I normally am able to follow the debates on the West Wing well-enough. Even when I don't agree with the points being made, I'm able to understand them and the thought process that went into them being brought up.
However, the debate that Ainsley and Sam has about guns really confuses me. In the episode, Ainsley chastises the Barlett admin for not being supportive enough of the second amendment. Sam points out how Josh (who is in the room) barely survived being shot by someone who bought a gun legally and would not have been flagged from background checks. Now, I would think that Ainsley would shift her argument to acknowledge Josh's trauma but instead she talks about how sad it is that the Bartlett admin doesn't like people who like guns and how sad that is. Mind you Josh is in the room while this is happening. The argument kind of just ends at that points and Ainsley's final point kind of just hangs there.
What I'm confused about is how Ainsley's rebuttal makes any sense to what was said before. She basically tells someone who is a survivor of gun violence that its messed up he and his friends don't like people who are really interested in guns. The argument then justs ends without any further discussion. If someone could explain her point to me or how it at all counters Sam's point, I would appreciate it.