And an excellent one at that. It's all good, but this is great:

My esteemed colleague, Jason Whitlock, argued just that in a very thoughtful column, noting “What I believe is, if (Belcher) didn’t possess/own a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.” NBC analyst Bob Costas used this as a jumping off point to proselytize during halftime of “Football Night in America” about perspective in sports and the dangers of guns.

The problem with intelligent, impassioned, well-reasoned arguments is how seductive they are. It is easier to blow off the crazy guy screaming “ban all guns” than journalists such as Whitlock or Costas who are arguing rather convincingly how the Second Amendment threatens our liberty rather than enhances it.

She is exactly right; Whitlock and Costas did, in fact, argue that the Second Amendment threatens our liberty rather than enhances it. One, the facts don't support them. Two, even if it did, the Second Amendment is still there. The only way to accomplish what they seek is to amend the Constiution to repeal the Second Amendment. They know that will NEVER happen, so they simply want to violate the constiutional right as it exists. 

But that's where Number 1 becomes very important. A lot of evidence supports the argument that legal concealed carry does make people safer. And when you consider the millions of guns in America, the instances of shootings such as the one in Kansas City, as horrific as it is, are very rare.