finally, Roof suggests that, because crimes like murder and robbery are already illegal, new gun laws are pointless. By that logic, we wouldn’t have enacted seat belt laws because reckless driving was already banned. But targeted safety laws save lives by addressing specific risks. Gun policy is no different.
Now, here’s where common ground can be found: Roof is right that prosecutors should not ignore gun charges. Consistent enforcement matters. But that doesn’t mean we abandon safety measures; it means we improve both policy and execution.
If we want real “common sense” in gun laws, here’s where to start:
These are not “people control.” They are pragmatic steps that respect the Second Amendment, while addressing the undeniable fact that the U.S. has far higher rates of gun violence than any other developed nation.
The real “common sense” lies in striking the balance between rights and responsibilities. Responsible gun owners already understand that. Our laws should reflect it.
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.
