Ok, I've gotta say that now, after having spent some time researching, this "blogger" was a total con job. I don't say this often, but shame on you NPR. This is not an expert or a legitimate player to say its 2v2. It was 2v1 with an alternate on the bench.
I am a frequent listener to NPR, but I have to agree with you. Though they really do strive for balanced coverage compared to the idiotic screamfests that pass for broadcasting elsewhere in the media, this show was a complete mess. At one point, the only pro-2A voice on the show was prevented for talking for nearly fifteen minutes while the other speakers recycled the usual garbage about non-existant "plastic handguns that evade metal detectors" and "cop killer bullets" that they've been trying to foist on us for decades. Paul Helmke, who is no stranger to simply making things up, again repeated the completely unproven assertion that past gun or magazine bans have been effective as well as the downright ridiculous claim that police don't use "high capacity" magazines.
Key assumptions that need to be challenged by anyone debating antis:
1. Though dramatic and tragic, mass shootings are exceedingly rare
2. The violent crime rate is lower than it's been in years, despite an easing of gun laws around the country
3. Past gun bans have repeatedly failed to deliver the slightest reduction in violent crime in cities like Chicago and DC (this was a point that Robert Levy, the pro-2A speaker on the show, raised but was roundly ignored by the other guests)
4. Gun ownership is a right, and, like other rights, certain aspects of this ownership (i.e. "high capacity magazines") will offend the sensibilities of others, just as some examples of protected speech do. Basing gun restrictions on what some arbitrary person feels is "reasonable" is a terrible precident for all of our civil rights.
5. Say for the sake of argument that "high capacity" pistol magazines are a problem. Why have an across-the board ban on "high capacity" magazines for long guns--even .22s--when the percentage of such guns used in the commission of crimes is tiny?
6. If "high capacity" magazines have no justification, than why would police be exempt from a ban on them? This is an uncomfortable contradiction that Helmke tried to weasel out of by, well, lying: "even police don't use those magazines".
7. Another point raised by Robert Levy, and once that deserves repeating, is that while things like "high capacity" magazines may bother some people, a ban on them must be based on the actual statistical harm they cause, not the touchy-feely "icky-poo" feelings of people salivating at the chance to jump on any gun restriction that they feel has a chance of getting through Congress.
NPR is usually quick to admit mistakes and they are going to get an earful from more than one listener.