While The Day is enthusiastically pushing for "meaningful" and "tough" gun control action, I can't see that this newspaper has given much attention as to what would actually be effective at reducing gun violence.
The Day supported assault weapons bans in 1993 and 1994, so one would think this newspaper could address whether the earlier laws did any good at all before urging more of the same.
In 1993, Connecticut basically copied the existing California law, added a few more guns, then crowed about having the "toughest" assault weapons ban in the country. It gave us bragging rights, but has it really worked that well? Have you read the U.S. Department of Justice 2004 study on the 1994 federal assault weapons ban? It found no significant effect on violent crime rates, and predicted that any benefits from continuing the ban would be "small at best" and "too small for accurate measurement."
The Day is pushing for policies that have been tried before with no measurable benefit. Bans of specific types of guns (assault weapons, Saturday-night specials, or whatever) are symbolic gestures that don't contribute one iota to public safety.