Proposes is not exactly correct. He said he can understand how they'd be helpful, while also saying that the issue has been turned into a paranoia thing for the right because of the NRA. The essay is a thought experiment and exercise to really expose that everyone goes to their corners on this and if you stand in the middle, and see both sides, and then logically would be the most qualified opinion to strike a balance, you'll find yourself ALL ALONE and criticized by both sides. Do you honestly believe that extreme persons who advocate no guns at all, haven't also lit him up for this essay?I do not necessarily disagree with you on the violence in his books thing but I just don't understand this:
Did you misspeak?
If he proposes we have magazine and "assault weapons" bans etc and the proceeds go to the Brady center then the essay clearly does just that.
And when the Brady Center posts a policy that says the government should take guns and control them and hand them out to "approved" citizens at a government depot, I'll agree they are for "gun control" in the way the right intends it when they say it. Short of that, as SK implies in the essay, this angle is a recitation of the NRA paranoia campaign.