I had read the whole article. You’re right in that it’s written for a lib audience, and thus must be taken with that grain of salt in mind.
But my point is he shows up with typical lib prejudices, and while he soon finds many of them untrue, he’s pushing the “guns are for killing people and the firing range” shibboleth.
Let's be realistic here and take what we can get. Guns are, by their very nature, a machine that is designed to kill, though not exclusively people. He didn't make the distinction and say "people." But it's an irrefutable fact. They are also "fun to shoot". He said that. Where do you go to "shoot for fun"? We don't go to Rush and Division in downtown Chicago do we (thugs and criminals excepted)?
To win any logical debate, you must know and be able to make points on both sides of your argument. As conservatives we fail repeatedly on any number of debates because we get easily fooled into debating farcical and irrelevant, peripheral BS that has nothing to do with the logical issue.
Let's accept that guns actually are for killing and shooting at a range. Next we can argue about the responsibility that goes with that, the laws that are in place currently and the constitutional authority that governs an individuals right that shall not be infringed.