Writer debunks his own anti-gun premise in first sentence

AP Photo/Steve Helber

Anti-gun advocates often jump through some interesting mental hoops to reach their conclusions. Occasionally, they debunk their own premise within the text of their own piece. It’s kind of hilarious to behold.


But it usually takes a little while to reach the part that ultimately debunks it.

Well, an opinion writer for the Charlotte Observer managed to do it in the very first sentence.

The piece’s title is, “Gun violence: NC needs a red flag law,” so we know his premise from the start.

Yet the writer begins with this:

The grim news of the gun massacre at an LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado Springs felt deeply personal to me, coming so soon after one at the University of Virginia took the life of a young North Carolinian, and another in Raleigh’s Hedingham neighborhood. The everyday proceedings of life seemed to pause, again, as the brutal dimensions of an oddly familiar story unfolded — a young man with a rifle, a crowded public space, a hail of bullets. Five dead, 25 injured.

How does that debunk his claim?

Well, Colorado and Virginia both have the red flag laws he says his state so desperately needs, yet they clearly accomplished zilch in either case.

Raleigh, however, did happen in North Carolina which clearly lacks a red flag law, so does that at least support his premise?


The alleged killer in the Raleigh shooting was a 15-year-old kid. He’s someone who couldn’t lawfully own guns in the first place, so how would a red flag law have impacted him? What would law enforcement do, take his video game guns away?

Red flag laws are an anti-gun measure that we’re told is minimally invasive of our right to keep and bear arms, but is totally necessary to prevent mass shootings. However, within the last couple of weeks, we’ve had two such shootings in states with red flag laws.


Sounds to me like they don’t work worth a damn.

Especially since a number of potential mass shootings were stopped without any need for a red flag law. After all, planning a mass shooting is illegal in and of itself.

New anti-gun laws aren’t going to help.

Especially when all the old anti-gun laws clearly didn’t do a thing.

Both with Colorado Springs and the University of Virginia, the alleged shooters had been facing felony charges prior to the incident. They also never went to court over those charges, with the UVA shooter reportedly accepting a lesser charge and Lord only knows what happened with the Colorado Springs guy.

Yet those felony charges could have permanently disarmed both of them, making it unlawful for them to even possess a gun.

Both states, as previously noted, have red flag laws which also did nothing.

So how do those support the notion that North Carolina needs such a law?

By invoking those shootings, the author has already provided the evidence needed to debunk his own claim. What North Carolina apparently needs is to prosecute people accused of felonies to the fullest extent of the law.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member