I’ve seen other examples of this in the past. In this case it’s not forced.
From the article:
"If we can prevent just one child, one innocent bystander, from being the victim of a random accident or the target of an unstable person, it will be well worth our time and effort," added Constantine.
This sounds like a noble idea – afterall who could argue with such a wonderful sounding sentiment?

For most in the gun control lobby, however, they are ALWAYS so short sighted and almost never consider the consequences. They fail to realize that crime increases in other ways when regular people aren’t allowed to defend themselves. I would argue the opposite: If the freedom to responsibly posses and carry firearms saves the life of just one potential victim, it will be worth it.

From the hardened liberals’ viewpoint, they do consider the consequences and are not concerned with new crime afterward. Their goal is to disarm the population to control them.