You may have heard a brief flurry of controversy about the Baltimore City Council’s contemplation of banning toy guns and paintball guns and the like. I thought this editorial hits the mark.

I thought the point they’re making (that real gun control doesn’t work, so why should toy gun control?) was well founded and pretty apparent. But it made me wonder about what happens when you consider that conundrum from the reverse point of view: nobody really thinks it’s all that radical an idea that the Baltimore Police aren’t really going to be able to stem the purchase and possession of toy guns.

Why isn’t it just as obvious to everyone that they’re not likely to do much better with the real thing? Why isn’t the presumption that gun control might actually work (something its proponents count upon) not as uniformly and immediately identified as the bunk that it is? Is it the emotional heartstring that gun control plucks in suburban NIMBYs and soccer moms? The idea that we need to “think of the children”?

It seems that gun controllers think gun control will work simply because they *really, really, really, really* want it to.