Despite the seeming intent of universities these days to indoctrinate instead of educate, there are students that are not so easily led.

Of course, the only thing gun control advocates like bringing up more than individual victims of gun violence is multiple victims of gun violence. For instance, Enriquez writes that “Thirteen people were gunned down … in the middle of Chicago.” But “gunned down” may be a bit of a strong term ­— given that there were zero fatalities in that case. Additionally, Enriquez failed to mention that the firearm used to perpetrate the crime was illegal, so it seems unlikely that more stringent legal restrictions could have prevented this incident.

When repeatedly bringing up cases like these, the purpose is never to present some new and convincing logical argument, but rather to get people riled up. It is obviously true firearms can be used to perpetrate appalling crimes — no one is on the other side of that argument. But it’s not logically inconsistent to agree with that point while simultaneously supporting gun rights. Let’s quit it with the demagoguery and stick to substance.

If you ever watch Michael Moore’s film “Bowling for Columbine,” you’ll notice that he never actually conducts any sort of cost-benefit analysis on his proposed changes in firearms policy. It’s taken for granted that since people die because of guns, it would be crazy not to ban guns. And Moore is by no means alone in this view. Invariably, when a multiple-victim shooting occurs, media frenzy is sure to follow — immediately condemning conservatives as murderers by proxy. Enriquez’s column is just a drop in this ocean of hair-trigger emotionalism.

“Hair trigger emotionalism.”

I like this guy. He also did a nice column on guns back in February. Andrew Powers might be worth keeping an eye on as a columnist once he graduates.