The basic premise is rational and true: if criminals had reduced access to a given tool, then use of that tool in crimes would go down. Of course, that's nearly impossible to achieve. This presumes there is an all-controllable supply chain from source to criminals, which is patently false.
Let alone the idea that pigmentation breeds criminality. This is the sort of thinking that yielded the Nazi scourge on the planet, 70yrs ago.
Reality is, such people (criminals) generally have access to a few other sources of supply, and these remain untouched by any laws. Criminals will avail themselves of such alternate sources, irrespective of socioeconomic status, ethnicity, national origin, creed, color of socks, where the idiot lives, or whatever. All that's needed is either the will to find/take it anyway, or the existence of an alternate source.
Fact is, 10000 statutes haven't solved any of the serious problems. I believe it to be sheer lunacy to expect the 10001st to fix much, if anything.
The article shows the shallow thinking that has been a precursor of the vast majority of the weapons-related statutes ever conceived. As the logic goes, people die by gunfire, a certain "group" is often involved, thus restricting access by that group should reduce death by gunfire. Nice, idealistic wish. Good sound-byte. But it ignores all practicality and reality. History shows that such a wish is fantasy, that it doesn't actually end up that way. Not ever. Not unless you actually erase the people involved. And even that won't be much of a permanent deterrent for others, who will spring up like tenacious weeds once the competition has been cleared.