I'm assuming the New York Times qualifies on sort of a mega-level, although I avoid the editorial page to preserve some measure of sanity.  My "attack" posts in the comments sections of their news stories stopped appearing almost immediately, leading me to think they have a filter that blocks anyone to the right of David Brooks.

OK, how did he get them to stop texting long enough to talk?  I really want to know this.

This.  The problem with the blame game here is that it attempts to ascribe a political reason to an inherently irrational act.  And this applies no matter who perpetrated the bombing.  To imply that a mass murderer's "affiliation"  (whether Islamicist or "right-wing" or whatever) has any meaning is to ascribe a rationality that is at odds with the act.  The need to make such a connection is simply a by-product of the need to make political capital out of a tragedy.   We've seen that movie before.

It's not about money.  It's about something as intangible as "acceptance."  If it were about money, we'd still be talking civil unions.

My recollection is that the civil union concept was an attempt to deal with the "legal aspect" of marriage, oh, back in the dark ages 10 years ago or so before politicians read the tea leaves and began falling all over themselves to "evolve."  Whatever happened to civil unions?

"And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men who, for the time being, have power to declare what the Constitution is according to their own views of what it ought to mean. "

                                                       Justice Benjamin Curtis,  dissenting,

                                                        Dred Scott v.  Sandford 

At the admitted risk of a pop-psych oversimplification, my experience with individuals such as your friend is that they are, at root, very insecure.  Any challenge to their belief system is viewed with extreme hostility.  I can't help but wonder what the response would be if you forwarded your piece to your friend.

Point well taken, Nathan, although the arts coverage is compromised, IMO, by the paper's politics.  The moral dilemna we face is whether to subsidize the Charles Blows and Paul Krugmans of the world by giving a page hit to the worthwhile sections.

I went to the website so you won't have to.   Given that the organization's reason for being is essentially narcissistic, it won't surprise anyone that the membership rolls have their "fair share" of show bizerati, including Edie Falco, Moby, and (yikes) Norman Lear.  There's even a Disney (Abigail), who is motivated to let us know that she "is an executive producer of Women, War & Peace, producer of the film Pray the Devil Back to Hell and writer on Peace Unveiled, the third film in the series about Afghanistan. Her longtime passion for women’s issues and peacebuilding led her to producing films."  That's a long way from Mickey Mouse, Abigail.

One disappointment  --  the presence of Dr. Doom, Nouriel Roubini.

It sounds like a flawed study to me.  I'm guessing that the sample is distorted by focusing on an overabundance of older Anericans who passed away  after watching thousands of hours of PBS pledge drives featuring Doo Wop acts.  Has Nate Silver chimed in?     

Next up for me on the sports paraphernalia front:  a customized 'Skins jersey with"Scott 16" to go with my Griffin III.   

DH:

If you are concerned about winning arguments, then presumably you understand the mindset of those with whom you are arguing.  I'd suggest  a simple inquiry along the lines of: "Would you be satisfied if we banned clips containing more than 10 rounds and then left the issue alone?" I'm betting that this would would focus the discussion on the fact that this isn't really about clips or rounds or whatever.  It's about a ban on handguns.  While I usually hate slippery slope arguments, in this case, that's the end game.

Please don't create straw person arguments by putting words in my mouth.  No one suggested that there was no loss of time.  It's relatively easy to change a clip  in 1-2 secs., a time more than made up by panic/confusion on the part of the unfortunate victims. In fact, as occurred in Aurora, the jamming of a larger capacity clip may even act to save lives.

That's a straw person argument that I hope is unworthy of you.  I never suggested that the times would be equal.  That's just silly. What I did suggest is that those advancing your line of thinking don't seem to grasp that the difference for anyone with a modicum of coordination and/or practice is minimal and unlikely to make much, if any, difference in a massacre.  The inevitable panic/confusion on the part of the unfortunate victims will provide time to change clips.  Furthermore, as with the Aurora shootings, the chance that a jam will occur may actually save lives. 

Do you know how quickly and easily a clip can be changed by  someone who simply carries a few extra to compensate for not having a "high capacity magazine"?  Perhaps you do, but I'd suggest that this suggestion may seem sensible on its face, but doesn't address the real issues.