Taken down, petrified, intimidated, neutered, emasculated by the gun lobby — still

One could imagine the following simple, justifiable claim in response to another American mass killing:

“An assault weapon ban would likely have prevented the Boulder mass shooting.”

Now, let’s soft pedal that a bit:

“An assault weapon ban would have helped prevent the Boulder mass shooting.”

Too strong of a claim; let’s water it down a bit more.

“I think an assault weapon ban would have helped prevent the Boulder mass shooting.”

No, still too committal. How about:

“I think an assault weapon ban could have helped prevent the Boulder mass shooting.”

No . . . I might get into trouble with that. Let’s make it that I think an assault weapon ban could have helped (only halfway) :

“I mean, one half the problem that led to the events of March 22 is that the availability of assault style weapons is too high.”

And finally, lest someone still believes I am coherent, let me muck it up by inserting a couple contradictions:

“I totally support [a ban] and I think it could have helped absolutely.”

Huh?

OK, I got it, Boulder Mayor Sam Weaver. You think that one half of the problem could be the legal availability of assault weapons, and a ban could have helped prevent another mass killing with assault weapons. Halfway. Totally. Absolutely!

Neither a strong nor a coherent claim, Mr. Mayor.

It was apparently still too risky for CNN, which added one extra “possibly” — a final escape hatch:

“Boulder mayor says assault weapons ban ‘absolutely’ could have helped in possibly preventing shooting.”

Absolutely could have helped possibly, halfway — I think. OMG gun lobby, please don’t attack me! Look how effectively I soft-peddled and obscured my mealy-mouthed anti-assault weapon sentiment!

You win again, gun manufacturers. All the way. Definitely. Totally. And I know so.

[all emphases added]