In the interest of furthering a rational debate on gun control, I want to present here the other side’s position – people who strongly oppose gun control – or, at least, what I see as the crux of their position.
And let me begin by saying that, although I disagree strongly with it, I don’t think that position is irrational or even unreasonable.
Put yourself in the position of a law abiding citizen who owns a gun. For the sake of simplicity, and with no sexism intended, let’s call that citizen “he”.
He is a responsible human being who would never deliberately misuse a gun. Further, he derives pleasure from his gun just as I do from my car and from my cell phone (and he likely does, too, if he has a car and a cell phone).
Now, if someone were to say to me – you have to give up your car, because it can be used to kill people, I would respond, "I would never use my car to kill anyone, and, further, I very much enjoy it, and therefore have no intention of giving it up." If someone were to say the same to me about my cell phone, I would give the same response, "yes, I know it can be used to set off a bomb, to plan a crime, but it will not be used that way by me, so I will not give it up."
What’s the difference between me and my car or my cell phone, and the law-abiding gun holder and his gun?
The only difference I can see is the potential for misuse and abuse by the gun.
Since the law-abiding gun holder is as sure that he will not misuse his gun as I am sure that I will not misuse my car or cell phone, the law-abiding gun holder is not swayed by the greater potentials for misuse of the gun.