I'm not a gun advocate, but I understand the argument that people make for more concealed guns. Certainly, it's the same argument that Ted Nugent makes in his commentary at CNN, which can be found here:
http://www.cnn.com/...
Yes, you can make the argument that more concealed guns are better since then people can take out the "bad guys" when they pop up. It's an understandable and compelling argument which you can agree or disagree with your own examples and arguments. But what you can't do is just make stuff up to support your argument, which is what Nugent does in this sentence:
"Thirty-two people dead on a U.S. college campus pursuing their American Dream, mowed-down over an extended period of time by a lone, non-American gunman in illegal possession of a firearm on campus in defiance of a zero-tolerance gun law."
At first, I thought there were two lies in here, as initial media reports said that Cho was a US Citizen. I've since looked this up and found that he was actually a permanent resident, so technically I suppose the "non-American" part is not a lie, despite permanent resident status and the fact that Cho had been in the US for 14 years. It's irrelevant, but not technically a lie.
But Cho legally purchased his firearms. I suppose the fact that he legally purchased the firearms in an "unremarkable" way (as the gun shop owner expressed) would actually sort of hurt his argument. So, best to just make up that he was in illegal possession of the firearms so that it seems like he's more of a criminal, and if only more people legally had guns they could stop the criminals who illegally got them.
CNN lets this go uncorrected without an editors note saying that the guns were legally purchased.
Am I misreading this or missing something?