Good writer, biased writer and as Blades67 mentioned, self serving in what he writes. That being said, if he were a poor writer, then he would not be able to make the points he is hoping to make and no doubt the gunrag editors probably have something to do with the end product, no doubt being shorter than the original manuscript.
It is one thing for a writer to express and opinion. It is another for that opinion to be backed with case studies. The fact that he writes clear enough for readers to evaluate much of what he writes is a critical point. Whether or not the reader agrees with his analysis, the information is there for that evaluation to be made and so the article has given the reader some mental exercise to work through the information.
I would think a whole lot more of his writing if he would get of the soap box on the issues of gun names, gun modifications, and reloaded ammo for self defense. He has suggested that all of these factors may cause court cases to go against a person in a self defense shooting and that simply has not proven to be factual. This stuff has shown up in multiple publications and somewhere along the way has given rise to the idea that the ideal gun you should be carrying is the same one the local cops carry and with the same ammo the local cops use...as if that would somehow reduce your liability for shooting a person in self defense. Whether or not a person had the right to use lethal force is not determined based on the gun's name (e.g., Wilson Combat CQB), if it has a modified trigger that is light, if the ammo was somebody's home remedy super duper bio blaster ammo, or if the person is using the same gun and ammo the local cops use.
