Even for an op-ed preaching to the choir of the Globe readership, there's a fundamental lack of logic. This would have been given a C as a high school persuasive writing assignment.
Premise: Gun laws only work when they're enforced. In order to prove the premise, at minimum it would have to be shown that either the Monterey Park or Half Moon Bay shooter illegally obtained his firearm, and enforcement of the laws would have prevented or reduced the casualties of each event.
Inconvenient fact: From what I've read thus far, the Monterey Park and Half Moon Bay shooters both legally obtained their firearms. Further, the Gustavo Rodriguez case has no parallelism to the CA shootings and is certainly not a "case in point" of enforcing gun control laws, as Mr. Rodriguez was actually a victim of gun violence. Being shot was not a preventable consequence of his illegal possession of handguns. You could even go as far to say that it was potentially necessary for Mr. Rodriguez to break laws regarding handgun possession in order to be able to defend himself from gun violence. Also, Mr. Rodriguez is not "too young to acquire a gun license". He could have obtained an FID and gotten a shotgun or non-standard cap rifle.
If the byline states The Globe Editorial Board, I would think at minimum one person squirted the prose form of hot diarrhea from their fingertips into MS Word then another person proofed it. The lack of writing quality makes me think this isn't the case at all, and instead, slamming a square peg into a round hole is fine as long as it meets the narrative.