A Dishonest Framing Can’t Lead to Common Ground

There’s a tendency among gun control supporters to call anything and everything short of an outright gun ban and confiscation as “reasonable,” which means that anyone who disagrees is unreasonable.

I find this duplicitous argument incredibly annoying, particularly when those making it have to play fast and loose with the facts to make their case as strong as possible.

This scenario recently played out in the pages of the Capital-Journal newspaper, in a column authored by Wichita State professor Alexandra Middlewood.

In the aftermath of the horrific Winfield murder-suicide that claimed the lives of four children, neighbor Lisa Spoon did what citizens are supposed to do in a democracy.

She contacted her elected representatives and asked them to consider changes to state law that would prohibit convicted felons from purchasing firearms.

Instead of a thoughtful response, she received a dismissive one from Rep. Rick Wilborn, R-McPherson. “You folks never miss an opportunity, to promote your gun shaming hypothesis,” Wilborn replied. “More people are killed by illegals with a criminal record. Please spare me.”

The exchange revealed a troubling assumption that has come to dominate political conversations about firearms: that any discussion of gun safety must be an attack on gun owners.

… Spoon herself owns firearms and she made clear that she was not advocating confiscation or the elimination of gun ownership. She simply wanted a conversation about how to prevent similar tragedies from occurring in the future.

Her position is neither radical nor unusual.

Even if that is the case, I think her framing is completely dishonest.

While Kansas does impose time-limited prohibitions on gun possession for some crimes, instead of a blanket lifetime prohibition, current federal law still prohibits gun possession for anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison.

But even if Spoon’s wish was granted and state law matched federal law, there is no reason to believe that the horrific murder-suicide in Winfield would have been prevented as a result.

The gun used in the murders was purchased by Kelly L. George in February 2025. Unlike her partner Ronald Williams Sr., who did have an extensive criminal history, it doesn’t appear that George had any prior convictions or even arrests to her name. According to authorities, both Williams and George were active participants in the murder of their four children, so Spoon’s desire for tougher gun restrictions on felons could not have stopped this tragedy from taking place.

Middlewood insinuates that maybe a “red flag” law would have made a difference, noting that in a 2024 poll, “nearly 70% of respondents favored allowing family members to ask a court to temporarily remove firearms from a relative believed to be at risk of harming themselves or others.”

It was the parents who needed to be removed, not the gun one of them lawfully purchased. They were the danger to their children, not any of the inanimate objects in their home.

Middlewood cites similar support for a three-day waiting period, but the gun used in the murder-suicide had been purchased more than a year earlier.

Middlewood claims that any Kansans “support both responsible gun ownership and commonsense safety measures.” I’m sure that’s true. I’m also sure that some Kansas gun owners are in favor of gun control (not gun safety) laws, believing that they could have a positive impact without threatening their rights.

In this case, though, none of the laws that Middlewood cites would have stopped this horror from taking place. Better access to mental health and stronger involuntary commitment laws might have, but both Spoon and Middlebrook seem insistent that the only conversation that’s necessary revolves around gun laws. I’m in full agreement with them that we need to look for ways to prevent these kind of tragedies from happening, but I can’t find any common ground when their answer starts and ends with restricting our Second Amendment rights.