1. Private gun sales are what he was discussing with his original point which is not addressed. But I agree current laws should be worked with and better enforced. So I agree with his final point but he missed a lot
2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_Square_shooting
Guess he didnt research that one much. I am guessing there are more since he missed a big recent one. His logic in general is just poor on this as well. H is using individual cases and not statistics to make his point seem stronger.
3. I agree with his critic of this point. We cant preemptively take away peoples guns if they have not been convicted of something. This would be abused. But it is a good example of the dangers of guns and why deaths decrease with less guns around. People generally act rashly and will reconsider later.
4. Again very poor logic and preying on recency bias to make his point seem stronger. Also building a silly straw mans argument with soda. Studies pretty convincing show that the more planning it takes the less likely it is to happen. This seems like a good suggestion and compromise from the original author. Who needs to buy more guns at once and isnt willing to wait?
5. Who did it might have been solved but not where the guns came from. That is part of solving the crime. Although I would not trust someone just basing it on his memory with no evidence to back it up. (like all of his points)
6.They do work. Politicians are opposed to them as are gun companies and lobbyist. Again he makes claims with no evidence. They could work and they would help in mass shootings and more importantly they would help a lot in gun deaths such as suicide and homicide. If police could turn off bad guys guns that would be effective. Even if the owner was the only one with control it would help and it would make it easier to track guns. There has been data on smart guns that is very promising. I would like to see his evidence of it not working.
7. He is focusing on mass shootings again even though that is a small part of gun deaths. This would have prevented at least 1 mass shooting I can think of off the top of my head so probably more. This would greatly reduce other gun deaths. He makes another claim with no evidence which is not true. There has been a lot of links to gun ownership and suicide. There is also evidence of more suicides in states with more guns, Australia suicide levels decreased by 70% with the ban of guns and lots and lots of more data. Its people like this spewing out garbage claims that make this debate more difficult because people believe him, and its harder to prove wrong later once people have been show false evidence.
8. He focuses on one part of the argument and runs with it making another crappy straw mans argument. But again he makes a claim with no proof that is unlikely to be true. Researching would be helpful. It makes him sound very ignorant to claim otherwise.
Overall a garbage piece presented here. Despite agreeing with a couple of his points he makes no attempt to actually argue with good points and just throws out crap and claims it as true. He mostly just creates strawman arguments and provides 0 data. This is the type of article and information going around that is very hurtful to everyone that reads it. This guy should be ashamed of this piece. There was plenty to critic with the original article but he did nothing to argue against it.
