But, it really boils down to a simple question:
Do you want people who will misuse firearms to have access to them?
This is a simple yes or no question without room for hemming and hawing about "how good guns are" blahblahblahblahblah
Do you want a criminal to have access to a firearm?
Do you want someone who will use the gun for an illegal act (murder, robbery, etc.) to have access to a firearm?
Yes or no?
No shades of gray that "this inconveniences law abiding citizens" because law abiding citizens are even more inconvenienced when disqualified persons have access to a firearm.
And there is no "right" for disqualified persons to have a gun unless you are on the side that people who will misuse them should have access to them and let society be damned.
Someone said that people on the gun rights side are intelligent. Maybe they are. But, intelligence is different from ignorance as I often point out. In fact, they are so intelligent that they can argue that black is white.
That is why this is a simple yes or no question: not an essay question. I don't want to hear how society benefits from people who shouldn't have guns having them.
If deep in your heart you answered "yes", then you are for gun control: whether you believe in it or not.
This is a major point that a lot of responsible gun owners and firearm reform advocates should be able to agree on. Some of the more militant of the so-called "gun rights" activists completely fail to see (or acknowledge) that one of the issues can be boiled down to "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." There is no rational argument against this simple concept: don't let the bad guy have a gun in the first place.
