My initial impressions after reading this article I got a feel that the author was more upset about the politics that happened after Sandy Hook than the actual event itself. I also feel like he doesn’t want to blame the shooter or guns, but medicine. He goes on to state that since his brother is autistic he knows what an autistic person would do, therefor it was medicine that the shooter was that caused this event to happen. This was showing post hoc ergo propter hoc because he claims by taking medicine it made shooter want to act violent, therefor it was the medicine that caused the shooting. He then goes off topic and states that police and civilians should be able to use the same guns, because if not then this country is a more like a dictatorship. This is completely different than the Sandy Hook tragedy and to me he just sounds like a person who thinks he is an expert on the constitution and knows what is right for the country.
I also noticed that the author uses slippery slope when talking about guns. He says that people who would want to ban or restrict guns should also want to ban cars going over 55 mph, because they can cause death too. After reading I just feel like he is the kind of guy he throws his opinion all over the place, but does not think of the logic behind it and the proof to support it.