The Post-Star Editorial Board’s recent editorial entitled “SAFE Act can help save lives” was correct on some aspects of the SAFE Act but missed the mark on several counts.

The editorial opined that the SAFE Act, correctly “called the strictest in the country,” was responsible for allowing the local police to disarm and subsequently confiscate the weapon of a resident in Fort Ann. The police professionally defused the situation and disarmed the resident because he was brandishing a weapon while standing in a public street, not because the SAFE Act existed. The confiscated weapon may subsequently turn out to be illegal under the SAFE Act, but the police would have behaved in the same manner had the individual been holding any number of weapons not regulated by the act such as shotguns, pellet guns, or even baseball bats.

While no sane, rational person wants a repeat of the recent, wanton killing that took place in Las Vegas, it is important to keep in mind that laws like the SAFE Act do not address the underlying cause of the killing. Requiring more, stricter gun control laws in an attempt to prevent tragedies like Las Vegas is analogous to making it more difficult for people to purchase an automobile in order to prevent drunk drivers from killing people on the highway.

We need to recognize the SAFE Act for what it was and is; an ill-conceived and transparent media play on the part of the governor. The SAFE Act only makes it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to enjoy hunting and target shooting activities as well as defend their homes and families. Any laws intended on reducing crimes committed with guns need to be focused on the behaviors of criminals, not those of the “good guys.”

Stuart Field, Queensbury