Everyone knows that generalizations contain some
truth--that's the only reason they exist at all.
The point of my post and of the article in question is that they do not tell the whole story and we do ourselves (and those we label using generalizations) a disservice if we assume otherwise.
I am torn between the two, the platforms seem to be exactly the same. I can't tell any difference. Living here in California, I've noticed we have the same general legal scheme for firearms as Montana and New York and Idaho are mirror images and Illinois, Maryland et al are the same as Wyoming. Yes it is just all the same. Makes no difference. I feel so good now.
Kumbaya - We all equally love firearms. Kumbaya
No one is claiming it's all the same, and it's disengenous and unproductive of you to attempt to make it seem so.
The point is that we need to be aware of reality, with all its complexities, as opposed to trying to simplify things to the point that we ignore important facts. The fact that the article points out is that gun-owners are not a homogenous bunch. Not only do we not all have the same political leanings, we don't even all feel the same way about specific firearms. Many of us are willing to actually support certain firearm bans if we perceive that we will be unaffected in the short term--it's been proven time and time again.
Finally, you are clearly aware of the fact that it is against TFL policy to allow arguments to degenerate into purely political debates. Further creative attempts to circumvent that policy or publicly whine, or "snipe", about it will backfire.