"This battle for 'common-sense' gun control laws pits emotion and passion against logic and reason. All too often in such a contest, logic loses. So, expect more meaningless, if not harmful, 'gun control' legislation. Good news - if you're a crook"

Larry Elder's quote explores the controversial argument over weapon control laws in America. He recommends that the drive for "common-sense" weapon control is defined by a clash between two contrasting forces: emotion and passion versus reasoning and factor. Senior indicates that those promoting for new gun control legislation are mostly inspired by psychological reactions, potentially triggered by mass shootings or other gun-related violence, rather than a logical analysis of the situation. The emotive drive is characterized as being powerful and convincing in political and public discourse, potentially overshadowing or surpassing sensible arguments versus increased guideline.

Senior reveals hesitation about the outcome of this argument, suggesting that in the contest in between emotion-driven and logic-based techniques, logic typically suffers defeat. Here, "reasoning" represents the point of view that more stringent gun control might not be effective or required, or might infringe on Second Amendment rights. Senior appears to be critiquing what he considers as a pattern where mentally compelling narratives result in legislation that does not necessarily resolve the underlying issues connected with gun violence. He anticipates the intro of more weapon control measures, which he considers "meaningless" and even "hazardous.".

The concluding part of his quote, "Good news - if you're a scoundrel", suggests that increased gun control might accidentally benefit wrongdoers. The underlying assumption is that stricter weapon laws might restrict obedient citizens' capability to defend themselves, thus possibly making it simpler for lawbreakers, who do not stick to laws, to dedicate criminal activities without worry of armed resistance from their victims.

In general, Elder's statement raises concerns about the potential for emotion-driven policy-making to produce ineffective or disadvantageous gun control legislation, reflecting a more comprehensive dispute about the balance in between public safety and private rights in American society.