Why we lost. Why we didn't.
We fixated on Newtown, and that was never a good idea. Too many eggs in one basket. We should have included the safety and effectiveness of our police force, outgunned by unknown, unchecked people wielding assault weapons. We should have brought in the Texas prosecutors case, for example.
But we even though we fixated on Newtown, we failed to marshal even that argument well. You can't make the argument "Newtown, ergo background checks." That is feeble and a non sequitur on its face. The Nancy Lanzas of this world pass background checks.
You can make the argument "Newtown, ergo magazine capacity limits," and that argument wasn't made enough. It would have been more focused. We buried the lede. We took the polls that said what was most popular (background checks) and tried to duct tape it to a Newtown foundation.
Most importantly, we forgot the subtext, to make every NRA member and every assault weapon owner a suspected Nancy Lanza. The villain was left out of the story. If we don't want more Newtowns, one of the best ways is to have no more Nancy Lanzas. To have no more Nancy Lanzas, her foolishness and nuttiness need to be straightforwardly and loudly condemned. Then anyone who has any passing resemblance to her would be shaking in their boots and throwing their assault weapon in the river.
It's not over. People no longer look at these assault weapon, special magazine funny boys the way they used to. Society is starting to hate them. A very good sign. That's a win for sanity.
And it's not even over for gun control laws. People just need to sense their own danger and the ugly, barbarian nature of a gun-infested society. It's coming. There is a difference between a duck hunter or someone who wants to protect their home and an anonymous, Nancy Lanza-esque, assault weapon fondler. We'll sort it out.
