Via The Blaze, I’m torn between applauding the rebuttal ad (from Liberty Pennsylvania) and thinking it’s totally unnecessary. Apart from the most devout gun-grabbers, everyone watching the first clip below is already imagining the scenario in the second, right? Good lord, even the reliably liberal women of “The View” couldn’t help letting their thoughts drift to the obvious counter-scenario. That’s why I say the Bloomberg ad is baffling — of all the ways you could dramatize why guns should be controlled more closely, a confrontation between a defenseless woman and a larger, enraged man is one of the dumbest. For good measure, as others have noted, Bloomy’s group inexplicably imagines the woman on the phone with 911 before crazy guy bursts in, as if to emphasize that the cops can’t always help even when they know you’re in danger. Nor is there any attempt to suggest that the guy got his gun illegally or through means that would have been foreclosed by a more robust background-check system. Unless they’re pushing total confiscation, there’s no point here except that “guns can be used by bad people for bad ends.” True. And by good people for good ends, per the rebuttal ad. What now?

If Bloomberg wants to scare people into supporting gun control with scary but pointless non-arguments, why not a spree-shooter scenario instead? Or is that ad on the way?