Originally Posted by ChicagoRon
Let's see - I'll assume you don't know anything about my politics and I'll just leave it at that if you don't.
Now - how is it stupid....
Airplanes don't fly themselves. If you leave one fueled up on a tarmac, it will not take off without a pilot. However, without one, you probably can't transport a few hundred people across the Atlantic Ocean in under 10 hours.
Guns don't kill people. Someone needs to shoot one. Without a shooter, the gun will just sit there.
However, a violent person without access to a gun would have more trouble in an effort to efficiently kill a large crowd of people before being subdued, and certainly would need to premeditate the attack much better.
It's stupid because it's obvious and would never change someone's mind who does not believe the second amendment is meant to protect the individual liberty of gun ownership by responsible citizens.
Where to start?
You assume the writer is trying to change minds. And there might be some element of that, but gun rights have, for a long time now, been secured by an unusually determined minority. Only recently have gun rights had majority support, and it faded pretty quickly (albeit temporarily, as new polls have shown) in the face of the massacre and Obama's crocodile tears. Rallying the base is not only a legitimate strategy, it's the better one.
Then you assume the author wants to talk about mass murders. If you haven't noticed, the debate has largely moved on from that, and now it's about gun violence in general. The left (the MSM) has shifted its focus probably because it realizes the push for an "assault weapons" ban has failed, and nobody wants to look like a loser. That's just as well, because mass shootings are a red herring, a drop in the bucket. As the author surely knows but really can't say, most gun violence results from social problems. He can't go into that because of space and the risk of being called a racist, but the point is well made despite the brevity of the piece.
And you assume the author really is debating guns vel non. Yes, it sort of sounds like it. But he's not invoking a total gun ban because he's trying to be part of the "national dialogue" as promoted by the MSM and the left. That's about magazine capacity, "assault weapons," and "gun show loopholes"--nibbling away at gun rights anywhere they can. Those issues are poorly understood by the public at large and the author doesn't have the space to address them. So he goes straight to gun bans because he knows that gets people riled up. Just because it doesn't appeal to you doesn't mean it isn't effective.